US methane emissions far exceed government estimates, study reports

Nov 25, 2013
A Cessna plane, making continuous observations of carbon dioxide, flies over an Atmospheric Radiation Measurement tower used by the Department of Energy near the town of Lamont, Oklahoma. Pat Dowell, a research technician at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, is collecting flask samples from the tower. Credit: Roy Kaltschmidt, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Emissions of methane from fossil fuel extraction and refining activities in the United States are nearly five times higher than previous estimates, according to researchers at Harvard University and seven other institutions. Their study, published this week in PNAS, also suggests that the contribution from livestock operations may be twice as high as previously thought.

Methane, a , is produced through production and distribution, cattle farming, landfills, coal mining, manure management, and many other anthropogenic and natural sources, though human activities are thought to contribute approximately 60 percent of the total.

Overall, according to the new study, total in the United States appear to be 1.5 times and 1.7 times higher than the amounts previously estimated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the international Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR), respectively.

The difference lies in the methodology. The EPA and EDGAR use a bottom-up approach, calculating total emissions based on "emissions factors"—the amount of methane typically released per cow or per unit of coal or natural gas sold, for example. The new study takes a top-down approach, measuring what is actually present in the atmosphere and then using meteorological data and statistical analysis to trace it back to regional sources.

Generated by a large, multi-institutional team of researchers, the latest findings offer a robust and comprehensive baseline for assessing policies designed to reduce greenhouse gases. They also point to a few areas where the assumptions built into recent emissions factors and estimated totals may be flawed.

"The bottom-up and top-down approaches give us very different answers about the level of emissions," notes lead author Scot M. Miller, a doctoral student in Earth and Planetary Sciences through the Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. "Most strikingly, our results are higher by a factor of 2.7 over the south-central United States, which we know is a key region for fossil-fuel extraction and refining. It will be important to resolve that discrepancy in order to fully understand the impact of these industries on methane emissions."

This is a tower in Walnut Grove, California, where Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory conduct atmospheric measurements. Credit: DOE and NOAA.

Miller is a 2007 graduate of Harvard College and earned a master's degree in engineering sciences at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) in 2013. He studies in the lab of Steven C. Wofsy, Abbott Lawrence Rotch Professor of Atmospheric and Environmental Science at SEAS.

"When we measure methane gas at the atmospheric level, we're seeing the cumulative effect of emissions that are happening at the surface across a very large region," says Wofsy, a coauthor of the PNAS study. "That includes the sources that were part of the bottom-up inventories, but maybe also things they didn't think to measure."

Miller and Wofsy, along with colleagues at the Carnegie Institution for Science, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and five other institutions, used a combination of observation and modeling to conduct their analysis.

NOAA and the U.S. Department of Energy collect observations of methane and other gases from the tops of telecommunications towers, typically about as tall as the Empire State Building, and during research flights. The team combined this data with meteorological models of the temperatures, winds, and movement of air masses from the same time period, and then used a statistical method known as geostatistical inverse modeling to essentially run the model backward and determine the methane's origin.

The team also compared these results with regional economic and demographic data, as well as other information that provided clues to the sources—for example, data on human populations, livestock populations, electricity production from power plants, oil and natural gas production, production from oil refineries, rice production, and coal production. In addition, they drew correlations between methane levels and other gases that were observed at the time. For example, a high correlation between levels of methane and propane in the south-central region suggests a significant role for fossil fuels there.

"This paper provides the most solid and the most detailed estimate to date of total U.S. methane emissions," says coauthor Anna M. Michalak, a faculty member in the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution for Science. Michalak is also an associate professor of environmental Earth system science at Stanford University. "This was really, from beginning to end, just a very clean analysis."

Along with carbon dioxide, methane is one of the most important greenhouse gases in terms of its potential to raise global temperatures. It also encourages the formation of surface ozone in cities and affects other aspects of atmospheric chemistry.

Seeking to establish a baseline against which to measure future change in emissions, the researchers compared observational data collected in 2007–2008 against EDGAR and EPA data for the same year (using the revised EPA data for 2007–2008 that was published in April 2013). Future studies will apply the same analysis to present-day data.

"The beauty of the approach we're using is that, because we're taking measurements in the atmosphere, which carry with them a signature of everything that happened upwind, we get a very strong number on what that total should be," says Michalak. "Now that we know the total does not equal the sum of the parts, that means that either some of those parts are not what we thought they were, or there are some parts that are simply missing from the inventories. It really offers an opportunity for governments to reexamine the inventories in light of what we now know."

Explore further: Hopes, fears, doubts surround Cuba's oil future

More information: Anthropogenic emissions of methane in the United States, www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1314392110

Related Stories

Wetlands the primary source of Amazon Basin methane

Aug 31, 2012

The Amazon basin is an important sink of carbon dioxide, but it is also a substantial source of atmospheric methane. Tropical wetlands, including those in the Amazon, are one of the largest sources of biogenic methane and ...

Recommended for you

Rising anger as Nicaragua canal to break ground

1 hour ago

As a conscripted soldier during the Contra War of the 1980s, Esteban Ruiz used to flee from battles because he didn't want to have to kill anyone. But now, as the 47-year-old farmer prepares to fight for ...

Hopes, fears, doubts surround Cuba's oil future

Dec 20, 2014

One of the most prolific oil and gas basins on the planet sits just off Cuba's northwest coast, and the thaw in relations with the United States is giving rise to hopes that Cuba can now get in on the action.

New challenges for ocean acidification research

Dec 19, 2014

Over the past decade, ocean acidification has received growing recognition not only in the scientific area. Decision-makers, stakeholders, and the general public are becoming increasingly aware of "the other carbon dioxide ...

User comments : 2

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

MR166
1 / 5 (18) Nov 25, 2013
Yup just more propaganda from the Ministry of Truth! All of you meat eating, fuel burning selfish deniers had better hang your collective heads in shame.
DavidW
1 / 5 (17) Nov 25, 2013
There are many things we can do that are shameful. Telling others, or implying to others, that something is more Important than Life, is about as sick as it gets. Attempting to deny others with sanity, of their sanity, by questioning their position starting from "Life is Most Important in Life" is a perverted assault on everything and every living being on this planet. When the Most Important Truth is publicly written your job is to say you agree, first, or your words and understanding of reality have no foundation. Those that do start at the foundation of mutual eternal Truth do have a foundation. It is highly unethical to attempt to sway others with whole and healthy understanding based in, and on, the mutual Truth that Life is Most Important in Life that their understanding is nonsense. It's a strange thing to see the lips of a person tremble after talking with me because they realize they have lied many times to the people that have listened to them. They must start over.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.