Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Spying from space: How satellites can help identify and rein in a potent climate pollutant

News Feed
Wednesday, August 7, 2024

On a blustery day in early March, the who’s who of methane research gathered at Vandenberg Space Force Base in Santa Barbara, California. Dozens of people crammed into a NASA mission control center. Others watched from cars pulled alongside roads just outside the sprawling facility. Many more followed a livestream. They came from across the country to witness the launch of an oven-sized satellite capable of detecting the potent planet-warming gas from space.  The amount of methane, the primary component in natural gas, in the atmosphere has been rising steadily over the last few decades, reaching nearly three times as much as preindustrial times. About a third of methane emissions in the United States occur during the extraction of fossil fuels as the gas seeps from wellheads, pipelines, and other equipment. The rest come from agricultural operations, landfills, coal mining, and other sources. Some of these leaks are large enough to be seen from orbit. Others are miniscule, yet contribute to a growing problem. Identifying and repairing them is a relatively straightforward climate solution. Methane has a warming potential about 80 times higher than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period, so reducing its levels in the atmosphere can help curb global temperature rise. And unlike other industries where the technology to decarbonize is still relatively new, oil and gas companies have long had the tools and know-how to fix these leaks. MethaneSAT, the gas-detecting device launched in March, is the latest in a growing armada of satellites designed to detect methane. Led by the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund, or EDF, and more than six years in the making, the satellite has the ability to circle the globe 15 times a day and monitor regions where 80 percent of the world’s oil and gas is produced. Along with other satellites in orbit, it is expected to dramatically change how regulators and watchdogs police the oil and gas industry. Read Next Biden’s climate law fines oil companies for methane pollution. The bill is coming due. Naveena Sadasivam “Companies do a good job of complying with the law, but the law has been insufficient,” said Danielle Fugere, president and chief counsel at As You Sow, a nonprofit group that has used shareholder advocacy to push fossil fuel producers to tackle climate change. “So this change will increase incentives for reducing methane emissions.” Those at Vandenberg or watching online were a bit on edge. A lot could go wrong. The SpaceX rocket carrying the satellite into orbit could explode. A week before, engineers worried about the device that holds the $88 million spacecraft in place during launch and pushes it into space. “That made us a little nervous,” recalled Steven Wofsy, an atmospheric scientist at Harvard University and a key architect of the project along with Steven Hamburg, the scientist who leads MethaneSAT at EDF. If that didn’t go wrong, the satellite could still fail to deploy or have difficulty communicating with its minders on Earth.  They needn’t have worried. A couple hours after the rocket blasted off, Wofsy, Hamburg, and his colleagues watched on a television at a hotel about two miles away as their creation was ejected into orbit. It was a jubilant moment for members of the team, many of whom had traveled to Vandenberg with their partners, parents, and children. “Everybody spontaneously broke into a cheer,” Wofsy said. “You [would’ve] thought that your team scored a touchdown during overtime.” MethaneSAT was launched in March. It is currently orbiting 370 miles above the Earth’s surface and can monitor about 80 percent of the world’s oil and gas producing regions. Courtesy of Environmental Defense Fund The data the satellite generates in the coming months will be publicly accessible — available for environmental advocates, oil and gas companies, and regulators alike. Each has an interest in the information MethaneSAT will beam home. Climate advocates hope to use it to push for more stringent regulations governing methane emissions and to hold negligent operators accountable. Fossil fuel companies, many of which do their own monitoring, could use the information to pinpoint and repair leaks, avoiding penalties and recouping a resource they can sell. Regulators could use the data to identify hotspots, develop targeted policies, and catch polluters. For the first time, the Environmental Protection Agency is taking steps to be able to use third-party data to enforce its air quality regulations, developing guidelines for using the intelligence satellites like MethaneSAT will provide. The satellite is so important to the agency’s efforts that EPA Administrator Michael Regan was in Santa Barbara for the launch as was a congressional lawmaker. Activists hailed the satellite as a much-needed tool to address climate change.  “This is going to radically change the amount of empirically observed data that we have and vastly increase our understanding of the amount of methane emissions that are currently happening and what needs to be done to reduce them,” said Dakota Raynes, a research and policy manager at the environmental nonprofit Earthworks. “I’m hopeful that gaining that understanding is going to help continue to shift the narrative towards [the] phase down of fossil fuels.” With the satellite safely orbiting 370 miles above the Earth’s surface, the mission enters a critical second phase. In the coming months, EDF researchers will calibrate equipment and ensure the satellite works as planned. By next year, it is expected to transmit reams of information from around the world. Its success will depend on the quality of the data it can produce and — perhaps more importantly — how that data is put to use.  An oil rig in the North Sea flares methane, the main component of natural gas. When operators do not have capacity to transport natural gas, it is often burned off into the atmosphere. Construction Photography / Avalon via Getty Images The European Space Agency released the first global measurements of atmospheric methane three years after launching the Environmental Satellite, or Envisat, in 2002. In 2009, three years before the Envisat mission ended, Japan’s Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite, or GOSAT, made its orbital debut. These early progenitors established a new era of worldwide emissions accounting, but they lacked the geographic precision required to inform meaningful action. In the years since, a hodgepodge of governmental agencies and private-sector organizations has deployed 23 more satellites, including MethaneSAT, to glean additional insights. Some improved upon the pioneering technology by mapping global emissions with greater fidelity and surveying the world with what one could call a wide-angle view. But most measure emissions in targeted areas with what amounts to a telephoto lens. The images they collect, however, are nothing like what a Nikon might capture, because methane, like most gases, is invisible to humans. So these satellites rely on a spectrometer to reveal the infrared signature the gas leaves behind, exposing not only its presence, but its concentration.  Methane leaks from landfills in Georgia and Louisiana (top, from left), and from oil and gas infrastructure in the Permian Basin in Texas (bottom). Courtesy of Carbon Mapper How large a chunk of the world a satellite can map, and the resolution it can provide, depends primarily upon the magnifying power of its telescope. Typically, a higher magnification allows the examination of smaller areas in greater detail, while a lower magnification is best for analyzing vast areas in less detail. The instruments aboard each satellite have all been designed with a unique combination of sensitivities and resolutions tailored to its primary mission. Given GOSAT, for example, was designed to track methane and greenhouse gas concentrations over the entire planet in coarse resolutions, it would have no trouble measuring methane emissions across Southern California and beyond, but it would condense Santa Monica into a single pixel. On the other hand, with the privately owned GHGSat focused on taking images of precise areas and identifying the facilities responsible for emissions, its satellites could map the city of Santa Monica in exquisite detail and pinpoint a sizable methane leak to within 80 to 160 feet, but would struggle to provide any indication of what’s happening beyond the city. EDF saw an opportunity to create a satellite capable of doing both by designing MethaneSAT’s instrument to take images that cover 125 miles of Earth’s surface, enough to capture most of an oil field spanning dozens of miles in a single frame with sufficient resolution to identify small groups of wells and other infrastructure within that expanse. The nonprofit and its researchers began to see the need for such a device about a decade ago, at the height of the fracking boom. The organization was coordinating the work of hundreds of scientists who “were creating more data about methane emissions from the oil and gas industry in the U.S. than anyone had,” Hamburg said, “by orders of magnitude.”  