A reader writes:
I'm sure I won't be the first to write to you on this, but Easterbrook's commentary is truly disingenuous, and he knows better. The primary reason the "enviros" talk so much about CO2 is its lifetime in the atmosphere – on the order of 100 years. Methane, on the other hand, only stays aloft for 1-4 years. This creates an urgent need to control CO2 emissions, even though methane is "20 times more powerful" as a greenhouse gas, since each ton of CO2 emitted now will hang around for a few generations, while if we control methane emissions 20 years from now, the effect will be felt 5 years later than that.
If you want to delve a little deeper, the warming created by CO2 emissions may result in the release of more methane as a feedback effect. This is one of the thrusts of the Hansen article Easterbook quotes. Directly from the Hansen article:
However, if global warming continues, the CH4 source from melting of methane hydrates could increase. Thus there is a coupling between the need to reduce CO2 and the possibility of reducing CH4.
And the context for his claim that Hansen supports methane control in the short term. Again from the Hansen paper:
However, stabilization of climate becomes a realistic objective if coal emissions are phased out and unconventional fossil fuels (such as tar sands and oil shale) are not developed as substitutes for oil and gas as the oil and gas resources decline. With these assumptions, the non-CO2 forcings become an important factor in stabilizing climate.
So, in Hansen's view, the scenario under which Easterbrook says there is "no economic harm" involves phasing out coal. To be sure, the reduction of methane production will reduce warming (and water vapor and other greenhouse gases are feedbacks from methane). But the reasons environmentalists are focusing their energy on CO2 is scientific and practical, not because they "Hate America (TM)"
Another writes:
Easterbrook's argument that "there would be no economic harm" in regulating methane emissions isn't right; there is certainly a cost related to reducing methane emissions. Fixing leaky pipes is hugely expensive – that's why we lose so much of a water supply to leaks. Furthermore, most of the leaks aren't occurring in developed countries, which generally have much better pipelines standards than the rest of the world. Reducing emissions from other sources would be equally difficult. How does he plan to change rice production?
Easterbrook's obvious policy misstatements aside, the real problem with his article is his contention that methane is ignored because "enviros" want to blame America first. Any halfway competent scientist modeling ways to prevent climate change looks at emissions from all greenhouse gases, which are reported in carbon dioxide equivalents precisely to account for the fact that different gases have different atmospheric lifetimes and radiative forcing capacities. Carbon dioxide is a policy focus because, after accounting for the different global warming potentials of greenhouse gases, it comprises more than 70% of our annual impact on the climate, versus 18% for methane, with a plurality of (anthropogenic) methane emissions coming from agriculture.
So it's not about blaming America first; it's about addressing the largest aspects of the problem. Furthermore, burning methane doesn't release methane into the air as he suggests; it releases carbon dioxide, and the US consumes 30% more natural gas than the EU. Those two facts alone throw his concluding paragraph under the bus. Easterbrook would have better luck tossing labels around and questioning people's motivations if he understood the basic facts of their argument. I have graduate economics and environmental degrees, and these sorts of gross misstatements and accusations drive me nuts.
Another:
I'm trying to keep myself in check, but as a trained chemist, I'm always flabbergasted when folks like Mr. Easterbrook draw sweeping conclusions from a single figure, such as "Methane…is 20 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide." (Maybe he didn't write the headline, but it really overstates the case he makes). A large portion of methane emissions comes from sources which are either directly tied to carbon dioxide emissions anyways (coal mining and petroleum systems, 14.8% of 2009 US methane emissions*) or agricultural processes which are difficult to make more efficient (enteric fermentation – cow farts, and the cited rice cultivation, 21.4%). Right off the bat, that's 36% of US methane emissions that are off the table by Easterbrook's measure of economic harm.
It's also important to note that the James Hansen lecture Easterbrook mentions hypothesizes a complete phase-out of coal mining, and thus burning, in addition to other reductions to produce significant emissions reductions. It also ends with the statement "Non-CO2 forcings should be dealt with separately from CO2 – they should not provide an escape hatch to avoid CO2 emission reductions."**
The reason methane doesn't get a lot of press is twofold. One, it's less of a problem, on absolute terms: methane represents somewhere around 15% of global 2009 radiative forcing (relative warming potential) above pre-industrial revolution levels to CO2's 70%.*** Two, as Easterbrook notes, the feasible industrial reductions are easier to implement and don't require much coercion from the government. In fact, the US government, in voluntary partnership with industry, has already made significant headway in terms of methane emissions reductions – 2009 emissions levels were only 1.7% higher than 1990 levels,* which represents a per capita decrease of 17%. Over the same period, CO2 emissions have kept pace almost exactly with the population.****
The truth is, climate change is a problem that requires a measured, all-fronts approach to handle. I applaud Easterbrook for bringing a discussion of methane emissions to light and certainly there's more work to be done making natural gas extraction cleaner. But simply stating that CO2 regulation MUST harm the economy while methane regulation would have no effect is ludicrous.
He rightly states that "methane leaks from natural gas drilling…don't serve any economic purpose." By the same token, a semi truck that releases 2 lb/mile CO2 has no economic advantage over one that releases 1.5. Each of these innovations require R&D that is spurred by making inefficient emissions more expensive, and even if such an emissions tax were focused solely on methane, it would have some small initial drag on the economy. A fairly and smartly crafted tax – perhaps penalizing methane emissions at a rate commensurate with its warming potential - would eventually reduce the cost of doing business, greenhouse gas emissions, AND reliance on foreign energy sources. And maybe, as Easterbrook himself wrote in 2006*****, regulating all greenhouse gas emissions will be less expensive than we can even imagine, just as taming acute air pollution was.
*http://epa.gov/methane/sources.html
**http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2009/Copenhagen_20090311.pdf
***http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/ (Figure 4)
****http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators?cid=GPD_WDI (page 156)
*****http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/09/some-convenient-truths/5090
The Dish 