The Trump administration is proposing to ease rules governing methane production, arguing that this will generate $45 billion in regulatory savings, release 210 million barrels of U.S. oil, and enable 1.4 trillion cubic feet of U.S. natural gas to be produced.
Even if those production numbers are on the optimistic side, they are to be welcomed.
Naturally, this announcement has been followed by cries of outrage from climate alarmists, but these have been overdone. Although methane, which can leak from pipelines (“fugitive” methane), is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, it dissipates in the atmosphere within a decade or so, unlike CO2 emissions, which can linger for centuries. The argument for natural gas as a bridge fuel away from coal is a strong one and one on which, given methane’s relative lack of staying power, concerns about fugitive methane emissions have been allowed to weigh too heavily.
While the administration is right to focus on boosting overall energy production, its support for increased coal production, which could clearly reduce interest in a shift to methane, is a mistake. Here, too, the alarm is much exaggerated, though: China produces roughly ten times as much coal as the U.S.
Regardless, it’s doubtful that the government’s encouragement of coal production will make much difference. Volumes will probably resume their decline after a positive bump last year, and increases in production are likely to be concentrated on extending the lifespan of existing mines.
Europe’s dismal example shows the folly of a forced exit from coal. Its role in the energy mix, though, will naturally diminish with increased levels of natural gas production, something the new proposed methane rules are intended to help achieve.
The regulatory easing is likely, in particular, to aid smaller oil and gas producers (who have struggled with the Biden-era rules). That would usefully enhance the sector’s depth. At the same time, this group, which produces a relatively small share of the nation’s oil and gas, is responsible for a disproportionate amount of fugitive methane emissions. Easing supervision should not be the same, whether de facto or de jure, as ending it.
Another relaxation will make it easier to flare the “secondary” gas associated with oil production. Flaring may be economically or practically necessary, but that doesn’t change its inherent wastefulness. The rules should not be eased so far as to discourage finding more productive alternatives.
Meanwhile, it’s still important to increase our use of nuclear energy and do so at a brisk pace. There is also — after taking account of how, beyond a certain point, renewables can destabilize the grid — room for wind power and, even more so, solar. However, any increase in exposure to these technologies should be based on economics, engineering, and physics rather than climate dogma. Our energy priority must be abundance. The proposed changes move things in the right direction.