Satellite supergroup spots methane super-emitters(innovationorigins.com)
innovationorigins.com
Satellite supergroup spots methane super-emitters
https://innovationorigins.com/en/satellite-supergroup-spots-methane-super-emitters-with-staggering-accuracy/
71 comments
So how much of the yearly methane emissions do the super-emitters account for and how much do they emit in absolute numbers? The article seems to be lacking the most interesting information…
Exactly. There's a good chance that climate change efforts are far better targetted at super emitters. We have limited resources and these are relatively low-hanging fruit.
> We have limited resources
I am always wondering why we constrain ourself in the case of fighting climate change. Yes, all spending will at some point have to be accounted for, but it is relatively easy for governments to borrow money if the political will exists.
To reduce global CO2 emissions to zero the estimates are in the range of 100-200% of global GDP. This seems to be an amount of money that could easily be raised as debt or created via monetary policy. What is holding back such an investment?
I am always wondering why we constrain ourself in the case of fighting climate change. Yes, all spending will at some point have to be accounted for, but it is relatively easy for governments to borrow money if the political will exists.
To reduce global CO2 emissions to zero the estimates are in the range of 100-200% of global GDP. This seems to be an amount of money that could easily be raised as debt or created via monetary policy. What is holding back such an investment?
> Yes, all spending will at some point have to be accounted for, but it is relatively easy for governments to borrow money if the political will exists.
I think the next few years will show you why unchecked borrowing is a bad thing. Ultimately, the people who lose their homes pay for it.
> To reduce global CO2 emissions to zero the estimates are in the range of 100-200% of global GDP. This seems to be an amount of money that could easily be raised as debt or created via monetary policy. What is holding back such an investment?
Where are those numbers coming from? So far we have invested a significant amount and not seen anywhere close to those returns on investment.
Not only this, but in what Universe is 200% global GDP sustainable?
> This seems to be an amount of money that could easily be raised as debt or created via monetary policy.
Ultimately, somebody always foots the bill - and it's normally the poorest people who lose the most. What you're asking for is for these people to suffer. I don't consider this an acceptable trade.
I think the next few years will show you why unchecked borrowing is a bad thing. Ultimately, the people who lose their homes pay for it.
> To reduce global CO2 emissions to zero the estimates are in the range of 100-200% of global GDP. This seems to be an amount of money that could easily be raised as debt or created via monetary policy. What is holding back such an investment?
Where are those numbers coming from? So far we have invested a significant amount and not seen anywhere close to those returns on investment.
Not only this, but in what Universe is 200% global GDP sustainable?
> This seems to be an amount of money that could easily be raised as debt or created via monetary policy.
Ultimately, somebody always foots the bill - and it's normally the poorest people who lose the most. What you're asking for is for these people to suffer. I don't consider this an acceptable trade.
I think the model of “we could fix this if we just tried harder and sacrificed more” is actually a pretty bad model for engaging with problems that don’t have a known, acceptable solution (so we’re ignoring garbage solutions to global warming like, prevent Africa from industrializing).
And I don’t mean that it isn’t true that we could try harder, I just mean that sometimes “trying harder” seems to make the problem worse rather than better.
I can think of a few problems like this:
- homelessness
- cost of college
- healthcare
- housing
I’m not sure if the critical factor is that the issues are morally charged and so encourage effort-heavy policies or if it’s because “trying harder” is really a supply-side subsidy, meaning money for healthcare providers or colleges or landlords. In practice at least it seems that supply side subsidies without cost controls are essentially useless, as the cost of the subsidized good rises to match the subsidy.
And I don’t mean that it isn’t true that we could try harder, I just mean that sometimes “trying harder” seems to make the problem worse rather than better.
I can think of a few problems like this:
- homelessness
- cost of college
- healthcare
- housing
I’m not sure if the critical factor is that the issues are morally charged and so encourage effort-heavy policies or if it’s because “trying harder” is really a supply-side subsidy, meaning money for healthcare providers or colleges or landlords. In practice at least it seems that supply side subsidies without cost controls are essentially useless, as the cost of the subsidized good rises to match the subsidy.
