At first glance, the image on the side doesn’t look very impressive: just a few coloured pixels against a dark blue background—a not-very-successful piece of abstract art, perhaps?
In fact, it is something quite profound: a greenhouse gas emission – specifically methane emissions produced by an offshore energy platform, seen from space. The technology behind this image is impressive: a fleet of small satellites travelling at over four miles (seven kilometers) per second, equipped with revolutionary high-resolution sensors, and years of painstaking effort learning how to detect a handful of greenhouse gas molecules scattered in the sunlight.
But that’s not why this is important. This image is notable because of what this type of data can tell the United Kingdom about our emissions, our approach to remediation, and the choices ahead of us. It matters for us in the UK because we can now capture similar images in our own backyard.
Why Methane Matters
Methane (CH4) is the most potent greenhouse gas, and the second-biggest driver of global warming. Thanks to satellite measurements, we know that most methane emissions come from man-made activity, and we can quantify them–principally oil and gas production, but also mining, agriculture, and waste management.
Methane has moved up the political agenda because cutting methane emissions is our best way of slowing the rate of global warming in the near-term. This is because methane only lingers in the atmosphere for 10 years or so, whereas carbon dioxide (CO2), the best-known climate gas, hangs in the air for a century or longer. Therefore, reducing methane emissions today will have a swift impact. It is essential that we cut carbon dioxide levels. Doing so, however, is proving to be difficult, divisive, and expensive. By comparison, curbing methane emissions almost falls into the “daft not to” category.
Beyond the immediate positive impacts for the environment, cutting methane emissions makes financial sense for carbon-intensive industries. “Fugitive” methane often signals a problem: equipment failures, poor maintenance, sub-optimal processes. These things impact industrial productivity. It literally pays to fix them, which is why it is reckoned that around 40% of leaks can be sorted at no net cost to operators.
Methane is a resource – a fuel – in its own right, with a market value. Losing it to the atmosphere means literally throwing money into the wind.
Elusive Methane Goals
Britain recognised the methane issue early on, as a lead on the Global Methane Pledge, a commitment (by nations) to cut emissions by 30% by 2030, compared to 2020 levels. It was hoped this would be a turning point, but methane emissions continue to climb. Research indicates that the world needs to double its efforts if it is to hit the 2030 target.
In the coming months, GHGSat will explore this challenge, in a new blog series exploring how methane emissions affect the UK, from its climate goals to its economic priorities. We will look at the fast-evolving science of emissions measurement, and review new legislation, exploring what this means for the UK economy. We will investigate the role of the financial sector and ask, “why don’t we love methane more?” We will draw on precise emissions data to challenge some conventions and suggest ways that the UK could, in the future, not just lead the climate debate, but help drive effective climate action.
That is to come. In the meantime, we need to talk about the numbers. Because they may not add up…
Data for Action
From reading the news, one would think there is no shortage of data. Climate reports often run to hundreds of pages. Unfortunately, much of the emissions information the world is basing its calculations–and increasingly laws–upon, is misleading.
Approximately one-third of emissions data used in reports is based on theoretical models. These models extrapolate real information, but are widely believed to underestimate the true level of emissions. A recent study suggested that emission levels in the US may be up to twice as high as estimates currently state. The United Kingdom’s inventory is recognized to be world-leading—a series of tailored inventory models that is internationally scrutinized and verified. But it is still a model.
The other two-thirds of data is self-generated, self-reported numbers provided by operators themselves, e.g. energy producers. Their numbers may be accurate: many industries have proven technologies and protocols to monitor their emissions, and are committed to doing so. But independent measurement and verification would provide clarity, and build confidence.
The accuracy of these numbers matters because they inform the policies that ultimately drive climate action. If the figures suggest emissions are only half as bad as they actually are, not only will our regulations and protocols be misconceived, we will be lulled into complacency, thinking we have more time to fix things than we actually have. Bad data will confound good intentions, and even the most ambitious climate plans.
Historically, there is a good reason why we relied on estimates and self-reporting. There are millions of potential sources of man-made methane–pipes, valves, compressors, storage tanks, mines (active and disused), landfills (known and forgotten), biodigesters, and so on. It is simply impractical to monitor all of them using traditional methods – which in the past, were tools like hand-held “sniffer” guns. Although these approaches have their uses, they are time-consuming, too expensive to use frequently, and often inaccurate.
Hence why the image at the top, tracing a methane plume to its source, is important.
Until 2016, satellites could not identify the exact source of leaks and quantify them. GHGSat’s high-resolution technology changed that. It was also understood that you couldn’t measure emissions over water. We proved you could do that with satellites too.
Every day, we redefine what is possible. And the more we look, the more we see – even in Britain, where methane emissions are not necessarily at the top of the climate agenda.
Finding Answers for the UK
We believe that better measurement and monitoring of emissions—and more accurate data—leads to more effective climate action. How will this impact Britain in the coming decade?
Over the course of this series, we will venture some suggestions and show how satellites flying 300 miles overhead can help us answer some key questions, including:
- How can the UK stay competitive as other countries build and enforce new climate regulations on exports and imports? Carbon border adjustment mechanisms are spreading. As our largest market, the European Union, introduces greenhouse gas taxes on imports, what is the risk – and opportunity – for UK exporters? What will (or should) Britain’s carbon border look like?
- How do we boost our energy security? The UK is stepping away from fossil fuels, years ahead of Europe or the US, but we still import nearly 40% of our energy. What role will emissions measurement play in the development of our new power system? Can we once again become an energy exporter? Can we help cut costs for businesses?
- Can we improve our infrastructure—and thus increase productivity? Billions are pledged to improve our economic efficiency, but that investment will be wasted if our national infrastructure isn’t fit for purpose. AI and data can’t fix a leaking pipe…or can it?
- Can we influence corporate behaviour around greenhouse gas emissions, and drive green economic growth? UK laws have an outside influence on global business. Where do emissions fit in? Can Britain be a test bed for best practice and show that working towards Net Zero can be a boon, not a burden?
- Is the UK still a climate leader? We are proud of the role we have played in fighting climate change but against a backdrop of rising emissions, what does climate leadership mean today? What is the opportunity to use soft power, informed by hard data, to accelerate climate action?
- As arguably the centre of global finance, can the UK’s financial institutions cast off the “greenwashing” debate? The UK is the world’s financial hub. However, the global financial community has seesawed between ESG being all the rage, to claims of “greenwashing” in the last several years. Can data point us to a balance?
Britain needs a plan to reduce methane emissions and meet climate objectives. It also needs to boost productivity, protect its industries and jobs, and bolster energy security. Can these imperatives co-exist? We think so, and through this series we’ll aim to find out.
We hope you will find our series interesting, perhaps even informative, and would welcome your feedback. Are we on the right track or have we missed a trick? Let us know what you think at hello@www.ghgsat.com.
