Climate Explained: Methane Is Short-Lived in the Atmosphere but Leaves Long-Term Damage
13 September
Science
Emitting methane will always be worse than emitting the same quantity of carbon dioxide, no matter the time scale.
Алексей Филатов / Getty Images
Алексей Филатов / Getty Images
By Zebedee Nicholls and Tim Baxter
Climate Explained is a collaboration between The Conversation, Stuff and the New Zealand Science Media Centre to answer your questions about climate change.
If you have a question you'd like an expert to answer, please send it to climate.change@stuff.co.nz
Methane is a shorter-lived greenhouse gas - why do we average it out over 100 years? By doing so, do we risk emitting so much in the upcoming decades that we reach climate tipping points?
<p>The climate conversation is often dominated by talk of carbon dioxide, and rightly so. <a href="https://www.livescience.com/58203-how-carbon-dioxide-is-warming-earth.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Carbon dioxide</a> is the climate warming agent with the biggest overall impact on the heating of the planet.</p><p>But it is not the only greenhouse gas driving climate change.</p>Comparing Apples and Oranges
<p>For the benefit of policy makers, the climate science community set up several ways to compare gases to aid with implementing, monitoring and verifying emissions reduction policies.</p><p>In almost all cases, these rely on a calculated common currency - a carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO₂-e). The most common way to determine this is by assessing the global warming potential (<a href="https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">GWP</a>) of the gas over time.</p><p>The simple intent of GWP calculations is to compare the climate heating effect of each greenhouse gas to that created by an equivalent amount (by mass) of carbon dioxide.</p><p>In this way, emissions of one gas - like methane - can be compared with emissions of any other - like carbon dioxide, nitrous dioxide or any of the myriad other greenhouse gases.</p><p><span></span>These comparisons are imperfect but the point of GWP is to provide a defensible way to compare apples and oranges.</p>Limits of Metrics
<p>Unlike carbon dioxide, which is relatively stable and by definition has a GWP value of one, methane is a live-fast, die-young greenhouse gas.</p><p>Methane traps very large quantities of heat in the first decade after it is released in to the atmosphere, but quickly breaks down.</p><p>After a decade, most emitted methane has reacted with ozone to form carbon dioxide and water. This carbon dioxide continues to heat the climate for hundreds or even thousands of years.</p><p>Emitting methane will always be worse than emitting the same quantity of carbon dioxide, no matter the time scale.</p><p>How much worse depends on the time period used to average out its effects. The most commonly used averaging period is 100 years, but this is not the only choice, and it is not wrong to choose another.</p><p>As a starting point, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/anthropogenic-and-natural-radiative-forcing/" title="IPCC AR5 Ch. 8" target="_blank">Fifth Assessment Report</a> from 2013 says methane heats the climate by 28 times more than carbon dioxide when averaged over 100 years and 84 times more when averaged over 20 years.</p>Many Sources of Methane
<p>On top of these base rates of warming, there are other important considerations.</p><p>Fully considered using the 100-year GWP and including natural feedbacks, the IPCC's <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/anthropogenic-and-natural-radiative-forcing/" title="IPCC AR5 Ch. 8" target="_blank">report</a> says fossil sources of methane - most of the gas burned for electricity or heat for industry and houses - can be up to 36 times worse than carbon dioxide. Methane from other sources - such as livestock and waste - can be up to 34 times worse.</p><p>While <a href="https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018GL079826" title="Understanding Rapid Adjustments to Diverse Forcing Agents" target="_blank">some uncertainty remains</a>, a <a href="https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071930" title="Radiative forcing of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide: A significant revision of the methane radiative forcing" target="_blank">well-regarded recent assessment</a> suggested an upwards revision of fossil and other methane sources, that would increase their GWP values to around 40 and 38 times worse than carbon dioxide respectively.</p><p>These works will be assessed in the IPCC's upcoming <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/" target="_blank">Sixth Assessment Report</a>, with the physical science contribution due in 2021.</p><p>While we should prefer the most up to date science at any given time, the choice to consider - or not - the full impact of methane and the choice to consider its impact over 20, 100 or 500 years is ultimately political, not scientific.</p><p>Undervaluing or misrepresenting the impact of methane presents a clear risk for policy makers. It is vital they pay attention to the advice of scientists and bodies such as the IPCC.</p><p>Undervaluing methane's impact in this way is not a risk for climate modellers because they rely on more direct assessments of the impact of gases than GWP.</p>Tipping Points
<p>The idea of climate tipping points is that, at some point, we may change the climate so much that it crosses an irreversible threshold.</p><p>At such a tipping point, the world would continue to heat well beyond our capability to limit the harm.</p><p>There are <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/115/33/8252" title="Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene" target="_blank">many tipping points</a> we should be aware of. But exactly where these are - and precisely what the implications of crossing one would be - is uncertain.</p><p>Unfortunately, the only way we can be sure of where these tipping points are is to cross them. The only thing we know for sure about them is that the impact on lives, livelihoods and the places we love would be beyond catastrophic if we did.</p><p>But we cannot ignore disturbing impacts of climate change that are already here.</p><p>For example, damage to the landscape from the Black Summer bushfires <a href="https://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/fulltext/S0169-5347(20)30171-3" title="After the Megafires: What Next for Australian Wildlife?" target="_blank">may be irreversible</a> and this represents its <a href="https://ecos.csiro.au/a-changing-climate-could-challenge-our-understanding-of-bushfires-as-carbon-neutral-events/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">own form of climate tipping point</a>.</p><p>The scientific understanding of climate change goes well beyond simple metrics like GWP. Shuffling between metrics - such as 20-year or 100-year GWP - cannot avoid the fact our very best chance of avoiding ever-worsening climate harm is to massively reduce our reliance on coal, oil and gas, along with reducing our emissions from all other sources of greenhouse gas.</p><p>If we do this, we offer ourselves the best chance of avoiding crossing thresholds we can never return from.</p>
<p>
<em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/zebedee-nicholls-365241" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Zebedee Nicholls</a> is a </em><em>PhD Researcher at the Climate & Energy College, University of Melbourne.</em>
</p><p>
<em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/tim-baxter-133963" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Tim Baxter</a> is a </em><em>Fellow - Melbourne Law School; Senior Researcher - Climate Council; Associate - Australian-German Climate and Energy College, University of Melbourne.</em>
</p><p>
<em>Disclosure statement: </em><em>Zebedee Nicholls is affiliated with The University of Melbourne's Climate & Energy College. He is funded by the Australian Government via the Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP). </em><em><em>Tim Baxter is employed by the Climate Council, a non-profit organisation providing independent, authoritative information on climate change and its solutions to the Australian public and has previously been employed under various Australia Research Council grants.</em></em>
</p><p>
<em><em></em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-methane-is-short-lived-in-the-atmosphere-but-leaves-long-term-damage-145040" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.</em>
</p><iframe height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/145040/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" width="1"></iframe>From Your Site Articles
- Methane Emissions From Onshore Oil and Gas Equivalent to 14 ... ›
- EPA Expected to Allow More Methane Emissions From Oil and Gas ... ›
- Methane Levels Dramatically Increase in U.S. - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
An example of abandoned oil pumps and well. Martina Birnbaum / Getty Images
By Ray Levy-Uyeda
A farmer for most of his life, Sam Stewart bought farmland in Montana about 35 years ago. Since then, he's planted and harvested his wheat and other crops around 16 open oil wells on this land, which he estimates were dug in the 1920s.
