It’s the height of summer, and so it’s HOT. That’s fine – no complaints there. But HOW hot it gets and how it affects us also depends on our behavior. That’s why today we’re writing about a study that shows which German cities heat up particularly quickly, and that this is also due to how much concrete and how little greenery these places have. We also shed light on how much the climate crisis has contributed to the heatwave in the Mediterranean.
What drives global warming and what is supposed to slow it down – that is the bread and butter of our reporting. So today, we analyze, among other things, the dispute at the very rating agency that is supposed to lay down standards for companies that want to become carbon neutral – and its balancing act between greenwashing and member interests. We report on new satellites that are finally tackling the hidden methane pollution from the gas industry. And we put a few big question marks over the methods used to calculate “Earth Overshoot Day” on August 1.
It’s a report that reliably runs through the media twice a year: Earth Overshoot Day. On this day, according to the initiators from the Global Footprint Network, the natural resources that can be regenerated within a year are used up. Globally, Earth Overshoot Day falls on August 1 this year. Mathematically, this means that 1.7 Earths would be needed to cover the demand for natural resources.
However, despite the widespread coverage of these figures, comparatively little is known about the background and underlying calculations. And a closer analysis reveals that the calculation method has flaws:
It is often not understood what exactly Earth Overshoot Day actually measures. For example, the NGO Powershift explained on this year’s German Earth Overshoot Day: “Reducing raw materials, especially metallic raw materials, can play a decisive role in reducing the overburdening of the planet by the German industry and pushing back Earth Overshoot Day.” On the occasion of last year’s Overshoot Day, Environmental Action Germany also called for “specific targets for primary raw materials such as oil, gas, metals or minerals such as sand and gravel.”
However, Earth Overshoot Day does not consider mineral or metallic raw materials at all; it only considers “ecologic resources,” which the Global Footprint Network classifies as plant-based food, grazing land, wood, and fish. It only compares the amount of these resources consumed per year with the amount nature can replenish.
Interestingly, it is not the actual consumption of these natural resources that causes the calculation to suggest a massive overexploitation. The detailed data from the Global Footprint Network, which can be found here for the world and all individual countries, shows that of the 1.7 Earths that are supposedly required globally, only around 0.65 Earths are needed for pastures, forests, arable land and fishing grounds to meet demand.
With over one calculated Earth, most of the mentioned demand can be attributed to the carbon dioxide generated by burning coal, oil and gas. This is because the Global Footprint Network includes in its calculation of natural resources how much land would theoretically have to be reforested to sequester this CO2. The large deficit results from the fact that the land required for this would not be available for producing food or wood.
This means that the “Earth Overshoot Day” is effectively more of an indicator of the continued high level of greenhouse gas emissions than of the actual consumption of natural resources. Accordingly, countries that have exceptionally high per capita carbon emissions – namely Qatar (which theoretically requires 8.7 Earths to meet its needs), Luxembourg, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Bahrain – are at the top of the Global Carbon Network’s country comparison in terms of resource consumption per person.
The calculated demand is even higher for various small island nations such as Nauru, the Faroe Islands, Micronesia, Iceland and Kiribati. However, the high demand in these countries is due to their fish consumption rather than their carbon emissions. According to the data, more than 10 Earths would be required to meet the demand if all people consumed as many marine products as the island states listed above. When asked by Table.Briefings, Mathis Wackernagel, founder and board member of the Global Carbon Network, explained that the data for these small states is “often incomplete or unreliable,” which is why these countries are not included in the graphical overview.
However, there are also discrepancies between countries whose data is categorized as reliable, which may seem difficult to comprehend. For example, data from the Global Carbon Network shows that per capita fish consumption in Denmark is more than 15 times higher than in Germany. According to the data, this is not based on the total amount fished, which could actually be significantly higher in a country with a large coastline, but on consumption in the country.
