Lawmakers Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Encourage Methane Removal

[Renaud de RICHTER]

Lawmakers Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Encourage Methane Removal

Jun 25, 2026

https://capitolreleases.com/releases/a69a8a51-b91b-4d58-b5c7-6bd6c2e33563

https://kevinmullin.house.gov/2026/06/25/lawmakers-introduce-bipartisan-bill-to-encourage-methane-removal/

Kevin Mullin, Democrat·California

Washington, D.C. – Following UN Secretary-General António Guterres’ call for an international reduction in methane emissions, Representatives Kevin Mullin (CA-15), Andrea Salinas (OR-06), and Carol Miller (WV-01) introduced the bipartisan Methane Removal and Innovation Act, legislation to accelerate the development of technologies that capture methane directly from the atmosphere and ensure American leadership in this emerging field.

Methane is one of the most potent greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and is responsible for nearly 30% of the rise in global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution. Yet current efforts focus largely on preventing new emissions rather than addressing methane already in the atmosphere. The Methane Removal and Innovation Act would establish a Department of Energy (DOE) program to accelerate the development and deployment of methane removal technologies.

“Cutting methane emissions is essential, but we also need innovative solutions to address methane that is already in our atmosphere,” said Rep. Mullin. “This critical legislation will help accelerate next-generation technologies that capture and repurpose methane while strengthening American leadership in a growing industry. By investing in research and innovation today, we can support public-private partnerships that advance practical solutions to meet the urgency of the climate crisis.”

“Methane is a powerful driver of climate change, but stopping leaks from pipelines and energy facilities is only half the battle. We also need new technology that pulls methane straight out of the atmosphere,” said Rep. Salinas. “This bill directs the Department of Energy to invest in research, development, and commercialization so American companies can lead the way with the next generation of methane capture technology. Because Oregon is a leader in climate technology, this legislation will protect our climate while supporting good jobs in clean energy innovation right here at home.”

“Methane reduction is about strengthening American energy security and making sure our resources are used responsibly and efficiently. In the past, I have worked on efforts to address methane emissions and support responsible energy production, and I am happy to be a part of this legislation that builds on that foundation. This bill ensures the Department of Energy invests in innovative technologies that can capture methane both at the source and directly from the atmosphere,” said Rep. Miller.

To secure American leadership, the Methane Removal Research and Innovation Act directs the DOE to establish a research, development, and commercialization program for methane capture technologies. Specifically, it would:

• Accelerate the development of methane removal technologies to be brought to the marketplace
• Streamline resources by coordinating efforts at federal agencies to support research and commercialization
• Authorize $25 million annually through 2030 for the program

“Methane has driven roughly 30% of global warming since preindustrial times, which is why we need to pursue every credible tool to address it,” said Megan Melamed, Program Director for Methane Removal at Spark Climate Solutions. “Aggressive emission reductions are essential and will result in near-term benefits. But hard-to-abate sources, warming-induced emissions, and other possible feedbacks will persist. This means we must assess every potential tool—including atmospheric methane removal. This bill would mobilize American science and innovation to do exactly that. We thank Representatives Mullin, Salinas, and Miller for their leadership.”

“The Methane Removal Research and Innovation Act (MRRIA) is an important step toward a robust, publicly funded research environment that explores a variety of climate response strategies,” said Sikina Jinnah, Professor of Environmental Studies and Associate Director of the Center for Reimagining Leadership at UC Santa Cruz. “As the 2024 National Academies report on methane removal stated, and as MRRIA champions, a useful knowledge base must consider technology and humans in concert.’ By integrating ethics and social science into research now, MRRIA will help align innovation with public priorities while methane removal technologies are still nascent.”

“The Methane Removal Research and Innovation Act is a critical step toward advancing industries harnessing nature’s ability to capture methane and transform it into valuable resources,” said Josh Silverman, CEO of Windfall Bio. “By accelerating innovation in methane capture technologies and specifically highlighting biological capture, this legislation provides a practical path to reducing emissions while strengthening our agricultural and industrial economies. We thank Representatives Mullin, Salinas, and Miller for their leadership on this important issue.”

