{"id":750058,"date":"2022-07-18T16:40:04","date_gmt":"2022-07-18T16:40:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/jacobin.com\/2022\/07\/methane-emissions-oil-and-gas-companies-fossil-fuel-ipcc-cop26-climate-crisis\/"},"modified":"2022-07-18T16:40:04","modified_gmt":"2022-07-18T16:40:04","slug":"to-reduce-methane-emissions-take-on-the-oil-and-gas-companies","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/2022\/07\/18\/to-reduce-methane-emissions-take-on-the-oil-and-gas-companies\/","title":{"rendered":"To Reduce Methane Emissions, Take on the Oil and Gas Companies"},"content":{"rendered":"\n \n\n\n\n

US and EU officials recently suggested targeting livestock and agriculture in Asia and Africa to reduce methane emissions. Far more emissions, however, come from oil and gas production in the US \u2014 but reducing them requires taking on fossil fuel companies.<\/h3>\n\n\n
\n \n
\n A gas station in the Permian Basin oil field area in Odessa, Texas. (Joe Raedle \/ Getty Images)\n <\/figcaption> \n<\/figure>\n\n\n\n\n \n

At the COP26 climate conference in Glasgow last year, President Joe Biden called methane \u201cone of the most potent greenhouse gasses\u201d and\u00a0said<\/a> that the United States and Europe would work collectively to reduce methane emissions by 30 percent by 2030. Since then, more than a hundred countries worldwide have signed on to the Global Methane Pledge<\/a>.<\/p>\n

To help meet that pledge, US and European officials at a side event<\/a>\u00a0on the matter at a United Nations\u00a0climate change conference<\/a> in Bonn, Germany last month targeted one culprit in particular: the agriculture and livestock sector<\/a>, particularly in African and Asian countries. That\u2019s because manure, certain cultivation techniques, and gastroenteric releases account for a significant portion of methane emissions.<\/p>\n

But these officials failed to address one of the largest and easy-to-fix sources of methane: emissions from the oil and gas sector, both from production of oil and gas as well as leaks across the supply chain.<\/p>\n

Leaks, in fact, are responsible for\u00a060 percent of oil and gas methane emissions<\/a>. Because plugging these leaks would result in more product for oil and gas companies, the International Energy Agency (IEA), an autonomous intergovernmental organization,\u00a0has said<\/a>\u00a0that nearly half of all fossil fuel methane emissions \u201ccould be avoided with measures that would have no net cost,\u201d and that\u00a0reducing<\/a> oil and gas\u2013derived methane is \u201camongst the lowest of low-hanging fruit for mitigating climate change.\u201d<\/p>\n

What\u2019s more, a\u00a0new congressional investigation<\/a> has found that oil and gas companies have likely been underreporting the amount of methane leaking from much of their US-based operations. And while the Supreme Court\u2019s recent West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)<\/em><\/a>\u00a0<\/em>ruling limited the EPA\u2019s ability to regulate greenhouse emissions, legal experts say it likely doesn\u2019t impede a proposed plan at the agency to address oil and gas methane emissions on a wide scale for the first time.<\/p>\n

In response to questions from the\u00a0Lever<\/em>\u00a0about addressing fossil fuel leaks, speakers at the Bonn conference floundered, vaguely stating that the oil and gas sector is a \u201csticky issue\u201d and that there are \u201csome barriers\u201d to curbing the sector\u2019s methane emissions.<\/p>\n

But experts disagree \u2014 arguing that curbing methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, especially actions like plugging leaks, is easily achievable. Even reports by the\u00a0United Nations Environment Programme<\/a>\u00a0(UNEP)\u00a0clearly state<\/a>\u00a0that oil and gas is \u201cthe only sector for which the majority of emissions can be reduced in a cost-effective manner with technologies that exist today.\u201d<\/p>\n

While livestock and farming is also a\u00a0significant driver<\/a> of methane emissions, addressing these sources is likely less cost-effective, since low-carbon agricultural techniques are still in the development phase. In contrast, technologies designed to address oil and gas\u2013derived methane emissions already exist \u2014 such as the International Methane Emissions Observatory that was launched<\/a>\u00a0by the UNEP with support from the European Union in October 2021.<\/p>\n

