Essay by Eric Worrall
A former army officer is leading a green lawfare attack on gas extraction companies.
Methane leaks are supercharging the climate crisis — here’s what we must do, now
BY RUSSEL L. HONORÉ, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR – 12/31/24 12:00 PM ET
In the fight against climate change, the focus is usually on carbon dioxide, or CO2 — and for good reason. It’s a greenhouse gas that remains in the atmosphere for years, trapping in heat for generations to come. Yet there is an even more potent planet-warming gas whose destructive powers have long gone hidden — until now.
…
The fossil fuel industry has been drilling and refining oil and its byproducts for over 150 years, and it has left behind a legacy of pollution and dodged accountability. So-called “orphaned” wells, or wells that have been abandoned by the oil companies that originally drilled them, litter the United States, including my home state of Louisiana. When these wells aren’t abandoned outright, ownership is transferred to a shell companywithout the funding to clean them up. They can remain uncapped for generations, leaking carcinogens and other toxic chemicals into the surrounding area and unleashing plumes of methane into the atmosphere.
…
The industry’s process for extracting gas through fracking, moving it through pipelines, liquefying it and shipping it overseas is an energy intensive and wasteful process. From the well head through the pipeline to the export terminal and beyond, methane is leaked into the atmosphere. To regulate pressure along the pipeline and in the liquefaction plant, companies flare, or burn off the excess, just above ground level, releasing methane along with any other particulate matter.
Here too, the fossil fuel industry needs to be held to account. Sending a greenhouse gas into the atmosphere while marketing it as a “green” alternative to oil is dishonest.
…
Lt. Gen. Russel L. Honoré (Ret.) is a former commanding officer of the U.S. First Army. He led Joint Task Force Katrina in New Orleans following the devastating Category 5 hurricane. He is currently head of The Green Army, an organization dedicated to finding solutions to pollution.
Read more: https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/5060288-methane-emissions-climate-change/
There are a few parts to unpack in this article.
Lt. Gen Honoré is someone with a serious commitment to serving his country. He served his country in the military, he led a major part of the Hurricane Katrina relief effort, and I believe he now sincerely believes he is still serving his country by his participation in The Green Army. We have to respect this is someone who has given a great deal to his country, and who still believes he is serving his country.
What about the gas companies?
There appear to be two parts to Lt Gen. Honoré’s grievance with gas companies.
- The suggestion gas companies are using legal tricks to avoid having to clean up old well sites.
- The suggestion gas companies need to be held to account for their contribution to global warming.
Part 1, the suggestion gas companies are using sharp practices to avoid cleaning up pollution. Looking at Lt. Gen Honoré’s Green Army website this mostly appears to relate to grievances over local issues in Louisiana. I don’t know the situation on the ground in Louisiana, so I’m not going to pass judgement on this issue.
Obviously I have a big problem with the second part of Lt Gen. Honoré’s concerns about global warming, because that concern is false. There is no evidence low level methane leaks are or will in the future cause any measurable harm to human health.
But there is plenty of evidence an unnecessary regulatory crackdown on gas company emissions would do great harm to poor people.
In Europe the impact of green policies on poor people is nothing short of horrific.
The USA is not immune to green lawfare messing up people’s lives;
Lt Gen. Honoré, I believe you are sincere, over your life you have demonstrated a deep commitment to helping people and serving your country. On your website I saw a mention of your Katrina experience. I can only imagine how horrible that was.
But shutting down the gas industry, or even heavily regulating gas emissions, would have a devastating impact on poor people.
Energy poverty is a real issue in the USA, and a far worse issue in Britain and Europe. Any intensification of environmental regulation of energy has to be weighed against the possible consequences of driving up the cost of energy.
Lt Gen. Honoré I urge you to please re-check your case, make absolutely sure that you are doing the right thing. Because if you succeed in your lawfare attack against gas companies for their insignificant methane emissions, if you contribute to unnecessarily driving up the cost of energy in the USA, the very people you want to help could suffer adverse consequences from your actions.
How much does Gen. Honoré’s practice clear per year for his activism? How is he funded?
FTM. The environmental, resource exploitation, and real estate lawfare game in Louisiana is older than the industrial revolution, and arguably predates the Louisiana purchase.
His website is poor and seems self-funded, so I guess he currently receives no funding.