When asked, Wackernagel points out that although there may be inaccuracies in the definition of exports, he considers the data to be fundamentally reliable: “Coastal nations consume more fish,” he explains. While this is confirmed by figures from the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), the scale is completely different. Their numbers show that per capita fish consumption in Denmark is not 15 times higher than in Germany; it is just under twice as high. As Denmark’s demand for agricultural products and wood is also much higher than in Germany, the country scores poorly overall: With a calculated demand of 4.8 Earths, Denmark, which is otherwise often regarded as an ecological paragon, is one of the five worst countries in Europe on Earth Overshoot Day.
In Germany, around 60 percent of resource demand is attributable to the area theoretically required to offset carbon emissions. That’s why Earth Overshoot Day would actually have come much later this year than in the past. After all, German carbon emissions fell unusually sharply by more than 10 percent in 2023, mainly due to the energy price and economic crisis. Yet Overshoot Day comes two days earlier than last year.
This is because there is a considerable time lag in the Earth Overshoot Day calculation. According to the Global Footprint Network, the figures for 2024 are based on data up to 2022, and even these are partly estimated; only the data provided by the UN up to 2020 has been definitively confirmed. This means that important shifts at the country level only become apparent after a few years, significantly limiting the significance of the annual date.
Moreover, past Overshoot Days are also changed retrospectively if better data is available or the calculation methods are adjusted. Thus, the initiators warn that a date named Overshoot Day in previous years should not be compared with the current date. For example, in 2022, Global Earth Overshoot Day was on July 28; compared to this year, Overshoot Day on August 1 would be a slight improvement.
However, the date for 2022 has now actually been adjusted to August 1, meaning that there is, in fact, no change at all. Overall, the corrected data for the past shows that the date has barely moved forward in the last ten years – contrary to what many reports suggest. This year, Germanwatch, which has regularly reported on Earth Overshoot Day for years, explicitly points this out: “The good news is that the turning point seems to have been reached,” Executive Director Christoph Bals explained. “There are many indications that Overshoot will soon decrease.”
After a long internal dispute, the “Science Based Target Initiative” (SBTI) – the de facto standard for corporate climate targets – has now presented what is probably the most comprehensive report on the effectiveness of carbon credits. It concludes that “various types of carbon credit are ineffective in delivering their intended mitigation outcomes.” It also found no evidence of the characteristics and conditions under which they could be effective.
According to the SBTI, the evidence gathered indicates that the use of carbon credits is associated with a “clear risk” of hindering a company’s net zero transformation and/or reducing its climate finance.
The evidence report serves as the basis for the SBTI’s decision on whether and how it will include carbon credits in its new net zero standard expected this fall. In an additional discussion paper, the SBTI outlines where carbon credits could be used:
A months-long struggle preceded the report. On the surface, it was about the pros and cons of carbon credits – but in fact, it was about differences in European and US climate policy.
In April, the SBTI management surprisingly published a statement stating they wanted to allow various types of carbon certificates in the future. Protest quickly followed: In an open letter, technical employees accused management of overstepping their authority. The CEO has since resigned.
There was also the question of whether the SBTI’s leadership had acted under pressure from its funder and the US government. The Bezos Earth Fund (BEF), the environmental foundation of Amazon billionaire Jeff Bezos, finances the SBTI with 20 million US dollars. The US State Department and the BEF are considered advocates of carbon credits: They have jointly launched the Energy Transition Accelerator, which aims to generate carbon credits worth billions of dollars by promoting renewable energy in developing and emerging countries.
One party remained silent: The WWF, which co-founded the SBTI and supports it with personnel, some of whom hold key positions. Although the WWF itself is active in the carbon offset market, its opinion on carbon credits is ambivalent. In July, however, it expressed a surprisingly critical view: With a few exceptions, it rejected carbon credits for corporate climate targets as they would “redirect efforts away from the investments and innovations needed for driving systemic change.”
The point of contention is Scope 3, i.e., indirect emissions, for example, from the use of a company’s products. Recording and reducing such emissions is complex. Too complex, say proponents of carbon credits. They would prefer to offset non-reducible Scope 3 emissions while using this revenue to help countries in the Global South financially.
