‘Red Flags’ on Climate: U.S. Methane Emissions Keep Climbing

 

"Satellite data shows the U.S. releasing more and more of the potent greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, researchers said, despite pledges to cut back.

The United States’ booming fossil-fuel industry continues to emit more and more planet-warming methane into the atmosphere, new research showed, despite a U.S.-led effort to encourage other countries to cut emissions globally.

Methane is among the most potent greenhouse gases, and “one of the worst performers in our study is the U.S., even though it was an instigator of the Global Methane Pledge,” said Antoine Halff, the co-founder of Kayrros, the environmental data company issuing the report. “Those are red flags.”

Much of the world’s efforts to combat climate change focus on reducing carbon dioxide emissions, which result largely from the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas, and whose heat-trapping particles can linger in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. But methane’s effects on the climate — which have earned it the moniker “super pollutant” — have become better appreciated recently, with the advent of more advanced leak-detection technology, including satellites.

Unlike carbon dioxide, methane emissions don’t derive from consumption, but rather from production and transportation of the gas, which is the main component of what is commonly known as natural gas. Methane can leak from storage facilities, pipelines and tankers, and is also often deliberately released. Methane is also released from livestock and landfills, and occurs naturally in wetlands.

Kayrros focused on fossil fuel facilities, where the practices of “venting,” or the intentional release of large quantities of methane, and “flaring,” which is when it is intentionally burned off, are both common. Kayrros used satellite data combined with artificial intelligence analysis of the data to draw its conclusions.

The concentration of methane in the atmosphere is now more than two-and-a-half times as much as preindustrial levels, and more than half of the world’s methane emissions are man-made.

Its presence in the atmosphere dissipates in roughly 12 years, a relatively short span of time, but numerous studies point to its heat-trapping effects as being as much as 80 or more times stronger than carbon dioxide’s. That means it can have more immediate consequences for the climate.

In 2021, the United States was among the first signers and promoters of the Global Methane Pledge, which set a target of reducing global, man-made methane emissions by 30 percent from 2020 levels within a decade. The pledge has been signed by 158 countries.

“2030 is rapidly approaching, though, and emissions are still being released in huge amounts,” said Mr. Halff. “This seems in large part because oil and gas production is surging both in the U.S. and elsewhere.”

President Biden’s signature climate legislation, the Inflation Reduction Act, includes billions of dollars in funding for methane emission-reduction strategies.

According to to the Environmental Protection Agency, the rule could result in the elimination of “more than the annual emissions from 28 million gasoline cars” and “a nearly 80 percent reduction below the future methane emissions expected without the rule.”

The American fossil fuel sector today emits less methane per unit of energy than in years past. However, production has ramped up so significantly that methane emissions overall have increased. The United States is now, by far, the world’s leading gas producer and exporter.

China is the world’s largest emitter of both carbon dioxide and methane, and has not signed the pledge. John Podesta, the U.S. climate envoy, recently traveled to Beijing to meet with China’s top climate negotiators and the two countries agreed to co-host a summit on methane coinciding with this year’s main climate summit in Azerbaijan in November, raising hopes that China might sign this year.

The Kayrros report includes findings from 13 fossil fuel basins across the world, including in three countries that haven’t signed the pledge: Algeria, Iran and South Africa. In those three countries, methane emissions rose even more steeply than in signatory countries.

“It shows the pledge has influence,” said Jutta Paulus, a member of the European Union’s parliament from German’s Green Party who was recently the bloc’s rapporteur on greenhouse gas emissions. She also noted that “many of the fixes are within reach. Leak detection and repair, management of abandoned facilities, they aren’t impossible. In fact, many of them can be done at almost no cost.”

The European Union introduced a regulation this summer that drafts all its member states into a process of studying their own methane emissions and setting targets for reducing them. Perhaps more significantly, starting in 2029, it will apply the same stringent caps on emissions to its imports, including of gas from countries that haven’t signed the pledge, like Algeria. In 2030, the E.U. would begin imposing fines on imports above a certain emissions threshold.