EDF flew spectrometers aboard airplanes over oil fields, and discovered that the EPA had severely underestimated the amount of methane emitted by oil and gas operations. Although these studies proved invaluable, the scientists couldn’t conduct these labor-intensive, aerial campaigns at the scale or frequency required to understand global methane emissions and how they evolved. That piecemeal approach made clear that no one understood the extent of the problem. Even for the areas they could image, “you’re getting snapshots,” Hamburg said, “but not a motion picture.” Hamburg and his colleagues set out to determine what it would take to monitor the world’s most productive oil fields on a near-daily basis to determine where, and how much, methane escaped and how those emissions were changing over time. “We’d done enough looking,” Hamburg said, “that we didn’t think the existing satellites or the planned satellites were going to provide that data.” Read Next In EPA’s new methane rule, an innovative way to stop ‘super emitters’ Gabriela Aoun Angueira As they pondered how to fill this gap, Robert Harris, EDF’s lead scientist until his passing in 2021, encouraged Hamburg to get in touch with Wofsy. Wofsy had promised himself he would never get involved in a satellite mission, but the prospect of the measurements this one could collect became too tantalizing to pass up. The more the two Stevens came together to talk and “mind meld,” Hamburg said, the more they realized they shared a vision for a mission that could slot neatly between wide-angle global mappers and the telephoto point imagers, filling a gap that, until then, no one had aimed to address. The ability to measure emissions across large areas and identify the worst polluters could reshape how regulators design policy. In recent years, climate scientists and activists have spotlighted “super emitters” — large leaks spewing a disproportionate amount of methane. But EDF’s research has shown that focusing on gross polluters risks overlooking the cumulative contributions of small, persistent leaks. In 2022, its researchers found that although low-production oil and gas wells produce just 6 percent of the nation’s fossil fuels, they generate around half of the industry’s methane emissions. That is despite releasing pollution at less than one-tenth the rate of even the smallest super emitters. The data coming from EDF’s new satellite will be able to help quantify and constrain the emissions coming from gross polluters and smaller sources alike — something that will prove invaluable. “MethaneSAT will play a very crucial role with advocacy and policymaking,” by showing not only a given region’s total methane emissions, but how that changes over time, said Jean-Francois Gauthier, a senior vice president at GHGSat, which operates 12 of its own methane-monitoring satellites and markets services and data to both the public and private sectors, including fossil fuel companies. “Now you can start having very targeted policies and regulations.” Given the sophistication of tools like MethaneSAT and the four satellites GHGSat plans to add to its flotilla later this year, it is ironic that the EPA’s current enforcement strategy is fairly low tech. The agency requires the fossil fuel industry to report its own emissions and augments that data with occasional aerial surveillance — an approach that limits it to capturing emissions for a specific period of time over a limited area. Oil and gas operators must estimate the emissions from their equipment, but the methodology is largely based on outdated data, and they aren’t required to report large releases due to malfunctions.  MethaneSAT has been in development for more than six years and cost roughly $88 million. It is about the size of an oven. Courtesy of Environmental Defense Fund As a result, the EPA is underestimating the scale of methane emissions from the oil and gas sector by as much as 76 percent, according to researchers. Shayla Powell, an EPA representative told Grist that the discrepancies between the agency’s analysis and satellite-based estimates may stem from the needto draw national conclusions from local observations. Super-emitters “may not be accurately captured using current methods,” the representative said. “EPA continues to work with researchers to compare results, identify specific sources of discrepancies, and make improvements.” Recognizing the global reach and nearly real-time coverage that satellites can provide, the EPA plans to capitalize on all that data. Its new Superemitter Program will allow certified third parties to provide the agency with data documenting leaks. It will then reach out to the company responsible for the emissions, which will have five days to open an investigation and 15 days to report to the EPA. A provision in the Inflation Reduction Act directs the EPA to charge $900 per metric ton of methane released beyond a certain threshold. The trove of information coming back from space can help the agency measure how much operators are spewing.   The EPA places strict detection and resolution requirements on the data it will accept, but even if one firm’s satellite can’t take photos that meet those guidelines, its findings could inform the work of others and provide the agency with actionable information. “In the space business, it’s called ‘tip and cue,’” said Riley Duren, who leads Carbon Mapper, a nonprofit dedicated to measuring planet-warming emissions. “If one satellite sees something, it can tip off another one and they can queue up measurements to follow up.” But whether all the data will ultimately help reduce methane emissions remains an open question. For years, Sharon Wilson, a self-proclaimed methane hunter and director of the environmental group Oilfield Witness, has been scouring oil and gas fields nationwide and documenting massive leaks. She uses an optical gas imaging camera, which makes the invisible emissions visible, to document how fossil fuel operators have been flaring natural gas with impunity. Over the last eight years, she has submitted more than 500 complaints with video evidence of leaks in the Permian Basin in West Texas and other oil fields to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the agency responsible for enforcing environmental rules in the state. It has rarely taken action. Wilson worries that any satellite data will similarly be dismissed.  An oil and gas well site in the Permian Basin in West Texas leaks methane earlier this year, as captured by the environmental group Oilfield Witness. “The bottom line on this whole thing is it doesn’t matter how many thermographers we have, boots on the ground, satellites flying in the air, people with drones and airplanes and all the other technology, none of it matters if you don’t stop methane,” Wilson said. “None of it counts.”  If operators fail to take action after being notified through the EPA’s Superemitter Program, it’s unclear whether enforcement action will fall to the states. The EPA has delegated responsibility for enforcing parts of the Clean Air Act to states, which has led to disparities in accountability. The new methane rules finalized by the EPA late last year require states to develop an implementation plan. If state plans are inadequate, the agency is expected to roll out a federal one. When the EPA has taken this approach with other pollutants such as smog, states like Texas and Louisiana have often submitted inadequate implementation plans.  How the EPA chooses to follow through may not be clear for a couple more years. The agency is currently vetting those interested in submitting methane data. Publication of any data third parties provide may not occur until 2026, at which point the EPA will need to take appropriate action against polluters.  “You don’t just need people to collect the data attributed to an operator or a facility,” said Raynes, the Earthworks researcher. “You also need people who are actually going to follow through to make sure that that operator fixes the problem. There’s a little less clarity in all of [this] about whether that’s being accurately planned for.”  Satellites — no matter how sophisticated — have limitations, and the responsibility to take action falls to regulators. Ultimately, having more granular data makes it more difficult for oil and gas companies and regulators to deny that leaks exist. “​​Having that greater access to that finer level of actual, empirically-observed measurement is going to change the conversation about methane,” said Raynes. This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Spying from space: How satellites can help identify and rein in a potent climate pollutant on Aug 7, 2024.