“We are now in a phase where we have to recognize that the transformation and thus the reduction of Scope 3 is difficult,” admits Sebastian Öttl, Head of Sustainable Corporate Development at WWF Germany: “Perhaps Scope 3 requires other forms of target setting, other mechanisms for achieving targets and also a different tolerance for mistakes.” However, the WWF rejects the idea of offsetting instead: “With SBTI, we want to enable companies to reduce emissions in their value chain and promote the transformation of their markets,” says Öttl. SBTI is seen as a driver of innovation. From this perspective, offsetting would only distract from the actual problem.
The US perspective on this issue is entirely different. The Biden government calls on companies to use “high-integrity carbon credits.” This is because general emissions trading or a carbon tax is a politically futile idea in the USA. The credits could also divert money to the Global South that is not flowing due to the political blockade in the US Congress.
“Hence this pragmatic, somewhat resigned turn to an instrument that does not require budget approval,” says Michael Mehling from the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). The US government could counter some criticism that it does not raise enough money for international climate financing if it motivates companies to voluntarily comply with the SBTI climate targets and buy carbon credits for forest conservation or wind turbines in the Global South.
This would also explain the lobbying by John Kerry and the US State Department, as reported by the Financial Times, to persuade the SBTI to accept carbon credits – despite all the criticism of their reliability.
“I don’t think they’re cynically thinking at the State Department that this is all nonsense,” says Mehling: “The hope is that if carbon credits are monitored properly, with sufficiently stringent rules, the benefits will outweigh the risks.”
It remains to be seen how the USA will react if the SBTI sees things differently. The organization is walking a fine line. If the standard is too weak, it certifies greenwashing. If it is too strict, then US companies, in particular, may opt out. Yet this is precisely the strength of the SBTI: The more large companies are involved, the more smaller ones must also participate to support each other in achieving the climate targets.
It is yet another warning signal in the climate crisis: Global methane emissions have increased sharply since 2020, as a new study shows. The scientists warn that the growth of this very potent greenhouse gas “far exceeds” forecasts. The rapid increase in recent years is mainly caused by the fossil fuel sector and rising wetland emissions. Two new satellite programs aim to identify such climate warning signals even earlier. The two earth satellites from two NGOs are intended to show which countries and oil and gas companies are causing particularly large methane emissions or are not doing enough to prevent the greenhouse gas from escaping. The plans are to make the satellite data freely available this fall and use it to allow governments, the media and environmentalists to put pressure on polluters. A better data basis and greater transparency are a prerequisite for new EU and US regulations to become effective at all.
The first major hurdle has been cleared: The MethaneSat satellite was launched into orbit in March 2024. The satellite – the size of a washing machine – is currently being calibrated and will soon collect its first data on methane leaks. The satellite from the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and a new pair of satellites from the Carbon Mapper Coalition are intended to advance the fight against methane leaks. In the short term, methane is 80 times more harmful to the climate than CO2 and is responsible for 30 percent of global warming. Reducing methane emissions is considered the most effective option for curbing global warming.
The satellites are unprecedented: For the first time, non-profit organizations have sent Earth satellites into orbit to contribute to greater transparency about methane emitters. MethaneSat is said to have a broader perspective and visualize methane leaks in fossil production areas, regions, and at the state level in high resolution. According to the MethaneSat website, the satellite can “detect in aggregate the myriad small emissions other satellites can’t see today.” In addition to the wide field of view, the satellite will also be able to detect large emissions from concentrated point sources.
Carbon Mapper’s two Tanager satellites are designed to detect and quantify methane and carbon dioxide leaks at the level of individual facilities such as pipelines, refineries, power plants or landfills. With a resolution of 30 meters, its instruments can also detect smaller leaks than those of MethaneSat. In the future, an entire swarm of Tanager satellites will monitor up to 90 percent of the world’s major emission sources almost daily. Tanager’s precise vision could help operators of fossil fuel infrastructure quickly identify and close leaks.
According to Anke Roiger from the German Aerospace Center (DLR), the data from MethaneSat promises “significant added value” compared to current satellite measurements. According to the DLR’s Head of Atmospheric Trace Substances Department, the EDF’s approach enables a “better overall emissions estimate for regional emissions.” According to Ralf Sussmann from the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), however, calling the EDF satellite a “game changer” from a technical perspective, as EDF does, would be an exaggeration. According to the Head of the KIT Atmospheric Variability and Trends working group, other satellites have already had similar capabilities.
