A lack of measurement technology and policy focus means the world has been in the dark on the rise of one of the most climate-destructive emissions.
While methane isn’t visible to the naked eye, being able to ‘see’ methane isn’t a novel technical feat. Methane emissions come from a variety of sources; the largest human-caused emissions sources are agriculture, oil, gas, coal and waste. Still, until recently, measurement of these emissions hasn’t been a focal point for operators or legislators for several reasons.
For one, while technologies to measure methane have been around for decades, they haven’t been cheap and haven’t necessarily been ongoing or continuous. At present, oil and gas operators might monitor a pipeline for leaks once a month, if not less often. Technologies to measure methane continuously and precisely are now coming to market at a manageable cost in a more accessible, open-source way, given the heightened emphasis on climate goals and methane’s role in driving global warming. For other emissions sources, such as enteric methane from cows or methane emissions from rice farming, technologies simply haven’t existed, or haven’t been sufficiently affordable to deploy at any meaningful scale.
Technologies to measure methane continuously and precisely are now coming to market at a manageable cost in a more accessible, open-source way.
No Policy Will
Policywise, there hasn’t been substantial national or international political will to create sticks and carrots to monitor and reduce methane emissions. This is changing over the past few years; last year’s COP conference was a watershed moment for voluntary commitments to reduce methane emissions and many countries, ranging from the U.S. to Denmark, have doubled down with additional policies to accelerate this work.
Also, carbon dioxide has long dominated climate discussions. It is the most significant driver of warming over long timeframes, as it can remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years. However, when we analyze shorter timeframes, such as the time remaining between now and 2050 (let alone 2030), methane’s role in driving warming becomes substantial owing to its potency (84x more potent over a 20-year timespan) and shorter atmospheric lifespan (~12 years vs. 300-1,000 for carbon dioxide).
Given the tailwinds in the methane space, including more capital allocation alongside improvements and cost declines in technologies like satellite launches and LiDAR, methane monitoring and measurement technologies are now improving across a number of dimensions, including how accurately they can measure methane to how close to 24/7 coverage they can offer. At Overview, we have invested in several, including:
- Mitti Labs: Satellite and AI technology to measure small-holder rice farming emissions;
- Xplorobot: Detecting and verifying methane emissions with laser OGI.
Another example is the Environmental Defense Fund’s new MethaneSAT methane satellite, which launched last month and cost about $88M, can spot methane in as diffuse concentrations as two parts per billion (there are roughly 2,000 parts per billion of methane in our atmosphere). Then there are systems like those that LongPath Technologies is building in the Permian Basin, replete with $189M in conditional loan funding from the U.S. DOE’s Loan Program Office.
While the volume of total global methane emissions is roughly a known quantity (…), what we’re seeing is that better measurement technologies improve our understanding of what emissions come from which sources.
As these trends accelerate, they are forcing a reckoning with estimates of past emissions that have been, well, estimates (and often quite inaccurate ones).
Forcing a reckoning
As these technologies that can measure, monitor, and quantify methane and other greenhouse gas emissions continue to improve, they don’t just unlock new business models, and, ideally, more accountability on the part of major emitters. As we’re seeing so far in 2024, they also force updates to previous estimates of methane emissions that were often woefully inaccurate. Here are some examples:
- 40% higher: Recent studies from 2024 posited that methane emissions from U.S. landfills are now 40% higher than previously thought.
- 2x higher: A 2023 study suggests that methane emissions from wastewater treatment in the U.S. may be twice as high as typically reported.
- 3x higher: Another 2024 report estimated that oilfields in the U.S. release up to 3x more methane than previously estimated.
- 184x higher (!): German coal mine methane emissions measurements that it reports to the UN are, to this day, based on a 1989 study by a coal mining company. So, it shouldn’t be too surprising that a recent analysis by Ember found German coal mines actually emit 184x (!) more methane than what the country reports.
Why it Matters
While the volume of total global methane emissions is roughly a known quantity (it’s easier to measure atmospheric methane levels and extrapolate global methane emissions levels from there), what we’re seeing is that better measurement technologies improve our understanding of what emissions come from which sources. Said differently, top-down, total global methane emissions are known reasonably well (with error bars). What updates to specific emissions sources do is change our attribution of that total, which can inform resource allocation alongside additional research.
Of course, this also matters for enforcement of new policies, such as the EPA’s waste emissions charge, that could penalize companies for their methane emissions in the future, as well to hold corporations and countries accountable to voluntary emissions reductions targets they’ve set.
Featured image: Xplorobot’s laser OGI technology detecting methane emissions. Source: Xplorobot