Australia and Turkmenistan were the only two countries in the study that saw major reductions in methane emissions. Australia’s success was likely related to policies aimed at limiting the intentional release of gas during coal production, Mr. Halff said. Turkmenistan, which in many cases operates leaky, decades-old Soviet gas infrastructure, has begun a process of updating its facilities." [1]

 We, Lithuanians, contribute to this pollution. If we did not buy this liquefied gas, which is transported all over the world, it would remain in the earth, and the terrible pollution we caused would not exist.

1. ‘Red Flags’ on Climate: U.S. Methane Emissions Keep Climbing. Bearak, Max.  New York Times (Online) New York Times Company. Sep 19, 2024.

 

Kai gydytojų bendruomenė suklysta, gydytojai žiauriai gina tą klaidingą supratimą, net jei faktai rodo priešingai

 

 „Tikriausiai žinote apie tarp vaikų išaugusią alergiją žemės riešutams. 

 

1997–2008 m. amerikiečių vaikų alergija žemės riešutams išaugo daugiau, nei tris, kartus po to, kai gydytojai liepė nėščioms ir žindančioms moterims nevalgyti žemės riešutų, o tėvams – vengti maitinti juos jaunesniems, nei 3 metų vaikams, pagal Amerikos pediatrų akademijos 2000 m. išleistas rekomendacijas.

 

 Tikriausiai, taip pat žinote, kad šios rekomendacijos, vadovaujantis panašiomis gairėmis Didžiojoje Britanijoje, pasirodė esąs visiškai neteisingos ir iš tikrųjų žemės riešutų vengimas sukėlė daugelį tų alergijų.

 

 Tai neturėtų stebinti, nes patarimai pažeidė pagrindinį imunologijos principą: ankstyvas svetimų molekulių poveikis sukuria atsparumą. Izraelyje, kur kūdikiai reguliariai maitinami žemės riešutais, alergija žemės riešutams yra reta. Be to, bent vienas tyrimas, kuriuo buvo grindžiamas britų patarimas, parodė priešingai, nei nurodyta gairėse.

 

 Dar 1998 metais britų vaikų alergologas ir imunologas Gideonas Lackas užginčijo gaires, sakydamas, kad jos „nepagrįstos įrodymais“. Tačiau daugelį metų daugelis gydytojų atmetė daktaro Lacko išvadas, netgi pavadino jo tyrimus, kurių metu žemės riešutų sviestas kūdikiams buvo pristatytas anksti, neetiškais.

 

 Kai 2006 m. pirmą kartą pranešiau apie alergiją žemės riešutams, gydytojai išsakė daugybę teorijų, tuo pat metu „higienos hipotezė“, kuri teigia, kad pernelyg sterili aplinka gali sukelti alergines reakcijas, vis labiau populiarėjo. Vis dėlto, tais pačiais metais, gimus antram vaikeliui, gavau savo pediatro nurodymus „be žemės riešutų“.

 

 Tik 2008 m., kai Lackas ir jo kolegos paskelbė tyrimą, rodantį, kad kūdikiai, kurie valgė žemės riešutus, rečiau sirgo alergija, A.A.P. paskelbė ataskaitą, kurioje pripažino, kad jos patarimams dėl nėščių moterų „trūko įrodymų“. Tačiau ji nepradėjo liepti tėvams maitinti kūdikius žemės riešutais kaip prevencijos priemonę. Galiausiai, 2017 m., po dar vieno galutinio Lack tyrimo, A.A.P. visiškai pakeitė savo ankstyvąją poziciją, dabar liepdamas tėvams anksti maitinti savo vaikus žemės riešutais.

 

 Tačiau iki to laiko tūkstančiai tėvų, kurie sąžiningai darė tai, ką liepė medicinos institucijos, savo vaikams sukėlė alergiją žemės riešutams.

 

 Ši išvengiama tragedija yra vienas iš kelių epizodų, kai medicinos autoritetai laikosi klaidingų pozicijų, nepaisant atsveriančių įrodymų, kuriuos Marty Makary, chirurgas ir Johnso Hopkinso medicinos mokyklos profesorius, nagrinėja savo naujoje knygoje „Aklosios dėmės: kai medicina pasidaro klaidinga, ir ką tai reiškia mūsų sveikatai“.