The greatest strength of the non-profit satellites will be data availability. The EDF wants to make its data freely available to industry, governments, investors and the public in early 2025. “Polluters can no longer hide,” is the NGO’s promise. This is important because, in some regions, there are no reliable ways of measuring methane emissions, with some countries outright prohibiting such measurements.
According to the EDF, the EU Commission, several US states and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) intend to use the MethaneSat data. For instance, the EU could use the data to monitor compliance with the methane regulation adopted in April 2024. The regulation requires European and non-European producers and importers to comply with and monitor certain limits. The satellites provide independent data and thus increase the pressure on the regulated companies to comply with the regulations.
The same applies to the USA. From 2025, oil and gas companies will be fined if their production and downstream processing allow too much methane to escape. Accurate satellite data can help monitor these regulations. New data from the Environmental Defense Fund shows why this is important. US oil and gas deposits emit four times more methane than the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had previously assumed. The EDF and partner organizations monitored twelve large oil and gas fields with an aircraft fitted with methane measuring instruments. Satellites would automate this process and could provide much more data.
Voluntary industry associations such as the Oil and Gas Decarbonization Charter, which was adopted at COP28, can also use the satellite data to monitor their progress. Independent third parties can also use the data to hold companies accountable.
The UN and its Methane Alert and Response System (MARS) presented at COP27 could also benefit. The UN Environment Program (UNEP) wants to use the MARS program to ensure greater transparency on methane emissions. Methane emissions are localized via several satellites and the responsible companies and governments are informed. The data will then be published after 45 to 75 days – along with responses from governments or companies to UN notifications of methane leaks. The idea is that this will create public pressure to encourage affected parties to take action more quickly. However, according to Anke Roiger from DLR, MARS has so far been relying on satellites that can only “detect very large leaks.” MethaneSat and the Tanager satellites, on the other hand, will also be able to detect smaller leaks, which could further advance the MARS program. The EDF and the UN have already signed a cooperation agreement to this end.
It’s the height of summer, and so it’s HOT. That’s fine – no complaints there. But HOW hot it gets and how it affects us also depends on our behavior. That’s why today we’re writing about a study that shows which German cities heat up particularly quickly, and that this is also due to how much concrete and how little greenery these places have. We also shed light on how much the climate crisis has contributed to the heatwave in the Mediterranean.
What drives global warming and what is supposed to slow it down – that is the bread and butter of our reporting. So today, we analyze, among other things, the dispute at the very rating agency that is supposed to lay down standards for companies that want to become carbon neutral – and its balancing act between greenwashing and member interests. We report on new satellites that are finally tackling the hidden methane pollution from the gas industry. And we put a few big question marks over the methods used to calculate “Earth Overshoot Day” on August 1.
It’s a report that reliably runs through the media twice a year: Earth Overshoot Day. On this day, according to the initiators from the Global Footprint Network, the natural resources that can be regenerated within a year are used up. Globally, Earth Overshoot Day falls on August 1 this year. Mathematically, this means that 1.7 Earths would be needed to cover the demand for natural resources.
However, despite the widespread coverage of these figures, comparatively little is known about the background and underlying calculations. And a closer analysis reveals that the calculation method has flaws:
It is often not understood what exactly Earth Overshoot Day actually measures. For example, the NGO Powershift explained on this year’s German Earth Overshoot Day: “Reducing raw materials, especially metallic raw materials, can play a decisive role in reducing the overburdening of the planet by the German industry and pushing back Earth Overshoot Day.” On the occasion of last year’s Overshoot Day, Environmental Action Germany also called for “specific targets for primary raw materials such as oil, gas, metals or minerals such as sand and gravel.”
However, Earth Overshoot Day does not consider mineral or metallic raw materials at all; it only considers “ecologic resources,” which the Global Footprint Network classifies as plant-based food, grazing land, wood, and fish. It only compares the amount of these resources consumed per year with the amount nature can replenish.