“Methane pollution is a major contributor to near-term warming, and the Methane Removal Research and Innovation Act offers a practical way to better understand possible solutions,” said Will Sawyer, Founder and CEO of Resolute Methane. “This bill would support the science and technology needed to evaluate methane removal approaches carefully and transparently. We are grateful to Representatives Mullin, Salinas, and Miller for championing this legislation.”

“Methane is one of the most potent greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, and removing it represents a largely untapped opportunity,” said Rachel Smith, Policy Director at Cascade Climate. “The Methane Removal Research and Innovation Act takes an important step forward by directing the Department of Energy to coordinate rigorous research on this emerging technology. We commend Rep. Mullin, Rep. Salinas, and Rep. Miller for championing this commonsense investment in American science and competitiveness.”

“While reducing greenhouse gas emissions should be our number-one priority, we need more research into removals as a solution for residual emissions, including rising natural sources,” said Noah Deich, Co-Founder and Senior Advisor at Carbon180. “MRRIA accelerates essential research into methane—a super-pollutant that has been largely overlooked in the removals conversation. If enacted, this legislation would make important strides in broadening the removals framework to be inclusive of innovation around greenhouse gases—giving us the knowledge to ensure our policy strategy is as scientifically robust as possible.”

“Methane removal is a critical emerging technology, and one where the United States has a potent opportunity to establish itself as a global leader” said Dr. Hannah Safford, Associate Director of Climate and Environment at the Federation of American Scientists. “The Methane Removal Research and Innovation Act will push the frontier of U.S. scientific discovery, protect American agriculture and human health from dangerous ground-level ozone, and tackle an underappreciated but escalating driver of climate threats. The Federation of American Scientists applauds Representatives Mullin, Salinas, and Miller for their work on this important issue.”

“The Methane Removal Research and Innovation Act is an important policy measure to confront the serious threat posed by rising levels of atmospheric methane,” said Wil Burns, Co-Director of the Institute for Responsible Carbon Removal. “The proposed legislation can move forward critical research and innovation.”

“Methane is responsible for roughly a third of current anthropogenic warming, yet the science of actively removing it from the atmosphere remains in its infancy,” said Alex Turner, Assistant Professor of Atmospheric and Climate Science at the University of Washington. “The Methane Removal Research and Innovation Act directly addresses this gap by funding the research needed to determine whether these approaches can be scaled responsibly.”

“By advancing the Methane Removal Research and Innovation Act, Congress is taking an important step to implement the National Academies’ recommendations on methane removal and organize the multidisciplinary research needed to advance this emerging field,” said Mingyi Wang, Assistant Professor of Geophysical Sciences at the University of Chicago. “Methane is a powerful driver of near-term climate change, but evaluating removal approaches requires careful, evidence-based research. This legislation will support the laboratory studies, field observations, and numerical modeling needed to evaluate feasibility, risks and benefits, and inform responsible decision-making. We thank Representatives Mullin, Salinas, and Miller for their leadership on this important issue.”

“The USA and global populations need alternative technologies to manage and transform atmospheric methane for health stewardship (through reduced air pollution), for atmospheric chemical stability, for protection against the effects of atmospheric warming, and for converting low-level methane into a resource for productive uses,” said Hinsby Cadillo-Quiroz, Professor at the School of Life Sciences and the Biodesign Institute at Arizona State University. “This bill is timely and urgently needed.”

Read the full bill text here.

[Ken Caldeira]

While I appreciate the good intentions, methane removal from the atmosphere seems like an idea whose time should have come and gone.

Nature will remove methane from the atmosphere in a decade or so.

To cost-effectively reduce methane concentrations, we need to focus on emission sources.

If we want to engage in atmospheric removal, we should focus on long-lived gases like CO2.

+1 650 704 7212
https://ciunit.org/ken-caldeira.html

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAHodn9-HTpvRsPJt6CH3hf6b6RihxGChuGif-D6%2B%2BFP0a05LJA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mark Eakin]

This is one of the most stupid ideas I’ve heard come from Congress in a long time. 

Address the many sources of new methane release into the atmosphere and stop them. If Congress wants to take real action on methane it should be steep fines for atmospheric release of methane.

This is greenwashing.

