Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Earth Government

EPA To Roll Back Regulations On Methane, a Potent Greenhouse Gas (nytimes.com) 141

Posted by BeauHD from the environmental-policy-rollbacks dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The New York Times: The Trump administration laid out on Thursday a far-reaching plan to cut back on the regulation of methane emissions, a major contributor to climate change. The Environmental Protection Agency ,in its proposed rule, aims to eliminate federal requirements that oil and gas companies install technology to detect and fix methane leaks from wells, pipelines and storage facilities. It will also reopen the question of whether the E.P.A. even has the legal authority to regulate methane as a pollutant.

Under the proposal, methane, the main component of natural gas, would be only indirectly regulated. A separate but related category of gases, known as volatile organic compounds, would remain regulated under the new rule, and those curbs would have the side benefit of averting some methane emissions. The new rule must go through a period of public comment and review, and would most likely be finalized early next year, analysts said. Over all, carbon dioxide is the most significant greenhouse gas, but methane is a close second. It lingers in the atmosphere for a shorter period of time but packs a bigger punch while it lasts. By some estimates, methane has 80 times the heating-trapping power of carbon dioxide in the first 20 years in the atmosphere. Methane currently makes up nearly 10 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. A significant portion of that comes from the oil and gas industry. Other sources include cattle and agriculture. The E.P.A.'s economic analysis of the rule estimates that it would save the oil and natural gas industry $17 million to $19 million a year. For comparison, the annual revenue of the United States oil industry as a whole typically ranges between $100 billion and $150 billion.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EPA To Roll Back Regulations On Methane, a Potent Greenhouse Gas More

EPA To Roll Back Regulations On Methane, a Potent Greenhouse Gas

Comments Filter:

  • If it gets much warmer too fast, the price of Greenland will go way up.

    • If it gets much warmer too fast, the price of Greenland will go way up.

      To be fair, it might actually stay green all year-round by then.

    • If it gets much warmer too fast, the price of Greenland will go way up.

      That would explain a lot about our stable genius in chief, denying climate change and offering to buy Greenland.

  • Trump's a wanker (Score:2, Insightful)

    by bigtreeman ( 565428 )

    Trump's a dangerous wanker

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by future assassin ( 639396 )

      That's,Trump's a dangerous Toad Stool

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by Jane Q. Public ( 1010737 )
      What's dangerous about it?

      While methane may be a "potent greenhouse gas", it is completely irrelevant to global warming, because it is quickly broken down chemically by the environment.

      It never has a chance to warm much of anything.

      OP is fear-mongering, plain and simple.

      • While methane may be a "potent greenhouse gas", it is completely irrelevant to global warming, because it is quickly broken down chemically by the environment.

        Oh yeah? What does it break down into?

        • Oh yeah? What does it break down into?

          Do the Democrats know? My guess is that they don't.

          The Democrats seem to think that by not allowing pipelines to be built then less CO2 and methane will go into the air. What actually happens is that this methane is often just burned off at the well.

          Here's a better question to ask a Democrat, ask them if they actually give a flying fuck about the environment.

          Reading their "Green New Deal" tells me they don't. A serious energy plan would not have tacked on bullshit like federally funded health care and me

          • "If the Democrats were all that concerned about polluting the environment then they'd have funded a proper disposal site for all the nuclear waste they keep complaining about. Instead they've been holding that up for 40 years while the waste sits in "temporary" sites at nuclear power plants."

            Why don't the owners of the nuclear waste do the right thing and spend their money to bury their waste safely and securely?

            • The owners of nuclear waste (primarily the government) have no way to bury their waste safely and securely because the government determines where they are allowed to do that and have exactly 0 sites licensed to do so. The sites that we've already built to safely and securely bury the waste are not able to be used because of the government being stupid. Nuclear plant operators want to do the right thing, but it's the government that is the problem. The Green New Deal should have included immediate opening o

              • The only reason a lot of our nuclear "waste" is "waste" is because we refuse to build reactors which can run on it. Our "spent fuel" still has the majority of the energy remaining in it. Rather than bury the energy we've already mined and refined we should be using it. That's the sensible choice.

