OPINION: The other part of climate disaster response: addressing methane emissions

For many longtime Juneau residents, the Mendenhall Glacier has served as a bold, barren barometer of climate change. Through the decades, we’ve all watched the rapid retreat and the appearance of more and more rock on both sides of the glacier. But now with two disastrous glacial dam outbursts, we see that the Mendenhall Glacier can also register the immediate disaster side of climate change.

To Juneau’s credit, the flood of hundreds of homes brought out a healthy response from local, state and federal officials. The combined efforts focused on flood recovery is impressive as noted in the Juneau Empire.

What also caught my attention was an article about U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan’s focus on finding an “engineering solution” to “jokulhlaups,” the Icelandic geological term for glacial outburst floods.

Juneau cannot prosper with the threat of annual floods on the scale we have just experienced, and as such, it makes sense to look for a near-term solution to the very real threat of more jokulhlaups. However, as the Mendenhall Glacier also reminds us, climate change makes jokulhlaups likely in new areas with new threats requiring broader solutions.

Did you know that in 2022, Alaska experienced an unusual number of disasters? Fourteen disaster declarations were made in 2022. Going back to 1978, the state of Alaska averaged approximately four disaster events per year. About nine of these disasters — landslides, fires, flooding, storm — can be tied back to anticipated climate change impacts.

It’s important to note that this list of state and federally declared disasters does NOT include recent fisheries disasters. NOAA now confirms that another critical Alaska fishery is in decline due to successive marine heat waves. First there was the loss of 10 billion snow crabs and the close of the once-lucrative Bering Sea crab fisheries. Now we know that climate change (warming seas) is the culprit behind the crash of chum salmon on the Yukon-Kuskokwim. Both these fisheries are the lifeblood of many Alaska communities and villages.

Even though Alaska alone cannot solve the climate crisis and avert disasters that impact Alaska at a fundamental level, we can still do our part to address climate impacts head-on. On a global level, countries are nowhere near the scale and pace of emission reductions required for limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (a goal of the Paris Accords). As a result, warming oceans and ocean acidification remain active, serious threats to Alaska’s fisheries. Furthermore, flooding, landslides, melting permafrost and wildfires will continue to be a threat to Alaska’s communities.

To mitigate climate impacts, we need to transition toward renewables while at the same time make drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Fortunately, Alaska is making great strides on promoting renewable energy and energy efficiency, as noted in a recent commentary by three former legislators.

Even Gov. Mike Dunleavy is to be credited for implementing policy to smooth the path for renewable energy and energy efficiency. While these are commendable actions that lead to reduced emissions, they are not enough, particularly when one considers the role of methane in the atmosphere.

Methane, also known as natural gas waste, traps 80 times more heat than carbon-dioxide. It is also important because industrial emissions from Alaska’s oil and gas operations account for approximately 60% of Alaska’s total 2020 greenhouse emissions. Altogether, this means that even though Alaska’s total emission contribution may be small on the global scale, Alaska can still make a significant difference because we have plenty of methane.

According to research done by a team of scientists from the Environmental Defense Fund and several U.S. universities, halving methane emissions by 2030 could slow the rate of global warming by more that 25% and start a path to prevent 0.5 degrees Celsius of warming by 2100. Also, according to the International Energy Agency, the oil and gas industry could eliminate more than 75% of its methane emissions with existing and well-known technology. So, taking action on methane is not only enormously significant in addressing the climate crisis but imminently doable.

This is why the 2023 U.N. climate talks focused on industry pledges to reduce methane emissions from their wells and drilling by more than 80% by 2030.

You may be surprised to learn that ExxonMobil signed this pledge but not ConocoPhillips or Hilcorp.

Wouldn’t it be instructive to learn how ExxonMobil intends to reduce methane emissions from their North Slope operations as part of their global commitment? What about ConocoPhillips and Hilcorp? Why did they not sign the COP 28 pledge? Do they still intend to reduce methane? If so, how much of a reduction will they publicly commit to?

Is the state of Alaska’s oversight agency, the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, actively looking to reduce methane emissions? After all, they have a statutory obligation (AS. 31.05.095) to reduce “waste” of natural gas. Furthermore, our state leaders should explore ways to incentivize less flaring and venting of methane.

According to a study that focused on intergenerational climate impacts, “If the planet continues to warm on its current trajectory, the average 6-year-old will live through roughly three times as many climate disasters as their grandparents.” The journal Science first reported on climate intergeneration impacts in September 2021.

We Alaskans love our communities, our fish and our children; all of which are actively threatened by climate change. If our state leaders can inquire into engineering solutions for jokulhlaups, shouldn’t we be able to inquire about reducing methane from North Slope operations, the largest source of Alaska’s greenhouse emissions? Let’s heed this wake-up call and do both while continuing Alaska’s entrance into the clean-energy economy.

Kate Troll, a longtime Alaskan, has over 22 years experience in coastal management, fisheries and energy policy and is a former executive director for United Fishermen of Alaska and the Alaska Conservation Voters. She’s been elected to local office twice, written two books and resides in Douglas.

The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.