Methane levels in the atmosphere are rising. An armada of satellites could help identify leaks from oil fields, landfills, and animal feed operations.

On a blustery day in early March, the who’s who of methane research gathered at Vandenberg Space Force Base in Santa Barbara, California. Dozens of people crammed into a NASA mission control center. Others watched from cars pulled alongside roads just outside the sprawling facility. Many more followed a livestream. They came from across the country to witness the launch of an oven-sized satellite capable of detecting the potent planet-warming gas from space. 

The amount of methane, the primary component in natural gas, in the atmosphere has been rising steadily over the last few decades, reaching nearly three times as much as preindustrial times. About a third of methane emissions in the United States occur during the extraction of fossil fuels as the gas seeps from wellheads, pipelines, and other equipment. The rest come from agricultural operations, landfills, coal mining, and other sources. Some of these leaks are large enough to be seen from orbit. Others are miniscule, yet contribute to a growing problem.

Identifying and repairing them is a relatively straightforward climate solution. Methane has a warming potential about 80 times higher than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period, so reducing its levels in the atmosphere can help curb global temperature rise. And unlike other industries where the technology to decarbonize is still relatively new, oil and gas companies have long had the tools and know-how to fix these leaks.

MethaneSAT, the gas-detecting device launched in March, is the latest in a growing armada of satellites designed to detect methane. Led by the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund, or EDF, and more than six years in the making, the satellite has the ability to circle the globe 15 times a day and monitor regions where 80 percent of the world’s oil and gas is produced. Along with other satellites in orbit, it is expected to dramatically change how regulators and watchdogs police the oil and gas industry.

“Companies do a good job of complying with the law, but the law has been insufficient,” said Danielle Fugere, president and chief counsel at As You Sow, a nonprofit group that has used shareholder advocacy to push fossil fuel producers to tackle climate change. “So this change will increase incentives for reducing methane emissions.”