                • I'm up for that too. Sadly again the government here is the entity preventing this from occurring. The government only allows spent power plant fuel to be held "temporarily" on site because they haven't approved any other options for it.

              • The owners of nuclear waste (primarily the government) have no way to bury their waste safely and securely because the government determines where they are allowed to do that and have exactly 0 sites licensed to do so.

                There are 0 sites licensed to do so because there are 0 sites with a safe storage plan.

                The sites that we've already built to safely and securely bury the waste are not able to be used because of the government being stupid.

                The site we built to inter the waste was depending on the containment technologies we were going to use. Vitrification has turned out to be more expensive than estimated (this is my surprised face) and dry cask storage has turned out to be less secure than estimated. Fix the problems with the containment methods that were supposed to work and you can use the existing site. But that's always the problem with nuclear. It ne

                • There are 0 sites licensed to do so because there are 0 sites with a safe storage plan.

                  I don't believe you.

                  It's cheaper to build solar, wind, and storage than it is to build nuclear plants and operate them safely, let alone to actually process the waste.

                  I don't believe you. I don't believe you because if this was even close to true then no one would build another nuclear power plant again, and yet dozens are under construction around the world right now.

                  You only want nuclear power because you are awed by it, not because it actually makes sense.

                  Why can't one be both awed by it and support its use because it makes more sense than wind, solar, and storage? Again, dozens of nuclear power plants are under construction right now. This building of new nuclear will only increase and spread as costs come down.

                  That suggests the question, does nuclear power ever make sense? Sure. It makes sense on carriers, to the extent that they make sense, and it makes sense on Mars, and beyond its orbit where solar power becomes scarce. But here, now, on this planet? It really does not. It's not cheaper, it's not better, it's not cleaner, it's not safer, and it's not more reliable. Why would we use it?

                  We use it because as we

                  • It's cheaper to build solar, wind, and storage than it is to build nuclear plants and operate them safely, let alone to actually process the waste.

                    I don't believe you. I don't believe you because if this was even close to true then no one would build another nuclear power plant again,

                    At best, that's a spectacularly naive proposition. As long as someone else has to clean up the mess, there's opportunity to profit from such activity, and the motive is clear.

                • The only reason you think there are 0 sites with a safe storage plan is because the goal posts for "safe" keep moving. The chances of anyone being harmed by burying waste in Yucca Mountain is infinitesimal compared with the risk of literally every other form of power generation. But it's still not good enough. A shitty concrete sarcophagus hastily built by conscripts in the Soviet Union has actually been a reasonably safe way to store waste way worse than anything a power plant is supposed to create. The ex

          • Oh yeah? What does it break down into?

            Do the Democrats know? My guess is that they don't.

            Do you know? My guess is that if you did, you'd answer the question instead of prevaricating.

  • There is only one sure way to stop people from burning natural gas, offer them a cheaper alternative. I keep hearing about how solar and wind energy is already cheaper than natural gas and so this problem of methane emissions is a problem that will solve itself in time as people buy more solar PV panels and put up more windmills.

    Yep, nothing to see here. We can all move along in the confidence that wind and solar power will price natural gas out of the market and removing this regulation on monitoring of

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by DogDude ( 805747 )
      If Democrats want to replace President Trump in the White House then they need a plan that doesn't drive the economy into the ground.

      - The price for electricity in the US is already ridiculously low. A slight to large increase isn't going to "drive the economy into the ground. That's 100% hyperbole. Besides, solar and wind are part of the economy, too.

      - The idea that money is the #1 reason for doing anything is absurd.

      - The "cost" of fossil fuels conveniently doesn't take into account how much it

      • - The price for electricity in the US is already ridiculously low. A slight to large increase isn't going to "drive the economy into the ground. That's 100% hyperbole. Besides, solar and wind are part of the economy, too.

        I'm sorry, I should have made it clear that this was just something I heard from the Rush Limbaugh program. I was listening to the local news in the morning and heard Rush for a bit when I turned the radio on again for lunch, once I realized my mistake I quickly changed the channel to NPR. Rush had a guest host today so I didn't recognize the voice.

