International Effort to Curb Emissions of Methane (Climate Super Pollutant) Falls Short

Despite the efforts of more than half of all countries worldwide to curb a key climate super-pollutant, a report released this week by the United Nations Environment Programme at the U.N. climate summit shows that global methane emissions continue to climb at a troubling pace.

The report was the first worldwide assessment of the Global Methane Pledge, an effort to curb methane emissions, since the United States and the European Union launched the initiative during the U.N.’s annual Conference of the Parties climate summit in Glasgow in 2021.

Methane—a potent greenhouse gas and the second leading driver of climate change after carbon dioxide—is responsible for approximately one-third of human-caused warming to date. The U.S. remains part of the non-binding pledge but has rolled back methane regulations under President Donald Trump.

Curbing methane emissions is widely considered the most expedient way to combat climate change. Unlike carbon dioxide, which can remain in the atmosphere for centuries, methane only sticks around for approximately 12 years. The primary sources of methane pollution are agriculture, oil and gas infrastructure and landfills.

Regulations enacted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2023 were projected to reduce methane emissions from the country’s oil and gas sector by nearly 80 percent compared to future emissions expected without the rule. In November 2024, the Biden administration placed a fee on excessive methane emissions from the oil and gas industry to further curb emissions. The following month, the Biden administration went beyond the 30 percent target set by the Global Methane Pledge and, under the Paris climate agreement, committed to reducing methane emissions across all sectors of the U.S. economy by 35 percent from 2005 levels.

However, Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement on his first day in office in January and signed legislation repealing the U.S. methane fee in March. In July, the EPA extended deadlines for the oil and gas industry to limit emissions of methane and other harmful pollutants.

Now, U.S. officials are urging Europe, one of the largest importers of natural gas, to ease its own environmental regulations. The EU Methane Regulation, approved by the European Commission, will require energy imports to the European Union to meet methane emission thresholds starting in 2030.

The requirement could pose a problem for U.S. liquified natural gas exports to Europe, given the recent rollbacks of U.S. methane regulations. U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum traveled to Greece earlier this month in the latest effort to lobby for the use of fossil fuels. “We want to bring as much energy by ship as we can,” Wright told Greek Public Television at the Partnership for Transatlantic Energy Cooperation summit in Athens.

Most likely the regulation will be changed in the next four years. Reality bites.

DB2

1 Like

The Trump Administration will have to change US methane regulations in the next year to be able to ship LNG to EU.

Like CO2, the level of methane in the atmosphere is regularly tracked by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) at the Global Monitoring Laboratory.

https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends_ch4/

The overall trend is up, after leveling off for a while between 2000 and 2010.

Even though the mole fraction is measured in parts per billion (as opposed to parts per million), methane is a potent greenhouse gas. A small amount has a big effect.

As the permafrost in the Arctic melts, the organic matter contained in it will start to release methane. This is one of the nightmare scenarios, where climate change suddenly increases exponentially from a large increase in the atmospheric methane concentration. This creates a positive feedback loop, that melts even more permafrost, releasing more methane…

_ Pete

1 Like

Given that the LNG market is largely supply constrained and that both Asian and European demand continues to grow, what would the EU do to replace LNG coming from the US?

DB2

Did anybody ever come up with a good reason for the plateau?

DB2

Perplexity AI offered up several possible explanations, but there doesn’t seem to be a consensus. There is the following paper from this year…

https://academic.oup.com/af/article/15/1/34/8106629?login=false

Several core empirical observations are yet to be explained satisfactorily and unambiguously. For instance, why did methane concentrations begin to abate from the mid-1980s onwards and then stop rising between 2000 and 2006? Why did they thereafter resume the fastest rate of increase ever, even though overall emissions likely remained stable? Why has the fractionation ratio of C13/12 reversed its 100-year steep upward trend after this 2000–2006 period and is now falling rapidly?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The fractionation ratio of C13/12 is interesting. In the link, scroll down to figure 2. Something apparently happened around 2002, causing the upward trend to reverse steeply downward.

_ Pete

I’d forgotten about the isotope fractionation change; there seem to be large increases in biological methane (as opposed to fossil fuel leakage).

DB2

1 Like

Of the nearly 120 Mt of emissions we estimate were tied to fossil fuels in 2023, around 80 Mt came from countries that are among the top 10 emitters of methane globally. The United States is the largest emitter of methane from oil and gas operations, closely followed by the Russian Federation (hereafter “Russia”). The People’s Republic of China (hereafter “China”) is by far the highest emitter in the coal sector. The amount of methane lost in fossil fuel operations globally in 2023 was 170 billion cubic metres, more than Qatar’s natural gas production.

The methane emissions intensity of oil and gas production varies widely. The best-performing countries score more than 100 times better than the worst. Norway and the Netherlands have the lowest emissions intensities. Countries in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, also have relatively low emissions intensities. Turkmenistan and Venezuela have the highest. High emissions intensities are not inevitable; they can be addressed cost-effectively through a combination of high operational standards, policy action and technology deployment. On all these fronts, best practices are well established.

EU import can and is importing natural gas from middle east with less methane impact.