To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
In this world, where everything and everyone is for sale, we must sustain independent media we can trust. If you believe independent journalism is critical to protecting democracy and the common good, please support Common Dreams this Giving Tuesday! We wouldn't exist without you.
The CEO of methane-tracking company GHGSat said that company satellites had detected around 20,000 oil and gas operations, coal mines, and landfills that spewed massive amounts methane since the end of 2023.
The number of methane "super-emitters" detected by a satellite company has surged by approximately one-third over the past year, despite pledges from fossil fuel companies to reduce their emissions of the highly potent greenhouse gas.
Stephane Germain, the CEO of methane-tracking company GHGSat, toldThe Associated Press on Thursday that company satellites had detected around 20,000 oil and gas operations, coal mines, and landfills that spewed 220 pounds of methane per hour since the end of 2023—up from around 15,000 the year before.
"The past year, we've detected more emissions than ever before," Germain said, adding that existing data on methane emissions is only "scratching the surface" of the reality.
"The only safe and effective way to 'clean up' fossil fuel pollution is to phase out fossil fuels."
GHGSat's data covers the period since 50 fossil fuel companies pledged to end flaring and reduce methane emissions from their operations to "near zero" by 2030 at the United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP28, in Dubai.
At the time, more than 320 civil society organizations criticized the pledge and other voluntary commitments as a "dangerous distraction."
"The only safe and effective way to 'clean up' fossil fuel pollution is to phase out fossil fuels," the groups wrote in an open letter. "Methane emissions and gas flaring are symptoms of a more than century-long legacy of wasteful, destructive practices that are routine in the oil and gas industry as it pursues massive profits without regard for the consequences."
"That the industry, at this crucial moment in the climate emergency, is offering to clean up its mess around the edges in lieu of the rapid oil and gas phaseout that is needed is an insult to the billions impacted both by climate change and the industry's appalling legacy of pollution and community health impacts," they continued.
Yet now it seems as if the industry isn't even attempting to clean up its mess around the edges.
Germain, who is sharing his company's data ahead of the next round of climate talks at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, said that nearly half of the methane super-emitters GHGSat detected were oil-and-gas related. Another third were landfills or waste facilities, and 16% from mining. Geographically, most of the super-emitting sites are in North America and Eurasia.
The data comes amid growing concerns about the extent of methane emissions and how they threaten efforts to rapidly reduce greenhouse gas pollution this decade and limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C. Methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide—with about 80 times its heat-trapping potential over its first 20 years in the atmosphere—but it also dissipates much more quickly. This means that curbing methane emissions could be an effective near-term part of halting temperature rise.
However, a series of studies published this year show these emissions moving in the wrong direction. A Nature analysis concluded in March that U.S. oil and gas operations were emitting around three times the methane that the U.S. government thought. A Frontiers of Science paper in July found that the growth rate of atmospheric methane concentrations had seen an "abrupt and rapid increase" in the early 2020s, due largely to the fossil fuel industry as well as releases from tropical wetlands.
The danger of methane emissions is one reason that the climate movement has mobilized to stop the buildout of liquefied natural gas (LNG) infrastructure, as methane routinely leaks in the process of drilling for and transporting the fuel. A September study found that, despite industry claims it could act as a bridge fuel, LNG actually has a 33%. greater greenhouse gas footprint than coal when its entire lifecycle is taken into account.
The fate of the LNG buildout, at least in the U.S., could be decided by the outcome of the 2024 presidential election. The Biden-Harris administration paused the approval of new LNG exports while the Department of Energy considers the latest climate science. While a Trump-appointed judge then halted the pause, this does not actually stop the DOE from continuing its analysis. A second Trump administration, however, would be almost guaranteed not look further into the risk of methane emissions before it approves more LNG exports. Former President Donald Trump has promised to "drill, baby, drill" and offered a policy wishlist to fossil fuel executives who back his campaign.
A document leaked in October showed that a major oil and gas trade association had drafted plans for a second Trump administration, including ending Biden administration regulations to curb methane emissions, such as an emissions fee.
As Mattea Mrkusic, a senior energy transition policy lead at Evergreen Action, warned, "Under Trump, we could double down on even more dirty fossil fuel infrastructure that'll lock us into harmful pollution for decades to come."
"We deserve a future that protects our families and our planet, not one that fuels further destruction," one frontline advocate said.
A coalition of more than 250 climate, environmental, and frontline community organizations on Monday urged U.S. President Joe Biden and Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm to reject all requests for approval to export liquefied natural gas to non-fair trade agreement countries.
The demand came in the form of a letter following a recent ruling by Trump-appointed District Judge James D. Cain Jr. to lift a pause that Biden's Department of Energy had placed on new LNG export approvals while it updates the criteria it uses to determine whether these exports are in the public interest. It also comes a week after the DOE signed off on the export of LNG from an offshore New Fortress Energy plant near Altamira, Mexico.
"After the hottest summer on record, on track to be the hottest year, it's clear that expanding climate-heating gas exports is not in the public interest," Lauren Parker, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute, said in a statement. "There's no reason on Earth to approve more LNG exports that lock in decades of damage to the climate, human communities, and imperiled species like Rice's whales. The Department of Energy must reject every single one."
"With climate-induced disasters becoming a regular part of our lives, it's hard to understand how anyone can prioritize fossil gas exports over our health and safety."