        - The idea that money is the #1 reason for doing anything is absurd.

        I agree. It's a good thing then that wind and solar energy is cheaper than natural gas. Now we can get cheaper energy AND cleaner air.

        If natural gas were che

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by geekoid ( 135745 )

      A weak economy is far better then dead oceans.

      The Dem plan will not drive the economy into the ground.
      I see like most GOP members you don't actually understand the economy.

      Did you think the reason they talk about gay rights and abortion is because the republican keep attacking them?
      And you aren't free because you are armed, idiot.

      • A weak economy is far better then dead oceans.

        I'm not so sure of that. Or rather a dead ocean is far removed from people that are struggling to afford food, medicine, shelter, clothing, and heat, for their children. You tell these people that their dead child is somehow better than a dead ocean. Do that or find a way we can have both healthy children and a healthy ocean. If you make people choose between keeping their job or killing the ocean then you might not like the answer.

        The Dem plan will not drive the economy into the ground.

        I don't believe you.

        I see like most GOP members you don't actually understand the economy.

        Then enlighten me.

        Did you think the reason they talk about gay rights and abortion is because the republican keep attacking them?
        And you aren't free because you are armed, idiot.

        Calling people idiots is generally

        • " I see like most GOP members you don't actually understand the economy. Then enlighten me."

          Why have virtually all recent Republican Presidents left with the economy in a mess/recession and the following Democratic president gets the economy back on its feet?

          • Probably because the President doesn't control the federal budget, taxes, or regulation...

            Also because Republicans are just as fiscally insane as the Democrats. They just have differences on what to waste money on.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by slack_justyb ( 862874 )

      I believe we can save the planet while growing the economy, which is something many Democrats do not agree with

      Either you need to clarify that statement or provide some backup quotes for it, because if anything I've heard is that there needs to be a balance between economy and environment from both sides. What I've heard in difference is implementation of just that. Rolling back subsidies in one and rising subsidies in the other isn't an economy killer, it's how a government flexes it's muscle in an economy,

      If Democrats want to replace President Trump in the White House then they need a plan that doesn't drive the economy into the ground

      Well the thing to remember is that staying the course long enough, drives the economy into the ground. So p

      • No one is taking nuclear off the table, it's just not a priority on the table.

        Then show me a Democrat that has ever mentioned nuclear power without having to spit on the ground afterward. Preferably name those that are currently in elected office or have stated their intention to put their name on the ballot in the next election.

        • You're really missing the point. The point is that it's unpopular in both parties. In Trump's first two years Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and I don't recall any investment being allocated for nuclear. The only time I recall nuclear being brought up was by Trump when he was attempting to subsidize FirstEnergy and tinker with regulations to provide them an advantage. However, this was primarily because FirstEnergy has many coal plants and is the largest consumer of coal in the midwest. So b

          • btw, he declined to run for president, but Sherrod Brown is a high profile Democrat who has gone to bat for nuclear:

            Then why did he vote to shut down Diablo Canyon?

            The message from the Republicans is far clearer to me, they want cheap energy in any form. What I get from the Democrats is that they want low CO2 energy in any form... except nuclear power. Which tells me that they don't want low CO2 energy, they want a problem that they can look like they are solving but never actually solve.

            Nuclear power is

            • The message from the Republicans is far clearer to me, they want cheap energy in any form.

              Yes: they basically want to buy votes at any cost. It's easy to make free energy happen if you allow energy companies to trash the environment.

              What I get from the Democrats is that they want low CO2 energy in any form... except nuclear power.

              Neither party wants nuclear. It's just not very popular at the moment, especially in the US and the lack of reprocessing makes less feasible. The US also has a massive abundance

              • Neither party wants nuclear.

                Really?

                Here's the Republican party platform. It appears it has not been updated for the current POTUS re-election but should still be representative.
                https://gop.com/platform/ameri... [gop.com]

                We support the development of all forms of energy that are marketable in a free economy without subsidies, including coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear power, and hydropower.