Those at Vandenberg or watching online were a bit on edge. A lot could go wrong. The SpaceX rocket carrying the satellite into orbit could explode. A week before, engineers worried about the device that holds the $88 million spacecraft in place during launch and pushes it into space. “That made us a little nervous,” recalled Steven Wofsy, an atmospheric scientist at Harvard University and a key architect of the project along with Steven Hamburg, the scientist who leads MethaneSAT at EDF. If that didn’t go wrong, the satellite could still fail to deploy or have difficulty communicating with its minders on Earth. 

They needn’t have worried. A couple hours after the rocket blasted off, Wofsy, Hamburg, and his colleagues watched on a television at a hotel about two miles away as their creation was ejected into orbit. It was a jubilant moment for members of the team, many of whom had traveled to Vandenberg with their partners, parents, and children. “Everybody spontaneously broke into a cheer,” Wofsy said. “You [would’ve] thought that your team scored a touchdown during overtime.”

MethaneSAT was launched in March. It is currently orbiting 370 miles above the Earth’s surface and can monitor about 80 percent of the world’s oil and gas producing regions. Courtesy of Environmental Defense Fund

The data the satellite generates in the coming months will be publicly accessible — available for environmental advocates, oil and gas companies, and regulators alike. Each has an interest in the information MethaneSAT will beam home. Climate advocates hope to use it to push for more stringent regulations governing methane emissions and to hold negligent operators accountable. Fossil fuel companies, many of which do their own monitoring, could use the information to pinpoint and repair leaks, avoiding penalties and recouping a resource they can sell. Regulators could use the data to identify hotspots, develop targeted policies, and catch polluters. For the first time, the Environmental Protection Agency is taking steps to be able to use third-party data to enforce its air quality regulations, developing guidelines for using the intelligence satellites like MethaneSAT will provide. The satellite is so important to the agency’s efforts that EPA Administrator Michael Regan was in Santa Barbara for the launch as was a congressional lawmaker. Activists hailed the satellite as a much-needed tool to address climate change. 

“This is going to radically change the amount of empirically observed data that we have and vastly increase our understanding of the amount of methane emissions that are currently happening and what needs to be done to reduce them,” said Dakota Raynes, a research and policy manager at the environmental nonprofit Earthworks. “I’m hopeful that gaining that understanding is going to help continue to shift the narrative towards [the] phase down of fossil fuels.”

With the satellite safely orbiting 370 miles above the Earth’s surface, the mission enters a critical second phase. In the coming months, EDF researchers will calibrate equipment and ensure the satellite works as planned. By next year, it is expected to transmit reams of information from around the world. Its success will depend on the quality of the data it can produce and — perhaps more importantly — how that data is put to use. 

a flaring offshore oil rig
An oil rig in the North Sea flares methane, the main component of natural gas. When operators do not have capacity to transport natural gas, it is often burned off into the atmosphere. Construction Photography / Avalon via Getty Images

The European Space Agency released the first global measurements of atmospheric methane three years after launching the Environmental Satellite, or Envisat, in 2002. In 2009, three years before the Envisat mission ended, Japan’s Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite, or GOSAT, made its orbital debut. These early progenitors established a new era of worldwide emissions accounting, but they lacked the geographic precision required to inform meaningful action.

In the years since, a hodgepodge of governmental agencies and private-sector organizations has deployed 23 more satellites, including MethaneSAT, to glean additional insights. Some improved upon the pioneering technology by mapping global emissions with greater fidelity and surveying the world with what one could call a wide-angle view. But most measure emissions in targeted areas with what amounts to a telephoto lens.

The images they collect, however, are nothing like what a Nikon might capture, because methane, like most gases, is invisible to humans. So these satellites rely on a spectrometer to reveal the infrared signature the gas leaves behind, exposing not only its presence, but its concentration. 

How large a chunk of the world a satellite can map, and the resolution it can provide, depends primarily upon the magnifying power of its telescope. Typically, a higher magnification allows the examination of smaller areas in greater detail, while a lower magnification is best for analyzing vast areas in less detail. The instruments aboard each satellite have all been designed with a unique combination of sensitivities and resolutions tailored to its primary mission. Given GOSAT, for example, was designed to track methane and greenhouse gas concentrations over the entire planet in coarse resolutions, it would have no trouble measuring methane emissions across Southern California and beyond, but it would condense Santa Monica into a single pixel. On the other hand, with the privately owned GHGSat focused on taking images of precise areas and identifying the facilities responsible for emissions, its satellites could map the city of Santa Monica in exquisite detail and pinpoint a sizable methane leak to within 80 to 160 feet, but would struggle to provide any indication of what’s happening beyond the city.

EDF saw an opportunity to create a satellite capable of doing both by designing MethaneSAT’s instrument to take images that cover 125 miles of Earth’s surface, enough to capture most of an oil field spanning dozens of miles in a single frame with sufficient resolution to identify small groups of wells and other infrastructure within that expanse. The nonprofit and its researchers began to see the need for such a device about a decade ago, at the height of the fracking boom. The organization was coordinating the work of hundreds of scientists who “were creating more data about methane emissions from the oil and gas industry in the U.S. than anyone had,” Hamburg said, “by orders of magnitude.” 

EDF flew spectrometers aboard airplanes over oil fields, and discovered that the EPA had severely underestimated the amount of methane emitted by oil and gas operations. Although these studies proved invaluable, the scientists couldn’t conduct these labor-intensive, aerial campaigns at the scale or frequency required to understand global methane emissions and how they evolved. That piecemeal approach made clear that no one understood the extent of the problem. Even for the areas they could image, “you’re getting snapshots,” Hamburg said, “but not a motion picture.”

