Anthony J. Marchese, Colorado State University and Dan Zimmerle, Colorado State University

Natural gas is displacing coal, which could help fight climate change because burning it produces fewer carbon emissions. But producing and transporting natural gas releases methane, a greenhouse gas that also contributes to climate change. How big is the methane problem?

For the past five years, our research teams at Colorado State University have made thousands of methane emissions measurements at more than 700 separate facilities in the production, gathering, processing, transmission and storage segments of the natural gas supply chain.

This experience has given us a unique perspective regarding the major sources of methane emissions from natural gas and the challenges the industry faces in terms of detecting and reducing, if not eliminating, them.

Our work, along with numerous other research projects, was recently folded into a new study published in the journal Science. This comprehensive snapshot suggests that methane emissions from oil and gas operations are much higher than current EPA estimates.

What’s wrong with methane

One way to quantify the magnitude of the methane leakage is to divide the amount of methane emitted each year by the total amount of methane pumped out of the ground each year from natural gas and oil wells. The EPA currently estimates this methane leak rate to be 1.4 percent. That is, for every cubic foot of natural gas drawn from underground reservoirs, 1.4 percent of it is lost into the atmosphere.

This study synthesized the results from a five-year series of 16 studies coordinated by environmental advocacy group Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), which involved more than 140 researchers from over 40 institutions and 50 natural gas companies.

The effort brought together scholars based at universities, think tanks and the industry itself to make the most accurate estimate possible of the total amount of methane emitted from all U.S. oil and gas operations. It integrated data from a multitude of recent studies with measurements made on the ground and from the air.

Advertisement

All told, based on the results of the new study, the U.S. oil and gas industry is leaking 13 million metric tons of methane each year, which means the methane leak rate is 2.3 percent. This 60 percent difference between our new estimate and the EPA’s current one can have profound climate consequences.

Methane is a highly potent greenhouse gas, with more than 80 times the climate warming impact of carbon dioxide over the first 20 years after it is released.

An earlier EDF study showed that a methane leak rate of greater than 3 percent would result in no immediate climate benefits from retiring coal-fired power plants in favor of natural gas power plants.

That means even with a 2.3 percent leakage rate, the growing share of U.S. electricity powered by natural gas is doing something to slow the pace of climate change. However, these climate benefits could be far greater.

Also, at a methane leakage rate of 2.3 percent, many other uses of natural gas besides generating electricity are conclusively detrimental for the climate. For example, EDF found that replacing the diesel used in most trucks or the gasoline consumed by most cars with natural gas would require a leakage rate of less than 1.4 percent before there would be any immediate climate benefit.

What’s more, some scientists believe that the leakage rate could be even higher than this new estimate.

What causes these leaks

Perhaps you’ve never contemplated the long journey that natural gas travels before you can ignite the burners on the gas stove in your kitchen.

Advertisement

But on top of the 500,000 natural gas wells operating in the U.S. today, there are 2 million miles of pipes and millions of valves, fittings, tanks, compressors and other components operating 24 hours per day, seven days a week to deliver natural gas to your home.

That natural gas that you burn when you whip up a batch of pancakes may have traveled 1,000 miles or more as it wended through this complicated network. Along the way, there were ample opportunities for some of it to leak out into the atmosphere.

Natural gas leaks can be accidental, caused by malfunctioning equipment, but a lot of natural gas is also released intentionally to perform process operations such as opening and closing valves. In addition, the tens of thousands of compressors that increase the pressure and pump the gas along through the network are powered by engines that burn natural gas and their exhaust contains some unburned natural gas.

Since the natural gas delivered to your home is 85 to 95 percent methane, natural gas leaks are predominantly methane. While methane poses the greatest threat to the climate because of its greenhouse gas potency, natural gas contains other hydrocarbons that can degrade regional air quality and are bad for human health.

Inventory tallies vs. aircraft surveillance

The EPA Greenhouse Gas Inventory is done in a way experts like us call a “bottom-up” approach. It entails tallying up all of the nation’s natural gas equipment – from household gas meters to wellpads – and estimating an annualized average emission rate for every category and adding it all up.