                We encourage the cost-effective development of renewable energy sources â" wind, solar, biomass, biofuel, geothermal, and tidal energy â" by private capital.

                Here's the Democrat document.
                https://democrats.org/where-we... [democrats.org]
                I couldn't quote anything on nuclear from them because they never mention it. They don't mention hydroelectric power either. Given that prominent Democrats have spoken publicly against hydro and nuclear, and no one corrected them on this, it would seem that this i

                • That's special. The democrats say nothing and the Republicans make a bland noncommittal statement which is also not really true and your partisan mind turns this into somehow that the Republicans support it and the democrats don't.

                  As for subsidies, that's Rubbish.The Republicans heavily subsidise fossil fuels by allowing them to pollute freely and pad those costs on to other people.

    • If Democrats want to replace President Trump in the White House then they need a plan that doesn't drive the economy into the ground.

      The Dems don't need a plan. They now enjoy the brazen and open support of both the Silicon Valley tech titans (who serve as the gatekeepers of public dialog) as well as the media at large. Smokescreens, and focusing on hot-button issues will suffice.

      If nuclear had a lobby like the fossil fuel industry, then they would care. [readsludge.com] Meanwhile, enjoy the virtue signaling.

      Young republicans would do well to wipe the slate and join with liberals (not leftists) and independents to form a new party that focuses on drain-

      • focuses on drain-the-swamp, opposes identity politics and grievance culture, and seeks to remove corporate influence over politics

        The problem with that platform is that there is no clear legislative goals you can produce from those stances.

        1) "drain-the-swamp" is a meaningless catchphrase. Everyone thinks the politicians they dislike are swamp creatures.

        2) Opposing identity politicians and grievance culture may be good traits for a politician, but you can use the force of law to oppose those things without blatant violations of the 1A.

        3) "Seeks to remove corporate influence over politics" -- Unfortunately, conservatives in the Supreme

        • Principles form the foundation and legislative goals are built on that. The minutia of those goals is outside the scope of the topic, but the generalization is sufficient.

          I think if 2016 proved anything, it was that past results do not guarantee future outcomes. The status quo was the main loser in that contest.

          The largest obstacle to beneficial change remains in allowing Silicon Valley to decide which candidates are visible enough to be electable.

    • There is only one sure way to stop people from burning natural gas, offer them a cheaper alternative. I keep hearing about how solar and wind energy is already cheaper than natural gas and so this problem of methane emissions is a problem that will solve itself in time as people buy more solar PV panels and put up more windmills.

      Well giving free money to natural gas in the form of giving them a free pass on pollution will definitely help.

      If Democrats want to replace President Trump in the White House then t

    • Here's something that many Republicans find important, a strong and vibrant economy. If we are going to save the planet then it must come with the ability for the nation to pay for it.

      You might want to update your definition of "Republican." Republicans are all about stalling out the economy with trade wars and doubling deficits these days.

  • Trump claims he wants to bring back coal. But reducing methane regulations will make natural gas beat coal by even more than it is now in terms of cost. This actually hurts the industry Trump claims to want to help.

    • But will this change in regulations make natural gas cheaper than wind and solar?

      I live in the US Midwest and there is a lot of windmills going up. I'm seeing more solar PV panels too. This is no doubt because wind and solar is currently cheaper than natural gas. Just how much of an effect can this regulation have on natural gas prices?

      The only thing holding up natural gas right now is it's momentum, it's sunk costs in infrastructure. As the systems age and demand grows we should all expect old natural

      • Seems like the problem of global warming has been solved. Market forces will take over from here. Because wind and solar energy is cheaper than natural gas.

        No. This is not a full solution. As you observed, there's a massive amount of pre-existing infrastructure at work. And there are many other sources of CO2, such as transport and concrete. This both isn't a full solution and isn't happening fast enough. We need to be building more carbon neutral power, whether wind, solar, hydroelectric, geothermal, or nuclear, and need to do so at a much faster rate. And we need to reduce meat consumption (another major producer of methane and a continuing cause of deforest

        • No. This is not a full solution. As you observed, there's a massive amount of pre-existing infrastructure at work. And there are many other sources of CO2, such as transport and concrete. This both isn't a full solution and isn't happening fast enough. We need to be building more carbon neutral power, whether wind, solar, hydroelectric, geothermal, or nuclear, and need to do so at a much faster rate.