Hamburg and his colleagues set out to determine what it would take to monitor the world’s most productive oil fields on a near-daily basis to determine where, and how much, methane escaped and how those emissions were changing over time. “We’d done enough looking,” Hamburg said, “that we didn’t think the existing satellites or the planned satellites were going to provide that data.”

As they pondered how to fill this gap, Robert Harris, EDF’s lead scientist until his passing in 2021, encouraged Hamburg to get in touch with Wofsy. Wofsy had promised himself he would never get involved in a satellite mission, but the prospect of the measurements this one could collect became too tantalizing to pass up. The more the two Stevens came together to talk and “mind meld,” Hamburg said, the more they realized they shared a vision for a mission that could slot neatly between wide-angle global mappers and the telephoto point imagers, filling a gap that, until then, no one had aimed to address.

The ability to measure emissions across large areas and identify the worst polluters could reshape how regulators design policy. In recent years, climate scientists and activists have spotlighted “super emitters” — large leaks spewing a disproportionate amount of methane. But EDF’s research has shown that focusing on gross polluters risks overlooking the cumulative contributions of small, persistent leaks. In 2022, its researchers found that although low-production oil and gas wells produce just 6 percent of the nation’s fossil fuels, they generate around half of the industry’s methane emissions. That is despite releasing pollution at less than one-tenth the rate of even the smallest super emitters. The data coming from EDF’s new satellite will be able to help quantify and constrain the emissions coming from gross polluters and smaller sources alike — something that will prove invaluable.

“MethaneSAT will play a very crucial role with advocacy and policymaking,” by showing not only a given region’s total methane emissions, but how that changes over time, said Jean-Francois Gauthier, a senior vice president at GHGSat, which operates 12 of its own methane-monitoring satellites and markets services and data to both the public and private sectors, including fossil fuel companies. “Now you can start having very targeted policies and regulations.”


Given the sophistication of tools like MethaneSAT and the four satellites GHGSat plans to add to its flotilla later this year, it is ironic that the EPA’s current enforcement strategy is fairly low tech. The agency requires the fossil fuel industry to report its own emissions and augments that data with occasional aerial surveillance — an approach that limits it to capturing emissions for a specific period of time over a limited area. Oil and gas operators must estimate the emissions from their equipment, but the methodology is largely based on outdated data, and they aren’t required to report large releases due to malfunctions. 

rendering of a satellite
MethaneSAT has been in development for more than six years and cost roughly $88 million. It is about the size of an oven.
Courtesy of Environmental Defense Fund

As a result, the EPA is underestimating the scale of methane emissions from the oil and gas sector by as much as 76 percent, according to researchers. Shayla Powell, an EPA representative told Grist that the discrepancies between the agency’s analysis and satellite-based estimates may stem from the needto draw national conclusions from local observations. Super-emitters “may not be accurately captured using current methods,” the representative said. “EPA continues to work with researchers to compare results, identify specific sources of discrepancies, and make improvements.”

Recognizing the global reach and nearly real-time coverage that satellites can provide, the EPA plans to capitalize on all that data. Its new Superemitter Program will allow certified third parties to provide the agency with data documenting leaks. It will then reach out to the company responsible for the emissions, which will have five days to open an investigation and 15 days to report to the EPA. A provision in the Inflation Reduction Act directs the EPA to charge $900 per metric ton of methane released beyond a certain threshold. The trove of information coming back from space can help the agency measure how much operators are spewing.  

The EPA places strict detection and resolution requirements on the data it will accept, but even if one firm’s satellite can’t take photos that meet those guidelines, its findings could inform the work of others and provide the agency with actionable information. “In the space business, it’s called ‘tip and cue,’” said Riley Duren, who leads Carbon Mapper, a nonprofit dedicated to measuring planet-warming emissions. “If one satellite sees something, it can tip off another one and they can queue up measurements to follow up.”

But whether all the data will ultimately help reduce methane emissions remains an open question. For years, Sharon Wilson, a self-proclaimed methane hunter and director of the environmental group Oilfield Witness, has been scouring oil and gas fields nationwide and documenting massive leaks. She uses an optical gas imaging camera, which makes the invisible emissions visible, to document how fossil fuel operators have been flaring natural gas with impunity. Over the last eight years, she has submitted more than 500 complaints with video evidence of leaks in the Permian Basin in West Texas and other oil fields to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the agency responsible for enforcing environmental rules in the state. It has rarely taken action. Wilson worries that any satellite data will similarly be dismissed. 

An oil and gas well site in the Permian Basin in West Texas leaks methane earlier this year, as captured by the environmental group Oilfield Witness.

“The bottom line on this whole thing is it doesn’t matter how many thermographers we have, boots on the ground, satellites flying in the air, people with drones and airplanes and all the other technology, none of it matters if you don’t stop methane,” Wilson said. “None of it counts.” 

If operators fail to take action after being notified through the EPA’s Superemitter Program, it’s unclear whether enforcement action will fall to the states. The EPA has delegated responsibility for enforcing parts of the Clean Air Act to states, which has led to disparities in accountability. The new methane rules finalized by the EPA late last year require states to develop an implementation plan. If state plans are inadequate, the agency is expected to roll out a federal one. When the EPA has taken this approach with other pollutants such as smog, states like Texas and Louisiana have often submitted inadequate implementation plans. 