There are two challenges to this approach. First, there are no accurate equipment records for many of these categories. Second, when components operate improperly or fail, emissions balloon, making it hard to develop an accurate and meaningful annualized emission rate for each source.

“Top-down” approaches, typically requiring aircraft, are the alternative. They measure methane concentrations upwind and downwind of large geographic areas. But this approach has its own shortcomings.

Advertisement

First, it captures all methane emissions, rather than just the emissions tied to natural gas operations – including the methane from landfills, cows and even the leaves rotting in your backyard. Second, these one-time snapshots may get distorted depending on what’s going on while planes fly around capturing methane data.

Historically, top-down approaches estimate emissions that are about twice bottom-up estimates. Some regional top-down methane leak rate estimates have been as high as 8 percent while some bottom-up estimates have been as low as 1 percent.

More recent work, including the Science study, have performed coordinated campaigns in which the on-the-ground and aircraft measurements are made concurrently, while carefully modeling emission events.

Helpful gadgets and sound policy

On a sunny morning in October 2013, our research team pulled up to a natural gas gathering compressor station in Texas. Using an US$80,000 infrared camera, we immediately located an extraordinarily large leak of colorless, odorless methane that was invisible to the operator who quickly isolated and fixed the problem.

We then witnessed the methane emissions decline tenfold – the facility leak rate fell from 9.8 percent to 0.7 percent before our eyes.

It is not economically feasible, of course, to equip all natural gas workers with $80,000 cameras, or to hire the drivers required to monitor every wellpad on a daily basis when there are 40,000 oil and gas wells in Weld County, Colorado, alone.

But new technologies can make a difference. Our team at Colorado State University is working with the Department of Energy to evaluate gadgetry that will rapidly detect methane emissions. Some of these devices can be deployed today, including inexpensive sensors that can be monitored remotely.

Advertisement

Technology alone won’t solve the problem, however. We believe that slashing the nation’s methane leak rate will require a collaborative effort between industry and government. And based on our experience in Colorado, which has developed some of the nation’s strictest methane emissions regulations, we find that best practices become standard practices with strong regulations.

We believe that the Trump administration’s efforts to roll back regulations, without regard to whether they are working or not, will not only have profound climate impacts. They will also jeopardize the health and safety of all Americans while undercutting efforts by the natural gas industry to cut back on the pollution it produces.

Anthony J. Marchese, Associate Dean for Academic and Student Affairs, Walter Scott, Jr. College of Engineering; Director, Engines and Energy Conversion Laboratory; Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Colorado State University and Dan Zimmerle, Senior Research Associate and Director of METEC, Colorado State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Richardson Dilworth, Drexel University

Campus protests. Homeless encampment clearings. Significant decreases in shootings, homicides and overdose deaths. Protests to “Save Chinatown.” A mass shooting at a SEPTA bus stop. Illegal car meetups. City workers called back to the office. A SEPTA strike averted.

These were just some of the headlines that dominated Philadelphia politics in 2024.

So, what does 2025 hold for the city?

I’m a politics professor at Drexel University and in 2023 I published a short book, “Reforming Philadelphia, 1682-2022,” that traced the city’s political development with an eye toward the future of its policy and politics.

Here are six key storylines that will shape Philly’s political landscape in 2025.

1. Partisan shifts

Philadelphia enters 2025 notably more politically diverse than five years ago.

Partisanship in Philadelphia is not so much captured by a Democratic-Republican split as it is by what local journalist Larry Platt once called “reformer vs. progressive,” referring to the division between more conservative Democrats on the one hand and more liberal Democrats and progressive third parties on the other.

Advertisement

Progressive candidates have had minor surges in recent years. Seven of the 17 members of the Philadelphia City Council are elected at large, but no party is allowed to nominate more than five members to run for these seats in the general election. This has meant that, as long as anyone can remember, there have been five Democratic and two Republican at-large council members.