 

 Užuot atvira nesutarimams, rašo Makary, medicinos profesija dažnai uždaro gretas, linkdama į nusistovėjusią praktiką, sutarimą ir grupinį mąstymą. (Makary pripažįsta pats dėl to kaltas.)

 

 Tokioje aplinkoje tai, kas prasideda, kaip nuomonė, gali greitai tapti dogma, ypač kai profesija susituokia su idėja.

 

 „Buvo tokia vidaus politika, kad visos A.A.P. rekomendacijos turėjo būti nuoseklios“, – Makary sakė komiteto, išdavusio originalias žemės riešutų gaires, narys. „Tai buvo sena dogma, įamžinta“. Kitaip tariant, Makary rašo, kad „apsaugoti instituciją buvo svarbiau, nei leisti visuomenei pamatyti alternatyvius požiūrius“.

 

 Šios ilgalaikės klaidos priežastys atkartoja kitų medicininių klaidų, aprašytų Makario knygoje, priežastis.

 

 1983 m., artėjant AIDS krizei, Amerikos Raudonasis kryžius, Amerikos kraujo bankų asociacija ir bendruomenės kraujo centrų taryba atmetė aukšto rango CDC ekspertų rekomendaciją apriboti žmonių, kuriems gresia AIDS rizika, donorystę. Vietoj to jie paskelbė bendrą pareiškimą, kuriame tvirtino, kad „nėra absoliučių įrodymų, kad AIDS perduodamas krauju ar kraujo produktais“. Svarbiausias susirūpinimas buvo tas, kad amerikiečiai nepasitikėtų kraujo tiekimu ar neduotų kraujo, jei žmonės abejotų jo saugumu.

 

 Kaip ir patarimai dėl žemės riešutų, apsisukimas įvyko daug vėliau, nei turėjo būti. Prireikė daug metų, kol kraujo bankininkystės pramonė pradėjo tikrinti donorus, ir tik 1988 m. JAV F.D.A. pareikalavo, kad visi kraujo bankai išsitirtų dėl H.I.V. antikūnų. Tuo tarpu pusė Amerikos hemofilija sergančių žmonių ir daugelis kitų buvo užsikrėtę H.I.V., perpilant kraują, dėl ko mirė daugiau, nei 4000 žmonių.

 

 Pakaitinės hormonų terapijos (H.R.T.) atveju milijonai moterų vartojo H.R.T. palengvinti menopauzės simptomus ir sumažinti kaulų lūžių, širdies priepuolių ir net Alzheimerio ligos tikimybę vėlesniais metais. Tačiau 2002 m. moterims buvo vienareikšmiškai pasakyta, kad estrogenų ir progestino vartojimas menopauzės simptomams gydyti padidino krūties vėžio riziką. Teiginys, kuris buvo šios rekomendacijos pagrindas, buvo pagrįstas vienu tyrimu, nors pagrindinis šio tyrimo autorius pripažino Makary po metų, kad jis neparodė statistiškai reikšmingo skirtumo  vėžio atvejų tarp moterų, kurios buvo gydomos H.R.T. ir tų, kurios vartojo placebą.

 

 Kaip ir žemės riešutų atveju, ankstyvieji, kitaip mąstantys, buvo ignoruojami, išjuokiami ir patyrė profesinių pasekmių. Prireikė daug metų, kol nurodymai buvo pataisyti. Tuo tarpu milijonai moterų nukentėjo nuo hormonų terapijos trūkumo ir prarado H.R.T. naudą sveikatai.

 

 Nors šios klaidos yra pasibaisėtinos, nerimą kelia ilgalaikės pagrindinės tų klaidų priežastys. Medicinos žurnalai ir konferencijos reguliariai atmeta pristatymus ir straipsnius, kurie paneigia įprastą išmintį, net jei ši išmintis pagrįsta menkais pagrindiniais duomenimis. Dėl politinių ar praktinių priežasčių sutarimas dažnai vertinamas daugiau už skirtingas nuomones.