<p><br/></p>
<p>Maneuvering around the wells is not an arduous process, per se, but it requires seeding the same area twice, which is wasteful and can slow his process. The real nuisance is the invisible methane wafting into the air—a greenhouse gas with an impact 10 times that of carbon dioxide. "You don't want loose gas being just emitted," Stewart says.</p><p>Unplugged wells in Montana and across the country <a href="https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2020/04/29/484158/congress-can-help-energy-states-weather-oil-bust-coronavirus-pandemic/" target="_blank">leak thousands of metric tons</a> of <a href="https://graphics.reuters.com/USA-DRILLING/WELLS/gjnpwylaapw/USA-DRILLING.jpg" target="_blank">greenhouse gases each year</a>. They can also leach toxins into groundwater and surface water systems, contaminating aquifers. More often than not, these wells simply aren't being cleaned up. That's in part because a lack of funding and political will has stymied the state's cleanup efforts, and in part because there's uncertainty around ownership. "I didn't know they were actually abandoned," Stewart says of the multiple orphaned wells on his property. "I thought the oil company was responsible."</p><p>A foundation formed in 2019 could finally help clean up some of these abandoned oil wells, including those on Stewart's property. "The operator who is responsible is long gone," says Curtis Shuck, founder of the Well Done Foundation. "Our focus is doing the right thing, leaving it better than the way we found it."</p>
Abandoned Wells
<p>The first oil wells in Montana were drilled at the turn of the century, and the industry <a href="https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6881&context=etd" target="_blank">experienced its first boom</a> in the 1920s. <a href="https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6881&context=etd" target="_blank">Energy demands of World War II</a> spurred a second boom; between 1942 and 1945, <a href="https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6881&context=etd" target="_blank">oil production in the Elk Basin region</a> increased from 16,000 to 940,000 barrels annually. When those wells no longer produced oil, companies could just leave. The Oil and Gas Conservation Commission of Montana, tasked with identifying and plugging abandoned wells, wasn't created until 1954, and by that time an untold number of wells had already been drilled, produced, and abandoned. </p><p>As more companies moved into Montana, oil and gas production grew into an increasingly important part of local and state economies; by 2015, it<a href="https://montanapetroleum.org/about-us/economic-impact/" target="_blank"> made up 5.6%</a> of the state's general fund. But the industry that once was a cornerstone of Montana's economy is now in a nosedive: a yearslong decline in global oil production and demand compounded by the <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1063049965" target="_blank">pandemic-induced economic slowdown</a> has produced some of the worst oil <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-07/oil-companies-warn-kansas-city-fed-of-widespread-insolvencies" target="_blank">production conditions in recent years</a>.</p><p>In 2016, the most recent year for which he was able to provide data, 4,713 oil and gas wells were in operation in the state and 204 had been abandoned, according to Allen Olson, executive director of the Montana Petroleum Association, a trade organization that works on behalf of the businesses. But that's a <a href="https://montanapetroleum.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/MPA-Booklet.pdf" target="_blank">fraction of the tens of thousands</a> that have been drilled in Montana in the past century. </p><p>Data on abandoned wells remain incomplete, which further complicates cleanup efforts. Plus, state legislatures have drastically different policies on how to address abandoned wells. One thing remains certain: The issue is enormous and far-reaching. A 2018 report from the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-06/documents/6.22.17_ghgi_stakeholder_workshop_2018_ghgi_revision_-_abandoned_wells.pdf" target="_blank">Environmental Protection Agency </a>estimated that the country has 3.2 million abandoned oil and gas wells. </p><p>Abandoned wells in Montana—left by companies that filed for bankruptcy, for example, default to the state. Theoretically, a state-run fund pays for well adoption and closure, but even under state control, the wells often lay unplugged, because plugging abandoned wells and restoring the surface land is expensive. Olson believes that the "state regulatory agency here is doing an excellent job staying on top" of plugging wells. But the <a href="http://www.mtrules.org/gateway/ruleno.asp?RN=36%2E22%2E1308" target="_blank">state's plugging plan</a> doesn't explicitly address the issue of abandoned oil wells, and also neglects to lay out a time-bound plan for plugging wells. </p><p>It's not just that states like Montana don't have a legislative apparatus to hold corporations accountable, says Mitch Jones, the climate and energy program director at Food & Water Watch, a nonprofit that pushes for corporate and government accountability. He says that the lack of governmental action is by design. When wells are abandoned, Jones says, "the costs of doing business are passed on to the public instead of being paid by the shareholders in the industry."</p><p>Nationwide, the federal government's own agency in charge of plugging abandoned wells, the Bureau of Land Management, has openly acknowledged that it <a href="https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/701450.pdf" target="_blank">doesn't have the financial resources</a> to tackle the issue of plugging wells on federal land. There was no federal <a href="https://climatecrisis.house.gov/sites/climatecrisis.house.gov/files/Climate%20Crisis%20Action%20Plan.pdf" target="_blank">nationwide bond requirement</a> to cover the cost of reclaiming wells until the 1950s, and the required value for bonds has not increased since then. </p><p>That's right: the amount required to cover the cost of cleanup has not been increased or adjusted for inflation for nearly 70 years, so the federal amount is <a href="https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/701450.pdf" target="_blank">woefully ineffective.</a> Bond standards of a couple thousand dollars often don't address wells that cost tens of thousands to plug, another cause for wells to be abandoned. </p><p>Jones believes that extractive companies are harming the environment and then escaping culpability by declaring bankruptcy. "Not pointing fingers isn't really an option in order to win this fight against climate change," he says. Identifying the sources of harm holds polluting industries accountable for supporting solutions and provides a pathway for legislation that protects the planet, Jones says. The <a href="https://climatecrisis.house.gov/sites/climatecrisis.house.gov/files/Climate%20Crisis%20Action%20Plan.pdf" target="_blank">House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, </a>for example, just proposed a $2 billion remediation program for orphaned wells in June, though given the political climate, that legislation has a rocky future.</p>
A Boost or a Burden?
<p>Kirk Panasuk, a lifelong Montanan, farmer, and member of the Northern Plains Resource Council's Oil and Gas Task Force, remembers growing up with oil wells on his grandparents' farm. Panasuk says "once you've leased the land you've lost control." An oil company would lease the mineral rights—not the surface land but the profitable oil below. That lease might expire, the company would leave, and another company would come in to start the process again.</p><p>Agriculture is a difficult industry, and Panasuk says what seems like "free money" at the outset can lead to problems down the road. Water systems are connected, which means that an oil leak in Montana has the potential to leach chemicals into bodies of water such as the Yellowstone River that flows into other states through the Missouri River, a <a href="https://www.nwd-mr.usace.army.mil/" target="_blank">river crucial</a> to municipal, industrial, and agricultural function. </p><p>Panasuk now volunteers with the NPRC to lobby state legislators on practices that would hold resource extraction companies accountable by mandating water testing and treatment. He admits that he's made money off of these companies by leasing mineral rights to oil producers who then sell the oil at market. Despite the environmental fallout, Panasuk believes that oil companies' leasing of land actually "saved a lot of small farms from failure [and] bankruptcy."</p><p>Olson of the Montana Petroleum Association says that in 2019, when oil was $60 per barrel, a company might produce 100 barrels per day and pay a royalty fee of 12.5%, which could garner a farmer $750 per day for leasing their land. Today, with prices and production down, the payoffs look different. In April, oil prices went into the <a href="https://billingsgazette.com/news/local/oil-price-collapse-hits-billings-area-businesses-hard/article_df10e954-3e0c-5b6c-9641-135208d4ad2c.html" target="_blank">negative</a>, and in August, they're <a href="https://www.oilmonster.com/crude-oil-prices/central-montana-price/159/228" target="_blank">hovering around $30 per barrel</a>. </p><p>While an oil lease might benefit a farmer initially, Jones says that oil companies are well-versed in this practice. "The oil and gas industry takes advantage of the inequities in our agriculture system to prey upon farmers and get them to sign leases for drilling on their land," Jones says, which can "undermine agricultural activity that's taking place."</p><p>In other farming communities around the country, where oil and gas companies produce natural gas through <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/poor-communities-bear-greatest-burden-from-fracking/" target="_blank">hydraulic fracturing</a>, farmers and members of the local community often bear the brunt of water pollution. Not to mention that farming is dependent on a predictable and healthy climate, which is being threatened by resource extraction. </p>A Foundation Is Formed
<p>In early 2019, Curtis Shuck was in the northern town of Shelby, about 15 miles south of the Canadian border, meeting with farmers about agricultural transportation. More than three decades in the oil and gas industry hadn't prepared him for what he saw—abandoned, methane-leaking, unplugged oil wells.</p><p>He walked the area with the farmers and learned how they worked around the wells, most of which had stopped producing oil decades earlier. What was left were remnant pipes strewn across the fields and a sulfuric stench like rotten eggs. </p><p>On his journey home to Bozeman, Shuck couldn't stop thinking about what he had seen, knowing that each open well was responsible for tons of emissions. On that drive, the idea for the Well Done Foundation was born. </p><p>Just over a year after that first trip north, the Well Done Foundation plugged its first three wells and expanded beyond the Montana pilot program into dozens of other states. Shuck says that he hopes the foundation can also gather the concrete data that the government lacks, such as the number of orphaned wells and their emissions, which makes it difficult to develop solutions.</p><p>Shuck says he can acknowledge the state's shortcomings in their cleanup efforts while building relationships with those who make regulatory decisions. The "state fund is grossly underfunded," Shuck says, but "why should the public bear the burden of this orphaned well issue?"</p><p>The Well Done team identifies abandoned oil wells around the state, and then posts a financial bond to the state's Oil & Gas Conservation Commission, a way for the state to track and partially fund the plugging. In doing so, the state is holding up its end of the bargain, but without this push from Well Done, it might take the state years to accomplish what the Foundation does in months. </p><p>The foundation researches individual well emissions for about nine months as well as studying the construction of a well, how deep it goes, and the materials that are required to plug it. Shuck says it's important that the foundation does its due diligence to identify wells that have collapsed in on themselves or have an obstruction that needs to be addressed before plugging. </p><p>Then the foundation works with county commissions, private entities, and those who own the surface land to develop and execute a "plugging plan," which so far has been funded by private or anonymous donors. The actual plugging of the well takes only a few days, and then the Foundation works to restore the surface land to its "pre-drilling condition," which allows a farmer to seed the land and grow crops. </p><p>Shuck is adamant that the foundation's work is not about fighting corporations, but about taking responsibility for one's community. The foundation has built partnerships with both conservation organizations and oil and gas companies. Shuck says that abandoned wells are a "bit of a black eye to the industry," so plugging the orphaned wells demonstrates their environmental responsibility and develops a partnership that may come in <a href="https://www.rigzone.com/news/orphan_well_stimulus_would_employ_displaced_workers-04-jun-2020-162291-article/" target="_blank">useful as the industry quickly changes</a>.</p><p>"There are plenty of folks that want to blame Big Oil, little oil, or oil in general," he says. But the work, to him, is not about pointing fingers. Neither the left's demonization of fossil fuels nor the right's push for energy independence are relevant to the work, in Shuck's view. </p><p>In late April, the foundation successfully plugged its first well—a 96-year-old well called Big West Anderson #3 in Toole County that it had "adopted" by taking over legal responsibility from the state. The well, which hadn't produced oil since the 1980s, had been releasing 6,600 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. For comparison, one car on the road releases about <a href="https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100U8YT.pdf" target="_blank">4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide</a> per year. </p><p>Just one day after the foundation plugged Big West Anderson #3, its greenhouse gas emissions were nonexistent.</p><p>Shuck says, "What's exciting about this is that we can make an impact one well at a time."</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from </em><em><a href="https://www.yesmagazine.org/environment/2020/08/13/pollution-oil-wells-montana/" target="_blank">YES! Magazine</a>.</em></p><p><a href="https://www.yesmagazine.org/authors/ray-levy-uyeda/" target="_blank"><em>Ray Levy-Uyeda</em></a><strong><em> </em></strong><em>is a Bay Area-based freelance writer who focuses on gender, politics, and activism.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Princeton Study: Up to 900,000 Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells ... ›
- Oil and Gas Wells Linked to Low Birthweight in Babies - EcoWatch ›
- BP Arctic Oil Well Still Leaking, Too Unstable to Shut Down ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Methane flares at a fracking site near a home in Colorado on Oct. 25, 2014. WildEarth Guardians / Flickr
In the coming days, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is expected to use its power to roll back yet another Obama-era environmental protection meant to curb air pollution and slow the climate crisis.