Then, in 2019, Working Families Party candidate Kendra Brooks won one of the two at-large seats previously held by Republicans. One year later, two Democratic Socialists who ran as Democrats, Nikil Saval and Rick Krajewski, were elected to the state Senate and state House, respectively. And in 2023 another Working Families Party member, Nicolas O’Rourke, won the second at-large City Council seat reserved for minor parties, thereby completely replacing Republicans in those positions.

At the same time, the mayor elected in 2023, Cherelle Parker, is a reasonably conservative Democrat – at least in the sense that her focus has not been on social justice issues but rather the classic municipal issues of cleanliness and public safety.

And the 2024 elections saw the GOP vote go up in Philadelphia, as it did almost everywhere in the country. Republicans captured a state Senate seat in the city for the first time in two decades.

The most recent surge favoring Republicans would ostensibly threaten the two at-large Working Families Party members of the City Council, who are most vulnerable to electoral challenges that would bring back at-large Republicans. However, they’re safe until 2027, by which time another Democratic surge in Philadelphia is likely, as many voters will have most likely soured on the Trump administration by that time.

2. Will Krasner stay or go?

In 2025, the most high-profile city election will be for district attorney, and that does seem potentially ripe for change.

The incumbent is Larry Krasner, first elected in 2017 as part of the post-Trump progressive wave. He won again decisively in 2021, against a challenger in the Democratic primary whose main support was from the Fraternal Order of Police.

Yet as Parker’s election as mayor – and Trump’s as president – suggests, Krasner may face an electorate ready for a more law-and-order message in May 2025. The DA’s office in Philadelphia has historically been a bastion for conservative Democrats and even Republicans. Krasner may face more significant challengers this time around, especially in the primary.

Advertisement

3. Kensington at a crossroads

Parker has benefited from the sharp decline in crime and violence after its pandemic-driven spike. But she has also increased the police budget to provide for hiring 400 new officers; hired a police commissioner from within, Kevin Bethel, who previously received praise for his work on diversion and juvenile justice; and focused on quality-of-life issues such as cracking down on ATV gangs.

Parker has also focused in particular on the Kensington neighborhood and its notorious open-air drug markets. This is important, not least because Kensington has been a large contributor to the city’s unfortunate status of being a leader in drug overdose deaths.

The drug trade was also holding down development and property values – and therefore property tax revenues – in a neighborhood on the path of gentrification. From my perspective, cleaning up Kensington promises to be some of the best return on investment in the city.

4. Parker vs. Trump administration

Of course, another new thing that the city will have to grapple with in 2025 is the incoming Trump administration.

The previous Trump administration got into a fight with then-Mayor Jim Kenney in 2016 over the city’s sanctuary policy with respect to federal immigration enforcement. Basically, the Kenney administration won and got back federal grant money that had been withheld.

Parker may be in a tough spot if she plans to maintain some sort of sanctuary status for the city. The Trump administration – no friend of Philadelphia under the best of circumstances – will likely face less resistance and some acquiescence, as we’re seeing in Chicago, where some aldermen have suggested getting rid of that city’s sanctuary status.

The incoming president has also signaled repeatedly his willingness to use the military for mass deportations, thereby sidestepping necessary cooperation from local law enforcement. This is a critical issue because immigration is a key economic asset for Philadelphia. As the Pew Charitable Trusts have found, immigrants in Philadelphia tend to be younger, more likely to participate in the workforce, and more likely to start a business than native Philadelphians.

5. Market East in limbo

And then there was the proposed downtown 76ers arena, approved by the City Council in a 12-5 vote in December 2024 and then entirely scrapped in early January 2025. Was this entire project simply some sort of bargaining chip used by Sixers owners and management to get a better deal in South Philadelphia from Comcast Spectacor, the owner of the teams’ current home at the Wells Fargo Center?

Whatever the case, the entire project no doubt leaves a bad taste in the mouths of the Chinatown businesses and other interest groups who opposed the new stadium and felt sold out by the mayor and City Council. But with the next City Council and mayoral elections not happening until 2027, it seems likely that the entire thing will be forgotten by the time any elected official might be punished at the polls.

