Methane is 80 times more effective than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere.
- Methane is the second most abundant greenhouse gas on the planet.
- A recent study analyzed ice core samples from the pre-industrial era to measure the extent to which industry has played a role in increasing atmospheric methane levels.
- The researchers note that their results suggest action can be taken to stem methane pollution.
Hmiel et al.<p>The results show that, prior to the Industrial Revolution, fossil methane emissions were about 1.6 to 5.4 teragrams. For context, the current estimate of total annual methane emissions is 172 to 195 teragrams. So, if the results are accurate, the implication is that human activity is almost entirely responsible for methane emissions, while natural contributors like gas seeps play a smaller role than previously thought. The results also suggest that the industry is likely <a href="https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-09/pues-cmi092019.php" target="_blank">underreporting</a> the amount of methane leaks coming from various points in the supply chain, including processing, production, and transportation.</p><p>But that's not all bad news to lead study author Benjamin Hmiel, a researcher at the University of Rochester.</p>
Fracking rig site in Oklahoma
J Pat Carter / Contributor<p style="margin-left: 20px;">"I don't want to get too hopeless on this because my data does have a positive implication: Most of the methane emissions are anthropogenic (human-caused), so we have more control," Hmiel told <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/02/19/burning-fossil-fuels-emits-more-methane-climate-change-study/4798547002/" target="_blank">USA Today</a>. "If we can reduce our (methane) emissions, it's going to have more of an impact. [...] 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."</p><p>Methane emissions come from all sectors of the fossil fuel industry. But natural gas seems to be an especially dirty contributor, mainly because of the large amounts of gas that's lost during the production process. This leakage challenges the idea that natural gas is a relatively clean "<a href="https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2016/08/is-natural-gas-a-bridge-fuel/" target="_blank">bridge fuel</a>" that society can burn as it develops more renewable energy sources. For example, a <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6398/186" target="_blank">recent study</a> found that the methane leakage rate in the U.S. natural gas supply chain was much higher than previous estimates from the Environmental Protection Agency. The implication: Natural gas comes with steep hidden costs.</p>
Reducing methane emissions<p>The good news is that methane has a relatively short atmospheric lifespan. Unlike carbon dioxide, which can linger in the atmosphere for about 200 years, methane vanishes after about a decade. Its heat-trapping power, however, makes it a serious climate threat over the short term.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"It's impossible to hit [the Paris agreement climate] targets with methane in the mix," Lena Höglund Isaksson, a greenhouse gas expert at Austria's International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, told <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/02/super-potent-methane-in-atmosphere-oil-gas-drilling-ice-cores/" target="_blank">National Geographic</a>.</p><p>Although reducing methane leaks in the natural gas supply chain might be difficult, many experts argue that it's one of the more inexpensive and straightforward ways to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Beyond tightening regulations regarding leak monitoring and equipment surveys, a 2018 <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6398/186?rss=1" target="_blank">study</a> published in Science recommended several ways gas companies can reduce methane leaks:</p><ul><li>Install less failure-prone systems </li><li>Conduct on-site leak surveys</li><li>Re-engineer individual components and processes</li><li>Deploy sensors at individual facilities and on towers, aircraft or satellites</li></ul><div>Steven Hamburg, co-author of the study, said in a <a href="https://www.edf.org/media/new-study-finds-us-oil-and-gas-methane-emissions-are-60-percent-higher-epa-reports-0" target="_blank">statement</a>:</div><div style="margin-left: 20px;">"Scientists have uncovered a huge problem, but also an enormous opportunity. Reducing methane emissions from the oil and gas sector is the fastest, most cost-effective way we have to slow the rate of warming today, even as the larger transition to lower-carbon energy continues."</div>
- How widespread within NASA is the conviction that human activity is responsible for climate change?
- Michelle Thaller knows. She has worked with hundreds of Earth scientists at NASA who study the climate.
- It's important to note that NASA is an apolitical organization devoted to science, not policy solutions.
Hello, tipping point.
- Esieh Lake is in a part of Alaska that's in the Arctic Circle.
- Each day the lake emits methane at a rate equivalent to about 6,000 cows.
- If more like it are found, it could be an ominous warning of things to come.
Melting permafrost.<p>"The lake, about 20 football fields in size, looked as if it was boiling. Its waters hissed, bubbled and popped as a powerful greenhouse gas escaped from the lake bed. Some bubbles grew as big as grapefruits, visibly lifting the water's surface several inches and carrying up bits of mud from below."</p><p>That's the terrifying <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2018/09/25/the-energy-202-something-strange-is-happening-with-arctic-lakes/5ba931051b326b7c8a8d1652/?utm_term=.fd7e7ba294a3" target="_blank">description</a> journalist Chris Mooney gave of Esieh Lake in Alaska. What, exactly, is it describing? Melting permafrost.<br></p><p>As in, ice and frozen soil deep down that has never thawed, hence the term 'perma'.</p>
A new study shows how one dietary change in the U.S. could make a 46%-plus dent in greenhouse gas reductions.
Methane gases from livestock production is contributing to the acceleration of global warming. Is a plant-based diet a smart way for individuals to curb the effects of climate change?
Make all the jokes you want, says Bill Nye, but methane is a very potent greenhouse gas, and as Earth's population increases so too does the size of the meat industry that caters to it. Demand for meat is growing steeply in developing nations, according to the Heinrich Böll Foundation, and the methane emitted by livestock is undoubtedly contributing atmospheric gases and accelerating global warming. So is a plant-based diet the answer, slashing the demand placed on the meat and dairy industries? Nye finds himself choosing to eat more and more vegetarian dishes, so while he hasn't gone 'full vegan' yet, his awareness of the problem has sparked a reductionist diet. Nye also mentions that agricultural scientists may soon find themselves under public pressure to reduce methane output. One way they might do that? Changing the bacteria in livestock's stomachs so they metabolize food with less methane byproduct. So we could bio-engineer the stomachs of other animals, or we could simply reduce the amount of animal products that go into our own.