The Center for Biological Diversity is one of the many signatories of Monday's letter, backed by dozens of large national groups as well as scores of smaller, more local organizations. Other groups include Earthworks, Food and Water Watch, Oil Change International, the Sunrise Movement, Public Citizen, several branches of 350.org and Extinction Rebellion, Port Arthur Community Action Network, and the Vessel Project of Louisiana.
In the letter, the groups applauded the administration for instituting the pause on approvals in the first place and for acknowledging that the data it used to determine whether exports were in the public interest was "outdated and insufficient."
Since the court ruling leaves the department without a deadline for updating its data, the groups urged the DOE "to continue seeking the best available information on the impact of LNG exports on the public, the environment, and economy."
"When the department completes its analyses, the weight of evidence will make it clear that new LNG exports are not in the public interest and that all pending applications to export LNG must be rejected," the groups wrote.
With the world "on the verge" of exceeding the 1.5°C limit enshrined in the 2015 Paris agreement, the coalition warned against new infrastructure and export policies that will only exacerbate the global emissions crisis at a critical moment in history.
"The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned that global greenhouse gas emissions must peak in the next year, and then steeply decline, for our planet to have the best chance of avoiding this fate," the letter reads. "The only way world leaders can avoid this moral and political failure is to work together to end fossil fuel production."
This goal has been hampered by the record rise in U.S. gas production facilitated by the fracking boom. Whereas global gas production had been predicted to be on the wane, it is now expanding instead. At the same time, new research has shown that, due to methane leaks, gas is not a "bridge fuel" to cleaner energy but in fact just as detrimental to the climate as coal.
Another major concern raised by LNG opponents is the local pollution generated by export facilities. Many of these new facilities are located in, under construction in, or slated for the Gulf South, which is already overburdened by toxic emissions from oil, gas, and petrochemical production.
"As a mom living in a community surrounded by industry, I feel the weight of every decision made about our environment," Vessel Project founder and director Roishetta Ozane said in a statement. "With climate-induced disasters becoming a regular part of our lives, it's hard to understand how anyone can prioritize fossil gas exports over our health and safety. The Department of Energy has the power to reject these LNG export permits, and it's crucial they do so. We deserve a future that protects our families and our planet, not one that fuels further destruction."
The letter suggests the broad environmental movement, both at the local level and nationally, is united behind the demand to halt the LNG buildout as the groups applauded Biden's efforts to curb exports thus far but also asked him to go further.
"We initially urged you to pause approvals of LNG exports," they wrote to Biden and Granholm, "we fiercely celebrated and defended your decision to do so in January, and now we write to let you know we continue to stand behind you as we insist that you take the next step of stopping new LNG exports."
"As the disastrous impacts of increased fossil fuel development become more and more obvious here and around the globe," said one campaigner, "the notion of expanded LNG exports should be dismissed out of hand."
Despite the strong links between liquefied natural gas and harms to public health and the planet, the U.S. Department of Energy has approved the export of the methane-heavy gas by the fossil fuel company New Fortress Energy—leading one group to warn Tuesday that such approvals will ultimately negate any renewable energy progress the U.S. makes.
New Fortress Energy said the Biden administration had authorized it to export LNG, which is fracked gas that is liquefied in order be transported, from its offshore plant near Altamira, Mexico to non-free trade agreement companies, allowing it to send nearly 1.4 million tonnes per year for five years.
The announcement comes seven months after the Biden administration announced it was pausing LNG exports to non-FTA countries, following a push from frontline communities. The move put at least 14 pending projects on hold. The U.S. had previously been the world's largest exporter of LNG.
In July, a federal judge appointed by former Republican President Donald Trump—now the GOP's presidential nominee—blocked President Joe Biden's pause on the approvals of exports.
Allie Rosenbluth, U.S. program manager at Oil Change International (OCI), said the New Fortress Energy approval breaks the administration's "own commitment to pause LNG export authorizations—a commitment made out of recognition that its current guidance doesn't adequately consider the risks LNG exports pose to the climate, environment, and public health, and safety."
"The bottom line is that methane gas production and consumption must decline immediately to meet climate goals."
"The Department of Energy's decision to approve the New Fortress LNG Terminal is deeply concerning," said Rosenbluth. "The bottom line is that methane gas production and consumption must decline immediately to meet climate goals. No matter how much the United States invests in renewable energy, any additional export infrastructure will undermine domestic and international efforts to prevent climate catastrophe."
LNG is made predominantly of methane, which has 80 times the planet-heating potential of carbon dioxide over its first two decades in the atmosphere.
Advocates have estimated that the 14 LNG export projects that were temporarily paused by Biden could emit the same amount of greenhouse gases as 532 coal plants, contributing to premature deaths and health issues particularly for communities near LNG export terminals.
OCI denounced the approval of New Fortress' project as "reckless."
The LNG exports "will exacerbate the climate crisis, harm communities, create bigger barriers to a clean energy future, and become stranded assets that burden communities with toxic pollution, costly clean-ups, revenue shortfalls, and job losses," said Rosenbluth.
Mitch Jones, managing director of policy and litigation for Food & Water Watch, said it was "ridiculous" that the Biden administration would authorize the exports despite its ongoing review of how LNG impacts the public interest.
"The department is under no obligation to approve these ill-advised proposals, now or ever," said Jones. "As the disastrous impacts of increased fossil fuel development become more and more obvious here and around the globe, the notion of expanded LNG exports should be dismissed out of hand."