How the EPA chooses to follow through may not be clear for a couple more years. The agency is currently vetting those interested in submitting methane data. Publication of any data third parties provide may not occur until 2026, at which point the EPA will need to take appropriate action against polluters. 

“You don’t just need people to collect the data attributed to an operator or a facility,” said Raynes, the Earthworks researcher. “You also need people who are actually going to follow through to make sure that that operator fixes the problem. There’s a little less clarity in all of [this] about whether that’s being accurately planned for.” 

Satellites — no matter how sophisticated — have limitations, and the responsibility to take action falls to regulators. Ultimately, having more granular data makes it more difficult for oil and gas companies and regulators to deny that leaks exist. “​​Having that greater access to that finer level of actual, empirically-observed measurement is going to change the conversation about methane,” said Raynes.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Spying from space: How satellites can help identify and rein in a potent climate pollutant on Aug 7, 2024.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

A Recipe for Avoiding 15 Million Deaths a Year and Climate Disaster Is Fixing Food, Scientists Say

Scientists are presenting new evidence that the worst effects of climate change can’t be avoided without a major transformation of food systems

Their conclusion: Without substantial changes to the food system, the worst effects of climate change will be unavoidable, even if humans successfully switch to cleaner energy.“If we do not transition away from the unsustainable food path we’re on today, we will fail on the climate agenda. We will fail on the biodiversity agenda. We will fail on food security. We’ll fail on so many pathways,” said study co-author Johan Rockström, who leads the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.The commission's first report in 2019 was regarded as a “really monumental landmark study” for its willingness to take food system reform seriously while factoring in human and environmental health, said Adam Shriver, director of wellness and nutrition at the Harkin Institute for Public Policy and Citizen Engagement. Key points from the latest report: A ‘planetary health diet’ could avert 15 million deaths every year The first EAT-Lancet report proposed a “planetary health diet” centered on grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts and legumes. The update maintains that to improve their health while also reducing global warming, it's a good idea for people to eat one serving each of animal protein and dairy per day while limiting red meat to about once a week. This particularly applies to people in developed nations who disproportionately contribute to climate change and have more choices about the foods they eat.The dietary recommendations were based on data about risks of preventable diseases like Type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, not environmental criteria. Human and planetary health happen to be in alignment, the researchers said.Rockström said it may seem “boring” for an analysis to reach the same conclusion six years later, but he finds this reassuring because food science is a rapidly moving field with many big studies and improving analytics.Food is one of the most deeply personal choices a person can make, and “the health component touches everyone’s heart,” Rockström said. While tackling global challenges is complicated, what individuals can do is relatively straightforward, like reducing meat consumption without eliminating it altogether.“People associate what they eat with identity” and strict diets can scare people off, but even small changes help, said Emily Cassidy, a research associate with climate science nonprofit Project Drawdown. She wasn’t involved with the research. Our food choices could push the planet past a tipping point The researchers looked beyond climate change and greenhouse gas emissions to factors including biodiversity, land use, water quality and agricultural pollution — and concluded that food systems are the biggest culprit in pushing Earth to the brink of thresholds for a livable planet.The report is “super comprehensive” in its scope, said Kathleen Merrigan, a professor of food systems at Arizona State University who also wasn’t involved with the research. It goes deep enough to show how farming and labor practices, consumption habits and other aspects of food production are interconnected — and could be changed, she said. “It’s like we’ve had this slow awakening to the role of food” in discussions about planetary existence, Merrigan said. Changing worldwide diets alone could lead to a 15% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, because the production of meat, particularly red meat, requires releasing a lot of planet-warming gases, researchers concluded. Increased crop productivity, reductions in food waste and other improvements could bump that to 20%, the report said.Cassidy said that if the populations of high- and middle-income countries were to limit beef and lamb consumption to about one serving a week, as recommended in this latest EAT-Lancet report, they could reduce emissions equal to Russia's annual emissions total. Incorporating justice in an unequal world Meanwhile, the report concludes that nearly half the world's population is being denied adequate food, a healthy environment or decent work in the food system. Ethnic minorities, Indigenous peoples, women and children and people in conflict zones all face specific risks to their human rights and access to food.With United Nations climate talks around the corner in November, Rockström and other researchers hope leaders in countries around the world will incorporate scientific perspectives about the food system into their national policies. To do otherwise “takes us in a direction that makes us more and more fragile,” he said.“I mean both in terms of supply of food, but also in terms of health and in terms of stability of our environments,” Rockström said. “And this is a recipe to make societies weaker and weaker.”The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Sept. 2025

Study Shows the World Is Far More Ablaze Now With Damaging Fires Than in the 1980s

A new study shows that the world's most damaging wildfires are happening four times more often now compared to the 1980s