In this case, I think Eric is spot on with his assessment:
He’s a Swamp Creature.
Natural gas is not an alternative to oil, it is an alternative to coal, which does release far more particulates than gas or oil. So he’s blatantly lying on that count.
There is no near-term replacement for oil-based transportation fuels for large vehicles, such as passenger jets, large trucks, shipping and cargo train locomotives.
And his 1st Army forces, from tanks to helicopters to logistics trucks bringing supplies, ran and still does run on diesel, and will for the foreseeable future.
There’s Nothing honorable about lying.
“Swamp Creature”
Funny. Almost everyone in Louisiana would be proud to be called that, regardless of their politics.
The actual term is “Coon-Ass”, which is a title held with pride by the people of the bayou.
I think that the general should stick to things about which he is actually knowledgeable. It isn’t just the Global Warming Potential for equal weights that one should perhaps be concerned about, because there are gases that have even higher GWPs. More important is the annual flux, the molecular weight, and the average lifetime of the gas. I don’t see anything in the statements attributed to him that suggests that he has any familiarity with the properties of methane or other potentially problematic gases.
He led Joint Task Force Katrina in New Orleans
When they declared martial law and the constitution was no longer in effect.
I beg to differ. Your comment “…coal, which does release far more particulates than gas or oil.” is in my view incorrect. Modern coal fired plants release very little to no particulate pollution, thank to advancements in filtering technology. Electro-static filters, for instance, were used since the early 1980-ties.
Honore is wasting our time.
Honore was the head of Joint Task Force Katrina that was stationed in Camp Shelby just south of Hattiesburg, MS. Early in the morning after Katrina they left out of Shelby to the MS Gulf Coast, about 60 miles.
When the task force arrived the were met with a hot breakfast served by volunteers sponsored by the Baptist Church. The Baptist charities have mobile kitchens that help people that have experience disasters. Church volunteers are always ahead of any Federal or State relief agencies in providing services.North Carolina is the latest example.
Although Katria was a cat 5 in parts of the Gulf, it was a category 3 when it hit Louisiana
It was a disaster because New Orleans was (and still is) a corrupt, inefficient city that was completely unprepared.
The US Army Engineers Corp designed and funded the dykes that collapsed. They do this for all the navigable rivers and seaways.
It was well known that the levees in New Orleans (NO) on the Lake Pontchartrain side where not capable of withstanding wind driven (north to south) water by a major hurricane and levees would be overtopped. Overtopped earthen structures will always fail. This was proven by Hurricane Betsy in 1965. Also look up Oroville Dam Crisis for more on overtopping. The upgraded levees after Betsy were constructed according to engineering specifications using best practices at that time.
Forensic investigations of the levees after Katrina proved this. Best practices have changed (upgraded) since the levees were constructed in NO. No additional funding from Congress was made available to upgrade those levees. Congress knew this as well. The Army Corp is a creature of Congress and cannot build anything without Congressional approval with funding.
Just a bit of clarification to your Oroville Dam “crisis” statement. The Oroville Dam was NEVER over-topped. The issue was that the spillway at the dam was damaged and could not be used at full capacity without significant further damage. There was the possibility that the emergency spillway would be needed and it was inadequately constructed. Out of concern, it was decided to temporarily evacuate a portion of the city and housing downstream from the dam. The emergency spillway was never used and the “crisis” was avoided by allowing the spillway to be further damaged by high-volume water releases until Lake Oroville level was reduced to a safe level—the repairs and spillway upgrade cost over 1 billion dollars.
The eye of the Katrina hit Waveland, MS. Katrina missed New Orleans. Waveland and surrounding areas in MS were devastated with wind and a tidal surge that went inland for at least 2 miles. Within the first mile of the beach in Waveland, all the houses were gone, nothing but concrete slabs. Houses on poles that were designed to survive a tidal surge were wind destroyed as well. I volunteered though local church organizations to help repair homes in the Waveland area. We reroofed homes and install sheet rock, doors and trim. New Orleans was flooded from the change in wind direction which resulted in overtopped levees on the Lake Pontchartrain side because of the wind driven water surge.
I believe General Honore is known for the statement “You’re stuck on stupid!” in response to a reporter at a press conference in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina.