Interestingly, it is not the actual consumption of these natural resources that causes the calculation to suggest a massive overexploitation. The detailed data from the Global Footprint Network, which can be found here for the world and all individual countries, shows that of the 1.7 Earths that are supposedly required globally, only around 0.65 Earths are needed for pastures, forests, arable land and fishing grounds to meet demand.
With over one calculated Earth, most of the mentioned demand can be attributed to the carbon dioxide generated by burning coal, oil and gas. This is because the Global Footprint Network includes in its calculation of natural resources how much land would theoretically have to be reforested to sequester this CO2. The large deficit results from the fact that the land required for this would not be available for producing food or wood.
This means that the “Earth Overshoot Day” is effectively more of an indicator of the continued high level of greenhouse gas emissions than of the actual consumption of natural resources. Accordingly, countries that have exceptionally high per capita carbon emissions – namely Qatar (which theoretically requires 8.7 Earths to meet its needs), Luxembourg, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Bahrain – are at the top of the Global Carbon Network’s country comparison in terms of resource consumption per person.
The calculated demand is even higher for various small island nations such as Nauru, the Faroe Islands, Micronesia, Iceland and Kiribati. However, the high demand in these countries is due to their fish consumption rather than their carbon emissions. According to the data, more than 10 Earths would be required to meet the demand if all people consumed as many marine products as the island states listed above. When asked by Table.Briefings, Mathis Wackernagel, founder and board member of the Global Carbon Network, explained that the data for these small states is “often incomplete or unreliable,” which is why these countries are not included in the graphical overview.
However, there are also discrepancies between countries whose data is categorized as reliable, which may seem difficult to comprehend. For example, data from the Global Carbon Network shows that per capita fish consumption in Denmark is more than 15 times higher than in Germany. According to the data, this is not based on the total amount fished, which could actually be significantly higher in a country with a large coastline, but on consumption in the country.
When asked, Wackernagel points out that although there may be inaccuracies in the definition of exports, he considers the data to be fundamentally reliable: “Coastal nations consume more fish,” he explains. While this is confirmed by figures from the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), the scale is completely different. Their numbers show that per capita fish consumption in Denmark is not 15 times higher than in Germany; it is just under twice as high. As Denmark’s demand for agricultural products and wood is also much higher than in Germany, the country scores poorly overall: With a calculated demand of 4.8 Earths, Denmark, which is otherwise often regarded as an ecological paragon, is one of the five worst countries in Europe on Earth Overshoot Day.
In Germany, around 60 percent of resource demand is attributable to the area theoretically required to offset carbon emissions. That’s why Earth Overshoot Day would actually have come much later this year than in the past. After all, German carbon emissions fell unusually sharply by more than 10 percent in 2023, mainly due to the energy price and economic crisis. Yet Overshoot Day comes two days earlier than last year.
This is because there is a considerable time lag in the Earth Overshoot Day calculation. According to the Global Footprint Network, the figures for 2024 are based on data up to 2022, and even these are partly estimated; only the data provided by the UN up to 2020 has been definitively confirmed. This means that important shifts at the country level only become apparent after a few years, significantly limiting the significance of the annual date.
Moreover, past Overshoot Days are also changed retrospectively if better data is available or the calculation methods are adjusted. Thus, the initiators warn that a date named Overshoot Day in previous years should not be compared with the current date. For example, in 2022, Global Earth Overshoot Day was on July 28; compared to this year, Overshoot Day on August 1 would be a slight improvement.
However, the date for 2022 has now actually been adjusted to August 1, meaning that there is, in fact, no change at all. Overall, the corrected data for the past shows that the date has barely moved forward in the last ten years – contrary to what many reports suggest. This year, Germanwatch, which has regularly reported on Earth Overshoot Day for years, explicitly points this out: “The good news is that the turning point seems to have been reached,” Executive Director Christoph Bals explained. “There are many indications that Overshoot will soon decrease.”
After a long internal dispute, the “Science Based Target Initiative” (SBTI) – the de facto standard for corporate climate targets – has now presented what is probably the most comprehensive report on the effectiveness of carbon credits. It concludes that “various types of carbon credit are ineffective in delivering their intended mitigation outcomes.” It also found no evidence of the characteristics and conditions under which they could be effective.