<p>This new rollback concerns <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/methane" target="_self">methane</a>, a potent greenhouse gas destructive to the earth's atmosphere. The EPA is expected to make the announcement on Friday that it is ending a stricture put in place by the previous administration that curbed the amount of methane that could be released in oil and gas exploration, as <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-to-rescind-methane-regulations-for-oil-and-gas-11597051802" target="_blank">The Wall Street Journal</a> reported.</p><p>Since the rule is not official yet, anonymous officials at the agency told The Wall Street Journal that the rollback will scrap the new rules that required oil and gas producers to have systems, checks and processes in place to identify and address methane leaks on their rigs.</p>
<p>The rollbacks do not end there. The Wall Street Journal also reported that the EPA will also end its oversight of ozone pollutants and emissions from <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pipelines" target="_self">pipelines</a> and storage sites. Additionally, the agency will reduce its requirement for monitoring and reporting certain pollutants.</p><p>The EPA's decision to end its oversight and slacken regulation may result in an additional 5 million metric tons of methane pollution released into the atmosphere each year.</p><p>Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas that can be 25 times more impactful than carbon dioxide in equal quantities, as <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/511298-epa-to-issue-methane-rollback-this-week-report" target="_blank">The Hill</a> reported. In 2018, it accounted for nearly 10 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions caused by human activity, mostly from the oil and gas industry, although commercial agriculture and the cattle industry are also large contributors to methane emissions.</p>
<p>As the <a href="https://www.edf.org/media/trump-epa-reportedly-moving-forward-eliminate-key-federal-methane-protections" target="_blank">Environmental Defense Fund</a> (EDF) noted, the action would also mean no future action could regulate methane production from oil and gas facilities built before 2015. Their analysis shows that 9.3 million people live within half a mile of one of the older wells that the administration is seeking to leave forever unregulated by the EPA.</p><p>"Our federal methane safeguards have been in place since 2016, protecting Americans from unhealthy and climate-damaging pollution. The <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/">Trump</a> administration's decision to reverse course is deeply and fundamentally flawed," said EDF lead attorney Peter Zalzal, in a <a href="https://www.edf.org/media/trump-epa-reportedly-moving-forward-eliminate-key-federal-methane-protections" target="_blank">statement</a>. "Eliminating these safeguards would ignore the overwhelming body of scientific evidence documenting the urgent need to reduce methane pollution. And it is also starkly at odds with the broad and diverse set of stakeholders — including some major oil and gas producing companies — that support retaining and strengthening methane safeguards."</p>
<p>The administration is using the decline in demand for oil and gas as a justification for easing the pollution rules. It argues that the rule is needed to free the oil and gas industry from what it calls crippling regulations during an economic slowdown due to the novel coronavirus. However, as <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/10/climate/trump-methane-climate-change.html" target="_blank">The New York Times</a> notes, the weakening of the rule has been in the works for more than a year.</p><p>As The New York Times noted, several of the world's major fossil fuel companies actually support the methane rules and do not want to see them relaxed. In a 2019 public comment on a draft of the rule, Joe Ellis, a vice president at BP, urged the EPA "to continue to regulate methane emissions from new sources and to adopt a rule for existing sources. EPA regulation of methane across the value chain is the right thing to do for the environment, will support consistent regulation across the U.S. and can be cost-effectively achieved with new technology."</p><p>Furthermore, Exxon urged the EPA in 2018 to maintain core elements of the Obama administration's policy. And Gretchen Watkins, the U.S. chairwoman for Shell, which has urged the Trump administration to regulate methane emissions, said, "The negative impacts of methane have been widely acknowledged for years, so it's frustrating and disappointing to see the administration go in a different direction," as The New York Times reported.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Permian Basin Methane Emissions Found to Be More Than 2x ... ›
- Oil and Gas Operations Release 60 Percent More Methane than ... ›
- 'Extraordinarily Harmful' Trump Rule Would Gut Restrictions on ... ›
- Exxon Now Wants to Write the Rules for Regulating Methane ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Support Ecowatch
'Resounding' Win for Public Health and Climate as Judge Blocks Trump Attempt to Gut Methane Restrictions
18 July
Energy
Leonid Eremeychuk / iStock / Getty Images Plus
By Jake Johnson
Green groups celebrated a "resounding victory for taxpayers, public health, and the environment" late Wednesday after a federal judge blocked the Trump administration from rolling back an Obama-era rule designed to limit planet-warming methane emissions.
<p><span></span>U.S. District Judge Yvonne Rogers of the Northern District of California said the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) 2018 <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2018/09/18/trump-administration-launches-more-attacks-public-health-methane-rule-rollback" target="_blank">rescission</a> of the Waste Prevention Rule without "thoroughly and thoughtfully" considering potential environmental impacts was unlawful.</p><p>"Instead, in its zeal, BLM simply engineered a process to ensure a preordained conclusion," Rogers wrote in her 57-page <a href="https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/ygr_summary_judgment_order.pdf" target="_blank">decision</a>. "Where a court has found such widespread violations, the court must fulfill its duties in striking the defectively promulgated rule."</p>
<p>Erik Schlenker-Goodrich, executive director of the Western Environmental Law Center, applauded the "forceful repudiation" of BLM's rollback.</p><p>"The Trump administration has abused every opportunity — legal or otherwise — to maximize the oil and gas industry's profits at the expense of taxpayers, public health, and the climate," Schlenker-Goodrich said in a <a href="https://westernlaw.org/federal-court-rejects-trump-administration-cancellation-methane-pollution-rule/" target="_blank">statement</a>.</p><p>Rogers' decision means the rule requiring oil and gas companies to prevent wasteful venting and leaking of methane on public lands will go back into effect in 90 days. Given that methane can cause <a href="https://www.factcheck.org/2018/09/how-potent-is-methane/" target="_blank">over 80 times more warming</a> than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period, environmentalists celebrated the ruling as a significant victory for the climate.</p><p>"The judge basically rejected every attempt by the Trump administration to gut these common-sense waste prevention measures on behalf of their oil and gas industry cronies," Earthjustice attorney Robin Cooley said in a <a href="https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2020/court-slaps-down-trump-administrations-rollback-of-methane-rule" target="_blank">statement</a>. "Most importantly, the judge said the administration cannot ignore the impacts on health and well-being of the people who live near oil and gas facilities."</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/07/16/resounding-win-public-health-and-climate-judge-blocks-trump-attempt-gut-methane" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em><em></em></p>
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Nearly 250 U.S. oil and gas companies are expected to file for bankruptcy by the end of next year. Joshua Doubek / Wikimedia Commons / CC by 3.0
Fracking companies are going bankrupt at a rapid pace, often with taxpayer-funded bonuses for executives, leaving harm for communities, taxpayers, and workers, the New York Time reports.
<p>Nearly 250 U.S. oil and gas companies are expected to file for bankruptcy by the end of next year — more than went under in the last five years combined — as demand craters due to the pandemic, a global price war, and falling renewable energy prices. These failing companies often neglect well maintenance and plugged well repairs to save money, causing tons of ultra-heat-trapping methane to continue gushing into the atmosphere. </p><p>Shale wells typically cost <a href="https://newsletter.climatenexus.org/e2t/tc/VWkCs-6l9bsnN6Fvt91xrcLcW430FVB4cv_DBN3rtP7m3p_9rV1-WJV7CgK5jW1cvRnF96Lb9mW3-JH6w3lfBlgW1ccv0l7xBKcfW8TfM3y1HKL3xVJqZTJ7rBh--W7P80KP8Fx9XlVl7YHW1_-HM4W49yBCC33jN_6W6hHB-t95SVMdW7xHdDg132FD6W5JzxgB8zc04dW9lm0z52xJznSW1088Bx7q5j4WN2VDzyf-K7GRW54Ss5s8lkH-sW6d2q4b16nZ9DW2fNdzP8Cm3SjW18y-jH4lwvZfN57dVMD9g0YfW4zqtt12dx4VKW7-MDt365lD7KW7WnM-n1bB8z9W1lRR3x3x462YW8YlmwM8wWZKdN2VvV06j0WDRW5Q-kNW5zjNc13dBQ1" target="_blank">$300,000</a> to close — far more than the estimates used by companies, regulators and financial analysts — and an analysis prepared for the Times found companies have failed to reserve sufficient funds, as required by law, to remediate their well sites, leaving taxpayers to foot the cleanup bill. </p>
<p>As a result, early estimates show substantial increases in methane concentrations over Texas and New Mexico oil fields in March and April 2020 compared to the previous year. The Trump administration is seeking to <a href="https://newsletter.climatenexus.org/e2t/tc/VWkCs-6l9bsnN6Fvt91xrcLcW430FVB4cv_DBN3rtP7G3p_9LV1-WJV7CgNjfW6tsRrP86lz1WV24BdG691GxFW3kN5SY57z0j7W8Fz7MQ2Kw_8jW1q753G63Rh18W5k-b-T4xRHhfW5T04893c2TPHW1TvN9-7YpC_-W6dczd13vPCKhW1tcxnz1BZDpTW3LZBZ44vHx98W2DFDmm2Xn_VdW7dZMT935GQSSW1WFcw36SxghNW6h5B924L1WWsW3DgH-r1TC9DzW7lrbKd62HZFvW5KtbhK9ctyG2W1kzwWk7VYyVkW6DPvxt45Dlc3W1794j06gn4-0W8Q_JQn2VC1-LN6n7_wTsGwdFW5vjCzs3KQBVqW1XPNDR7K0mWWW2gSBbp2ZGt4HW3lCd3v7rDyGDW4ksF1k4NF1Rw363l1" target="_blank">effectively eliminate</a> methane leak detection and repair requirements. </p><p>One drilling site, abandoned by Extraction Oil & Gas in Greeley, Colorado, is situated just 700 feet from an elementary school serving the community's fast-growing immigrant population where air pollution monitors recorded 100 periods of elevated levels of toxic benzene over the course of seven months last year. </p>
<p>Those wells were originally planned to lie closer to a more affluent, majority white charter school, but were moved after an outcry from that school's parents. Extraction Oil & Gas paid 18 of its officers and key employees a combined $6.7 million in "retention agreements" last month, three days before it filed for bankruptcy protection. </p><p>Extraction is hardly alone, Chesapeake Energy declared bankruptcy in May after paying $25 million in executive bonuses just weeks before. Diamond Offshore Drilling got a $9.7 million COVID-stimulus tax refund in March and then paid its executives the same amount as cash incentives to remain with the company as it undergoes bankruptcy proceedings. </p>
<p>"It seems outrageous that these executives pay themselves before filing for bankruptcy," Kathy Hipple, an analyst at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis and a finance professor at Bard College told the Times. "These are the same managers who ran these companies into bankruptcy to begin with." </p><p>The recent spate of oil & gas bankruptcies hurts the firms' workers as well, with lawsuits against the companies arising from workers injured and killed on the job put on hold.<span></span></p>
<p><strong>For a deeper dive:</strong></p><p><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/12/climate/oil-fracking-bankruptcy-methane-executive-pay.html?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=91332553&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_GKHS9MprgN7eHWZamF8Vev5zdDh1yAZeo7VDO6qeGZVhuazNzviysghDBRQE8PrEVvDIzbA9KlBYvSViFrSPFF62pGjhnWyij3xUztiV0-JTzDVk&utm_content=91332553&utm_source=hs_email" target="_blank">New York Times</a><br/></p><p><em>For more </em><a href="http://ecowatch.com/climate-change-news/" target="_blank"><em>climate change</em></a><em> and </em><a href="http://ecowatch.com/business/renewables/" target="_blank"><em>clean energy</em></a><em> news, you can follow Climate Nexus on </em><a href="https://twitter.com/ClimateNexus" target="_blank"><em>Twitter</em></a><em> and </em><a href="https://www.facebook.com/ClimateNexus/" target="_blank"><em>Facebook</em></a><em>, and sign up for daily </em><a href="http://climatenexus.us4.list-manage1.com/subscribe?u=d1f5797e59060083034310930&id=7c84c08aaa" target="_blank"><em>Hot News</em></a><em>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Plunging Oil Prices Trigger Economic Downturn in Fracking Boom ... ›
- Fracking Boom Bursts in Face of Low Oil Prices - EcoWatch ›
- As Fracking Companies Face Bankruptcy, U.S. Regulators Enable ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Although natural gas produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants than coal or oil, it is a major contributor to climate change, an urgent global problem. Skitterphoto / PIxabay
By Emily Grubert
Natural gas is a versatile fossil fuel that accounts for about a third of U.S. energy use. Although it produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants than coal or oil, natural gas is a major contributor to climate change, an urgent global problem. Reducing emissions from the natural gas system is especially challenging because natural gas is used roughly equally for electricity, heating, and industrial applications.
