Source: PBS
Greenhouse Gases (GHG) are a contentious subject in the debate on climate change. Whenever calculations or models are created regarding the atmosphere and effects due to pollutants, different results appear depending on the parameters taken into account in the model itself. Recently, a report discussed in an article from the journal 'Nature' titled "Methane leaks from US gas fields dwarf government estimates" states the issue as follows:
Methane leaks from the US oil and gas industry are 60% greater than official estimates, according to an analysis of previously reported data and new airborne measurements.
Because methane is a potent greenhouse gas, scientists say that the unaccounted-for emissions could have significant impacts on the climate and the country’s economy. The lost gas alone is worth an estimated US$2 billion a year, scientists say.
The analysis1, published on 21 June in Science, is one of the most comprehensive looks yet at methane output from US oil and gas production, and reinforces previous studies that suggested emissions outpaced government estimates. That research prompted the US government to develop regulations that would restrict methane emissions from oil and gas production — rules that US President Donald Trump is now attempting to roll back.
The latest study shows that the US oil and gas supply chain emits about 13 million metric tons of methane, the main component of natural gas, every year. That's much higher than the US Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) estimate of about 8 million metric tons.
This discrepancy probably stems from the fact that the EPA’s emissions surveys miss potential sources of methane leaks, such as faulty equipment at oil and gas facilities, says study leader Ramón Alvarez, an atmospheric chemist at the Environmental Defense Fund, a non-profit group in Austin, Texas.
The author of the article goes onto state the obvious dangers of methane as a greenhouse gas compared to other offenders such as CO2 - carbon dioxide. Methane has roughly 80 times more warming power on the planet compared to carbon dioxide. How did two different studies conclude such a large difference in methane emissions? According to the article above, the scientist took into account information from oil and gas industry (local municipal data) which was absent in the EPA report. This naturally leads a person to wonder why the information was left out. The answer is uncovered below.
How was 60% of a methane estimate left out of a report?
The news journal 'Politico' sent out the following e-mail with news of the report's major difference as shown below:
DEMOCRATS: BRING BACK THE ICR: Democrats are rallying around a return of an EPA information collection request in the aftermath of reports last week that oil and gas methane emissions are much greater than previously thought. A group of Democrats sent a letter to Pruitt on Wednesday calling on him to reinstate a formal ICR — which would require companies to report detailed technical information about methane emissions from their operations — after he withdrew the Final Methane ICR in March 2017. "With new science showing that emissions are likely considerably higher than previously thought, there is no excuse for delaying or rescinding methane emission controls, or for failing to collect data from methane emitters," the Democrats wrote.
As a result of the disparity in results from the Environmental Protection Agency's study, democratic congressional leaders sent EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt the follow letter of inquiry into the matter shown below:
Dear Administrator Pruitt:
On March 2, 2017, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA announced that it was withdrawing Information Collection Request (ICR) 2548.01, which would have required oil and gas companies to provide information on methane emissions from their operations. On March 8, 2017, two of us sent a letter asking that you reinstate the ICR given the urgent need to collect accurate data on methane emissions in order to set and enforce appropriate and cost-effective standards to reduce such emissions. In the extremely short response we received from the Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation on May 23, 2017, we were informed that the rationale for withdrawing the ICR was to, "allow the Administrator time to assess the need for the requested information."
Since the date of our original letter, a number of events have occurred that highlight the urgent need to reissue the ICR and collect accurate methane emission data. First, the U.S. Senate rejected the Congressional Review Act effort to repeal the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) methane waste rule, the only such effort to fail in a vote, which demonstrated strong bipartisan support for reducing methane emissions. Second, both BLM and the EPA have moved to undo, weaken, or avoid promulgating methane regulations, policies that should be informed with the best available science, not vague notions of industry "burdens" and incomplete knowledge of the public benefit of cutting emissions. Third, the most recent release of EPA's Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks showed that methane emissions from oil and gas production operations increased 34% from 1990 to 2016, and the growth of methane emissions from natural gas production operations outpaced the growth of natural gas productions, 58% to 52%.