Cheers,

Mark

------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Mark Eakin, Ph.D. (he/him)

Chief Science Advisor, Chasing Coral https://www.chasingcoral.com

Retired NOAA Oceanographer

Living on on lands stewarded by the Nacotchanke (Anacostan) and Piscataway Peoples

e-mail: Corals.an...@gmail.com
Twitter: @MarkEakin FB: Mark Eakin
Mobile: (301) 502-8608

‘'The climate system is an angry beast and we are poking it with sticks.''
Prof. Wallace Broecker, March 17, 1998

[Michael MacCracken]

Hi Ken (and Mark)--Not that I'm convinced it can be meaningfully and economically accomplished, but just to be a bit of a contrarian, what do we do about the prospect of increasing methane emissions from permafrost thaw that seem likely to be large and inevitable? I agree that the methane lifetime is short, but methane is a very strong GHG in its short time in the atmosphere (using GWP-100 as a metric seriously hides methane's true effect of warming early and so bringing on positive feedbacks and tipping points sooner). Fine to make the point that controlling emissions directly due to human influences is essential and cost-effective, etc., but what about the indirect natural emissions that increasingly rapid and inevitable further warming is causing?

And as a side point, I would also note that to really evaluate whether it could be meaningfully done, DOE will need to have the climate research program that they have been dismantling--would be nice if even the discussion of this bill actually made clear to members that overall research on our changing climate and world is really essential.

Mike MacCracken

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAKNUXC0-J4MvpPxPY8-Na4okbq8TOrtU2oM5M0p2psewvx-%3DiA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tom Goreau]

Why aren’t they also discussing Nitrous Oxide, a more potent GHG than Methane due to its centuries long lifetime in the atmosphere?

 

N2O has many biological sources and sinks that could be managed!

 

T. J. Goreau, 1982, Biogeochemistry of nitrous oxide, Ph.D. thesis, Harvard

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/c70503ff-a1d0-4fdd-aedb-8fed5b83a3f3%40comcast.net.

[Renaud de RICHTER]

Despite the ambitious "Global Methane Pledge" signed by 159 countries, the stock of methane in the atmosphere is still rising...

The enhancement of the biogenic emissions of methane due to anthropogenic warming, of permafrost, wetlands, freshwaters, and wildfire combined will increase with temperature at 97 ± 6 Tg CH4 yr-1 ℃-1 

https://doi.org/10.22541/essoar.15002332/v1

[Greg Rau]

What's the point if we fail to address the primary cause of AGW - CO2 emissions? And we fail to remove legacy CO2 from the atmosphere? These efforts have been largely defanged by the current administration. Why is methane removal suddenly politically more palatable than CO2 management? Atmospheric CO2 concentration is currently 430 ppm and probably costs in aggregate $100s/tonne to remove. What will be the cost of methane removal at a concentration of 2 ppm? Wouldn't money be better spent on the easier, bigger problem, or is the intention here to deflect attention from that effort?

Greg    

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAHodn9-WG4rP89M9n09Xpvdq-TfFR_M0SXRYBV%3DM_ofE-nPo7w%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Greg H. Rau, Ph.D.

Senior Research Scientist
Institute of Marine Sciences
Univer. California, Santa Cruz
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Greg_Rau
Co-founder and manager, the Carbon Dioxide Removal Google group
Co-founder and Senior Scientist, Planetary Technologies, Inc.
510 582 5578

510 363 1519 c

[GRETCHEN & RON LARSON]

Greg, Renaud, Michael, Ken and list

 

     This in support of Renaud - for the single CDR technology of biochar.   (the following supported by Google AI)

 

     The differences for biochar are:

  

    a.   Methane is preferentially collected by biochar.

    b.   It can there be converted by microbes to CO2.  There, it doesn't fill up - it can have a long productive life.   CO2 is not desired, but much preferred to CH4.

    c.  Most/much of the first cost of the biochar can be covered by CDR benefits

    d. Preferentially to be placed in/near dairies, cattle enclosures, city landfills and dumps, etc.   The societal benefits of CH4 removal can exceed the benefits of biochar being placed in soil, concrete, asphalt, etc.   

     e.   This (bipartisan!) bill is for $25 million. More biochar leads to more CDR. CDR benefits likely much larger than $25 million..  

     f.  May help save the dairy industry - as enteric release is such a huge problem.