<p>There's an emerging argument that maybe there could be a direct substitute for fossil natural gas in the form of renewable natural gas (RNG) – a renewable fuel designed to be nearly indistinguishable from fossil natural gas. RNG could be made from biomass or from captured carbon dioxide and electricity.</p><p>Based on what's known about these systems, however, I believe climate benefits might not be as large as advocates claim. This matters because RNG isn't widely used yet, and decisions about whether to invest in it are being made now, in places like <a href="https://www.cleanenergyfuels.com/blog/influx-of-california-rng-fuels-local-economy-protects-climate" target="_blank">California</a>, <a href="https://www.oregon.gov/energy/Get-Involved/Pages/RNG-Advisory-Committee.aspx" target="_blank">Oregon</a>, <a href="http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/15172/inslee-signs-bill-to-promote-rng-in-state-of-washington" target="_blank">Washington</a>, <a href="https://energynews.us/2019/12/03/midwest/michigan-utilities-see-role-for-renewable-natural-gas-but-cost-barrier-remains/" target="_blank">Michigan</a>, <a href="https://investor.southerncompany.com/information-for-investors/latest-news/latest-news-releases/press-release-details/2020/Southern-Company-Gas-grows-leadership-team-to-focus-on-climate-action-innovation-and-renewable-natural-gas-strategy/default.aspx" target="_blank">Georgia</a> and <a href="https://www.epa.gov/natural-gas-star-program/rng-interconnect-guideline-new-york" target="_blank">New York</a>.</p><p>As someone who studies <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=3RI02dcAAAAJ&hl=en" target="_blank">sustainability</a>, I research how decisions made now might influence the environment and society in the future. I'm particularly interested in how energy systems contribute to climate change.</p><p>Right now, energy is responsible for most of the pollution worldwide that <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/" target="_blank">causes climate change</a>. Since energy infrastructure, like power plants and pipelines, <a href="http://emilygrubert.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/eia_860_2017_map.html" target="_blank">lasts a long time</a>, it's important to consider the climate change emissions that society <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1364-3" target="_blank">is committing to</a> with new investments in these systems. At the moment, renewable natural gas is more a proposal than reality, which makes this a great time to ask: What would investing in RNG mean for climate change?</p>
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6bd9fda1316965a9ba24dd60fd9cc34d"><iframe lazy-loadable="true" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3KaMnkmf0tc?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
What RNG Is and Why it Matters
<p>Most equipment that uses energy can only use a single kind of fuel, but the fuel might come from different resources. For example, you can't charge your computer with gasoline, but it can run on electricity generated from coal, natural gas or solar power.</p><p>Natural gas is almost pure methane, <a href="https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/" target="_blank">currently sourced</a> from raw, fossil natural gas produced from <a href="https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/where-our-natural-gas-comes-from.php" target="_blank">deposits deep underground</a>. But methane could come from renewable resources, too.</p><p><span></span>Two main methane sources could be used to make RNG. First is <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks" target="_blank">biogenic methane</a>, produced by bacteria that digest organic materials in manure, landfills and wastewater. Wastewater treatment plants, landfills and dairy farms have captured and used biogenic methane as an energy resource for <a href="http://emilygrubert.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/eia_860_2017_map.html" target="_blank">decades</a>, in a form usually called <a href="https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/biomass/landfill-gas-and-biogas.php" target="_blank">biogas</a>.</p><p>Some biogenic methane is generated naturally when organic materials break down without oxygen. Burning it for energy can be beneficial for the climate if doing so prevents methane from escaping to the atmosphere.</p><p>In theory, there's enough of this climate-friendly methane available to replace <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab9335/meta" target="_blank">about 1% of the energy</a> that the current natural gas system provides. The largest share is found at landfills.</p><p>The other source for RNG doesn't exist in practice yet, but could theoretically be a much larger resource than biogenic methane. Often called <a href="https://www.powermag.com/why-power-to-gas-may-flourish-in-a-renewables-heavy-world/" target="_blank">power-to-gas</a>, this methane would be intentionally manufactured from carbon dioxide and hydrogen using electricity. If all the inputs are climate-neutral – meaning, for example, that the electricity used to create the RNG is generated from resources without greenhouse gas emissions – then the combusted RNG would also be climate-neutral.</p><p>So far, RNG of either type isn't widely available. Much of the current conversation focuses on whether and how to make it available. For example, <a href="https://www.sempra.com/socalgas-takes-next-step-toward-offering-renewable-natural-gas" target="_blank">SoCalGas in California</a>, <a href="https://energynews.us/2019/01/30/midwest/minnesota-utility-wants-to-offer-customers-renewable-natural-gas-option/" target="_blank">CenterPoint Energy in Minnesota and Vermont Gas Systems in Vermont</a> either offer or have proposed offering RNG to consumers, in the same way that many utilities allow customers to opt in to renewable electricity.</p>
Renewable Isn’t Always Sustainable
<p>If RNG could be a renewable replacement for fossil natural gas, why not move ahead? Consumers have shown that they are <a href="https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/green-power.html" target="_blank">willing to buy renewable electricity</a>, so we might expect similar enthusiasm for RNG.</p><p>The key issue is that methane isn't just a fuel – it's also a <a href="https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/ghg_report/ghg_overview.php" target="_blank">potent greenhouse gas</a> that contributes to climate change. Any methane that is manufactured intentionally, whether from biogenic or other sources, will contribute to climate change if it enters the atmosphere.</p><p>And <a href="http://doi.org/10.1126/science.aar7204" target="_blank">releases</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.07.029" target="_blank">will happen</a>, from newly built production systems and <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-methane-emissions-matter-to-climate-change-5-questions-answered-122684" target="_blank">existing, leaky transportation and user infrastructure</a>. For example, the moment you smell gas before the pilot light on a stove lights the ring? That's methane leakage, and it contributes to climate change.</p><p>To be clear, RNG is almost certainly better for the climate than fossil natural gas because byproducts of burning RNG won't contribute to climate change. But doing somewhat better than existing systems is no longer enough to respond to the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2923" target="_blank">urgency</a> of climate change. The world's <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/" target="_blank">primary international body on climate change</a> suggests we need to decarbonize by 2030 to mitigate the worst effects of climate change.</p>Scant Climate Benefits
<p><a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab9335/meta" target="_blank">My recent research</a> suggests that for a system large enough to displace a lot of fossil natural gas, RNG is probably not as good for the climate as <a href="https://investor.southerncompany.com/information-for-investors/latest-news/latest-news-releases/press-release-details/2020/Southern-Company-Gas-grows-leadership-team-to-focus-on-climate-action-innovation-and-renewable-natural-gas-strategy/default.aspx" target="_blank">is publicly claimed</a>. Although RNG has lower climate impact than its fossil counterpart, likely high demand and methane leakage mean that it probably will contribute to climate change. In contrast, renewable sources such as wind and solar energy do not <a href="https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/carbon/" target="_blank">emit climate pollution directly</a>.</p><p>What's more, creating a large RNG system would require building mostly new production infrastructure, since RNG comes from different sources than fossil natural gas. Such investments are both long-term commitments and opportunity costs. They would devote money, political will and infrastructure investments to RNG instead of alternatives that could achieve a zero greenhouse gas emission goal.</p><p>When climate change first <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-begun-expert-tells-senate.html" target="_blank">broke into the political conversation</a> in the late 1980s, investing in long-lived systems with low but non-zero greenhouse gas emissions was still compatible with aggressive climate goals. Now, zero greenhouse gas emissions is the target, and my research suggests that large deployments of RNG likely won't meet that goal.</p>From Your Site Articles
- Solar Employs More Workers Than Coal, Oil and Natural Gas ... ›
- The Truth About Natural Gas: A 'Green' Bridge to Hell - EcoWatch ›
- Why Natural Gas Is a Bridge Fuel to Nowhere - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Mountains of produce, including eggs, milk and onions, are going to waste as the COVID-19 pandemic shutters restaurants, restricts transport, limits what workers are able to do and disrupts supply chains. United States government work
By Emma Charlton
Gluts of food left to rot as a consequence of coronavirus aren't just wasteful – they're also likely to damage the environment.