Plus, as some observers point out, tackling oil and gas\u2013related methane emissions in developed countries is a matter of global equity.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe burden of [climate] action should not be unequally distributed.\u201d said Arvind Ravikumar, professor in Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering Department at the University of Texas. \u201cIt makes practical sense that developed countries with high oil and gas production tackle their methane emissions first, while methane mitigation solutions for other sectors become more affordable.\u201d<\/p>\n\n \n\n \n \n \n

A Bold Pledge Falls Short<\/h2>\n \n

Reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have acknowledged that methane is responsible for\u00a0at least a quarter<\/a>\u00a0of the warming we are seeing today.\u00a0Other reports<\/a>\u00a0show that cutting methane by 45 percent this decade would avoid warming of 0.3 degrees Celsius by the 2040s.<\/p>\n

Such reductions would also prevent 255,000 premature deaths, 775,000 asthma-related hospital visits, 73 billion hours of lost labor from extreme heat, and 26 million tons of crop losses\u00a0every year<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u201cBecause methane is a short-lived pollutant, if you reduce methane now, you will see benefits right now, as opposed to carbon dioxide where there are prolonged effects from accumulated carbon dioxide,\u201d said Vaishali Naik, scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and lead author of a chapter on “Short-lived Climate Forcers” in the seminal IPCC report<\/a>\u00a0on climate change published late last year. \u201cThis makes methane very attractive for addressing climate change and near-term warming, especially.\u201d<\/p>\n

Methane is also a particularly potent greenhouse gas, with a warming potential thirty-five times more powerful than<\/a>\u00a0carbon dioxide.<\/p>\n

No wonder, then, that 117 countries have so far signed on to the Global Methane Pledge, committing to \u201cwork together in order to collectively reduce global anthropogenic methane emissions across all sectors by at least 30 percent below 2020 levels by 2030.\u201d But despite such bold words, the pledge lacks specifics in terms of how each of the countries plan to meet the targets by 2030.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe pledge is important but it can be effective only if it includes guidelines and specificity in terms of commitments,\u201d said Collin Rees, senior campaigner at Oil Change International<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The vaguely worded methane pledge stands in contrast to other undertakings like the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance<\/a> (BOGA), an international coalition of governments that touts specific actions like members committing to \u201cend new concessions, licensing or leasing rounds and to set a Paris-aligned date for ending oil and gas production.\u201d The United States is not a member<\/a>\u00a0of BOGA.<\/p>\n

The fact that the Biden administration is currently\u00a0opening up public lands<\/a> to new oil and gas drilling shows how the methane pledge lacks binding obligations. \u201cThe pledge is clearly not as stringent as it needs to be if the US is pouring more money into new oil and gas infrastructure,\u201d said Rees. \u201cSo the danger is that the pledge can actually become a distraction.\u201d<\/p>\n

Joeri Rogelj, director of research at London School of Economics\u2019\u00a0Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment<\/a>\u00a0and a lead author of several IPCC reports, has another concern about the methane pledge: Does it go beyond what countries already committed to as part of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement?<\/p>\n

As Rogelj noted, \u201cIt is unclear how additional the pledged emissions reductions are to overarching, national economy-wide pledges [made under the Paris Agreement].\u201d<\/p>\n\n \n \n \n

\u201cSurvival Emissions\u201d<\/h2>\n \n

The specifics of reducing methane emissions is also a matter of climate justice. Emissions linked to agriculture and livestock in the developing world are routinely termed \u201csurvival emissions,\u201d because they\u2019re intrinsically linked to livelihood in poorer parts of the world, as opposed to the profits of large oil and gas corporations.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhere and how greenhouse gas emissions are addressed is definitely an issue of equity,\u201d said Naik at NOAA.<\/p>\n

Around\u00a080 percent of farmlands<\/a> in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia are managed by smallholder farmers. Methane emissions from such sources therefore stand in contrast to not just methane from the oil and gas sector, but also from industrialized forms of agriculture in developed countries in Europe and in the United States.<\/p>\n