Elsewhere on the climate lawfare front,
https://tinyurl.com/2tyht98a
“Vermont is being sued over its law requiring large fossil fuel companies to pay for climate change damage in a landmark lawsuit that is expected to be the first of many.
In May 2024, Vermont became the first state to enact a law charging major polluting companies a fee that would funnel into a state fund for infrastructure projects aimed at combating, repairing, or adapting to the effects of climate change.
The law seeks to put the onus on fossil fuel companies rather than taxpayers for projects such as adapting water and sewage systems, repeating roads, or upgrading buildings. Specifically, the law targets companies that have emitted over a billion metric tons of greenhouse gases over the last three decades.”
Lawsuits in search of problem.
Correction: A law in search of a problem.
Maybe the targeted companies should boycott Vermont.
Easy, just put up petrol prices in Vermont to compensate for the climate fees.
Back on the taxpayer again.
Fees are part of doing business… a cost.
I’m sure you know this, but that’s the express purpose of these types of regulation. It’s a whammy twofer.
Petroleum companies get blamed for environmental harm and climate change, then the get blamed for being greedy and raising gas prices.
It’s also a perfect cover for the government regulators. Rather than raising taxes to pay for their unicorn dreams and get taxpayers mad at them, they get the money from the taxpayers through the petrol companies and shift the blame.
“The law seeks to put the onus on fossil fuel companies rather than taxpayer”
What is “the onus”?
How will “the onus” being put on companies affect taxpayer cost of living?
Who receives what percentages of “the onus”, and what will they spend it on?
I would appreciate the chance to discuss with the General the definition of dishonest. Given that he is either thick, corrupt or dishonest the result would probably not be enlightening.
With all due regard for previous military and disaster response service, it is also said that “ignorance of the law is no excuse.”
By now, this activist has no excuse for ignoring the laws of physics to pin the “blame” for ANY of the reported warming on methane – whether from crops, wetlands, cows, seepage from the ground, or leaks. I put “blame” in quotes because there is also no excuse for claiming the reported warming trend has produced net harm. No one knows that.
I had a conversation with a business acquaintance who was very passionate about the contributions of methane to global warming. I gently explained to him the overlapping absorbance bands of methane with CO2 and water that largely negated the impact. He was surprised.
Climate lawfare relies on hearsay evidence created by fraudulent climate models. The modern climate modeling fraud started with the 1967 paper by Manabe and Wetherald (MW67). Here they claimed that a doubling of the CO2 concentration from 300 to 600 parts per million (ppm) would increase the equilibrium temperature of the earth by 2.9 °C for clear sky conditions. This was just a mathematical artifact created by the oversimplified one dimensional radiative convective (1-D RC) model.
In 1976, the simplistic MW67 model was copied by the NASA Goddard planetary atmospheres group, including a young James Hansen and used to create warming artifacts for 10 minor species including methane and nitrous oxide (Wang et al, 1976). This is the source of the climate change claims related to methane. The climate modeling fraud is discussed in detail in ‘A Nobel Prize for Climate Modeling Errors’, Clark 2024.
The spurious warming produced by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration is now called the equilibrium climate sensitivity, ECS. Any climate model that has an ECS greater than ‘too small to measure’ is fraudulent and the results from such models should not be allowed as evidence in court.
Do you think you can construct a apparatus for measuring the greenhouse effect?
2025 – 1967 = 58 years later
Is the model producing useful science?
I have some personal experience with then Major Honore. 41 years ago, I was assigned to a scout platoon attached to the 2nd Battalion 16th Infantry, part of the 1st Infantry Division in Ft Riley, KS. He was the battalion commander.
I was just a lowly Spec 4. He decided to do a barracks inspection, which meant cleaning everything with a toothbrush before he showed up. He came off as a self-important d-bag. Had no praise at all for any of the troops, only scorn and disdain. Not a leader I respected.
Far different from the Lt Colonel in charge of the Cavalry Squadron I was assigned to just prior in Germany (2/11 ACR, Bad Kissingen, south of the Fulda Gap). I wish I could remember his name.
I didn’t like most of the officers much and some of the NCOs were worse, but I did have a company commander who was very good, and a good man too. Not enough to convince me to reenlist but I had a genuine respect for him. Captain Robert Bell, no doubt long retired now .
Agreed. I drove a jeep for a 1st LT in Germany. He was a dufus but was good to me. He didn’t want me saluting him if no one else was around. And he always made sure we stopped at any local bakery in the mornings when we were in the field.