<p>Mountains of produce, including eggs, milk and onions, are going to waste as the COVID-19 pandemic shutters restaurants, restricts transport, limits what workers are able to do and disrupts supply chains. And as that food decays, it releases methane, a powerful greenhouse gas.</p><p>Fresh milk and eggs have been dumped, and some ripe crops reploughed back into fields, according to reports in the <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/closed-due-to-coronavirus-restaurants-clear-out-their-pantries-11586005203?mod=article_inline" target="_blank">Wall Street Journal</a> and the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/11/business/coronavirus-destroying-food.html" target="_blank">New York Times</a>. While consumer demand for some supermarket items has risen as a result of lockdowns, it's unlikely to offset steep declines elsewhere, such in restaurants and school and workplace canteens.</p>
Methane on the Rise
<p>Not only is this a tragic waste of food at a time when many are going hungry, it is also an <a href="https://donatedontdump.net/2014/07/07/the-effects-of-food-waste-on-the-environment-by-junemy-pantig/" target="_blank">environmental hazard</a> and could contribute to global warming. Landfill gas – <a href="https://www.epa.gov/lmop/basic-information-about-landfill-gas" target="_blank">roughly half methane and half carbon dioxide (CO2)</a> – is a natural byproduct of the decomposition of organic material.</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzQyOTEyMi9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYwODYyODk1N30.AyyC8WbvDKRQeTPpTksAIkGT_Sy5qJqK3ok1_GiaNWc/img.png?width=980" id="49c22" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="48f85bf45b5f3ba2648a87bedab555bc" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Food decay leads to production of greenhouse gases, methane and carbon dioxide. EPA
<p>Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, 28 to <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf" target="_blank">36 times more effective than CO2 at trapping heat</a> in the atmosphere over a 100-year period, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.</p><p>"Many export-oriented producers produce volumes far too large for output to be absorbed in local markets, and thus <a href="https://unctad.org/en/pages/newsdetails.aspx?OriginalVersionID=2333" target="_blank">organic waste levels have mounted substantially</a>," says Robert Hamwey, Economic Affairs Officer at UN agency UNCTAD. "Because this waste is left to decay, levels of methane emissions, a greenhouse gas, from decaying produce are expected to rise sharply in the crisis and immediate post-crisis months."</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzQyOTE3Ny9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYwNzYyMzEzNH0.ckRClc0SX50kOEZYHgLLx_OoFHMIxtPVF4BBc4eDoBo/img.png?width=980" id="3a11c" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6fe3b382949cce9971508db403d0973d" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Food supply chains are easily disrupted. UN FAO
<p>Dumping food was already a problem before the crisis. In America alone, <a href="https://www.refed.com/?sort=economic-value-per-ton" target="_blank">$218 billion is spent growing, processing, transporting</a> and disposing of food that is never eaten, estimates ReFED, a collection of business, non-profit and government leaders committed to reducing food waste. That's equivalent to around 1.3% of GDP.</p><p>Since the pandemic took hold, <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-52267943" target="_blank">farmers are dumping 14 million liters</a> of milk each day because of disrupted supply routes, estimates Dairy Farmers of America. A chicken processor was forced to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/11/business/coronavirus-destroying-food.html" target="_blank">destroy 750,000 unhatched eggs a week</a>, according to the New York Times, which also cited an onion farmer letting most of his harvest decompose because he couldn't distribute or store them.</p>Food Prices Collapsing
<p>The excess has also seen prices collapse. The <a href="http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/foodpricesindex/en/" target="_blank">FAO Food Price Index</a> (FFPI) averaged 162.5 points in May 2020, down 3.1 points from April and reaching the lowest monthly average since December 2018. The gauge has dropped for four consecutive months, and the latest decline reflects falling values of all the food commodities – dairy, meat, cereal, vegetable – except sugar, which rose for the first time in three months.</p><p>All this while the pandemic is exacerbating other global food trends.</p><p>"This year, some 49 million extra people may fall into extreme poverty due to the COVID-19 crisis," said António Guterres, Secretary-General of the UN. "The number of people who are acutely food or nutrition insecure will rapidly expand. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGhLKAbNDiY&feature=youtu.be" target="_blank">Even in countries with abundant food, we see risks of disruptions in the food supply chain</a>."</p><div id="c20f1" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="9bd104b5fbd7a34965124f57f3c1357a"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1271747397002067968" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Our food systems are failing us. And #COVID19 is making things worse.
We must invest in the future & transform our… https://t.co/uV8Kkn78Q1</div> — FAO (@FAO)<a href="https://twitter.com/FAO/statuses/1271747397002067968">1592043182.0</a></blockquote></div><p>The World Economic Forum has launched its <a href="https://www.weforum.org/great-reset/about" target="_blank">Great Reset initiative</a>, which urgently calls for global stakeholders to cooperate in managing the consequences of the COVID-19 crisis. It calls on policymakers to put the environment at the heart of plans to rebuild as we emerge from the pandemic.</p>
<p class=""><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/covid-19-food-waste-mountains-environment/" target="_blank">World Economic Forum</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Food Waste Set to Increase by 33 Percent Within 10 Years - EcoWatch ›
- Reducing Food Waste Is Good for Economy and Climate, Report Says ›
- 23 Organizations Eliminating Food Waste During COVID-19 ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A fire in Greenland on July 10. Zombie fires smolder underground for months, notably in dense peatlands, and then flare-up when it grows warmer and drier. NASA
By Mark Kaufman
Some fires won't die.
They survive underground during the winter and then reemerge the following spring, as documented in places like Alaska. They're called "overwintering," "holdover," or "zombie" fires, and they may have now awoken in the Arctic Circle — a fast-warming region that experienced unprecedented fires in 2019. The European Union's Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service is now watching these fires, via satellite.
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.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.yB-jOVJDGUG2KvIAwskuRZUTW3jlMjjlCTI8DcG3tAI/img.jpg" id="d48aa" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="79880bae7db4253c569739c541d26709" />Zombie fires could be awakening in the Arctic <p>Zombie fires smolder underground for months, notably in dense <a href="https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-briefs/peatlands-and-climate-change" target="_blank">peatlands</a> (wetlands composed of ancient, decomposed plants), and then flare-up when it grows warmer and drier. "Zombie" is fitting.</p><p is="">"It really does describe what these fires do," said Thomas Smith, an assistant professor in environmental geography at the London School of Economics. "They recover and they're difficult to kill."</p><p is="">In April, two snowmachine-riding fire technicians <a href="https://akfireinfo.com/2020/04/24/despite-heavy-snow-melt-deshka-landing-hot-spots-still-smoldering/" target="_blank">found a zombie fire still smoldering</a> near Willow, Alaska. The fire <a is="" href="https://inciweb.nwcg.gov/incident/article/6532/50551/" target="_blank">started in August 2019</a>.</p><p is="">This smoldering can quickly escalate to new blazes. "Zombie fires start burning as soon as the snow melts," said Jessica McCarty, an Arctic fire researcher and assistant professor in the Department of Geography at Miami University.</p><p is="">These overwintering fires are most likely to emerge <a href="https://presentations.copernicus.org/EGU2020/EGU2020-6013_presentation.pdf" target="_blank">after big wildfire years</a> with lots of burned land. They often light up on the edge of the previous year's blazes. "It suggests a fire might have survived," said Smith. Then, the fires can ignite dried-out vegetation. </p><p is="">Importantly, it's difficult to say with certainty that the remote, early-season Arctic Circle fires identified by the European Union's Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service are all actually zombie fires. It's possible people lit some or many of the blazes for agricultural purposes, or by accident. "It's really difficult to say for sure," noted Smith. </p>
<div id="48215" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="4e094a6eb3039925709e345158051f4b"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1258045476731002882" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Are these 'zombie' fires? As the snow melted in Arctic Siberia last week, a number of fires have been detected by s… https://t.co/MBZbBYqA2o</div> — Dr Thomas Smith 🔥🌏 (@Dr Thomas Smith 🔥🌏)<a href="https://twitter.com/DrTELS/statuses/1258045476731002882">1588776389.0</a></blockquote></div>
<div id="9867e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="1ca30a2e1254c46ee7d050fcc62cf14f"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1265305088077312001" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">🟠 Siberian #wildfire🔥 within the #Arctic Circle at 68.6°N in the #SakhaRepublic, South of #Chersky, #Russia🇷🇺 26 Ma… https://t.co/dV5qtewcQC</div> — Pierre Markuse (@Pierre Markuse)<a href="https://twitter.com/Pierre_Markuse/statuses/1265305088077312001">1590507215.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p is="">If they are truly zombie fires, that means 2019's blazes may ignite robust 2020 fires this summer.</p><p is="">"If this is the case, then under certain environmental conditions, we may see a cumulative effect of last year's fire season in the Arctic, which will feed into the upcoming season and could lead to large-scale and long-term fires across the same region once again," Mark Parrington, a senior scientist and wildfire expert at the European Union's Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service, said in a statement.</p><p is="">Overall, fires in the Arctic Circle — which can release colossal amounts of heat-trapping carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere — have been normal this year, but they're expected to pick up steam in June. What's more, they'll likely be enhanced by both <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/04/europe/russia-warm-temperatures-moscow-climate-intl/index.html" target="_blank">Russia's hottest winter on record</a> and recent <a is="" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2020/05/22/siberia-heat-wave/" target="_blank">Siberian heat waves</a>, where temperatures reached some 40 degrees Fahrenheit above average.</p><p>"We could have quite a lengthy fire season," said Smith. Wildfires feast on dry vegetation, Smith emphasized, and there will likely be ample amounts of parched land this summer.</p>
So What Happens Now?
<p>In the future, fire researchers expect an uptick in zombie fires. That's because the <a is="" href="https://mashable.com/article/climate-change-business-as-usual-catastrophic/" target="_blank">planet is relentlessly warming</a>, particularly in the Arctic, which means more ready-to-burn vegetation. It's already happening. "Arctic fires<strong> </strong>are becoming more common overall," explained Miami University's McCarty.</p><p is="">And some of these fires will inevitably smolder all winter, under the snow. "With a warmer Arctic, we're more likely to see overwintering fires," noted Smith.</p><p is="">It's challenging to stop zombie fires. They can happen in extremely remote places, without any roads or means of dousing them before they erupt. "We have no way of fighting them," said McCarty. "They're often fairly far-removed. How are we going to put them out?"</p><p is="">It's a question of profound importance in the decades ahead. Preventing human-caused Arctic wildfires will be critical, emphasized McCarty. That's because Arctic fires aren't just burning trees, they're often burning through <a is="" href="https://blogs.agu.org/geospace/2019/12/06/peatlands-release-more-methane-when-disturbed-by-roads/" target="_blank">peatlands</a>, which release bounties of the heat-trapping greenhouse gas methane into the air. When it comes to trapping heat, methane is <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases" target="_blank">25 times more potent</a> than carbon dioxide over the course of a century.</p><p is="">It's a vicious cycle. The warming Arctic produces more fires. More fires burn more forests and peatlands. This releases more methane and carbon dioxide into the air. This contributes to ever more planetary heating.</p><p is="">"Not stopping these zombie fires means further degrading these Arctic ecosystems," said McCarty. "Further warming leads to more zombie fires. It's not great."</p><a target="_blank"></a><blockquote><a href="https://mashable.com/article/zombie-fires-arctic/#" target="_blank"></a></blockquote>From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
A gas flare burns in the Permian Basin in Texas. Bronte Wittpenn / Bloomberg Creative Photos
The largest oil and gas producing area in the U.S. is emitting more than twice as much methane as previously believed.