 

 „Matome, kad mokslas naudojamas, kaip politinė propaganda“, – pasakė Makary, kai kalbėjausi su juo telefonu. Tačiau jis teigia, kad klaidų negalima laisvai taisyti ar atnaujinti, nebent mokslininkai būtų skatinami vykdyti alternatyvius tyrimus.

 

 „Kai kuriuose sluoksniuose užduoti klausimus tapo uždrausta“, – rašo Makary. „Tačiau klausimų uždavimas yra ne problema, o sprendimas“.

 

 Kadangi pasitikėjimas mokslu slūgsta, daugėja sąmokslo teorijų ir dezinformacijos, o kovotojai, tokie kaip Robertas Kennedy jaunesnysis, rodo sutrikusį pavyzdį, gali atrodyti, kad tai nėra pats geriausias laikas kritikuoti medicinos profesiją. Vis dėlto sveiko skepticizmo dozė gali būti sveikiausias požiūris, kai informacija atrodo prieštaringa, nesvarbu, ar tai būtų, dešimtmečius trunkanti, praktika, ar naujesnės, madingos, procedūros, pavyzdžiui, liežuvio surišimo operacija.

 

 Kalbant apie medicininį tikrumą prieštaravimo akivaizdoje, naudinga prisiminti Ignazo Semmelweiso atvejį. Semmelweisas buvo vengrų gydytojas, kuris 1847 m. pasiūlė gydytojams nusiplauti rankas prieš gimdymą, kad sumažintų „vaikų lovos karštinės“, dabar žinomos, kaip pogimdyminė infekcija, tikimybę. Už įžeidžiantį teiginį, kad gydytojų rankos gali būti kaip nors nešvarios, Semmelweisas buvo pasmerktas medicinos įstaigos ir vėliau prarado darbą. Jo gyvenimas baigėsi 47 metų amžiaus beprotnamyje ir ypač žiauriai. Ten jis mirė nuo sepsio, tos pačios ligos, su kuria taip sunkiai kovojo, būdamas gydytojas." [1]

 

1. When the Medical Establishment Gets Things Wrong, Doctors Dig In. Paul, Pamela.  New York Times (Online) New York Times Company. Sep 19, 2024.

When the Medical Establishment Gets Things Wrong, Doctors Dig In

"You probably know about the surge in childhood peanut allergies. Peanut allergies in American children more than tripled between 1997 and 2008, after doctors told pregnant and lactating women to avoid eating peanuts and parents to avoid feeding them to children under 3. This was based on guidance issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2000.

You probably also know that this guidance, following similar guidance in Britain, turned out to be entirely wrong and, in fact, avoiding peanuts caused many of those allergies in the first place.

That should not have been surprising, because the advice violated a basic principle of immunology: Early exposure to foreign molecules builds resistance. In Israel, where babies are regularly fed peanuts, peanut allergies are rare. Moreover, at least one of the studies on which the British advice was based showed the opposite of what the guidance specified.

As early as 1998, Gideon Lack, a British pediatric allergist and immunologist, challenged the guidelines, saying they were “not evidence-based.” But for years, many doctors dismissed Dr. Lack’s findings, even calling his studies that introduced peanut butter early to babies unethical.

When I first reported on peanut allergies in 2006, doctors expressed a wide range of theories, at the same time that the “hygiene hypothesis,” which holds that overly sterile environments can trigger allergic responses, was gaining traction. Still, the guidance I got from my pediatrician when my second child was born that same year was firmly “no peanuts.”

It wasn’t until 2008, when Lack and his colleagues published a study showing that babies who ate peanuts were less likely to have allergies, that the A.A.P. issued a report, acknowledging there was a “lack of evidence” for its advice regarding pregnant women. But it stopped short of telling parents to feed babies peanuts as a means of prevention. Finally, in 2017, following yet another definitive study by Lack, the A.A.P. fully reversed its early position, now telling parents to feed their children peanuts early.

But by then, thousands of parents who conscientiously did what medical authorities told them to do had effectively given their children peanut allergies.

