Open AccessIs the destruction or removal of atmospheric methane a worthwhile option?
Author(s) -
P. B. R. NisbetJones,
Julianne Fernandez,
Rebecca E. Fisher,
James L. France,
David Lowry,
David Waltham,
Ceres A. Woolley Maisch,
E. G. Nisbet
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
philosophical transactions - royal society. mathematical, physical and engineering sciences/philosophical transactions - royal society. mathematical, physical and engineering sciences
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 1471-2962
pISSN - 1364-503X
DOI - 10.1098/rsta.2021.0108
Subject(s) - methane , global warming , environmental science , atmospheric methane , greenhouse gas , methane emissions , global warming potential , atmosphere (unit) , natural resource economics , climate change , chemistry , meteorology , ecology , physics , organic chemistry , economics , biology
Removing methane from the air is possible, but do the costs outweigh the benefits? This note explores the question of whether removing methane from the atmosphere is justifiable. Destruction of methane by oxidation to CO2 eliminates 97% of the warming impact on a 100-yr time scale. Methane can be oxidized by a variety of methods including thermal or ultraviolet photocatalysis and various processes of physical, chemical or biological oxidizers. Each removal method has energy costs (with the risk of causing embedded CO2 emission that cancel the global warming gain), but in specific circumstances, including settings where air with high methane is habitually present, removal may be competitive with direct efforts to cut fugitive methane leaks. In all cases however, great care must be taken to ensure that the destruction has a net positive impact on the total global warming, and that the resources required would not be better used for stopping the methane from being emitted.This article is part of a discussion meeting issue ‘Rising methane: is warming feeding warming? (part 2)’.