Even more concerning, a new report in the journal Science from 24 authors representing 12 universities, two government labs, and more, reported that methane emissions from the U.S. oil and gas supply chain were roughly 60 percent higher than EPA inventory estimates, and that emissions from production operations were more than double the EPA estimates. According to a story in The New York Times about the study, the 13 million metric tons of methane lost by the oil and gas industry each year is worth approximately $2 billion and would be enough to fuel roughly 10 million homes.
Methane emissions exacerbate the worst impacts of climate change, result in significant air pollution through the concurrent release of ozone-forming volatile organic compounds, waste a valuable resource, and, when occurring on public lands, deprive American taxpayers and states of a valuable source of royalty payments. With new science showing that emissions are likely considerably higher than previously thought, there is no excuse for delaying or rescinding methane emission controls, or for failing to collect data from methane emitters. We believe that EPA needs to reissue the ICR as soon as possible, or provide a comprehensive explanation why it will not. Therefore, we ask that by July 31, 2018, you provide us with the results of your assessment of the need to require methane emission data, as mentioned in the May 23, 2017, response, including a full explanation of how those results were arrived at. If that assessment is not done, please confirm when you expect to complete it.//Thank you for your prompt attention to this letter.
Had EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt requested the information on potential leaks and measurements around the facilities of the oil and gas industry, there would be no issue at hand -- presumably. Now, in the 'reactive state' or 'reactive mindset' Americans find themselves in, again, scientific data shows large differences in greenhouse gases which negatively impact our environment. The news regarding the large difference is extremely disappointing to say the least.
Conclusion...
I have stated the obvious point of disappointment from day 1 of the Trump administration. Why does President Trump believe that there is no reason to have a 'Science Adviser' in the White House? According to answers he gave in a campaign questionnaire on science issues, he suggested that science would be able to weigh in on each matter of relevance toward making policy. Here is a campaign questionnaire given to President Trump on science issues in 2015.
Furthermore, instead of 'draining the swamp,' President Trump has appeared to over fill the swamp further with even more corrupt minded politicians and administrators. See recent post with video here. The time has come to admit that the current administration does not have our best interest (the public's best interest) or safety in mind when making policy. Sadly enough, suppressing science (which I will touch on in an upcoming post) along with leaving science out of policy making seems to be high on the priority list of policy making. Which runs counter intuitive to consumer/public safety.
The EPA is a watchdog, not a barrier to protect corrupt business practices to fill the pockets of wealthy business stakeholders. We deserve to have en EPA which looks out for public safety by regulating the oil and gas industry to limit the pollutants which arrive in our neighborhoods and in the skies above us.
Related Blog Posts:
French President Macron Organizes Climate Conference With Pledges Of Trillions Of Dollars For Climate Risk Management From World Organizations
Conservatives are calling on President Trump to fire EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt over Renewable Fuel Standards
Parameters: Oil vs. Corn based Ethanol - A Tug-Of-War between Trump Administration and Congressional Leaders
Parameters: Shells Oil Corporation Invests In Renewable Energy Infrastructure
Thoughts: Trump Administration Realizes Renewable Energy Is Here To Stay?
Do You Need Clean Air To Breathe? An Introduction To Environmental Justice
Environmental Entrepreneurs Weigh In On Repealing The Clean Power Plan
EPA Blatantly Suppresses Scientific Results Regarding Climate Change?
EPA Director Finally Realizes Reality Of Trying To Roll-Back Obama Era Clean Air Act Regulation
How Can The Paris Climate Agreement Be "More Favorable To The U.S."???
Paris Climate Agreement Is A Start Toward The Renewable Energy Future
Iraq Has Enough Oil To Support The World For 4 Years -- What?
Is 94 Million Barrels Of Oil A Large Amount? That Is The Global Daily Demand!
What Promises Did President Trump Make Science Research During His Campaign?
READ THIS BEFORE VOTING -- Presidential Science (WORLD) Issues!
No comments:
Post a Comment