This avoidable tragedy is one of several episodes of medical authorities sticking to erroneous positions despite countervailing evidence that Marty Makary, a surgeon and professor at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, examines in his new book, “Blind Spots: When Medicine Gets It Wrong, and What It Means for our Health.”

Rather than remaining open to dissent, Makary writes, the medical profession frequently closes ranks, leaning toward established practice, consensus and groupthink. (Makary acknowledges having been guilty of this himself.)

In this kind of environment, what begins as opinion can quickly become dogma, especially once the profession has become wed to an idea.

“There was an internal policy that all A.A.P. recommendations had to be consistent,” a member of the committee that issued the original peanut guidance told Makary. “It was old dogma, perpetuated.” In other words, Makary writes, “protecting the institution was more important than letting the public see alternative viewpoints.”

The causes of this perpetuated mistake replicate those of other medical errors outlined in Makary’s book.

In 1983, near the beginning of the AIDS crisis, the American Red Cross, the American Association of Blood Banks and the Council of Community Blood Centers rejected a recommendation by a high-ranking C.D.C. expert to restrict donations from people at high risk for AIDS. Instead, they issued a joint statement insisting that “there is no absolute evidence that AIDS is transmitted by blood or blood products.” The overriding concern was that Americans would not trust the blood supply, or donate blood, if people questioned its safety.

As with the advice on peanuts, a reversal came about far later than it should have. It took years for the blood banking industry to begin screening donors and it wasn’t until 1988 that the F.D.A. required all blood banks to test for H.I.V. antibodies. In the interim, half of American hemophiliacs, and many others, were infected with H.I.V. by blood transfusions, leading to more than 4,000 deaths.

In the case of hormone replacement therapy, millions of women used H.R.T. to relieve the symptoms of menopause and decrease the likelihood of bone fractures, heart attacks and even Alzheimer’s disease in later years. But in 2002, women were told unequivocally that taking estrogen and progestin to treat menopause symptoms increased their risk of breast cancer. The guidance that formed the basis of that recommendation was based on a single study, even though the lead author of that study acknowledged to Makary years later that it did not show a statistically significant difference in rates of cancer among women who were on H.R.T. and those on a placebo.

As with peanuts, early dissenters were ignored, ridiculed and suffered professional consequences. It would be years before the guidance was corrected. In the interim, millions of women suffered withdrawal from hormone therapy and missed out on H.R.T.’s health benefits.

While these mistakes are appalling, more worrisome are the enduring root causes of those errors. Medical journals and conferences regularly reject presentations and articles that overturn conventional wisdom, even when that wisdom is based on flimsy underlying data. For political or practical reasons consensus is often prized over dissenting opinions.

“We’re seeing science used as political propaganda,” Makary told me when I spoke to him by phone. But, he argues, mistakes can’t be freely corrected or updated unless researchers are encouraged to pursue alternative research.

“Asking questions has become forbidden in some circles,” Makary writes. “But asking questions is not the problem, it’s the solution.”

With trust in science on the wane, conspiracy theories and misinformation proliferating and anti-vaxxers like Robert Kennedy Jr. setting a deranged example, this may not seem like the best time to criticize the medical profession. Yet a dose of healthy skepticism may be the healthiest attitude when information seems contradictory, whether it’s about a decades-long practice or newer, faddish procedures like tongue-tie surgery.

When it comes to medical certainty in the face of dissent, it’s useful to remember the case of Ignaz Semmelweis. Semmelweis was the Hungarian doctor who in 1847 proposed that doctors wash their hands before delivering babies, to reduce the chances of “childbed fever,” now known as postpartum infection. For making the offensive suggestion that doctors’ hands might somehow be unclean, Semmelweis was denounced by the medical establishment and later lost his job. His life ended at age 47 in an insane asylum and on an especially cruel note. He died there of sepsis, the very disease he’d fought so hard against as a doctor." [1]

1. When the Medical Establishment Gets Things Wrong, Doctors Dig In. Paul, Pamela.  New York Times (Online) New York Times Company. Sep 19, 2024.