Fortunately, satellite based CH4 detection is now becoming precise and reliable enough to be usable in the search for methane sources. GHGSat satellites have a 25m resolution, and their sensor equipped airplanes can narrow it down to <1m.<p><a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/a-new-generation-of-satellites-is-helping-authorities-track-methane-emissions-180979181/" rel="nofollow">https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/a-new-generati...</a><p><a href="https://www.ghgsat.com/en/" rel="nofollow">https://www.ghgsat.com/en/</a><p>Roughly 1/3rd of emissions are from livestock. Hopefully the research into seaweed additives for feed pan out with their estimated 75% reduction.<p><a href="https://caes.ucdavis.edu/news/feeding-cattle-seaweed-reduces-their-greenhouse-gas-emissions-82-percent" rel="nofollow">https://caes.ucdavis.edu/news/feeding-cattle-seaweed-reduces...</a>
Methane, molecule per molecule, has an infrared-cross section about 20 times that of carbon dioxide. However, the current ratio of methane (1.9 ppm) to CO2 (420 ppm) is only ~ 1/220, so the total methane forcing is about 10% that of CO2, very roughly. (Pre-industrial methane was only 0.6 ppm as per ice core data)<p>Note also Arctic permafrost is going to be a steady source of methane as it thaws, at a relatively slow rate, currently only 1% of the total atmospheric methane budget. Shallow marine sediments are another likely source, although that methane might get gobbled up by marine bacteria before it exits to the atmosphere, to some extent.<p>In any case the stated goal of 'a rapid reduction in methane emissions to 30% below 2020 levels' would have little noticeable effect on warming rates over the next century. Just look at the global trend rate as well, methane's at record levels and the rate is steepening, not flattening.<p><a href="https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/increase-in-atmospheric-methane-set-another-record-during-2021" rel="nofollow">https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/increase-in-atmospheric-me...</a>
According to this youtube video on the new climate bill analysis [1], the Methane is (1) entirely usable fuel, (2) 80x (IIRC) more greenhouse causing than other carbon molecules and (3) leaking from infrastructure, so the climate bill includes provisions to track down leaks from infrastructure and encourage the fixing of those leaks.<p>[1] <a href="https://youtu.be/qw5zzrOpo2s" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/qw5zzrOpo2s</a>
Methane concentrations have been accellerating the past decade, so better do it quickly:<p><a href="https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends_ch4/" rel="nofollow">https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends_ch4/</a>
Can we 3d print e.g. geodesic domes to capture the waste methane (natural gas) from abandoned well sites?<p>"NASA Instrument Tracks Power Plant Methane Emissions" (2020)
<a href="https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/pia24019-nasa-instrument-tracks-power-plant-methane-emissions" rel="nofollow">https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/pia24019-nasa-instrument-tra...</a> :: <a href="https://methane.jpl.nasa.gov/" rel="nofollow">https://methane.jpl.nasa.gov/</a> (California,)<p>> <i>NASA conducts periodic methane studies using the next-generation Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS-NG) instrument. These studies are determining the locations and magnitudes of the largest methane emission sources across California, including those associated with landfills, refineries, dairies, wastewater treatment plants, oil and gas fields, power plants, and natural gas infrastructure.</i><p>"NASA 3D Printed Habitat Challenge" (2019) @CentennialChallenge: 3d print [habitats] with little to no water and local ~soil.
<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=NASA+3D+Printed+Habitat+Challenge" rel="nofollow">https://www.google.com/search?q=NASA+3D+Printed+Habitat+Chal...</a><p>What about IDK ~geodesic domes for capturing waste methane from abndanoned wells?
Some bitcoin mining startups are looking to start providing a strong economic incentive to collect and efficiently burn waste methane that you can't otherwise do anything with. Since vented methane eventually degrades into C02 anyway, after decades of 25x more potent warming, this a strong net positive for tackling climate change.<p><a href="https://www.mswmanagement.com/home/blog/21277137/editors-blog-can-you-mine-bitcoin-on-your-landfill" rel="nofollow">https://www.mswmanagement.com/home/blog/21277137/editors-blo...</a><p>In some cases, we can use the stick of regulation to require organizations to efficiently burn their methane at a pure cost to themselves, but that may not work on a global scale in a places with weak governance. But the carrot of profit may be <i>extremely</i> effective at proliferating waste methane burning worldwide.
This stuff is really low hanging fruit from a climate perspective. It is quite shocking that the US is only now beginning to look at dealing with fugitive methane emissions.
"Natural Gas" is 70% to 90% methane. The naming "Natural" is mostly a PR gimmick.<p>Burning it in power plants, industry, and households is definitely part of the problem. Everywhere in the infrastructure from extraction to transport to use, to all the abandoned wells everywhere a long the way it is leaking.<p>This a very large gap in all these government/corporate actions.
The wording of the article - and also of the title here - is very misleading.<p>> Methane accounts for half of the average 1.0 degrees C of warming the world suffered over the past decade and reducing methane is the fastest strategy available to reduce warming. The United States, in partnership with the European Union, is leading the Global Methane Pledge to reduce overall methane emissions by 30 percent below 2020 levels by 2030.<p>Reducing yearly methane emissions will NOT reduce warming. The article is about reducing the amount of additionally emitted methane in the future.
Since the Last Glacial Maximum >20k years ago, the trend has been a warming one, and this predates our oil based economy, and the rise of largescale human population.<p>We are likely heading to reversion to the mean around temperature, water levels, CO2, and others
Even completely eliminating methane will not reduce warming, it will only reduce (slightly) the rate of acceleration of the rate of warming. There are really 2 viable strategies here: Do nothing, or so something effective. The world refuses either.<p>EDIT:<p>Since people have asked, this is my logic...<p>The amount of warming depends on the amount of gas (CO2, CH4 or other) in the atmosphere. Stopping all emissions today would not change the huge amounts all ready up there. They will remain there and active for decades-centuries. So we are locked in for a certain amount of warming (2 degrees so far last I checked), it just has not happened yet.<p>The rate of emissions just controls how much more warming and how much sooner the existing warming will occur.<p>This is one of the core problems with Human responses to the problem: people think they can wait until it gets 'bad enough' then stop their emissions and things will improve. But they will actually keep getting worse because of the lag between emissions and effects.<p>As for CO2 vs Methane, Methane is responsible for about 20% of all man made warming (1). So eliminating it completely would still leave 80% of (future) warming... This is because we emit a lot, lot more CO2 than Methane.<p>The division is really a false one IMHO, because a lot of methane comes from coal mining and oil/gas extraction. So unless you stop using fossil fuels (the number 1 CO2 source) you cannot stop methane emissions...<p>What all this really comes down to is that people really really want a magic bullet that will make climate change disappear. But just because you really want one doesn't mean it exists...<p>1: <a href="https://www.epa.gov/gmi/importance-methane" rel="nofollow">https://www.epa.gov/gmi/importance-methane</a><p>Second Edit:<p>Temperature is like distance<p>Gas levels is like speed<p>Gas emission rates is like acceleration.<p>Edit 2:<p>Reducing emissions does not make you go backwards. You are still hurting forwards, you are even still accelerating. You're just not accelerating as rapidly...