Methane in the Trump Era

Hi there,

Welcome to the 17th edition of our newsletter, The Overview: A biweekly dispatch on the world of methane and other super pollutants.

The top line

There has been a lot of indifference toward environmental issues under Trump. Could methane mitigation sidestep partisan divides and emerge as a practical, winning solution? Perhaps, this is methane’s moment.

New Administration, New Era…

…and with it comes challenges, adjustments, and foundational uncertainty. 

The sledgehammer that Trump’s admin is taking to essential federal funds for the EPA, USDA, IRA, and other crucial environmental programs is justifiably capturing the majority of media, investor, and analyst attention presently. At the federal level, methane leadership is gone (for now). Congressional efforts are already rolling back methane fees and regulations, including one of the most progressive pieces of environmental legislation ever drafted, the methane fee.

We’re not here to speak much to it—we don’t have particularly trenchant insights to add to the comprehensive, potentially epochal implications of it all (who really does, at this point?). 

That said, as far as our lane of relative expertise is concerned, we see the current environment – one characterized fundamentally by uncertainty – as a potentially surprising chance to shift more resources (whether attention, capital, or other) to the methane opportunity. By this we mean the (massive) and as-of-yet under-tapped opportunity to reduce methane emissions, which is one of the fastest ways to slow warming in a rapidly warming world. Why? Well, many methane-focused solutions are economical, not just environmental nice-to-haves.

The reality is that the U.S. likely won’t lead on federal methane policy. The good news? That might not matter. Why?

Point 1: Methane has advantages that CO2 does not

The positive economics of methane mitigation might be the environment’s biggest advantage under Trump. This is one clear instance where doing the right environmental thing also makes financial sense.

Methane vs Carbon Dioxide: A condensed comparison

• CO2 faces a green premium, whereas methane presents an economic incentive as a valuable resource - Elon Musk powers his SpaceX rockets with liquid methane! 

• Successful waste-to-value business models in methane exist and already work, think Archaea Energy (landfill gas to electric and dairy digestors) and Crusoe (flared gas to computing power); CO2 has almost no comparable economic case.

• Methane has a much higher warming potential than CO2 over 20 years (84x), making its mitigation even more impactful.

• Methane’s social cost is much higher than that of CO2. The social cost or estimated economic damage that results from the emission of a unit of that gas into the atmosphere of methane is estimated to be upwards of $4000/ton compared to the $192/ton of CO2.

Point 2: Methane mitigation makes dollars & sense

Environment aside, methane reductions have strong economic incentives, even without policy support.

Key Industry Examples: 

• Oil & Gas: Less wasted gas = more profit. Methane leaks are higher than we thought. Each molecule escaping into the atmosphere is money lost. Reducing waste improves returns. 

• Agriculture: Efficiency gains in cattle farming (feed, manure management) lead to cost savings. New research shows that methane reductions correlate with a >10% reduction in dry matter intake for dairy cows, a direct improvement for farmers that operate with razor-thin margins.

• Waste: Landfill gas capture & anaerobic digestion already work profitably.

Methane mitigation isn’t just good for the planet; it’s good business. Plus, it’s creating jobs.

Which Sectors Will Lead Methane Mitigation Under Trump?

Trump or no Trump, innovation in methane mitigation continues across multiple industries, with energy standing out as the most resilient and promising sector.

Energy: The most resilient & promising sector

• Technology is scaling rapidly: Satellites such as Carbon Mapper, GHGSAT, MethaneSAT, and others are making emissions tracking easier. Beyond satellites, ground-level innovations are making monitoring more accessible and cost-effective. For instance, the EPA's recent approval of new methane monitoring devices like Xplorobot signals a maturing technology marketplace. As Ben Ratner from J.P. Morgan and author of their Methane Emissions Report noted at a recent conference: "The methane data marketplace has matured considerably on the supply side. And the demand side is coming. Now, the question is, how do we make sure both sides meet?"

• Leak rates are higher than previously estimated. The EPA estimates leaks at 1.4 percent of production on a national basis. However, satellite and monitoring data show that these leak rates can be up to 6x higher than estimations. The New Mexico portion of the Permian Basin emits 9% of the total methane produced straight into the atmosphere. Each year, oil and gas operations in the U.S. emit approximately 16 million metric tons of methane through venting, flaring, and leaks.

• Money is escaping into the sky: This escaped natural gas is the equivalent of $2 billion worth of wasted product. The annual cost rises to $10 billion when researchers account for harm to the economy and human well-being caused by adding this amount of heat-trapping methane to Earth’s atmosphere.

• Plugging leaks creates jobs: Enforcement of the methane fee could create more than 70,000 jobs and increase gross domestic product by more than $250 billion from 2023 to 2050.

• US policy isn’t the end-all-be-all: To maintain competitive advantage, producers must comply with international methane intensity standards. While the U.S. may not lead on methane policy, international market pressures will continue shaping its future. The European Union is implementing methane emission standards for imported gas, forcing U.S. producers to comply or risk losing market share. Meanwhile, China and Brazil—two of the world’s largest methane emitters—are under increasing scrutiny, with satellite data revealing significantly underestimated emissions from coal mining and livestock operations.

• More AI, more gas: AI-powered data centers need power, and that energy will come from gas, creating demand for near-zero methane solutions and hope that hyperscalers with large climate commitments will be a part of investing in the solution.

• The U.S. O&G industry continues to invest in methane mitigation despite regulatory shifts: EPA just approved new methane monitoring devices and companies like Exxon announced 2030 plans that index heavily on methane monitoring & reductions. From their December 2024 report: “The plans are to achieve a 20-30% reduction in corporate-wide greenhouse gas intensity; a 40-50% reduction in greenhouse gas intensity of upstream operations; a 70-80% reduction in corporate-wide methane intensity; and a 60-70% reduction in corporate-wide flaring intensity.”

Agriculture & Waste: Potential, but needs momentum from private sector 

Agriculture has been slower to capitalize on methane mitigation, partly due to skepticism toward carbon credit schemes. However, efficiency improvements such as methane-reducing feed additives can drive profit and sustainability. Research has shown that methane reduction correlates with lower dry matter intake, boosting farm productivity and profitability.

Waste solutions are gaining traction, too, with companies like Archaea and Emvolon offering stand-out examples. But more investment and policy are needed to scale these solutions. While Europe has successfully scaled anaerobic digestion, the U.S. is still catching up, with California leading the way as the first state to regulate methane emissions from solid waste. There is promise elsewhere, with New York City residents now required to separate food scraps and yard waste from trash. This provides a cleaner waste stream that can be utilized for biogas rather than turning into more uncaptured gas in landfills. But there are many U.S. states where this isn’t yet a policy prerogative, and it certainly isn’t at the federal level.

The bottom line: The economics of methane mitigation win

• Methane reductions already align with market forces.

• Unlike CO2, methane mitigation is inherently profitable—companies don’t need subsidies to act.

• Now is the time to double down on innovation & cost-saving strategies.

• While federal methane leadership is uncertain, methane mitigation remains an economic no-brainer.

• The U.S. will remain a global methane player through its private sector, energy exports, and technological leadership.

• Time to lean into economic incentives, not policy expectations.

• !! A surprise takeaway: Methane could fare better under Trump than other climate initiatives—it’s an economic, not just environmental, play!

If you haven’t already, subscribe to The Overview and forward this to a colleague who needs to rethink their methane strategy in 2025.

— This newsletter is brought to you by Lauren Singer and Nick van Osdol