Methane News - The Latest In Methane Across All Sectors

Hi there,

Welcome to the 20th edition of our newsletter, The Overview: A biweekly dispatch on the world of methane and other super pollutants.

The top line

As we head into Q2, we're taking stock of the biggest developments in methane from the first three months of 2025. From new measurement breakthroughs to policy reversals in agriculture and oil & gas, Q1 was a reminder that methane is still deeply underestimated and often willfully ignored.

This edition recaps the most important methane stories from Q1 across measurement, agriculture, oil and gas, waste, and natural sources. Some mark progress, others signal regression, but all point to the same truth: this is a fast-moving space with real climate, economic, and political stakes.

Here’s what stood out:

Measurement

1. Satellites reveal methane is being consistently undercounted

TLDR: A global survey using satellite data shows methane emissions from landfills, coal, and oil and gas are significantly higher than previously estimated. The analysis found numerous persistent emission sites that had never been flagged in national inventories.

Why it matters: This continues a trend that we’ve reported on before: each new layer of measurement technology reveals that the methane problem is larger than models or industry reports and estimations suggest. Better measurement is not just academic, it reshapes what counts as compliance and where mitigation efforts should focus. It also allows policymakers (maybe not in this administration, but eventually) to have a real baseline for emissions to hold producers accountable to and then implement emissions fees and fines. 

The nuance: At an atmospheric level, it’s not ‘particularly’ difficult to measure how much the concentration of methane is increasing (see below for recent history). Hence, underestimations from one source of methane emissions must come from overestimations of another source, right? Tautologically, sure. Practically? Perhaps not. 

That would require there to be some existing, cohesive, trusted, and iteratively updated documentation that breaks down methane emissions by source, whether human-caused or natural, across the world. A single source of truth, if you will. In writing about methane for years now, we have yet to find one. Please let us know if we’re missing it! That said, measuring rather than estimating emissions should render that challenge moot soon.

2. California launches its own satellite to detect methane leaks

TLDR: As the federal government rolls back methane enforcement, California is striking out on its own by launching a new public-private satellite initiative to detect and reduce methane leaks across the state. The project will provide free, high-resolution data to regulators, researchers, and the public, aiming to improve accountability and accelerate emissions reductions.

Why it matters: This reflects California’s strategy of stepping up when federal oversight weakens or, as it often has, in advance of federal policy in general. The state is betting on transparency, tech, and data access as a way to push polluters and regulators alike. It also deepens the divide between states that are scaling up climate tools and those rolling them back.

The nuance: It’s unclear how or whether industry will be compelled to respond to public emissions data absent federal and/or investor pressure. Perhaps actual data around just how much money is leaking into the atmosphere, coupled with name and shame, will drive more action.

Agriculture

3. New Zealand scraps its plan to price livestock methane

TLDR: After years of development, New Zealand officially canceled its world-first plan to price agricultural methane. The government cited opposition from the farming industry, which claimed the policy would make their operations unviable.

Why it matters: This was a high-profile test case for whether, when, and how to regulate the largest source of anthropogenic methane emissions globally: livestock. Its failure signals how politically fraught methane pricing remains, even in a country with otherwise strong climate commitments. It’s also worth noting that from farm to table, the methane conversation surrounding livestock and products from it is jam-packed with misinformation.

The nuance: It’s also worth noting that methane emissions from cows, goats, sheep, or otherwise are not farmers’ fault. Without knowing the ins and outs of policy, we can’t say whether this decision was ‘right’ or ‘wrong.’ Perhaps farmers’ claims that the policies would render their businesses untenable were and remain correct. Perhaps its implementation would have simply shifted demand for meat and milk overseas, doing little to reduce global methane emissions.  Hence, the unfortunate reality we’re responding to here is not the absence of this specific policy carrot or stick for methane work in agriculture per se. It’s the absence of any. At a national level, at least (note: Denmark still plans to implement a price on methane emissions from livestock by 2030).

Oil, gas, and coal

4. Trump administration pauses enforcement of methane fee

TLDR: The enforcement of the Waste Emissions Charge, the first federal fee on methane emissions, is no more. In March, Congress used the Congressional Review Act to overturn the EPA’s implementation rule for the Waste Emissions Charge, which was originally written into the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022. The rule had just taken effect for 2024 emissions and would have charged oil and gas operators that met certain criteria a fee on excess methane emissions. Now, not only is the implementation rule gone, but the EPA was also barred from issuing a similar rule unless Congress explicitly authorizes it.

Why it matters: The WEC was the first federal pricing mechanism for O&G methane and was a first-of-its-kind policy globally. Its repeal guts a major emissions accountability tool and leaves an estimated ~$7.2 billion in lost revenue over the next decade on the table. It also underscores how contested climate policy remains, even after policy is passed, regardless of country or sector.

The nuance: The absence of a tax on excess methane emissions in oil and gas is not inherently beneficial long-term to the companies that might first come to mind, whether Exxon, Shell, or others. The biggest oil and gas companies would have been best positioned and capitalized to comply with the rule, whereas relatively smaller operators might not have. Similarly, longer-term, a price incentive to keep more methane in pipes or in the ground could have been beneficial to businesses in its own right. So while perhaps friendlier to the sector as a whole short-term, it’s not inherently a massive economic boon to domestic oil and gas long-term (to say nothing of the environment).

Nor, of course, is the 10%+ sell-off in oil prices we’ve seen over the past week, or the fact that OPEC+ agreed to raise supply more than previously expected beginning in May, though those are topics that could fill another newsletter (and might soon!)

5. Trump freezes federal funds for orphaned well cleanup

TLDR: Federal funding for plugging abandoned oil and gas wells, a major source of uncontrolled methane emissions, has been suspended, leaving states without the resources needed to address the problem.