> supply side subsidies without cost controls are essentially useless, as the cost of the subsidized good rises to match the subsidy.
For a beautiful case study in this, in 2007 or so when they were turning off analog TV the US government allowed each household two vouchers worth up to $40 to buy a converter box, (provided the box did not offer a digital output). (Not) shockingly, not until these vouchers expired did any boxes come on the market priced under $40, even though they were not complex or expensive in cost.
For a beautiful case study in this, in 2007 or so when they were turning off analog TV the US government allowed each household two vouchers worth up to $40 to buy a converter box, (provided the box did not offer a digital output). (Not) shockingly, not until these vouchers expired did any boxes come on the market priced under $40, even though they were not complex or expensive in cost.
I think the "easily" is the discordant bit.
Typical developed country debt/GDP ratio is around 50-100%. So same order of magnitude as the green transition, but still, add 100-200% to it and you tripl your debt or so. That's non trivial in a world where increasing the debt by 5% in a year is seen as a lot.
Typical developed country debt/GDP ratio is around 50-100%. So same order of magnitude as the green transition, but still, add 100-200% to it and you tripl your debt or so. That's non trivial in a world where increasing the debt by 5% in a year is seen as a lot.
Related: Five Things You Should Know About COP26 - Reducing methane is the fastest strategy available to reduce warming
https://www.state.gov/dipnote-u-s-department-of-state-offici...
https://www.state.gov/dipnote-u-s-department-of-state-offici...
So has this resulted in previously unknown/unexpected super-emitters?
I'm curious if this has the potential to make a big difference, if there are e.g. pipeline leaks costing companies a lot of money that this can find, where the emitters have an incentive to fix it.
Or if will be largely useless, because all the unknown culprits turn out to be natural sources we can't do anything about, or industrial processes in places where enforcement is lax already and it won't change anything.
I'm curious if this has the potential to make a big difference, if there are e.g. pipeline leaks costing companies a lot of money that this can find, where the emitters have an incentive to fix it.
Or if will be largely useless, because all the unknown culprits turn out to be natural sources we can't do anything about, or industrial processes in places where enforcement is lax already and it won't change anything.
I‘d love to see a list of the largest emitters.
You might be interested in Climate TRACE. They produce a global inventory, identifying the largest individual sources of emissions, and publish it CC-BY - https://climatetrace.org/downloads
The fact that they decided not to mention who the largest emitters are should clue you into who it is.
Ugh, don't tell me it's those goddamn humans again.
Southeast Asia? At least from the map someone else linked to, that seems to be a good part of the answer. Admittedly, I need to be smacked pretty hard with the clue bat because it isn't as apparent to me as it is to you.
It's sad we have reached a level of political correctness that means even American tax funded researchers are afraid to call out non-Western countries like China and India.
So it's China then?
I agree - it would be great if the data was public. I’m sure a large amount of this comes from natural gas flares.
The data is indeed public [0]. But beware, it’s huge to download; it’s also available in a hosted/queryable interface on Google Earth Engine [1].
[0] https://scihub.copernicus.eu/twiki/do/view/SciHubWebPortal/W...
[1] https://developers.google.com/earth-engine/datasets/catalog/...
[0] https://scihub.copernicus.eu/twiki/do/view/SciHubWebPortal/W...
[1] https://developers.google.com/earth-engine/datasets/catalog/...
Thank you!
So CO2 isn’t the most potent, it’s the one that humans release the most compared to natural processes over last 100years.
Most potent is h2o (water vapor). The warmer the air, the more water vapor is held. Water retains an incredible amount of heat energy as well.
But very few articles talk about it.
In general, warming the earth is a runaway effect. More co2 means warmer air and oceans. This means more water retained in air and less in oceans. Which means even more warning. Warmer earth means less ice which reflects sunlight. Less ice means even warmer planet.