    

Ron

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAK_B4%3D-DxmqDk-Kz0DBZ%2BTLk8g6dAjCBo6jf1SMLfDcNKWk73w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Hayes]

Atmospheric capture or conversion of CH4 is beyond me. However, a number of years ago, Dr Salter started me thinking about marine capture and utilization of CH4.

Below is a concept that captures CH4 and uses it to:

1) add ice under an icesheet

2) leave a trail of bioavailable liquid bicarbonates as an exhaust 

Continuous-Flow Sub-Ice Geoengineering & Carbon Mitigation Infrastructure (CSI)

---

I. Executive Summary

The Cryo-Sequestration Infrastructure (CSI) represents a highly optimized, continuous-flow marine geoengineering system deployed directly beneath melting polar ice sheets. By pairing localized hydrodynamic extraction with immediate electrochemical utilization.

The vehicle mitigates climate acceleration by intercepting a hyper-potent greenhouse liability—sub-ice gaseous and dissolved methane (CH₄)—and routing it directly into high-efficiency fuel cells. The resulting electricity powers an immediate, high-volume sea-ice manufacturing system. The process completely avoids open thermal combustion byproducts, operates without external energy inputs, and outputs a highly bio-available trailing bicarbonate (HCO₃⁻) plume that actively fertilizes the polar marine ecosystem.

---

II. Structural & Mechanical Architecture

[========= JAGGED SUB-ICE POROUS CANOPY / BRINE CHANNELS =========]
  ^      ^      ^      ^      ^      ^      ^      ^      ^      ^      ^
  =========================================================================
  [             VACUUM SHEET / HYDRODYNAMIC MEMBRANE INTERFACE            ]
  =========================================================================
      <<-- [WATER DISPLACED OUT]                  [WATER DISPLACED OUT] -->>

     |                                                                 |
 [4m x 30m TRACTION TANK] <-- [ULTRA-LOW PROFILE CENTRAL CORE] --> [4m x 30m TRACTION TANK]
 (Internal SOFC & Gearbox)            (CCM Power & Control)         (Internal SOFC & Gearbox)

The vehicle utilizes an ultra-low-profile, pancaked horizontal blueprint to maximize stability, minimize drag, and maintain continuous mechanical interface with the erratic under-ice canopy:

• Self-Contained Traction Devices: Locomotion is driven by twin, parallel 4m × 30m helical screw tanks. These cylinders function as the primary traction devices, biting directly into the bottom of the sea ice. By enclosing high-torque electric drivetrains and Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFC) entirely inside the hollow structural pontoons, the vehicle eliminates external mechanical vulnerabilities.
• The Vacuum Sheet (Hydrodynamic Membrane): Stretched directly between the two massive traction rollers is a heavy-duty polymer vacuum membrane that hugs the ice surface. The outward rotation of the helical screws continuously displaces boundary-layer seawater away from the chassis. Because the upper boundaries are sealed against the ice sheet, this displacement generates a continuous, localized hydrodynamic vacuum directly under the catchment membrane.
• Pancaked Hull Dynamics: By eliminating internal chemical reactor tanks, the vehicle’s central core is flattened to a minimum cross-section. The natural buoyancy of the hollow traction cylinders focuses an upward force that presses the vacuum sheet and freezing plenums firmly against the ice canopy.

---

III. The Thermodynamic Continuous-Flow Loop

The platform functions as a direct, continuous-flow thermodynamic engine, bypassing the need for chemical promoters (amino acids), storage pistons, or batch-cycling downtime.

[Vacuum-Stripped Methane] ──> [Solid Oxide Fuel Cell] ──> [60% Net Electricity] ──> [Vapor-Chiller Loop (3.0 COP)]
                                     │                                                      │
                                     ▼                                                      ▼
                             [Pure CO2 Stream]                              [Active Seawater Freezing]
                                     │                                                      │
                                     ▼                                                      ▼
                         [Venturi Dissolution]                              [1,080 m³/hr Structural Ice]
                                     │
                                     ▼
                     [Trailing Bicarbonate Bloom]

1. Direct Hydrodynamic Methane Extraction

The negative pressure zone generated beneath the vacuum sheet strips methane seamlessly out of the marine environment:

• Aqueous Gas Stripping: Lowering the localized pressure reduces the solubility threshold of the ultra-cold boundary-layer seawater, forcing dissolved methane to instantly effervesce out of solution as free gas bubbles.
• Crevice Evacuation: The constant suction draws trapped methane pockets out of deep micro-fissures and porous brine channels within the ice sheet canopy.