          I'm with you so far.

          And we need to reduce meat consumption (another major producer of methane and a continuing cause of deforestation leading to more CO2 production),

          Now you lost me.

          I'll listen to this guy before I listen to you:
          https://www.ted.com/talks/alla... [ted.com]

          Grazing animals do more to reverse desertification and climate change. There's likely more forest and other plant life now than humans have ever seen. I don't recall the numbers exactly but I'm quite sure that deforestation is not near the problem the treehuggers make it out to be.

          With those grazing animals comes a lot of tasty and nutritious meat for everyone. Meat is good food, just don't

          • Grazing animals do more to reverse desertification and climate change. Grazing animals do reverse desertification, but that's not nearly as large as an impact as deforestation.There's likely more forest and other plant life now than humans have ever seen.

            This is a claim that really needs citations to back it up. What is your evidence? It is true that in the US there is in many locations forest than there were two hundred years ago. This is very noticeable in some places, like parts of New England where all through the forests one sees old stone boundary walls that used to separate farms. It is also true that deforestation has dropped drastically in the last 30 years. But those are radically different claims.

            But I keep hearing on how wind and solar is cheaper than natural gas, and will save us all. Are you telling me this is a lie?

            I don't know what you've been told. Wind and sola

            • This is a claim that really needs citations to back it up. What is your evidence?

              I posted a link to a TED Talk video on it. The pictures in the slide show are worth more than words. Introducing grazing animals to land really does promote plant growth. This doesn't seem to be even a matter of debate any more.

              These aren't minor issues. Methane is a major greenhouse gas. Methane is approximately 25 times as powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]. While methane moves out of the system faster than CO2, that's a pretty serious problem. Labeling things as "imaginary bogeyman" doesn't make them become magically harmless.

              I agree, just calling it harmless doesn't make it harmless. What I'm curious about is the real harm in this EPA rule change. The gas companies already have a financial incentive to not let their product float away. Are these leaks a problem? I'm guessing that they are not.

              This

              • posted a link to a TED Talk video on it. The pictures in the slide show are worth more than words. Introducing grazing animals to land really does promote plant growth. This doesn't seem to be even a matter of debate any more.

                First of all, the TED talk you linked to isn't by a scientist, and has a giant update next to it about criticism from scientists. Second, the talk claims that grazing animals reverse desertification; no one disagrees with that. But even putting that aside, the claim you made was ".There's likely more forest and other plant life now than humans have ever seen." And that's not in the talk, and is a much stronger claim. Incidentally, note that even if you buy into his claim, it is an argument for systematic us

                • You are making extremely large, unhelpful generalizations here, and this seems closely connected to your focus on the US.

                  I am focused on the US here because this is an article on US policy, and on a forum with a large US audience.

                  I agree that there are some Democrats who are against nuclear power to a clearly irrational extent. But that's not the same as everyone at all, especially the most prominent. To use the obvious examples, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were explicitly in favor of nuclear power as part of the solution to global warming https://www.insidesources.com/... [insidesources.com] [insidesources.com]. The rest of your comment about the "Democrats" is thus essentially based on false premises.

                  Your linked article doesn't help your point. It shows that yesterday's Democrats supported nuclear power while today's Democrats do not. The closest you have to today's Democrats supporting nuclear power is Joe Biden, a former VPOTUS and US senator that is running for POTUS but due to his age and "throwback" policies is not likely to get into office. Biden might support nuclear power but he does n

                  • I am focused on the US here because this is an article on US policy, and on a forum with a large US audience.

                    The problem is that you are using your focus on the Democrats to decide that climate change isn't a serious problem. Look at your claim about how it is a deliberate bogeyman; that claim made no sense when one looked at the preferences in other countries.

                    our linked article doesn't help your point. It shows that yesterday's Democrats supported nuclear power while today's Democrats do not. The closest you have to today's Democrats supporting nuclear power is Joe Biden, a former VPOTUS and US senator that is running for POTUS but due to his age and "throwback" policies is not likely to get into office. Biden might support nuclear power but he does not speak for the Democrat majority any more.

