The Center of Global Energy Policy (CEGP) at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs hosted a talk between Professor Lucija Muehlenbachs at the University of Calgary and Professor Dr. Geoffrey Heal of Columbia Business School to discuss the effects of methane emissions with respect to economics and the environment.

On Wednesday evening, two Bwog staff writers went to the ballroom in Faculty House to hear a talk hosted by the Center for Global Energy Policy (CGEP) at Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA). The event was a fireside chat and Q&A with visiting Professor Lucija Muehlenbachs, the Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Calgary and University Fellow at Resources for the Future. It was moderated by economist Dr. Geoffrey Heal, who is the Donald C. Waite III professor of social enterprise at the Columbia Business School. 

Heal began by asking if Muehlenbachs felt the recent United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP 28 for short, was a significant enough response to the threat of climate change. She responded by emphasizing some of the positive developments at the conference, such as their efforts to call attention to those who will suffer most from climate change—for example, Tuvalu, a small Pacific island nation that is poised to be underwater in the coming decades. 

Additionally, both speakers expressed excitement about the declining costs of renewable energy, which now reasonably compete with traditional forms of energy. Muehlenbachs criticized the focus and goal-setting of the conference, however, arguing that participants focused on small goals and progress, rather than focusing on larger-scale developments. 

Heal had an even more critical opinion of COP 28, claiming that many politicians are more focused on their own reputations and political goals than actually working to solve critical climate change issues. While both seemed enthusiastic that emissions are decreasing in many key areas, Heal doubted that this progress was due to the effects of previous COPs. 

Much of the discussion focused on the effects of methane emissions on climate change, due to Professor Muehlenbach’s expertise on that topic. A main byproduct of natural gas, methane is often emitted when energy is used in transportation, the industrial sector, and gas-powered cars, among other sectors. Methane receives particular attention from the climate field because as a greenhouse gas, it has a higher radiative forcing (or heat-causing potential) than carbon dioxide, another greenhouse gas. She explained that high methane emissions come from a variety of sectors, and don’t always overlap with high producers of carbon dioxide. 

Heal then brought up the important question of how we measure the damages caused by methane compared to those caused by carbon dioxide. Although methane has a larger radiative forcing than carbon dioxide or potency in the atmosphere, it lasts for a shorter period of time and eventually converts to carbon dioxide. Determining the social cost of methane depends on an economic factor called the discount rate, which attempts to calculate the value of damages inflicted by methane far into the future.

Although the calculations behind the discount rate can be quite complicated, the purpose of these calculations is to estimate how much more damage methane will cause in the atmosphere compared to carbon dioxide. However, it is difficult to decide the amount of damage based on economics alone; social and ethical concerns must also be considered when informing policy that limits greenhouse gas emissions.

What is the role of corporations in curbing methane emissions? Over time, Muehlenbachs explained, corporations have had to be more transparent about where and when oil leakages are occurring. This is due to recent technology that allows concentrated pipe leakages of oil and gas to be seen with satellite imagery and infrared spectrums, as methane cannot be seen with the naked eye.

In particular, the US government has made a concerted effort to use satellite imagery to keep corporations accountable for leakages. The new Super Emitter Program, which is currently being finalized, allows third parties such as the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) to report leakages to the Environmental Protection Agency. Under the law, these corporations must attend to their leakage issues once they are raised. In the event that a whistleblower reports a company’s leak, the fine becomes a fraction of the price.

Can we envision a world where natural gas is used without methane leaks? What proportion of methane-related climate issues are due to leaks? Muehlenbachs answered that the EDF estimates a roughly 2% reduction in methane emissions due to the mitigation of leaks, which leaves about 98% that still must be addressed through broader policy that focuses on ultimately replacing natural gas with renewables.

The speakers explained that currently, natural gas companies are allowed to self-report emissions, and since methane is not visible, unlike other fossil fuels, this makes it fairly easy to underreport and escape accountability. As a consequence, there has historically been a low incentive for companies to actually reduce their emissions.

Many current methods of mitigating methane emissions are still environmentally harmful—they often involve ‘flaring’ the methane, which leaves some methane behind and releases other chemicals into the atmosphere. Additionally, even when this method “works,” it still releases harmful greenhouse gases into the atmosphere: the goal is to turn methane into carbon dioxide. 

Following the conversation between Muehlenbachs and Heale, the event opened up to questions from the audience. The first question asked the researchers to explain what portion of climate change was due to human activity, not normal temperature fluctuations. 

Heal began by explaining that for most of human existence following the ice age, global temperatures only fluctuated by about 1-2 degrees—and although they were relatively consistent for millennia, they began to accelerate in the decades following the Industrial Revolution. Muehlenbachs added that 90% of the carbon dioxide currently in our atmosphere is estimated to come from human activities.

Another audience member posed a question involving the potential impact of carbon capture—would the social cost of methane be lower if carbon capture and storage were efficiently implemented? 

Heale responded that if we were able to capture and store emissions with perfect efficiency, the social cost of methane would be significantly reduced or eliminated to effectively resemble the market cost. In this scenario, natural gas production would not cause harmful air quality impacts to other populations. However, unlike Muehlenbachs, he is skeptical of carbon capture’s potential to be implemented widely enough to significantly mitigate emissions. In order to make true progress in addressing the climate crisis, both he and Muehlenbachs argue for continuing to expand renewables.

Image via Flickr