2. Immediate Electrochemical Power Generation

Extracted methane gas is filtered and routed directly into the internal Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFC). Operating at 60% electrical efficiency, the fuel cells oxidize the methane electrochemically, producing instant power while generating zero soot, particulates, or destructive nitrous oxides ($\text{NO}_x$).

3. Continuous Cryo-Ice Manufacturing

1. Chiller Matrix Input: 100% of the generated electrical energy is fed straight into high-efficiency vapor-compression chiller loops (Systemic COP: 3.0).
2. Instantaneous Freezing: The chillers continuously extract thermal energy from the ambient seawater, achieving a highly efficient conversion ratio:
   $$\mathbf{1\text{ m}^3\text{ of Methane Gas Captured} \longrightarrow 0.2\text{ m}^3\text{ of Thickened Sea Ice}}$$
3. Hydrostatic Slush Extrusion: The trailing edge of the vacuum membrane is chilled and continuously squeeze and push the freshly manufactured external ice slush upward, locking it directly into the sub-ice interaction zone to build 1,080 m³ of dense structural ice mass per hour.

---

IV. Environmental Integration & mCDR Crediting

The platform features a highly favorable environmental exhaust loop that qualifies for premium Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal (mCDR) credit markets.

Bubble-Free Carbon Sequestration

Pure CO₂ from the fuel cell anode exhaust is channeled into high-pressure Venturi Injection Loops and forced through porous ceramic micro-spargers directly behind the screw wash. The intense cold and natural alkalinity of polar seawater instantly dissolves the micro-bubbles into an aqueous phase as stable bicarbonate ions (HCO₃⁻). Continuous forward movement from the traction devices ensures smooth plume diffusion, preventing localized pH shocks and avoiding the "calcification penalty" common in stationary ocean alkalinity enhancement systems.

Trophic Sub-Ice Cascade

The trailing liquid bicarbonate plume creates a targeted, beneficial fertilization wake:

1. Diatom Fertilization: Sympagic algae (Nitzschia frigida) consume the trailing HCO₃⁻ plume via membrane-bound carbonic anhydrase enzymes, supercharging primary under-ice biological production.
2. Grazing & Habitat Expansion: Under-ice amphipods (Apherusa glacialis) and copepods swarm the greened-up ice canopy. The newly extruded ice tendrils provide vital structural brine-channel habitats for micro-fauna shelter.
3. Benthic Carbon Pump: Intensive grazing produces dense organic fecal pellets that sink rapidly to the ocean floor. This transfers the harvested carbon into the benthic fauna web and traps it securely in deep seabed sediments for centuries.

---

V. Technical Specifications Matrix

Parameter	Operational Specification
System Footprint	30m Wide × 30m Long (900 m² Sweep Area)
Primary Catchment Enclosure	Heavy-Duty Polymer Vacuum Sheet (Hydrodynamic Membrane)
Harvesting Mechanism	Continuous Low-Pressure Cavitation & Effervescence Gas Stripping
Primary Traction Devices	Dual 4m Diameter × 30m Length Outward-Displacement Helical Screw Tanks
Locomotion Mode	Contra-rotation (Forward/Reverse); Co-rotation (Lateral Crab-Walking)
Power Plant	Direct Methane Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC) — 60% Net Electrical Efficiency
Refrigeration Architecture	Continuous Flow Closed-Loop Vapor Compression Plenum (Systemic COP: 3.0)
Peak Ice Production	≈ 1,080 m³ of solid ice structural mass per hour (at 1 m/s cruise)
Primary Carbon Exhaust Sink	High-Surface-Area Sparger Aqueous Bicarbonate Plume (HCO₃⁻)
System Processing State	100% Continuous-Flow (No Hydrate Batch Storage or Pistons)

---

MH] Dealing with both CO2 and CH4 at the same time is ideal...if we can do it.

Best regards 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/861086145.170379.1782598535595%40connect.xfinity.com.

[Chris Van Arsdale]

While on paper it probably makes more sense to concentrate resources on emission reduction (and we should do that), the mathane problem is somewhat different from what we are used to with CO2 in (despite 2ppm) being energetically downhill.