WASHINGTON (AP) — Earth’s nastiest and costliest wildfires are blazing four times more often now than they did in the 1980s because of human-caused climate change and people moving closer to wildlands, a new study found.A study in the journal Science looks at global wildfires, not by acres burned which is the most common measuring stick, but by the harder to calculate economic and human damage they cause. The study concluded there has been a “climate-linked escalation of societally disastrous wildfires.”A team of Australian, American and German fire scientists calculated the 200 most damaging fires since 1980 based on the percentage of damage to the country's Gross Domestic Product at the time, taking inflation into account. The frequency of these events has increased about 4.4 times from 1980 to 2023, said study lead author Calum Cunningham, a pyrogeographer at the Fire Centre at the University of Tasmania in Australia. “It shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that we do have a major wildfire crisis on our hands,” Cunningham said.About 43% of the 200 most damaging fires occurred in the last 10 years of the study. In the 1980s, the globe averaged two of these catastrophic fires a year and a few times hit four a year. From 2014 to 2023, the world averaged nearly nine a year, including 13 in 2021. It noted that the count of these devastating infernos sharply increased in 2015, which “coincided with increasingly extreme climatic conditions.” Though the study date ended in 2023, the last two years have been even more extreme, Cunningham said.Cunningham said often researchers look at how many acres a fire burns as a measuring stick, but he called that flawed because it really doesn't show the effect on people, with area not mattering as much as economics and lives. Hawaii's Lahaina fire wasn't big, but it burned a lot of buildings and killed a lot of people so it was more meaningful than one in sparsely populated regions, he said.“We need to be targeting the fires that matter. And those are the fires that cause major ecological destruction because they’re burning too intensely,” Cunningham said. But economic data is difficult to get with many countries keeping that information private, preventing global trends and totals from being calculated. So Cunningham and colleagues were able to get more than 40 years of global economic date from insurance giant Munich Re and then combine it with the public database from International Disaster Database, which isn't as complete but is collected by the Catholic University of Louvain in Belgium.The study looked at “fire weather” which is hot, dry and windy conditions that make extreme fires more likely and more dangerous and found that those conditions are increasing, creating a connection to the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.“We’ve firstly got that connection that all the disasters by and large occurred during extreme weather. We’ve also got a strong trend of those conditions becoming more common as a result of climate change. That’s indisputable,” Cunningham said. “So that’s a line of evidence there to say that climate change is having a significant effect on at least creating the conditions that are suitable for a major fire disaster.”If there was no human-caused climate change, the world would still have devastating fires, but not as many, he said: “We’re loading the dice in a sense by increasing temperatures.”There are other factors. People are moving closer to fire-prone areas, called the wildland-urban interface, Cunningham said. And society is not getting a handle on dead foliage that becomes fuel, he said. But those factors are harder to quantify compared to climate change, he said."This is an innovative study in terms of the data sources employed, and it mostly confirms common sense expectations: fires causing major fatalities and economic damage tend to be those in densely populated areas and to occur during the extreme fire weather conditions that are becoming more common due to climate change," said Jacob Bendix, a geography and environment professor at Syracuse University who studies fires, but wasn't part of this research team.Not only does the study makes sense, but it's a bad sign for the future, said Mike Flannigan, a fire researcher at Thompson Rivers University in Canada. Flannigan, who wasn't part of research, said: "As the frequency and intensity of extreme fire weather and drought increases the likelihood of disastrous fires increases so we need to do more to be better prepared."The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Sept. 2025

Senior Tories dismayed at Badenoch’s ‘catastrophic’ vow to repeal Climate Change Act

Theresa May, Alok Sharma, business and church leaders say plan would harm UK and not even Margaret Thatcher would have countenanced itUK politics live – latest updatesThe former prime minister Theresa May has condemned a promise made by Kemi Badenoch to repeal the Climate Change Act if the Tories win the next general election, calling the plans a “catastrophic mistake”.She joined other leading Tories, business groups, scientists and the Church of England in attacking the Conservative leader’s announcement, which would remove the requirement for governments to set “carbon budgets” laying out how far greenhouse gas emissions will be cut every five years, up to 2050. Continue reading...

