The Urgency of Reducing Methane Emissions
Climate researchers believe rapidly reducing methane emissions is critical to slowing global warming. They suggest a complete plan that includes economic incentives, regulatory measures, and public aid to target and reduce methane emissions across multiple sectors successfully. Methane, the second most important greenhouse gas, has been overlooked, but scientists have recently proposed a new strategy and instrument to reduce emissions. They emphasize the necessity of quickly reducing methane emissions to combat climate change, proposing a combination of governmental and economic policies and public action to reduce emissions from diverse sources.
The Role of Methane in Global Warming
To properly solve the climate catastrophe, immediate action must be taken to reduce methane emissions. Methane has contributed roughly half of the global warming we’ve seen so far, and emissions are increasing rapidly. A multinational team of climate experts published a paper today (July 30) in Frontiers in Science outlining three imperatives for reducing methane emissions and sharing a new tool to assist us find the most cost-effective ways to do so.
“The world has been rightly focused on carbon dioxide, which is the largest driver of climate change to date,” said lead author Professor Drew Shindell of Duke University. “The Methane arose to be something we could put aside till later, but the earth has warmed fast over the last few decades, and we have failed to cap our carbon emissions. So we’re even more desperate for measures to slow global warming, which methane can do.
The Global Methane Pledge and Its Importance
Methane is the second most potent greenhouse gas, although only around 2% of global climate money is directed toward reducing methane emissions. These emissions are also rapidly increasing, because of a mix of emissions from fossil fuel production and increased emissions from wetlands caused by the climate crisis. To slow the harms of climate change and keep global temperature below 2°C, we must act now, following the Global Methane Pledge to reduce methane emissions by 30% from 2020 levels by 2030.
The Three Imperatives for Methane Reduction
The scientists present three crucial imperatives for action, supported by assessments of satellite remote sensing data, reported methane emissions, and how abatement choices interact with market dynamics. First, we need to reduce methane emissions. Second, we must coordinate efforts to reduce methane and carbon dioxide emissions-reducing carbon dioxide alone will not stop warming fast enough, while cutting methane just delays global warming. Third, we must incentivize and enforce methane abatement.
Economic and Environmental Benefits of Methane Mitigation
This is a lifesaving and cost-effective approach. In keeping with estimates, each tonne of methane emitted in 2020 produced between US$470 and US$1700 in damages. However, this may be a huge underestimate: taking into account the effect of air pollution, which harms human health, the total cost might be up to $7,000 per tonne—and rising. “The gains of methane mitigation nearly always make up for the net costs,” Shindell stated. “Many methane mitigation choices give net economic profits even without taking into account environmental impacts.”
It does not add to the atmosphere over time, so emission decreases are more effective. As long as we could get rid of all methane emissions tomorrow, in 30 years, more than 90% of total methane—but only about 25% of carbon dioxide—would have been removed from the atmosphere. “The most important mitigations are the available mitigation options across all sectors that aren’t too expensive because we need to do everything to reach climate targets such as 1.5 or 2C warming,” according to Shindell. “Controlling methane in simply one sector would be insufficient. We require a broad portfolio of actions.”
Effective Strategies for Methane Abatement Across Sectors
The most effective options to combat methane will be determined by a country’s existing policies and the industries on which it relies. So the authors developed an online tool to discover the most effective abatement strategies in various countries. For large fossil fuel producers, the most effective approaches may be to regulate production, incentivize methane absorption, or charge firms for methane emissions. Others may find that focusing on landfill emissions provides the most benefits. Individuals can contribute by changing their lifestyles and voting with environmental considerations.
Individual Actions and Policy Support
“People can make sure they avoid overconsumption of beef and dairy and compost their organic waste whenever possible,” pointed out Shindell. “If it is not possible where they live, they can vote for candidates who will develop composting programs in their communities. They can also vote for candidates who will make polluters pay for their methane emissions rather than allowing them to profit while society bears the cost of the damage they do.”
“There are uncertainties, of course,” said Shindell. “We don’t yet have enough data to fully understand the contributions of specific components to the recent increase in the observed growth rate, for example. However, it is critical to rapidly cut methane emissions to mitigate the accelerated climatic damage that so many people throughout the world are experiencing.”