Fossil fuels\u00a0account for<\/a>\u00a035 percent of human-derived methane emissions \u2014 although researchers have found that oil and gas methane emissions could be\u00a0understated<\/a> by as much as 70 percent. Oil and gas operations are responsible for 65 percent of fossil fuel\u2013derived methane, while coal companies produce the rest.<\/p>\n

Interestingly, a day after the climate conference in Bonn, the US State Department released a statement acknowledging<\/a>\u00a0that \u201ctackling methane emissions in the oil and gas sector is critical to achieving the Global Methane Pledge target.\u201d<\/p>\n\n \n \n \n

Potential Fallout From the Recent Supreme Court Ruling?<\/h2>\n \n

The EPA already has some\u00a0targeted programs<\/a>\u00a0designed to address methane emissions, including in the oil and gas sector. In November 2021, however, the EPA went further,\u00a0proposing a rule<\/a> to directly regulate methane emissions from existing sources in the oil and gas sector \u201cnationwide for the first time,\u201d and to strengthen existing reduction requirements for methane emissions from new, modified, and reconstructed oil and natural gas sources.<\/p>\n

The proposed rule reflects \u201ca clear need for robust federal regulations to ensure that the oil and gas industry moves swiftly towards large-scale reductions in methane emissions from its operations,\u201d noted\u00a0an internal report<\/a> by the US House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology released last month. The report added that the rule could be \u201can essential pillar of America\u2019s drive to achieve the targets set forth in the Global Methane Pledge.\u201d<\/p>\n

And while the Supreme Court\u2019s recent\u00a0West Virginia v. EPA\u00a0<\/em>ruling limited some of the environmental agency\u2019s regulatory powers, Daniel Farber, law professor at the Center for Law, Energy, and the Environment at the University of California, Berkeley, said there\u2019s no reason to believe that the judgment would impact proposed methane rule because it is \u201ca very routine exercise of EPA\u2019s power to impose emission limitations on pollution sources.\u201d<\/p>\n

According to Farber, the Supreme Court ruling is intended to curb the EPA\u2019s regulation of carbon dioxide from power plants, which is different from regular EPA regulations. \u201cIn the court\u2019s view, instead of regulating emissions at individual sources, EPA was asserting authority to control what energy sources would be used on the US electricity grid,\u201d said Farber. \u201cThe methane regulations, on the other hand, are much closer to business as usual for EPA.\u201d<\/p>\n

A spokesperson for the EPA declined to weigh in on whether the proposed rule would be impacted by the\u00a0West Virginia<\/em>\u00a0ruling. They noted, however, that the agency is also working on a supplemental proposal on the matter. \u201cThe supplemental proposal is an important step in developing a final rule, which we expect to finalize within the next year,\u201d they explained.<\/p>\n

Addressing oil and gas\u2013related methane emissions is also an environmental justice issue within the United States. A recent study published in\u00a0Nature<\/em><\/a>\u00a0<\/em>found that more racially diverse neighborhoods had twice the number of oil and gas wells as those that were mostly white. \u201cAddressing methane leaks does nothing for communities who are suffering from oil and gas extraction and\u00a0pipelines bursting in their backyards<\/a>,\u201d said Rees at Oil Change International.<\/p>\n

The EPA agrees. According to the agency spokesperson, the draft oil and gas methane emissions rule \u201cis a crucial step in fighting climate change and protecting public health in areas of oil and gas development, especially in communities located near oil and gas facilities and that all too often suffer disproportionately from pollution and poor air quality.\u201d<\/p>\n\n \n \n \n\n \n \n

You can subscribe to David Sirota\u2019s investigative journalism project, the\u00a0Lever<\/i>, here<\/a>. This work has been made possible by the support of the\u00a0Puffin Foundation<\/a>.
\n\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This post was originally published on Jacobin<\/a>. <\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

At the COP26 climate conference in Glasgow last year, President Joe Biden called methane \u201cone of the most potent greenhouse gasses\u201d and\u00a0said that the United States and Europe would work collectively to reduce methane emissions by 30 percent by 2030. Since then, more than a hundred countries worldwide have signed on to the Global Methane [\u2026]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4420,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/750058"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4420"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=750058"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/750058\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":750059,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/750058\/revisions\/750059"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=750058"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=750058"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=750058"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}