The former prime minister Theresa May has condemned a promise made by Kemi Badenoch to repeal the Climate Change Act if the Tories win the next general election, calling the plans a “catastrophic mistake”.She joined other leading Tories, business groups, scientists and the Church of England in attacking the Conservative leader’s announcement, which would remove the requirement for governments to set “carbon budgets” laying out how far greenhouse gas emissions will be cut every five years, up to 2050.May called it a “retrograde” step which upended 17 years of consensus between the UK’s main political parties and the scientific community. She continued: “To row back now would be a catastrophic mistake for while that consensus is being tested, the science remains the same. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to ensure we protect the planet for their futures and that means giving business the reassurance it needs to find the solutions for the very grave challenges we face.”Green Tories have been increasingly concerned at Badenoch’s move to position the Tories closer to the Reform party, whose senior leaders deny climate science, on energy and net zero policy.Repealing the 2008 Climate Change Act and cancellation of the target of reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 would remove obligations to cut carbon and dismantle the cornerstone of climate policy.Under the act, which was passed by Labour with the support of David Cameron’s Conservative party, with only five rebels voting against, ministers must set five-yearly limits on the UK’s future emissions and bring in policies to meet them. It was the first such legislation in the world, but scores of other countries have since followed suit.Alok Sharma, the Tory former minister and peer who was president of the Cop26 UN climate summit in Glasgow in 2021, told the Guardian: “Thanks to the strong and consistent commitment of the previous Conservative government to climate action and net zero, the UK attracted many tens of billions of pounds of private sector investment and accompanying jobs. This is a story of British innovation, economic growth, skilled jobs and global leadership – not just a matter of environmental stewardship.”He warned that Badenoch risked not just alienating allies on the world stage, but discouraging voters. “Turning our back on this progress now risks future investment and jobs into our country, as well as our international standing,” he said. “The path to a prosperous, secure, and electable future for the Conservative party lies in building on our achievements, not abandoning them.”Lord Deben, who served as environment secretary under Margaret Thatcher and John Major, said none of Badenoch’s predecessors would have countenanced such a move. “This is not what Margaret Thatcher would have done,” he told the Guardian. “She understood this. If you want de-industrialisation of Britain, then [repealing the Climate Change Act] is the right way to go about it.”Business leaders also warned of serious economic damage. Rain Newton-Smith, the chief executive of the CBI, the UK’s biggest business association, said: “The scientific reality of climate change makes action from both government and business imperative. Scrapping the Climate Change Act would be a backwards step in achieving our shared objectives of reaching economic growth, boosting energy security, protecting our environment and making life healthier for future generations.”She said investment had been stimulated, not stifled as Badenoch suggested, by the legislation. “The Climate Act has been the bedrock for investment flowing into the UK and shows that decarbonisation and economic growth are not a zero-sum game. Businesses delivering the energy transition added £83bn to the economy last year alone, providing high-paying jobs to almost a million people across the UK,” she said. “Ripping up the framework that’s given investors confidence that the UK is serious about sustainable growth through a low-carbon future would damage our economy.”If Badenoch were to repeal the Climate Change Act, Britain’s exports could be hit under the EU’s green tariffs. The EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism, now in its trial stages, imposes levies on companies from countries that are not judged to have an adequate price on carbon. The measure, intended to prevent other countries from undercutting climate rules, could add crippling costs to the UK’s industrial exports to its biggest trading partner.Civil society also rallied to reject Badenoch’s plans. Both the Church of England and the Catholic church spoke out, with Graham Usher, the bishop of Norwich, lead for environmental affairs for the Church of England, saying: “For Britain, the Climate Change Act reflects the best of who we are as a country: a nation that cares for creation, protects the vulnerable and builds hope for future generations. To weaken it now would be to turn our back on that calling and on the values we share as a nation. That is why the Church of England has committed to strive for net zero by 2030, because caring for God’s creation is not optional; it is essential if we are to safeguard the Earth for those who come after us.”Bishop John Arnold, the Catholic lead for the the environment, referred to the speech by Pope Leo XIV on Wednesday, criticising climate sceptics. “Pope Leo XIV yesterday inspired us to work with unity and togetherness on the challenges facing our common home … More than ever, we need to work together, to think of future generations and take urgent action if we are to truly respond to the scale of this climate crisis. A crisis which affects those who are poorest and most vulnerable and have done least to cause it.”

Tories pledge to scrap landmark climate legislation

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch says her party would axe legally binding targets to cut emissions.

The Conservatives have pledged to scrap the UK's landmark climate change legislation and replace it with a strategy for "cheap and reliable" energy.The Climate Change Act 2008, which put targets for cutting emissions into law, was introduced by the last Labour government and strengthened under Tory PM Theresa May.Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said her party wanted to leave "a cleaner environment for our children" but argued "Labour's laws tied us in red tape, loaded us with costs, and did nothing to cut global emissions".Environmental groups said the move would be an act of "national self-harm", while Labour said it would be "an economic disaster and a total betrayal of future generations".The 2008 act, which was passed when current Energy Secretary Ed Miliband was in the same role in Gordon Brown's government, committed the UK to cutting carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. In 2019, under May's premiership, this legally binding target was updated to reaching net zero by 2050 - meaning the UK must cut carbon emissions until it removes as much as it produces.At that time the legislation passed through Parliament with the support of all major parties.However, the political consensus on net zero has since fragmented.Badenoch has previously said the target of net zero by 2050 is "impossible" for the UK to meet and promised to "maximise" extraction of oil and gas from the North Sea.Reform UK has also said it would scrap net zero targets if it wins the next election, blaming the policy for higher energy bills and deindustrialisation in the UK.The UK was the first country to establish a long-term legally binding framework to cut carbon emissions and since the act was passed many other countries have introduced similar legislation.However, the Tories said the act forced ministers "to make decisions to meet arbitrary climate targets, even if they make the British people poorer, destroy jobs, and make our economy weaker".Badenoch said: "We want to leave a cleaner environment for our children, but not by bankrupting the country."Climate change is real. But Labour's laws tied us in red tape, loaded us with costs, and did nothing to cut global emissions. Previous Conservative governments tried to make Labour's climate laws work - they don't."Under my leadership we will scrap those failed targets. Our priority now is growth, cheaper energy, and protecting the natural landscapes we all love."However, Miliband said: "This desperate policy from Kemi Badenoch if ever implemented would be an economic disaster and a total betrayal of future generations."The Conservatives would now scrap a framework that businesses campaigned for in the first place and has ensured tens of billions of pounds of investment in homegrown British energy since it was passed by a Labour government with Conservative support 17 years ago."The Liberal Democrats also criticised the announcement.The party's energy security and net zero spokesperson Pippa Heylings said: "The reality is that investing in renewables is the greatest economic growth opportunity in this century and will protect the planet for future generations."Meanwhile, Richard Benwell, chief executive of the Wildlife and Countryside Link coalition of environmental groups, said: "The real route to lasting security is in homegrown clean power, not burning more fossil fuels."Without binding climate law, ministers will be free to trade away our future - and it is nature and the poorest communities that will pay the price."

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.