Methane THREAD:
Methane is an important contributor to global warming, with diverse sources:
* 40% from natural sources (eg wetlands)
* 25% from agriculture
* 20% fossil fuels
The @IEA has a great CH₄ explainer, with a focus on oil & gas. iea.org/weo/methane/
1/
Methane is an important contributor to global warming, with diverse sources:
* 40% from natural sources (eg wetlands)
* 25% from agriculture
* 20% fossil fuels
The @IEA has a great CH₄ explainer, with a focus on oil & gas. iea.org/weo/methane/
1/
2. Almost 40% of the current radiative forcing (& therefore approximately warming) is due to methane. cicero.oslo.no/no/posts/klima…
Methane is strong, but has a short lifetime (~10 years), so tangible climate benefits can come quickly.
Methane is strong, but has a short lifetime (~10 years), so tangible climate benefits can come quickly.
3. A pulse of methane emissions reaches a peak after 10 years, then dies away with a long tail (slow ocean processes), while CO₂ has a cumulative & essentially permanent effect.
While methane is 40% of current warming, that can change quickly with mitigation!
While methane is 40% of current warming, that can change quickly with mitigation!
4. Almost a quarter of current warming is due to livestock alone (including N₂O & land-use change), which gives an idea of the potential leverage mitigation (behavioural & technological) can have on near-term current warming levels.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.111…
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.111…
5. CH₄ concentrations in the atmosphere are rising fast, after a plateau in the 2000s. The causes are debated, but the debate is basically whether fossil or biogenic sources dominate the changes. Both are important, both need to be mitigated!
wired.com/story/atmosphe…
wired.com/story/atmosphe…
6. Which comes to the @IEA Methane Tracker...
The thing is, about half of the CH₄ mitigation in oil & gas has negative cost. Basically, you are burning money if you don't mitigate it...
iea.org/weo/methane/ab…
The thing is, about half of the CH₄ mitigation in oil & gas has negative cost. Basically, you are burning money if you don't mitigate it...
iea.org/weo/methane/ab…
7. All regions have cheap mitigation, especially the Middle East. Why aren't these negative cost options taken?
* a lack of awareness
* competition for capital within companies
* insufficiently quick payback periods
* split incentives (equipment owner does not directly benefit.
* a lack of awareness
* competition for capital within companies
* insufficiently quick payback periods
* split incentives (equipment owner does not directly benefit.
8. These great figures break down where emissions occur in oil & gas extraction. Loads of CH₄ abatement potential, both upstream & downstream, oil & gas.
If we are going to extract more oil & gas (likely with current policy), then we may as well do it as cleanly as possible.
If we are going to extract more oil & gas (likely with current policy), then we may as well do it as cleanly as possible.
9. Is gas worse than coal? Well, generally no. Gas is about 50% better.
But there are cases where the best coal (orange left) is better than the worst gas (blue, right).
Better to burn gas instead of coal, or better yet, burn neither & use another energy source!
But there are cases where the best coal (orange left) is better than the worst gas (blue, right).
Better to burn gas instead of coal, or better yet, burn neither & use another energy source!
10. Check out the @IEA Methane Tracker. Loads of information, data is all available, a great resource.
We have to stop emitting CO₂ to stop global warming (stop burning oil & gas), but all CH₄ reductions help reduce temperatures & those opportunities have to be taken.
/END
We have to stop emitting CO₂ to stop global warming (stop burning oil & gas), but all CH₄ reductions help reduce temperatures & those opportunities have to be taken.
/END