Venus is a great example of earth’s distant future if we don’t get the runaway warming under control.
Crude oil is the greatest blessing for human growth, but May also be a curse in disguise.
Most potent is h2o (water vapor). The warmer the air, the more water vapor is held. Water retains an incredible amount of heat energy as well.
But very few articles talk about it.
In general, warming the earth is a runaway effect. More co2 means warmer air and oceans. This means more water retained in air and less in oceans. Which means even more warning. Warmer earth means less ice which reflects sunlight. Less ice means even warmer planet.
Venus is a great example of earth’s distant future if we don’t get the runaway warming under control.
Crude oil is the greatest blessing for human growth, but May also be a curse in disguise.
You are as far as I understand correct. The increase in water vapor amplifies the effect of CO2 and methane. And the amount of cloud cover vs the amount of water vapor makes modeling what happens very tricky and beyond what a lay person is capable of.
Afaik it depends on the clouds altitude. Low clouds reflect more that they contain to the space, while high clouds reflect more back to earth.
I wonder what to do with this sort of information.
Perhaps our governments could add a carbon tariff or something, if it is relatively easy to measure how much carbon is being emitted and where.
Perhaps our governments could add a carbon tariff or something, if it is relatively easy to measure how much carbon is being emitted and where.
I believe the US government has been fining methane super emitters for some time [1]. The problem is China is the bigggest emitter - nearly double the next highest country, which is India, followed closely by the US. That said, the US emits far more than any other country per capita.
[1] https://www.texastribune.org/2023/07/19/callon-permian-basin...
[1] https://www.texastribune.org/2023/07/19/callon-permian-basin...
It is a big problem. We need a more integrated system than just having the US fine domestic companies that emit too much, I think. The obvious way to workaround that sort of fine is just to outsource manufacturing and emissions to China.
A first-pass attempt could be for countries that want to do something about the problem to start up some sort of carbon credit market, with heavy tariffs for goods imported from outside the market.
A first-pass attempt could be for countries that want to do something about the problem to start up some sort of carbon credit market, with heavy tariffs for goods imported from outside the market.
That's exactly what the EU is doing - right now putting in place the "CBAM" (carbon border adjustment mechanism)
A lot of the methane consumption can’t be moved overseas
This is the one good thing I was looking forward to from the Trump administration
Is 'per capita' a useful metric other than to give the largest emitters some sort of retort?
One person living alone on a private island who cooks food on a fire several times a day might have a really high 'per capita' score, but in the grand scheme of things it's utterly irrelevant.
One person living alone on a private island who cooks food on a fire several times a day might have a really high 'per capita' score, but in the grand scheme of things it's utterly irrelevant.
So the solution to climate change is to break up China into smaller countries that have emissions that are utterly irrelevant!
The mathematical analysis solution!
Even that would be tricky, they’ve got a couple cities that are bigger than the median EU country.
Better than the perverse incentive to encourage population growth and hold quality of living down.
China doesn't have to do anything because they've convinced the world that per-capita matters. It doesn't matter.
I'm also willing to bet China's population is smaller than they say. And I'd also bet their emissions are higher than they say. Nothing that comes out of China's mouth can be trusted.
I'm also willing to bet China's population is smaller than they say. And I'd also bet their emissions are higher than they say. Nothing that comes out of China's mouth can be trusted.
In your opinion what should pollution be measured as a function of? If you choose not to measure it per capita, then every country, no matter how large or small will be measured equally, setting up perverse incentives for smaller countries to have pollution heavy environments.
[deleted]
> what should pollution be measured as a function of?
Consumption? China is a huge emitter, but a large percentage of that comes from making products destined for America and Europe. IMO the emissions for those products should be assigned to the country that is purchasing them.
Consumption? China is a huge emitter, but a large percentage of that comes from making products destined for America and Europe. IMO the emissions for those products should be assigned to the country that is purchasing them.
what about per square km? Or per GDP, since emissions are loosely tied to production, we could gauge efficiency?