                    The last Democratic President supported nuclear power. The last Democratic Presidential candidate supported nuclear power. Joe Biden, who as you observed, is a former VP, and also in polling numbers is one of the front runners supports nuclear power. Meanwhi

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by makomk ( 752139 )

                The requirement to install methane monitoring at natural gas production facilities would've benefited big multinationals like Exxon and Shell because they could afford the cost whilst their smaller competitors probably couldn't - which is why they supported that regulation [nytimes.com]. The actual environmental benefit of that part is questionable since any leaks would be detected by the VOC monitoring anyway. It basically seems to be a form of regulatory capture.

                • Hmm, that's an interesting point. My understanding is that the monitoring here would be more effective than the existing VOC monitoring. The regulation being removed would also reduce the requirements to quickly repair leaks.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by makomk ( 752139 )

        The big thing holding up natural gas right now is that the power grid needs natural gas generation to keep the lights on when those cheap wind and solar plants aren't producing enough power. Renewable energy is intermittent, and the fact that the power it does produce is cheap is no use when people need electricity and it falls short.

        • Intermittency of renewables is a problem, but it is one we're very close to solving. On-grid storage is becoming more of a thing. While conventional batteries are still very expensive, pumped hydroelectric works really well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity [wikipedia.org]. This combines well with other non-intermittent sources, like geothermal, tidal and nuclear power.

          We're also getting better at moving energy efficiently around the grids. The US has three major grids, East, West and Texas.

    • Re:Ironic given Trump's claims about helping coal (Score:4, Insightful)

      by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Thursday August 29, 2019 @08:43PM (#59139506)

      Trump does not want to help anybody but himself. What he wants with regards to coal is to claim he wants to bring it back, not actually bringing it back. His followers are way to stupid to notice the difference anyways.

  • They gutted climate research (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 29, 2019 @07:21PM (#59139300)

    On July 1st, United States Department of Agriculture scientists were made aware that they faced a deadline forcing them to relocate from Washington to Kansas, or be fired. This moves them away from Congress who regularly consults them in the policy making process. Last night the deadline expired. More than 80% of the scientists have already quit or are expected to before the actual move, the sudden upheaval proving too difficult to endure.

    They're doing this with other scientific research as well. Just fucjing with then to make them quit.

    https://thehill.com/policy/ene... [thehill.com]

    https://www.politico.com/story... [politico.com]

  • Firstly, dropping regulations at the federal level does not mean there will be a surge of methane hitting the atmosphere. States -- yes, even TX and ND -- regulate venting and flaring of methane. TX allows [state.tx.us] flaring up to 10 days after well completion, and sometimes grants exemptions (about 2% of wells have been granted exemptions).

    Secondly, methane is a valuable resource.... in the right location. Producers don't want to waste it, but the problem is transporting it from the wellhead to market economically. R

    • States -- yes, even TX and ND -- regulate venting and flaring of methane.

      Yup, because when has trusting the states to do the right thing ever gone wrong [wikipedia.org].

  • Comments should go on the epa.gov website (Score:3, Informative)

    by Adam Wise ( 6200990 ) on Thursday August 29, 2019 @09:59PM (#59139674)
    There will be a 60 day comment period, at some point in the very near future. Hopefully everyone commenting here will take a moment to comment on the EPA website as well. Comments might do some good there.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Chromal ( 56550 )
      The US government is failed. Comments to regulators who refuse to do their jobs are wasted energy and will not remedy the situation.

  • I note that we'd reduce the greenhouse effect far more by burning all of humanity's (non human-flatulence) methane emissions to carbon dioxide and water vapor than by eliminating all of humanity's (non-exhalation) carbon dioxide emissions.

  • They will be renamed the Environmental Negligence Agency

Slashdot Top Deals

Single tasking: Just Say No.

Close