The fall of the downtown stadium deal throws open the future of the Market Street East corridor. The proposed arena was part of a reimagining of the Fashion District, a redevelopment project by the Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust that opened in 2019. The pandemic and higher interest rates led to store closures and financial problems, and PREIT has since filed twice for bankruptcy. Add to that the fact that Macy’s, an anchor tenant on the corridor, announced it is closing its store in the historic Wanamaker Building next to City Hall.

Advertisement

Market East – essentially the front door of the city – doesn’t look so good for the 2026 celebrations planned as part of the 250th anniversary of the founding of the country. Indeed, the Constitution was drafted at Independence Hall, which is part of the Market East corridor. The chances that things will look much better in 2025 seem pretty dim, although there are plans to convert the space to apartments and smaller stores.

Other major infrastructure projects will likely work in the mayor’s favor, most notably a new park covering part of I-95 that will reconnect the Delaware riverfront to the Society Hill and Old City neighborhoods. This is set to be completed during Parker’s first term.

6. Inflation and housing

And finally, one of the bigger issues in the last presidential election was the housing affordability crisis. This crisis is slightly muted in Philadelphia compared with some other major cities, but it is real nonetheless.

Yet the city has to a certain extent inadvertently lucked out. As 2021 was the last year that developers could take full advantage of the city’s 10-year tax abatement for new construction, a record number of building permits were granted that year.

In 2022, the number of building permits plummeted to 2013 levels. Nevertheless, the permits from 2021 have led to a building boom, especially in residential construction, which may be keeping housing prices lower than they would otherwise be. We can expect this trend to continue into 2025, even if the volume of new permits drops even more.

Richardson Dilworth, Professor of Politics, Drexel University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Advertisement

Please leave this field empty

Want more stories
“Your morning jolt of Inspiring & Interesting Stories!”

Sign up to receive awesome articles directly to your inbox.

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

Please check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Mark Zachary Taylor, Georgia Institute of Technology

In evaluating the outgoing Biden administration, much news has focused on inflation, immigration or Hunter’s laptop. But as an expert on national competitiveness in science and technology, I have a somewhat different emphasis. My research shows that U.S. prosperity and security depend heavily on the country’s ability to produce cutting-edge science and tech.

So, how did the Biden administration perform along these lines?

Advancing pandemic science and tech

President Joe Biden’s immediate challenge after inauguration was to end the COVID-19 pandemic and then shift the economy back to normal operations.

First, he threw the weight of his administration behind vaccine production and distribution. Thanks to President Donald Trump’s Operation Warp Speed, inoculations had begun mid-December 2020. But there had been no national rollout, and no plans existed for one. When Biden took office, only about 5% of Americans had been vaccinated.

The Biden administration collaborated with private retail chains to build up cold storage and distribution capacity. To ensure adequate vaccine supply, Biden worked to support the major pharmaceutical manufacturers. And throughout, Biden conducted a public relations campaign to inform, educate and motivate Americans to get vaccinated.

Within the first 10 weeks of Biden’s presidency, one-third of the U.S. population had received at least one dose, half by the end of May, and over 70% by year’s end. And as Americans got vaccinated, travel bans were lifted, schools came back into session, and business gradually returned to normal.

A later study found that Biden’s vaccination program prevented more than 3.2 million American deaths and 18.5 million hospitalizations, and saved US$1.15 trillion in medical costs and lost economic output.

In the wake of the economic distress caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, Biden signed two bills with direct and widespread impacts on science and technology. Previous administrations had promised infrastructure investments, but Biden delivered. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, passed with bipartisan support during late 2021, provided $1.2 trillion for infrastructure of all types.

Advertisement

Rather than just rebuilding, the act prioritized technological upgrades: clean water, clean energy, rural high-speed internet, modernization of public transit and airports, and electric grid reliability.

In August 2022, Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act, totaling $739 billion in tax credits and direct expenditures. This was the largest climate change legislation in U.S. history. It implemented a vast panoply of subsidies and incentives to develop and distribute the science and tech necessary for clean and renewable energy, environmental conservation and to address climate change.