<p>The calculations came in a study of the Permian Basin published in <a href="https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/17/eaaz5120" target="_blank">Science Advances Wednesday</a> and undertaken by scientists at Harvard University and the <a href="https://www.edf.org/" target="_blank">Environmental Defense Fund</a> (EDF). The findings cast doubt on the argument that <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/natural-gas" target="_self">natural gas</a> is a cleaner energy source than <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coal" target="_self">coal</a> when it comes to fueling the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/" target="_self">climate crisis</a>.</p><p>"Our study found that the quantity of methane emitted in the Permian Basin [is] the highest ever measured from any U.S. oil and gas basin. This is a really big deal from a climate standpoint," lead authors Harvard atmospheric scientist Yuzhong Zhang and EDF scientist Ritesh Gautam said in an <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/permian-basin-oil-fields-leak-enough-methane-for-7-million-homes" target="_blank">email to Bloomberg Wednesday</a>.</p>
<div id="10cec" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="bb6b222d01cf4c76a45619b2033c42f1"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1254153333079707649" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">New satellite study: "There's so much methane escaping from Permian oil and gas operations that it nearly triples t… https://t.co/WBc9ADUjxT</div> — Fred Krupp (@Fred Krupp)<a href="https://twitter.com/FredKrupp/statuses/1254153333079707649">1587848430.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>The Permian Basin, which straddles West Texas and New Mexico, produces more than a third of the country's oil and 10 percent of its natural gas, according to <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/methane-permian-basin-oil-gas-climate-change/?fbclid=IwAR2TIwNX6rZpo3ErIXu8O4fc0A7Uu07oWEA7WRpXyZsk3jyNX_EHJLyE4nM" target="_blank">CBS News</a>. The researchers used 200,000 individual readings from the European Space Agency's TROPOMI satellite instrument to determine the field was leaking 3.7 percent of the methane it produces, <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2020/04/22/satellites-and-state-regulators-new-data-spotlights-extreme-emissions-and-need-for-action-in-nations-largest-oilfield/?utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=fkrupp_none_upd_marcomm&utm_medium=social-media&utm_id=1587752428" target="_blank">EDF reported</a>. That's more than two times the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimate, according to <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22042020/permian-basin-methane-emissions-texas-new-mexico" target="_blank">InsideClimate News</a>. It's also enough wasted gas to power 7 million Texas homes and as much greenhouse gas pollution as the carbon dioxide emissions of all U.S. homes, the study found.</p><p>What's more, it nearly triples the climate impact of the natural gas produced in the region over the last 20 years, according to EDF, challenging the argument that natural gas can be a cleaner bridge fuel in the transition from coal to renewable energy.</p>
<p>"The most <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ese3.35" target="_blank">up-to-date thinking</a> is that for comparing coal and natural gas to generate electricity, gas is worse than coal if the methane emission rate is greater than 2.7%," Cornell University methane expert Dr. Robert Howarth, who was not involved in the study, told CBS News. At 3.7 percent, the Permian Basin leakage rate definitely fits the bill.</p><p>Methane is so dangerous for the climate because it is around 28 times more powerful than carbon dioxide at warming the planet over 100 years and more than 80 times more powerful over 20 years, according to <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/methane/" target="_blank">National Geographic</a>. Because it only stays in the atmosphere for 12 years, however, reducing its emissions can have a more immediate impact on fighting global warming, InsideClimate News pointed out.</p><p>The increased emissions are partly linked to the rise of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/fracking/" target="_self">fracking</a>, which, along with horizontal drilling, has driven the increase in U.S. oil and gas production since 2005, according to CBS News.</p><p>"After staying level for the first decade of the 21st century, methane emissions have been rising quickly over the past decade," Howarth told CBS. "My <a href="https://www.biogeosciences.net/16/3033/2019/" target="_blank">research</a> indicates that shale gas development in the U.S. is responsible for at least one-third of the total increase in these emissions globally."</p>
<p>The study's authors had several recommendations for how oil and gas producers could reduce methane emissions, such as improving design, management, regulation and infrastructure.</p><p>However, the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/trump-administration" target="_self">Trump administration</a> is making it easier for the industry to sidestep improvements.</p><p>"Trump's EPA has proposed to substantially weaken or even eliminate regulations, adopted during the Obama administration, to control methane emissions from oil and gas facilities," Romany Webb, a senior fellow at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School, told CBS.</p><p>There is also the question of how the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/oil-prices-fall-below-zero-2645784342.html" target="_self">fall in oil demand</a> prompted by the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coronavirus" target="_self">coronavirus</a> pandemic will impact methane emissions. The data in the study was collected over 11 months in 2018 and 2019, when production and demand was normal.</p><p>"There is going to be a lot less wells being drilled, probably less gas being flared, even wells [that] will [probably] be shut in," study coauthor and EDF scientist David Lyon told InsideClimate News. "If that is done properly, then I think you will have less emissions. At the same time, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of operators cut back on their environmental staff and they do [fewer] leak inspections and other activities that would reduce emissions. They may have less ability to respond to malfunctions and things that cause emissions."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Exxon Now Wants to Write the Rules for Regulating Methane ... ›
- CEO of Major Shale Oil Company 'Has Second Thoughts' on ... ›
- EPA Expected to Allow More Methane Emissions From Oil and Gas Industry - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A gas flare from the Shell Chemical LP petroleum refinery illuminates the sky on August 21, 2019 in Norco, Louisiana. Drew Angerer / Getty Images.
Methane levels in the atmosphere experienced a dramatic rise in 2019, preliminary data released Sunday shows.
<p>The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found that methane levels increased by 11.54 parts per billion (ppb) in 2019 over 2018 levels, the largest increase since 2014. "Last year's jump in methane is one of the biggest we've seen over the past twenty years," Rob Jackson, professor of Earth system science at Stanford University and chair of the Global Carbon Project, told Bloomberg.</p>
<p>"It's too early to say why, but increases from both agriculture and natural gas use are likely. Natural gas consumption surged more than two percent last year." In the United States, the fossil fuel industry is the largest source of methane pollution, and emissions from the oil and gas sector have grown at least 40% over the last decade. </p>
<h4>For a deeper dive:</h4><p><a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-06/methane-emissions-hit-a-new-record-and-scientists-can-t-say-why" target="_blank">Bloomberg</a>, <a href="Renewable%20Sources%20Made%20up%2072%%20of%20New%20Energy%20Added%20in%202019" target="_blank">The Hill</a>, <a href="https://climatenexus.org/climate-change-news/methane-surge/?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=85944970&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8C0yCNC7TWzjZEJq0igia-QWOy4iub7Sn8fOwOt3QloNO9PwifgZDyoLzWQXRgaT9jHlohnP5UKzH35BKjo9KjuuSd8w&_hsmi=85944970" target="_blank">Climate Signals</a></p><p><em>For more </em><a href="http://ecowatch.com/climate-change-news/" target="_blank"><em>climate change</em></a><em> and </em><a href="http://ecowatch.com/business/renewables/" target="_blank"><em>clean energy</em></a><em> news, you can follow Climate Nexus on </em><a href="https://twitter.com/ClimateNexus" target="_blank"><em>Twitter</em></a><em> and </em><a href="https://www.facebook.com/ClimateNexus/" target="_blank"><em>Facebook</em></a><em>, and sign up for daily </em><a href="http://climatenexus.us4.list-manage1.com/subscribe?u=d1f5797e59060083034310930&id=7c84c08aaa" target="_blank"><em>Hot News</em></a><em>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Carbon Emissions Rise to Highest Level in at Least Three Million ... ›
- New 3D Methane Models Help NASA to Track Global Trends ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
A three-dimensional portrait of methane concentrations around the world is helping researchers to understand the complex gas, which constitutes the second largest contributor to greenhouse gas (GHG) warming after carbon dioxide.