According to the SBTI, the evidence gathered indicates that the use of carbon credits is associated with a “clear risk” of hindering a company’s net zero transformation and/or reducing its climate finance.
The evidence report serves as the basis for the SBTI’s decision on whether and how it will include carbon credits in its new net zero standard expected this fall. In an additional discussion paper, the SBTI outlines where carbon credits could be used:
A months-long struggle preceded the report. On the surface, it was about the pros and cons of carbon credits – but in fact, it was about differences in European and US climate policy.
In April, the SBTI management surprisingly published a statement stating they wanted to allow various types of carbon certificates in the future. Protest quickly followed: In an open letter, technical employees accused management of overstepping their authority. The CEO has since resigned.
There was also the question of whether the SBTI’s leadership had acted under pressure from its funder and the US government. The Bezos Earth Fund (BEF), the environmental foundation of Amazon billionaire Jeff Bezos, finances the SBTI with 20 million US dollars. The US State Department and the BEF are considered advocates of carbon credits: They have jointly launched the Energy Transition Accelerator, which aims to generate carbon credits worth billions of dollars by promoting renewable energy in developing and emerging countries.
One party remained silent: The WWF, which co-founded the SBTI and supports it with personnel, some of whom hold key positions. Although the WWF itself is active in the carbon offset market, its opinion on carbon credits is ambivalent. In July, however, it expressed a surprisingly critical view: With a few exceptions, it rejected carbon credits for corporate climate targets as they would “redirect efforts away from the investments and innovations needed for driving systemic change.”
The point of contention is Scope 3, i.e., indirect emissions, for example, from the use of a company’s products. Recording and reducing such emissions is complex. Too complex, say proponents of carbon credits. They would prefer to offset non-reducible Scope 3 emissions while using this revenue to help countries in the Global South financially.
“We are now in a phase where we have to recognize that the transformation and thus the reduction of Scope 3 is difficult,” admits Sebastian Öttl, Head of Sustainable Corporate Development at WWF Germany: “Perhaps Scope 3 requires other forms of target setting, other mechanisms for achieving targets and also a different tolerance for mistakes.” However, the WWF rejects the idea of offsetting instead: “With SBTI, we want to enable companies to reduce emissions in their value chain and promote the transformation of their markets,” says Öttl. SBTI is seen as a driver of innovation. From this perspective, offsetting would only distract from the actual problem.
The US perspective on this issue is entirely different. The Biden government calls on companies to use “high-integrity carbon credits.” This is because general emissions trading or a carbon tax is a politically futile idea in the USA. The credits could also divert money to the Global South that is not flowing due to the political blockade in the US Congress.
“Hence this pragmatic, somewhat resigned turn to an instrument that does not require budget approval,” says Michael Mehling from the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). The US government could counter some criticism that it does not raise enough money for international climate financing if it motivates companies to voluntarily comply with the SBTI climate targets and buy carbon credits for forest conservation or wind turbines in the Global South.
This would also explain the lobbying by John Kerry and the US State Department, as reported by the Financial Times, to persuade the SBTI to accept carbon credits – despite all the criticism of their reliability.
“I don’t think they’re cynically thinking at the State Department that this is all nonsense,” says Mehling: “The hope is that if carbon credits are monitored properly, with sufficiently stringent rules, the benefits will outweigh the risks.”
It remains to be seen how the USA will react if the SBTI sees things differently. The organization is walking a fine line. If the standard is too weak, it certifies greenwashing. If it is too strict, then US companies, in particular, may opt out. Yet this is precisely the strength of the SBTI: The more large companies are involved, the more smaller ones must also participate to support each other in achieving the climate targets.
It is yet another warning signal in the climate crisis: Global methane emissions have increased sharply since 2020, as a new study shows. The scientists warn that the growth of this very potent greenhouse gas “far exceeds” forecasts. The rapid increase in recent years is mainly caused by the fossil fuel sector and rising wetland emissions. Two new satellite programs aim to identify such climate warning signals even earlier. The two earth satellites from two NGOs are intended to show which countries and oil and gas companies are causing particularly large methane emissions or are not doing enough to prevent the greenhouse gas from escaping. The plans are to make the satellite data freely available this fall and use it to allow governments, the media and environmentalists to put pressure on polluters. A better data basis and greater transparency are a prerequisite for new EU and US regulations to become effective at all.