Science and tech marquees and sleepers

Some Biden administration science and technology achievements have been fairly obvious. For example, Biden successfully pushed for increased federal research and development funding. Federal R&D dollars jumped by 25% from 2021 to 2024. Recipients included the National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, NASA and the Department of Defense. In addition, Biden oversaw investment in emerging technologies, such as AI, and their responsible governance.

Biden also retained or raised Trump’s tariffs and continued his predecessor’s skepticism of new free-trade agreements, thereby cementing a protectionist turn in American trade policy. Biden’s addition was to add protectionist industrial policy – subsidies for domestic manufacturing and innovation, as well as “buy-American” mandates.

Other accomplishments have been more under the radar. For example, within the National Science Foundation, Biden created a Directorate for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships to improve U.S. economic competitiveness. Its tasks are to speed the development of breakthrough technologies, to accelerate their transition into the marketplace, and to reskill and upskill American workers into high-quality jobs with better wages.

Biden implemented policies aimed at strengthening and improving federal scientific integrity to help citizens feel they can trust federally funded science and its use. He also advanced new measures to improve research security, aimed at keeping federally funded research from being improperly obtained by foreign entities.

The CHIPS & Science Act

The jewel in the crown of Biden’s science and tech agenda was the bipartisan Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors (CHIPS) and Science Act, meant to strengthen U.S. manufacturing capabilities in advanced semiconductor chips. It has awarded about $40 billion to American chip producers, prompting an additional $450 billion in private investment in over 90 new manufacturing projects across 28 states.

Directed at everything from advanced packaging to memory chips, the CHIPS Act’s subsidies have reduced the private costs of domestic semiconductor production. CHIPS also pushes for these new manufacturing jobs to go to American workers at good pay. Whereas the U.S. manufactured few of the most advanced chips just two years ago, the industry expects the United States to possess 28% of global capacity by 2032.

Less well known are the “science” parts of the CHIPS Act. For example, it invested half a billion dollars in dozens of regional innovation and technology hubs across the country. These hubs focus on a broad range of strategic sectors, including critical materials, sustainable polymers, precision medicine and medical devices. Over 30 tech hubs have already been designated, such as the Elevate Quantum Tech Hub in Denver and the Wisconsin Biohealth Tech Hub.

Advertisement

The CHIPS Act also aims to broaden participation in science. It does so by improving the tracking and funding of research and STEM education to hitherto underrepresented Americans – by district, occupation, ethnicity, gender, institution and socioeconomic background. It also attempts to extend the impact of federally funded research to tackle global challenges, such as supply chain disruptions, resource waste and energy security.

Missed opportunities and future possibilities

Despite these achievements, the Biden administration has faced criticism on the science and tech front. Some critics allege that U.S. research security is still not properly defending American science and technology against theft or counterfeit by rivals.

Others insist that federal R&D spending remains too low. In particular, they call for more investment in U.S. research infrastructure – such as up-to-date laboratories and data systems – and emerging technologies.

The administration’s government-centered approach to AI has also drawn criticism as stifling and wrong-headed.

Personally, I am agnostic on these issues, but they are legitimate concerns. In my opinion, science and technology investments take considerable time to pan out, so early judgments of Biden’s success or failure are probably premature.

Nevertheless, the next administration has its work cut out for it. International cooperation will likely be key. The most vexing global problems require science and technology advances that are beyond the ability of any single country. The challenge is for the United States to collaborate in ways that complement American competitiveness.

National priorities will likely include the development of productive and ethical AI that helps the U.S. to be more competitive, as well as a new quantum computing industry. Neuroscience and “healthspan” research also hold considerable promise for improving U.S. competitiveness while transforming Americans’ life satisfaction.

Keeping the whole American science and technology enterprise rigorous will require two elements from the federal government: more resources and a competitive environment. American greatness will depend on President-elect Trump’s ability to deliver them.

Advertisement

Mark Zachary Taylor, Associate Professor of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.