Methane is much more potent (over 100x), but there's still relatively more damage by CO2 thanks to a higher atmospheric abundance, and methane is able to break down much more quickly in the atmosphere. It's far worse per molecule, but CO2 is far worse overall.

Methane is a massive problem, and there should be more focus on it, but bringing it up on an article about CO2 emissions instead of engaging with the problem described in the article is the sort of textbook whataboutism that people who want to stall climate action use because "well what about this other thing instead" (repeat ad infinitum until the planet's uninhabitable). Anyone is welcome to post on Lemmy, and that makes you more than welcome to make separate posts for articles on methane.

And this is coming from someone who ardently opposes animal agriculture and natural gas, two of the biggest sources of atmospheric CH4.

Because it's the primary driver of climate change.

Sulfur hexafluoride is far worse than methane, why do you care about methane?

Because CO2 is the primary problem and is released in much more concentrated areas where this could be useful?

I mean one reason methane is worse is because it also becomes co2 but if we got a handle on the co2 we would not be in so problematic a situation. that being said there is about twice as much co2 in the atmosphere as pre-industrially and its at 500 billion metric tons. the cost was 1k per metric ton. a thousand billion is a trillion so it would cost about 250 trillion dollars to get us back to pre-industrial just for co2. if it actually ends up being that cheap. world gdp is estimated at 100 trillion and of course humanity is made of very selfless folks at the wealthiest levels who are way ok with sacrificing their wealth for the good of the planet /s. As you point out that will not get rid of methane or any other pollution we have in the land, water, and air.