If all he does is cooking food on fire, he definitely won’t have a high per capita score, per capita by definition gives you an average. If he does below average than your average western citizen, the score of his country will be less of that.
We obviously have to account for it per capita — you would surely not allow as little CO2 emission for China as you would to, say, Hungary. Like, that would be completely unfair.
We obviously have to account for it per capita — you would surely not allow as little CO2 emission for China as you would to, say, Hungary. Like, that would be completely unfair.
China and India have over a billion people. “Fair” doesn’t matter. Impact matters.
"Fair" is a necessary but not sufficient precondition for cooperation, which itself is a necessary but not sufficient precondition for solving the problem.
It's also much easier to convince someone that "no more X for you" is fair if you have a cheaper and better alternative to X. We're getting there for that.
It's also much easier to convince someone that "no more X for you" is fair if you have a cheaper and better alternative to X. We're getting there for that.
If the world was a democracy, the needs of the many would outweigh the needs of the few .
Countries are very arbitrary lines on a geopolitical map.
Take Europe and India, they have roughly similar landmass , number of people and linguistic diversity so why European states get their own measures and Indian states do not ?
If you don’t measure per capita , you are effectively seeing all humans are not equal, some have more rights and privileges than others , that is dangerously close to how slavery operated
Countries are very arbitrary lines on a geopolitical map.
Take Europe and India, they have roughly similar landmass , number of people and linguistic diversity so why European states get their own measures and Indian states do not ?
If you don’t measure per capita , you are effectively seeing all humans are not equal, some have more rights and privileges than others , that is dangerously close to how slavery operated
So you get to have a larger economic footprint because you are not Chinese or Indian?
Yes because we polute to provide for people. You wouldn't expect the USA to absolutely polute the same amount as Liechtenstein.
But what if the US provides more? We have to consider what each person gets per unit of pollution.
Hypothetically, nation A could generate pollution wastefully, while nation B could do so less wastefully, but provide 10x as much.
Eg.
“ The hydrocarbon emissions from a half-hour of yard work with the two-stroke leaf blower are about the same as a 3,900-mile drive from Texas to Alaska in a Raptor," said Jason Kavanagh, Engineering Editor at Edmunds.com.”
https://www.edmunds.com/about/press/leaf-blowers-emissions-d...
Hypothetically, nation A could generate pollution wastefully, while nation B could do so less wastefully, but provide 10x as much.
Eg.
“ The hydrocarbon emissions from a half-hour of yard work with the two-stroke leaf blower are about the same as a 3,900-mile drive from Texas to Alaska in a Raptor," said Jason Kavanagh, Engineering Editor at Edmunds.com.”
https://www.edmunds.com/about/press/leaf-blowers-emissions-d...
I was thinking about that. On one hand, per capita tells you the relative use per person, which is useful for who consumes the most (most wasteful lifestyle). We know this will almost always be America.
On the other hand, we could measure per gdp and see who generated the most value from that pollution. This would probably help the US relative to other nations in ranking. It may hint at how efficiently the consumption is.
Of course economic output isn’t everything in life, there’s other ways to determine value and fairness and all that, but it’s be an interesting comparison to per capita.
Eg. The hydrocarbon emissions from a half-hour of yard work with the two-stroke leaf blower are about the same as a 3,900-mile drive from Texas to Alaska in a Raptor," said Jason Kavanagh, Engineering Editor at Edmunds.com.
https://www.edmunds.com/about/press/leaf-blowers-emissions-d...
On the other hand, we could measure per gdp and see who generated the most value from that pollution. This would probably help the US relative to other nations in ranking. It may hint at how efficiently the consumption is.
Of course economic output isn’t everything in life, there’s other ways to determine value and fairness and all that, but it’s be an interesting comparison to per capita.
Eg. The hydrocarbon emissions from a half-hour of yard work with the two-stroke leaf blower are about the same as a 3,900-mile drive from Texas to Alaska in a Raptor," said Jason Kavanagh, Engineering Editor at Edmunds.com.
https://www.edmunds.com/about/press/leaf-blowers-emissions-d...