“In a 2011 study by the University of Notre Dame, researchers found that agreeable employees earned significantly less than disagreeable ones.”
Captain might not have gotten to Major if he were Cpt Niceguy.
Major might have gotten to Colonel if he were Col Smartguy.
I too, in the past, took a BAD idea and just RAN with it!
All of us.
CO2 does NOT trap heat… that is the ignorance of brain-washed AGW mantra speaking.
Neither does CH4.
He may be “sincere”, but he is also mal-informed. !
Shown in Fig. 7 is the IR absorption spectrum of a sample of Philadelphia inner city air from 400 to 4,000 wavenumbers. Integration of the spectrum determined that H20 absorbed 92% of the IR light and CO2 only 8%. Since the air sample was city air, it is likely that the concentration of C02 is much higher than that of a remote location such as the countryside or the oceans. In 1999, the concentration of the MLO was ca. 375 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air contains 0.737 g of CO2 and mass of ca. 1.16 kg.
In air with a temperature of 28 deg. C and with 76% RH, the concentration of H2O is ca.29,550 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air contains ca. 32 g of H2O. To the first approximation, the amount of the greenhouse effect due to H2O is ca. 98%. CO2 absorbs
only a very small amount out-going IR light.
Fig. 7 was prepared by the Australian sherro01 and was taken from the essay:
“Climate Change Reexamined” by Joel M . Kauffman. The essay is 26 pages and can be downloaded for free.
Sincere plus mal-informed equals zealot.
While Honore may have had a successful military career and is respected for his leadership cleaning up after a hurricane I don’t see how that means I should pay attention to him concerning CAGW.
“In the fight against climate change, the focus is usually on carbon dioxide, or CO2 — and for good reason. It’s a greenhouse gas that remains in the atmosphere for years, trapping in heat for generations to come.”
After reading this I put no stock in his opinions concerning CAGW. I have two thoughts.
Concerning Exxon I don’t care what Honore’s opinion is. Did Exxon follow the law and regulations during and after its drilling operation? If they did then Honore can take a hike, if they didn’t I’m sure the authorities know about it.
Second our side desperately needs to create a small simple pamphlet explaining why we think the way we do. The graph showing the effectiveness of methane at increasing concentrations should be a part of it the same for CO2. Put the pamphlet together make it available to everyone and offer to explain it to wrong headed activists like Honore. There are lots of Honore’s out there who desperately need our guidance.
I don’t think many people are aware that there is quite a good correlation between temperature and the amount of methane in the atmosphere. I assume it is because the bacterial activity that produces methane increases with temperature. When temperature goes up, the amount of methane in the atmosphere goes up. When temperature stops going up, the amount of methane also stops going up.
I also suspect that the retreating of the permafrost as the world warms is partially responsible. In the graph below I plotted an 5 year running mean of the UAH lower troposphere temperature anomaly and the atmospheric methane concentration over time. I did the 5 year average because the annual average has a lot of variation that makes it difficult to see the trend.
Here is the cross-plot of the UAH globe temperature 5 year running mean versus the amount of methane in the atmosphere. Notice the coefficient of determination, R squared, is about 0.9 .
UAH temp data is from https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.1/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.1.txt
Methane data from https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/ch4/ch4_annmean_gl.txt
Chart shows 40 years. Age of Earth?
How about 400 thousand years. The effect is also visible in the ice cores.
I made this graph from publicly available ice core data.
from https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/metadata/landing-page/bin/iso?id=noaa-icecore-2413
and
https://serc.carleton.edu/details/files/34271.html
A pragmatist might hypothesize that “global greening” increases atmospheric methane…
…story tip…
I am sure that is true since tree produce methane.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/scientists-probe-the-surprising-role-of-trees-in-methane-emissions
Trees seem to produce more methane when their roots are water logged.
This ytube presentation (click here) may help explain why some view the current global methane levels as a crisis. Current answer is don’t really know.
The clip also provides a great explanation of the cyclical nature of glacial/interglacial periods over the last ~million years – a great summary of current thoughts.
Harold the Organic Chemist Says:
ATTN: Everyone
RE: We Do Not Have To Worry About Methane.
The concentration of CH4 in the air is 1.929 ppmv. One cubic meter of air contains ca.