<p>Methane is an important GHG that is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas and oil as well from agricultural practices like rice cultivation and the raising of livestock, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases" target="_blank">EPA</a>). Once lofted into the atmosphere, high-altitude winds can transport methane far beyond its source, disproportionately impacting communities around the world.</p><p>"There's an urgency in understanding where the sources are coming from so that we can be better prepared to mitigate methane emissions where there are opportunities to do so," <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2020/new-3d-view-of-methane-tracks-sources-and-movement-around-the-globe" target="_blank">said</a> research scientist Ben Poulter at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.</p>
<p>During extraction processes, if methane leaks into the air before being used, a single molecule can trap the sun's heat and warm the atmosphere, according to the <a href="https://www.edf.org/climate/methane-other-important-greenhouse-gas" target="_blank">Environmental Defense Fund</a>. The largest source of man-made methane production is attributed to the oil and gas industry; about 10 percent of all GHG emissions from <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels" target="_self">fossil fuels</a> in the U.S. can be attributed to methane. Though methane has a shorter lifetime with lower concentrations in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, the gas is eighty-four times more potent and needs to be considered when evaluating the impact of global <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-change">climate change</a>.</p>
<p>"It is estimated that up to 60 percent of the current methane flux from land to the atmosphere is the result of human activities," said Abhishek Chatterjee, a carbon cycle scientist with Universities Space Research Association based at Goddard.</p><p>"Similar to carbon dioxide, human activity over long time periods is increasing atmospheric methane concentrations faster than the removal from natural 'sinks' can offset it. As human populations continue to grow, changes in energy use, agriculture and rice cultivation [and] livestock raising will influence methane emissions. However, it's difficult to predict future trends due to both lack of measurements and incomplete understanding of the carbon-climate feedbacks."</p>
<p>To determine methane's role on Earth's carbon cycle and its impact on the climate system, researchers at NASA combined multiple data sets from self-reported fossil fuel producers, government overseers and satellite observations. These were put into a high-resolution computer model to simulate the global movement of methane emissions based on known processes in certain environments while accounting for weather models and natural processes that break down the gas.</p>
<p>Methane's global movements through space and landscapes are complex and can vary depending on many factors. Of note, the impacts of methane are felt disproportionately around the planet.</p><p>Europe was shown to be the only region to show a decrease in methane emissions over the last two decades, which may largely be due to measures prioritizing the use of <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy/">renewable energy</a> in a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/25-of-europe-quits-coal-1891078241.html" target="_self">shift</a> from fossil fuels like coal.</p><p>In South America, the Amazon River Basin and its associated wetlands flood seasonally, which creates oxygen-deprived environments that contribute a significant source of methane. Researchers estimate that around 60 percent of wetland methane emissions come from the tropics.</p><p>In Asia, more than 85 percent of methane emissions comes from human activities, with rice cultivation and livestock being the driving sources. Additionally, China's economic expansion and increasing population have driven the demand for energy and resources.</p><p>"<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/agriculture">Agriculture</a> is responsible for about 20% of global methane emissions and includes enteric fermentation, which is the processing of food in the guts of cattle, mainly, but also includes how we manage the waste products that come from livestock and other agricultural activities," said Poulter.</p><p>Arctic and high-latitude regions account for about one-fifth of global methane emissions.</p><p>"What happens in the Arctic doesn't stay in the Arctic," said Ott, adding that the region is not currently a strong pulse of methane but "that could change dramatically over time."</p><p>The findings will help to inform future field and satellite missions, as well as policy decisions.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Oil and Gas Industry Is 25 to 40% More Responsible for Global ... ›
- African Wetlands a Major Source of Methane Emissions, Study Finds ... ›
- Fracking Boom in U.S. and Canada Largely to Blame for Global ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Crude oil extraction pump pulling crude oil up to the surface and pushing it into pipelines in the Permian Basin in West Texas on May 27, 2018. ©Studio One-One / Moment / Getty Images
ExxonMobil is a company capable of contradictions. It has been lobbying against government efforts to address climate change while running ads touting its own efforts to do so.
<p>And while the oil giant has been responsible for massive methane releases, Exxon has now proposed a new <a href="https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/~/media/Global/Files/newsroom/publications-and-reports/Mitigating-Methane-Emissions-from-the-Oil-and-Gas-Industry-Model-Regulatory-Framework.pdf" target="_blank">regulatory framework</a> for cutting emissions of this powerful greenhouse gas that it hopes regulators and industry will adopt. As Exxon put it, the goal is to achieve "<a href="https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/121215-exxonmobil-urges-energy-industry-policymakers-to-embrace-methane-oversight" target="_blank">cost-effective and reasonable methane-emission regulations</a>."</p>
<p class=""><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/03/16/exxon-write-rules-regulating-methane-emissions">DeSmog</a>.</em></p>
<p>So, why is Exxon asking to be regulated?</p><p>The answer may be simply that Exxon is very good at public relations. As industry publication <a href="https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/121215-exxonmobil-urges-energy-industry-policymakers-to-embrace-methane-oversight" target="_blank">Natural Gas Intelligence reported</a>, this announcement "comes as energy operators face increasing pressure from lenders and shareholders to engage in decarbonization by following environmental, social, and governance standards."</p>
<div id="3031e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="A0CFO81584454354"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1234997313581375490" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">ExxonMobil is proposing new rules to cut methane emissions. We think it makes sense for industries to work together… https://t.co/NnLNZ2yO5O</div> — ExxonMobil (@ExxonMobil)<a href="https://twitter.com/exxonmobil/statuses/1234997313581375490">1583281279.0</a></blockquote></div><p>Exxon's proposed regulations have three main objectives: finding and detecting leaks, minimizing the direct venting of methane as part of oil and gas operations, and record keeping and reporting.</p><p>Casey Norton, Exxon's Corporate Media Relations Manager, explained to DeSmog that Exxon's proposal was not expected to be adopted as-is by regulatory agencies. "This is a starting point for conversations with policy makers and other regulators," he said. "For example, New Mexico, Argentina, the EU, who are all considering new regulations for methane emissions."</p><p>Under President Trump, the federal government last year rolled back Obama-era rules for oil and gas companies to report methane emissions and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/18/climate/trump-methane-rollback.html" target="_blank">for restricting these emissions during drilling</a> on public lands.</p><p>This isn't Exxon's first foray into voluntary regulations of methane. The corporation's natural gas subsidiary XTO started a <a href="https://news.exxonmobil.com/press-release/exxonmobil-expands-methane-emissions-reduction-program" target="_blank">voluntary methane emissions</a> program in 2017. In June 2018, XTO noted that the voluntary program, which was mostly about replacing leaking valves, had reduced <a href="https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180625005080/en/ExxonMobil%25E2%2580%2599s-XTO-Energy-Announces-Progress-Methane-Emissions" target="_blank">methane emissions by 7,200 metric tons since 2016</a>.</p>
<p>However, leaking valves are not the biggest source of methane emissions. In February 2018, four months before XTO was touting the success of its methane reduction program, the company experienced the second largest methane leak in U.S. history. A gas well it operated in Ohio suffered a blowout, releasing huge amounts of the heat-trapping gas.</p><p>Did XTO's voluntary program accurately report this? As The <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/16/climate/methane-leak-satellite.html" target="_blank">New York Times reported</a>, "XTO Energy said it could not immediately determine how much gas had leaked."</p><p>But a group of scientists using satellite data eventually did pin down the amount released — 120 metric tons an hour for 20 days. That adds up to roughly 50,000 metric tons more released than the 7,200 metric tons in reductions XTO was claiming months later. That one leak was estimated to be more than the methane emissions of the total oil and gas industry of countries like Norway.</p><p>As <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/03/11/future-exxon-permian-flaring-crisis-air-pollution" target="_blank">DeSmog reported</a>, XTO is also <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/01/29/fracking-industry-gas-flaring-problem" target="_blank">flaring </a>the most natural gas of any company in the Permian oil field (natural gas is almost 90 percent methane). While flaring isn't as bad for the climate as directly venting the methane into the atmosphere, it is increasing the levels of carbon dioxide and toxic air pollutants and is another problem the industry is saying it will address even as the practice <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-11/permian-s-gas-burning-black-eye-is-30-worse-than-thought" target="_blank">continues on a large scale</a>.</p>
<p>And now the same company is recommending that the rest of the industry and regulators <a href="https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/~/media/Global/Files/newsroom/publications-and-reports/Mitigating-Methane-Emissions-from-the-Oil-and-Gas-Industry-Model-Regulatory-Framework.pdf" target="_blank">adopt their approach</a> to regulating methane emissions.</p><p>"It is not target-based, it is not volume-based," Exxon's Norton said. "Again, it's starting a conversation, saying these are things that you can look at."</p><p>Robert Howarth, <a href="https://ecologyandevolution.cornell.edu/robert-warren-howarth" target="_blank">a biogeochemist at Cornell University</a> whose work focuses on methane emmissions in the oil and gas industry, drew attention to areas of Exxon's framework he thought were lacking. For starters, he pointed out that the proposed framework does not mention emissions from "imperfect well casings and from abandoned wells," which Howarth says "can be significant." He also noted that the proposal does not describe "a methodology for characterizing any of these emissions; there are techniques for doing so, but there is not much demonstrated use of these techniques by industry."</p><p>Finally — and this is the real danger with any sort of industry self-regulation — Howarth said there must be some type of independent oversight to assess actual emissions instead of relying on the industry to self-report. XTO's well blowout in Ohio is an excellent example of why this third-party verification is critical. Without oversight, the "system is ripe for abuse," according to Howarth.</p><p>Sharon Wilson of environmental advocacy group Earthworks <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/01/30/sharon-wilson-methane-leaks-permian-basin-oilfields" target="_blank">documents</a> the oil and gas industry's current widespread practices of <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/11/14/methane-sharon-wilson-earthworks-permian-basin-fracking" target="_blank">flaring and venting methane. </a>Sharing her concerns about Exxon's methane emissions proposal, she told DeSmog,"Exxon's recent announcement is too little too late when it comes to the climate crisis they've help cause and are still making worse. Reducing methane emissions by any percentage is not enough when Exxon continues to expand sources of the same climate pollution." </p><p>Wilson called for the company to support federal and state rules to cut methane.</p>
Trump Administration Reversed Existing Methane Regulations
<p>Methane emissions have become <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/08/14/fracking-shale-gas-drilling-methane-spike-howarth" target="_blank">a much bigger issue</a> in the last decade since the <span style="background-color: initial;">U.S.</span> boom in shale <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/oil-and-gas">oil and gas</a> produced by <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fracking" rel="noopener noreferrer">fracking</a>. Despite <a href="https://money.cnn.com/2016/07/21/investing/trump-energy-plan-obama-oil-boom/index.html" target="_blank">overseeing a huge rise in oil and gas production</a>, the Obama administration acknowledged the methane problem and <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/05/12/administration-takes-historic-action-reduce-methane-emission-oil-and-gas-sector" target="_blank">proposed and adopted new methane emissions regulations</a>, which the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/09/10/key-facts-trump-epa-plan-obama-methane-leaks-rule" target="_blank">Trump administration has since repealed</a>.</p><p>The Trump administration has staffed regulatory agencies with former industry executives and lobbyists who have been quite successful at rolling back environmental, health, and safety rules.</p><p>Last August former coal lobbyist and current administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/andrew-wheeler" target="_blank">Andrew Wheeler</a> <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-proposes-updates-air-regulations-oil-and-gas-remove-redundant-requirements-and-1" target="_blank">explained the reasoning</a> for removing the Obama methane rules.</p><p>"EPA's proposal delivers on President Trump's executive order and removes unnecessary and duplicative regulatory burdens from the oil and gas industry," Wheeler said. "The Trump administration recognizes that methane is valuable, and the industry has an incentive to minimize leaks and maximize its use."</p><p>The problem with this free-market assumption is that Wheeler is wrong about the industry's financial incentive to limit methane emissions.</p><div id="8445e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="72W83E1584454354"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1113551571755982855" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">The unreal natural gas prices in the #Permian get even more unreal:
Nat gas at the Waha hub (near El Paso) have ho… https://t.co/Zfj0XfXIJh</div> — Javier Blas (@Javier Blas)<a href="https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/statuses/1113551571755982855">1554326358.0</a></blockquote></div><p><a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/03/11/us-natural-gas-lng-export-chesapeake-financial-struggle" target="_blank">There is too much natural gas</a>, aka methane, flooding world energy markets right now. Current prices to buy it are lower than the costs to produce it. The methane currently produced in Texas' Permian Basin spent a good portion of last year at negative prices. There is no financial incentive for producers in the Permian to voluntarily cut methane emissions in the current market environment.</p><p>That is why Permian producers <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/01/29/fracking-industry-gas-flaring-problem" target="_blank">are flaring</a> (openly burning) it at record levels as well as directly releasing (venting) methane into the rapidly warming atmosphere. So much for letting the free market address the issue.</p>
Even the Remaining Regulations Are Controlled by Industry
<p>While the Trump administration has rolled back many regulations for the oil and gas industry, the regulatory system in the U.S. was already designed to protect industry profits — not the public or environment. When the federal government creates regulations, the process can be heavily influenced by industry lobbyists, and if they don't agree with the regulations, there are many ways they can get them revised to favor their companies.</p><p>While Exxon <a href="https://www.axios.com/exxon-epa-regulate-methane-emissions-oil-gas--0befdde6-e0fe-49db-a200-38299853b43d.html" target="_blank">did publicly say </a>in 2018 that it didn't support repealing the existing methane regulations, the company also wrote to the <span style="background-color: initial;">EPA</span> voicing support for certain aspects of the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/american-petroleum-institute" target="_blank">American Petroleum Institute's</a> (<span style="background-color: initial;">API</span>) comments on the issue, and the <span style="background-color: initial;">API</span> <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/08/oil-gas-lobby-split-by-trump-rollback-of-methane-rules/" target="_blank">approved removing the regulations.</a> In that letter Exxon used the same language it is now using with its propsed regulations, saying any rules need to be "cost-effective" and "reasonable." But if the regulations are cost-effective, will they actually be effective in reducing methane emissions in a meaningful way?</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjg4MDY3NS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0NjAyNjM1NH0._FkQjtD7IdxsBjyG4C48LKbFNnq5d0dj7n6kYoadYjw/img.png?width=980" id="ef457" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6a80e7ae5ddbf00618b6efbabd60441f" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Excerpt from Exxon letter to EPA about methane regulations. ExxonMobil
<p><a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-safety-rules-on-oil-drilling-were-changed-some-staff-objected-those-notes-were-cut-11582731559" target="_blank">The Wall Street Journal</a> recently highlighted the influence that the oil and gas industry and its major U.S. trade group the American Petroleum Institute can have over regulations. After the deadly 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the federal government put into place new safeguards known as the "well control rule" in order to prevent another disaster during deepwater offshore drilling.</p><p>In 2019, the Trump administration revised the rule, <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/05/03/720008093/trump-administration-moves-to-roll-back-offshore-drilling-safety-regulations" target="_blank">weakening it</a>, even though, as the Journal reported, federal regulatory staff did not agree "that an industry-crafted protocol for managing well pressure was sufficient in all situations, the records show." The staff was ignored. (And the move is <a href="https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/suit-filed-over-well-control-rule-repeal" target="_blank">undergoing a legal challenge</a>.)</p><p>Industry crafted protocol. Just the thing Exxon is now proposing.</p><p>This type of industry control over the regulatory process was also brought to light after two Boeing 737 MAX planes crashed and killed 346 people. Boeing had fought to make sure that pilots weren't required to undergo expensive and lengthy training to navigate the new plane.</p><p><a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-737max/designed-by-clowns-boeing-employees-ridicule-737-max-regulators-in-internal-messages-idUSKBN1Z902N" target="_blank">Reuters reported </a>on internal communications at Boeing which revealed the airplane maker simply would not let simulator training be required by regulators:</p><p>"I want to stress the importance of holding firm that there will not be any type of simulator training required to transition from NG to MAX," Boeing's 737 chief technical pilot said in a March 2017 email.</p><p>"Boeing will not allow that to happen. We'll go face to face with any regulator who tries to make that a requirement."</p><p>Boeing got its way. And 346 people died.</p><div id="384c1" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="BGIMBL1584454354"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1236300589262405632" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Nearly a year after a second crash of a Boeing 737 MAX that led to its grounding, the full extent of the company’s… https://t.co/uUHyItbBrD</div> — The Daily Beast (@The Daily Beast)<a href="https://twitter.com/thedailybeast/statuses/1236300589262405632">1583592004.0</a></blockquote></div><p>For the past six years, I have reported on the failed regulatory process governing the moving of dangerous crude oil by rail (and even <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/07/09/bomb-trains-oil-rail-threat-book" target="_blank">wrote a book about it</a>). The only meaningful safety regulation that resulted from a multi-year process was requiring oil trains to have modern electronically controlled pneumatic brakes.</p><p>As <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/12/10/trump-admin-repeal-oil-train-safety-rule-electronically-controlled-pneumatic-brakes" target="_blank">I reported</a>, shortly after this regulation was enacted, Matthew Rose, CEO of the largest oil-by-rail company BNSF, told an industry conference that "the only thing we don't like about [the new regulation] is the electronic braking" and "this rule will have to be changed in the future." As per the wishes of Matthew Rose, <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/12/10/trump-admin-repeal-oil-train-safety-rule-electronically-controlled-pneumatic-brakes" target="_blank">that rule was repealed </a>despite the substantial evidence clearly showing this modern braking system greatly increases train safety. </p><p>A recent op-ed from an editor at the trade publication Railway Age referred to these oil trains as a "<a href="https://www.railwayage.com/regulatory/double-trouble-in-saskatchewan/" target="_blank">clear and present danger</a>." Nevertheless, these trains hauling volatile oil through North American communities are still operating with braking systems engineered in the late 1800s.</p>
Exxon Touts 'Sound Science' Despite Its History
<p>Exxon's methane proposal states that any regulations should be based on "sound science." This statement is coming from a company whose scientists <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken" target="_blank">accurately predicted the impacts of burning fossil fuels</a> on the climate decades ago and yet has spent the time since then <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/09/03/study-finds-exxon-misled-public-withholding-climate-knowledge" target="_blank">misleading the public</a> about that science.</p><p>The current regulatory system in America does not protect the public interest. Letting Exxon take the lead in the place of regulators doesn't seem like it's going to help.</p><p>Megan Milliken Biven is a former federal analyst for the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the federal agency that regulates the oil industry's offshore activity. Milliken Biven explained to DeSmog what she saw as the root cause of the regulatory process's failure.<br><br>"Regulatory capture isn't really the problem," Milliken Biven said. "The system was designed to work for industry so regulatory capture isn't even required."</p>From Your Site Articles
- Methane Reporting Gap Widens in Oil and Gas Industry - EcoWatch ›
- EPA Expected to Allow More Methane Emissions From Oil and Gas Industry - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Oil and Gas Industry Is 25 to 40% More Responsible for Global Methane Emissions than Previously Thought
20 February
Popular
Flames from a flaring pit near a well in the Bakken Oil Field. The primary component of natural gas is methane, which is odorless when it comes directly out of the gas well. Orjan F. Ellingvag / Corbis / Getty Images
The oil and gas industry may be contributing even more to the climate crisis than we thought.
<p>A study <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-1991-8" target="_blank">published in Nature Wednesday</a> found that <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/methane" target="_self">methane</a> emissions from <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels" target="_self">fossil fuel</a> extraction have been underestimated by 25 to 40 percent.</p><p>"This indicates that the fossil fuel sector has a much more polluting impact beyond being responsible for the overwhelming majority of carbon dioxide emissions," Dr. Joeri Rogelj, a climate change lecturer at the Grantham Institute who was not involved with the research, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/19/oil-gas-industry-far-worse-climate-impact-than-thought-fossil-fuels-methane" target="_blank">told The Guardian</a>. "This is worrying and overall bad news."</p><p>While carbon dioxide is the greenhouse gas contributing the most to the climate crisis, methane is now responsible for 25 percent of current global warming, <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/19/world/methane-emissions-humans-fossil-fuels-underestimated-climate-change/index.html" target="_blank">according to CNN</a>.</p><p>The amount of methane in the atmosphere has more than doubled since the preindustrial era, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/19/climate/methane-flaring-oil-emissions.html?te=1&nl=morning-briefing&emc=edit_MBE_p_20200220&section=whatElse&campaign_id=51&instance_id=16113&segment_id=21428&user_id=d8eb7cee9d3c5ab39515239b6ec54d19&regi_id=88631294ion=whatElse" target="_blank">according to The New York Times</a>, but it has been difficult to pinpoint its source. Methane is released naturally by the ocean and by formations on land known as mud volcanoes. But it is also released by the fossil fuel industry, and most current estimates of the industry release of methane have been grassroots and not comprehensive, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/19/oil-gas-industry-far-worse-climate-impact-than-thought-fossil-fuels-methane" target="_blank">The Guardian pointed out</a>.</p>
<p>"We have a really good understanding of how much methane concentrations have increased in the atmosphere," study lead investigator and professor at the University of Rochester's Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences Vasilii Petrenko told CNN. "But it's difficult to track where the increases are coming from for a number of reasons."</p><p>In order to get a better estimate, the University of Rochester team looked at methane data from before the industrial era. They measured air from around 300 years ago trapped in bubbles in glaciers in Greenland, The Guardian reported. This showed that the natural contribution to methane emissions was much lower than the number currently used to estimate emissions, The New York Times explained.</p>
<p>"We've identified a gigantic discrepancy that shows the industry needs to, at the very least, improve their monitoring," study lead author Benjamin Hmiel told The New York Times. "If these emissions are truly coming from oil, gas extraction, production use, the industry isn't even reporting or seeing that right now."<br></p><p>The study does have a silver lining, however. If humans are responsible for the extra methane emissions, that means they can also control them, though this also means controlling the oil and gas sector.</p><p>"Placing stricter methane emission regulations on the fossil fuel industry will have the potential to reduce future global warming to a larger extent than previously thought," Hmiel told The Guardian. "Methane is important to study because if we make changes to our current methane emissions, it's going to reflect more quickly."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Oil and Gas Operations Release 60 Percent More Methane than ... ›
- New NASA Study Solves Climate Mystery, Confirms Methane Spike ... ›
- How to Reduce Methane Emissions From the Oil and Gas Industry ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less