The alternative would be to say that Americans are worth more than Chinese (and Europeans and everyone else) and have a God given right to emit twice as much.
I guess it would be the Europeans who are worth the most, right? Since they have smaller countries.
Unless we were to consider the whole of the EU as the unit of carbon-blame.
Unless we were to consider the whole of the EU as the unit of carbon-blame.
Does the United Nations have conventionally-armed cruise missiles ? Shouldn't it ?
Absolutely not unless you think the very worst most dysfunctional working group you’ve experienced at work should be able to make life-and-death decisions.
I know I’ve been in meetings where I’ve wished for the sweet relief of death.
Would the use of force need to be unaimous, super majority, simple majority, or a unilateral decision?
Would the use of force need to be unaimous, super majority, simple majority, or a unilateral decision?
My original comment was tongue-in-cheek, but...
Obv such a decision would be a vetoable Security Council authorization. Certainly this would still be less provocative to the world community than a unilateral attack, such as a US sub attacking a plant in the former USSR, or China attacking a plant on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico.
And I guess it would be a last resort, after making an offer to fly in the tech and know-how to flare the methane instead. "Get me Red Adair on the hotline NOW!"
Obv such a decision would be a vetoable Security Council authorization. Certainly this would still be less provocative to the world community than a unilateral attack, such as a US sub attacking a plant in the former USSR, or China attacking a plant on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico.
And I guess it would be a last resort, after making an offer to fly in the tech and know-how to flare the methane instead. "Get me Red Adair on the hotline NOW!"
Though they aren't the only ones mentioned in the article, I love the work GHGSat is doing! If anyone from there reads here, would love to connect. https://www.linkedin.com/in/thomaseroderick/
The article doesn’t seem to mention it, what are the super meters? What country are they located in and what are they doing?
In this context "super-emitters" means strong outliers, locations or events where unusual amounts of something (i.e. methane) are being released.
This often correlates to either accidents that have not been detected/fixed, to deliberate pollution for financial again, or to something nobody realized was significant before.
This often correlates to either accidents that have not been detected/fixed, to deliberate pollution for financial again, or to something nobody realized was significant before.
> "to deliberate pollution for financial again"
What do these words mean? Why would anyone do it and how can they gain something? I am suspecting greenwashing, but please clarify if possible.
What do these words mean? Why would anyone do it and how can they gain something? I am suspecting greenwashing, but please clarify if possible.
“Do deliberate”, I think. Like the mafia setting up a hazardous waste disposal company, and then simply dumping the waste into a ditch. Makes them a lot more money.
> “Do deliberate”
In this case it's "correlates to", rather than "correlates do".
"Thing {X} often correlates to {y}, to {z}, or to {w}."
In this case it's "correlates to", rather than "correlates do".
"Thing {X} often correlates to {y}, to {z}, or to {w}."
I mean "deliberate pollution" not so much in the "evil villain who directly wants to ruin the environment" sense, and more like "I'd rather have $X in profit than spend anything to handle this properly, whatever happens next is somebody else's problem."
Mostly oil fields which are not or improperly flaring or gaz infrastructure which are leaking. Can also be landfills where decomposition create methane but still mostly the oil industry. For “normal” emitters, you can add to that cattle farms.
Seeing them is one thing. The real question is: What is anyone going to do about it?
Do you really think some large consistent emitter is going to stop just because they show up on a satellite image?
Do you really think some large consistent emitter is going to stop just because they show up on a satellite image?
to let methane just go into the air from industrial processes is actually kind of wild.
natural gas is basically methane, you can use that to fuel your energy needs. seems like a waste.
natural gas is basically methane, you can use that to fuel your energy needs. seems like a waste.
For a long pipeline in a remote area the cost of keeping leaks minimal is not economic
My hypothesis is that unknown emissions like these is why climate change seems to be happening faster than the models suggest.
I was going for some shaming!