Why it matters: Abandoned wells are a well-documented methane risk. Suspending cleanup halts shovel-ready climate mitigation projects and shifts the burden back to states already facing budget constraints.

The nuance: Enterprising startups are still making progress on this problem, whether they’re building businesses on top of other governmental incentives - such as from states or municipalities - or otherwise.

6. Greenpeace fined $600 million in pipeline protest lawsuit

TLDR: A U.S. court ordered Greenpeace to pay Energy Transfer more than $600 million over its opposition to the Dakota Access Pipeline. The ruling found that Greenpeace’s actions caused financial harm to the company.

Why it matters: This verdict sets a massive precedent; from now on, absent a significant about-face, activists must face down more than lobbyists and companies when protesting infrastructure projects (or anything else, really). There’s a new elephant in the room, namely crippling financial repercussions alongside legal penalties. This extends to any public pressure campaigns tied to methane-emitting projects. It has a quite literal as well as metaphorically ‘chilling’ effect.

7. Glencore coal mine leaking 10x more methane than reported

TLDR: Building on our observations and analysis of methane misestimations, independent analysis found that a Glencore-owned coal mine in Australia was emitting ten times more methane than disclosed. Satellite and aerial monitoring revealed sustained releases previously missed in company filings. The company contested the findings, though its vested interests should be pretty apparent.

Why it matters: Coal mine methane is one of the least regulated, least measured, and least discussed (including, to walk the walk, in these pages, though we’ll endeavor to rectify that in Q2) sources of super pollutants. As scrutiny increases, we’ll ideally get a lot smarter on it (and by we, we include ourselves) and see more accountability, whether from investors or regulators.

The nuance: Absent significant carrots or sticks, coal mine methane might be one of the hardest areas to accelerate emissions reduction work, especially considering, like oil wells, coal mines can leak methane for a long time after they’re no longer operational. Even as some countries successfully ease out coal use, coal demand globally is also still at or close to all-time highs, with more than 60% of consumption concentrated in China and India.

Waste

8. Landfills are (also) leaking far more methane than we thought

TLDR: New measurement campaigns using drones, satellites, and a suite of other technologies have also shown that methane from landfills is substantially underreported. Many cities have no monitoring in place, and emissions persist even from closed sites.

Why it matters: Landfills are among the most straightforward methane sources to manage, but measurement gaps are holding back action. This is a fixable problem if municipalities start taking monitoring seriously. We wrote more about how and why here.

The nuance: Positively, this is an area where we see state and municipal action advancing even as federal policy retreats in the U.S. If you have international examples of regulations and/or private sector action, we’d love to see and discuss those, too.

9. Methane from wastewater; another dripping tap

TLDR: If you don’t look really closely, it can be hard to find much news about work, progress, or even reporting on methane emissions from wastewater treatment in general. There is some noteworthy stuff afoot, both good and bad if you dig in deeply; for instance, In Kansas, the city of Wichita is moving ahead with a project to sell biogas from a wastewater treatment plant, valorizing an otherwise wasted resource and methane emissions source.

Still, overall, methane emissions from wastewater get less attention than those from, say, landfills, even though they’re definitely an emerging concern. With thousands of facilities operating without methane controls, these emissions are not insignificant, not just for the atmosphere, but because they can pollute rivers and cause other environmental harm.

Why it matters: Wastewater is another methane emissions blind spot. The emissions per site may be small, but the system-wide impact is meaningful and currently off most peoples’ radar, even for those who know about methane in general.

Natural sources

10. Warming wetlands and melting permafrost are entering a methane feedback loop

TLDR: Rising global temperatures are accelerating methane emissions from wetlands and melting permafrost. As warming increases microbial activity, these natural systems begin emitting more methane, which in turn contributes to further warming. Lest we forget, natural emissions sources are already major methane emissions contributors, clocking in overall at approximately 40% of all methane emissions. They can also be massive and persistent sources at a local level; recent satellite analysis found that two of the three largest single regional sources of methane emissions globally are wetlands.

Why it matters: This is a classic reinforcing feedback loop that risks getting worse and worse absent meaningful intervention and harm reduction. It’s also a trenchant reminder that not all methane is manmade, but much of it can be and is human-amplified. Climate models will need to incorporate these dynamics more fully; perhaps more importantly, if the risks accelerated natural methane emissions portend - even if not perfectly quantified or understood - aren’t a sufficient call to action, we don’t know what is.

The bottom line

Q1 made one thing clear: we're getting much closer to accurately understanding real point source methane emissions, but we’re not much closer to stopping them.

The tools are improving. Satellite imagery, aerial surveys, and bottom-up campaigns are revealing just how off our estimates have been. We now have much more clarity on where the emissions are coming from and when they’re happening.

The economics are also settling into focus - volatility in energy commodities notwithstanding. It now being orders of magnitude easier to spot and even quantify methane emissions or leaks than it was a decade ago, the ease of identifying high-value opportunities to capture and retain it, whether from landfills, pipelines, or orphaned wells, has never looked better. Methane emissions are often an economically avoidable loss and a saleable product in one of the world’s biggest commodity markets, especially as demand for gas in applications like data centers comes to the fore. And yet: still barely anyone is paying attention.

So where are we? Honestly, still mostly in the same room. A small one. Methane is central to climate and energy and is driving ⅓ of current warming. But it’s treated like a niche pollutant, with niche funding, and a niche to “no” degree of urgency.

The question isn’t whether methane matters. It’s whether anyone is willing to treat it like it does and how to communicate the issue where our and others’ past efforts have fallen short.

Thanks for reading the 20th edition of The Overview. If you haven’t already, subscribe to The Overview and forward this to a colleague or friend who might benefit from it.

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