0.0014 g of CH4.
The reason for the low concentration of CH4 in air is due to the initiation of its combustion by discharges of lightning. Everyday there are millions discharges of lightning, especially in the tropics. (cf. Wiki).
A light hydrocarbon gas, CH4 is readily oxidized by ozone which is generated by discharges of lightning.
Methane is slightly soluble in cold water. One liter of ice-cold water can contain ca.
35 mls of CH4. That is not very much, but the cold polar oceans are very large. In the cold water, the CH4 slowly diffuses to the ocean floor. There in the cold and under high pressure, CH4 forms a solid clathrate known as methane ice, which is stable forever.
Of the CH4 in the air, how much is from natural sources such as swamps, bogs, and fens, wild ruminate animals, decaying vegetation, and termites, especially tropical termites. There seeps of methane from the floor of warm oceans.
CH4 is released from domestic rice cultivation and from wild rice. We can’t do anything about this.
Well said Harold.
The orthodox narrative says humans are responsible for 60% of total methane emissions.
The graph below shows anthropogenic methane emissions and atmospheric methane growth over the last 40 years. Over this time human emissions of methane have been increasing at a reasonably steady rate. However, methane growth was falling until about 2004. In the years 2000,2001 and 2004 atmospheric methane. decreased. After 2004, methane growth has been increasing.
If humans are responsible for the majority of methane emissions, then we should have seen an increase in methane growth between 1984 and 2004 when human emissions were increasing.
The fact that emissions were increasing while growth was decreasing suggests that the growth is controlled mostly by natural processes.
I should have said
Methane emissions data are from
Jones et al. (2024) – with major processing by Our World in Data. “Annual methane emissions” [dataset]. Jones et al.,
“National contributions to climate change 2024.1” [original data]. Retrieved June 2, 2024 from https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/methane-emissions
I converted the emissions data from million tonnes of CO2 equivalents to million tonnes of methane (Mt CH4) by dividing by 29.8.
Methane growth data is from
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends_ch4/
and
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/ch4/ch4_gr_gl.txt
Coal mining, sanitary landfills (i.e., garbage dumps), and sewage treatment plants are additional sources of CH4.
Jet planes with the large engines are flying vacuum cleaners for CH4. Vehicles with their ice’s burn up the CH4 in the air they use as do wildfires. I also read that their are bacteria that use CH4.
I going to send this info to Chevron. At their website, I learned that Exxon Mobil does use social media. If they did, the crazy greenies would bombard them with denial of service attacks.
“Lt. Gen Honoré is someone with a serious commitment to serving his country. He served his country in the military, he led a major part of the Hurricane Katrina relief effort, and I believe he now sincerely believes he is still serving his country by his participation in The Green Army.”
Do NOT agree.
From personal and close family military experience from WW2 Battle of the Bulge to McArthers occupation of Japan,( personal staff) to the sandbox , OIF , Cuba Nam etc.
i see him as ego driven —-
“We have to respect this is someone who has given a great deal to his country…..”
No I do not! I was in the navy for 10 years. It was my honor to serve. I got a good science and engineering education and experience in the nuclear field.
My service does not mean that I can disrespect the hard and dangerous work done producing energy with coal, oil, and gas.
Some leadership advice for the general, do your homework.
No we don’t. Period. Full stop.
What does the uniform have to do with the cause? If I wear a Yankees shirt when I rob a bank, does Derek Jeter get arrested?
Here we go! Yet another poorly informed, indoctrinated individual, who does not know, what is he talking about. He said “It’s a greenhouse gas that remains in the atmosphere for years, trapping in heat for generations to come.” This is a comment as dumb, as it gets. CO2 is ALWAYS in the atmosphere!! And it has been there for at least 600 millions of years. The very fact, that plants keep growing, proves it. No CO2, no plants; full stop. And even if CO2 was somehow heating the planet, it’s ability to absorb extra heat is at the moment completely saturated. So we can keep adding CO2 until we are blue in the face, the CO2 will not absorb any extra heat. So much for “…trapping in heat for generations to come.”. And all this hoo-haa about methane is also a BS con. Not only is concentration of methane measured in parts per billion, methane lasts in the atmosphere for 5 – 12 years, before it gets oxidized and turns to CO2 and water. A bit of a straw clutching by the alarmists I recon….