The droughts in the west and the rains in the east this week are compelling reminders that the impacts of climate change are here and now. Just this week the Pentagon issued a report laying out how they will adapt to growing threats to our nation’s defenses in the face of climate change. We need to act now to reduce the pollution from coal, oil, and natural gas that is making climate change worse and move aggressively to clean, renewable energy sources.
People and organizations throughout the nation – and across the globe – (including EDF) are working to bring about the transformation that can build a strong clean energy economy at the pace needed to match the urgency of the climate change we are now experiencing.
Even as this work continues, a growing number of voices are calling for action to cut potent methane emissions from our oil and gas industry – one of the biggest sources of climate pollution in the country. We cannot afford to ignore real opportunities to cut pollution right now from any source, including the fossil fuel energy sources that make up the bulk of our energy use today. Read More
By: Tom Murray, Vice President, Corporate Partnerships Program
Last week, financial community leaders took a big step into the intersection of business and policy on the urgent need to curb methane emissions from the oil and gas sector. A group of investors managing more than $300 billion in market assets sent a letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Administration and the White House, calling for the federal government to regulate methane emissions from the oil and gas sector. The letter urged covering new and existing oil and gas sites, including upstream and midstream sources, citing that strong methane policy can reduce business risk and create long-term value for investors and the economy.
Spearheaded by Trillium Asset Management, the cosigners of the letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy included New York City Comptroller Scott M. Stringer, who oversees the $160 billion New York City Pension Funds, and a diverse set of firms and institutional investors. They spelled out in no uncertain terms that they regard methane as a serious climate and business problem – exposing the public and businesses alike to the growing costs of climate change associated with floods, storms, droughts, and other severe weather. Read More
Also posted in Colorado, Methane
Source: Dan Lurie
At first glance, the Environmental Protection Agency’s Sept. 30 press release looked like a winner: Methane emissions from the oil and gas sector dropped by 12 percent in 2013, with a whopping 73-percent decline from hydraulically fractured natural gas wells making up the largest share of reductions.
The drop in methane emissions shows how effective regulation is in reducing air pollution from oil and gas production. It was led by an early phase of EPA’s air pollution rules, enacted in October 2012, with full implementation expected by January 2015. (Although this regulation targets emissions of volatile organic compounds, it has also reduced methane as a co-benefit.)
Except, the 73- percent decline is not the whole story. It only accounts for 2.3 percent of the total methane emissions reported to EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, leaving a large amount of tons on the table addressed.
In 1933, Milton Heath senior opened a small, family-run consulting firm to find leaks from natural gas pipelines by conducting vegetation surveys in New England Fields. More than 80 years later, the family business has grown substantially, and now the Texas-based company provides more than 1,200 manufacturing and service jobs across the country. Their business model may have changed—but their commitment to finding and reducing leaks of methane—a potent greenhouse gas—has not wavered.
Stories like Heath’s are the focus of a new report released this week by Datu Research. The Emerging U.S. Methane Mitigation Industry looks at the growing industry that specializes in manufacturing technologies and providing services that help oil and gas companies reduce their environmental impact and deliver a valuable product to market. The report analyzes more than 70 companies that limit emissions of methane and provide high-paying, highly skilled jobs to thousands across the country. These companies are part of an increasingly strong market growing amidst rising awareness of the need to reduce methane pollution alongside the domestic energy boom. Read More
Source: Tim Evanson Flickr
Today sixteen leaders of the nation’s largest environmental and conservation groups, including EDF’s president Fred Krupp, came together to call for urgent federal action to curb methane emissions from oil and gas development.
This past march, President Obama laid out his Strategy to Reduce Methane Emissions, where he announced that the Environmental Protection Agency will decide by this fall how best to reduce methane pollution from the oil and gas sector. The Strategy builds on the commitment from his 2012 State of the Union Address that the development of oil and gas resources must not put Americans' health and safety at risk.
Here are five reasons why reducing methane is a national priority that requires the Obama administration to follow through on its commitment:
Methane is flared from a natural gas well site.
Bill McKibben is at it again—using his formidable analytical and rhetorical skills to challenge comfortable climate assumptions. In this case, the author and activist puts the heat on politicians, including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, who argue that natural gas can be a “bridge fuel” to a low-carbon energy future.
Since natural gas emits half the carbon of coal when it’s burned, supporting it gives politicians a way to position themselves as both pro-energy and pro-climate. But writing in Mother Jones, Bill questions whether switching from coal- to natural gas-fired electric generation brings any climate benefit at all.
Because natural gas is mostly methane, a potent greenhouse gas, he points out that if enough uncombusted methane is leaking from the natural gas supply chain, natural gas may be even worse for the climate than coal.
We couldn’t agree more. Read More