The first major hurdle has been cleared: The MethaneSat satellite was launched into orbit in March 2024. The satellite – the size of a washing machine – is currently being calibrated and will soon collect its first data on methane leaks. The satellite from the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and a new pair of satellites from the Carbon Mapper Coalition are intended to advance the fight against methane leaks. In the short term, methane is 80 times more harmful to the climate than CO2 and is responsible for 30 percent of global warming. Reducing methane emissions is considered the most effective option for curbing global warming.
The satellites are unprecedented: For the first time, non-profit organizations have sent Earth satellites into orbit to contribute to greater transparency about methane emitters. MethaneSat is said to have a broader perspective and visualize methane leaks in fossil production areas, regions, and at the state level in high resolution. According to the MethaneSat website, the satellite can “detect in aggregate the myriad small emissions other satellites can’t see today.” In addition to the wide field of view, the satellite will also be able to detect large emissions from concentrated point sources.
Carbon Mapper’s two Tanager satellites are designed to detect and quantify methane and carbon dioxide leaks at the level of individual facilities such as pipelines, refineries, power plants or landfills. With a resolution of 30 meters, its instruments can also detect smaller leaks than those of MethaneSat. In the future, an entire swarm of Tanager satellites will monitor up to 90 percent of the world’s major emission sources almost daily. Tanager’s precise vision could help operators of fossil fuel infrastructure quickly identify and close leaks.
According to Anke Roiger from the German Aerospace Center (DLR), the data from MethaneSat promises “significant added value” compared to current satellite measurements. According to the DLR’s Head of Atmospheric Trace Substances Department, the EDF’s approach enables a “better overall emissions estimate for regional emissions.” According to Ralf Sussmann from the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), however, calling the EDF satellite a “game changer” from a technical perspective, as EDF does, would be an exaggeration. According to the Head of the KIT Atmospheric Variability and Trends working group, other satellites have already had similar capabilities.
The greatest strength of the non-profit satellites will be data availability. The EDF wants to make its data freely available to industry, governments, investors and the public in early 2025. “Polluters can no longer hide,” is the NGO’s promise. This is important because, in some regions, there are no reliable ways of measuring methane emissions, with some countries outright prohibiting such measurements.
According to the EDF, the EU Commission, several US states and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) intend to use the MethaneSat data. For instance, the EU could use the data to monitor compliance with the methane regulation adopted in April 2024. The regulation requires European and non-European producers and importers to comply with and monitor certain limits. The satellites provide independent data and thus increase the pressure on the regulated companies to comply with the regulations.
The same applies to the USA. From 2025, oil and gas companies will be fined if their production and downstream processing allow too much methane to escape. Accurate satellite data can help monitor these regulations. New data from the Environmental Defense Fund shows why this is important. US oil and gas deposits emit four times more methane than the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had previously assumed. The EDF and partner organizations monitored twelve large oil and gas fields with an aircraft fitted with methane measuring instruments. Satellites would automate this process and could provide much more data.
Voluntary industry associations such as the Oil and Gas Decarbonization Charter, which was adopted at COP28, can also use the satellite data to monitor their progress. Independent third parties can also use the data to hold companies accountable.
The UN and its Methane Alert and Response System (MARS) presented at COP27 could also benefit. The UN Environment Program (UNEP) wants to use the MARS program to ensure greater transparency on methane emissions. Methane emissions are localized via several satellites and the responsible companies and governments are informed. The data will then be published after 45 to 75 days – along with responses from governments or companies to UN notifications of methane leaks. The idea is that this will create public pressure to encourage affected parties to take action more quickly. However, according to Anke Roiger from DLR, MARS has so far been relying on satellites that can only “detect very large leaks.” MethaneSat and the Tanager satellites, on the other hand, will also be able to detect smaller leaks, which could further advance the MARS program. The EDF and the UN have already signed a cooperation agreement to this end.