I haven't read the bill and I can't say if it's a good idea or not.

However, we've been thinking about methane oxidation in plants, and bioengineering that pathway. The diffusion into and out of the stoma in global ag is very high. There may be other ideas floating around that are not so crazy.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CABjtO1dS8GHCQb-yD4cQ3iiOUhye7dtVURNzjnOtowyPonkxig%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Hayes]

The albedo improvement alone adds to the long-term temperature profile. Scale is relative to investment in deployment. There is no fuel shortage.

Swarms of such self fueling segments are likely limited by only the fuel cell availability.

Most ports can likely get the segments made. As far as control, policy issues on many levels, I say the initial fund raiser be the first logo in Arctic ice and go from there. 

Best

[Dan Miller]

I have a very timely Climate Chat episode on methane eradication with Matthew S. Johnson (University of Copenhagen) that premiers today at 10am PT:  We discuss both point source and atmospheric eradication.  You can listen to the program starting at 10am today or anytime afterwards. 

And it is eradication, not removal.  Removal implies that you put it somewhere out of the way. But since methane is ~120X more powerful than CO2 at warming while it’s in the atmosphere, the way you get rid of it, is by converting it to H2O and CO2. You destroy it.

Dan

Best regards 
<1000004133.png>

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CABjtO1e5aWjise0x%3DU2hm8abN9zRyMfmhsjS0h8RcQUHWTNhng%40mail.gmail.com.

[Clive Elsworth]

Dan

 

Would you have time to ask Prof Johnson about the large methane sink represented by NOx produced by tropical deep convective clouds? These clouds produce a lot of lightning, which produces NOx (various nitrogen oxides, but not N2O). NOx strongly enhances atmospheric OH radical production.

 

Some helpful tables from ChatGPT:

 

Methane sink	Approximate share of total global sink
OH radicals in the troposphere	~85–90%
Soil uptake by methanotrophic bacteria	~4–7%
Cl radicals (mainly marine boundary layer and troposphere)	~1–5%
Stratospheric oxidation (OH, Cl, O(¹D))	~3–8%
Cloud-water and metal-catalyzed oxidation	<<1% (probably negligible globally)

 

Approximate global OH budget

Process	Contribution to maintaining global OH
O₃ photolysis + H₂O (primary production)	~40–60%
NOx-mediated recycling	~30–50%
HOx recycling without NOx	~5–15%
Ozonolysis of alkenes and biogenic VOCs	~5–15%
Cloud/aqueous/metal chemistry	<1–2%

 

Sources of the NOx supporting OH

Source	Approximate Share of NOx
Human combustion	~50–60%
Lightning	~10–20%
Soil microbes	~10–20%
Biomass burning	~10%
Other natural sources	few %

 

BTW Once again, the IMO is working to accelerate global warming, this time by curbing NOx emissions from shipping. It would be good if that got a mention too.

 

Clive

 

From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Dan Miller
Sent: 28 June 2026 15:58
To: Michael Hayes <electro...@gmail.com>; Chris Van Arsdale <cvana...@google.com>; GRETCHEN & RON LARSON <rongre...@comcast.net>; Greg Rau <gr...@ucsc.edu>; Renaud de RICHTER <renaud.d...@gmail.com>; CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com> <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>; Michael MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net>; Ken Caldeira <kcal...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [CDR] Lawmakers Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Encourage Methane Removal

 

I have a very timely Climate Chat episode on methane eradication with Matthew S. Johnson (University of Copenhagen) that premiers today at 10am PT:  We discuss both point source and atmospheric eradication.  You can listen to the program starting at 10am today or anytime afterwards. 

 

And it is eradication, not removal.  Removal implies that you put it somewhere out of the way. But since methane is ~120X more powerful than CO2 at warming while it’s in the atmosphere, the way you get rid of it, is by converting it to H2O and CO2. You destroy it.

 

 

 

Dan

 

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/103A26F5-C4E3-43B3-8DAF-8A024D64BF2E%40rodagroup.com.

[Tom Goreau]

ALL chemicals and aerosols that react with OH radicals will affect the rate of methane oxidation!

 

OH radicals are the general mechanisms that cleans the atmosphere of nearly all pollutants, so changes in ANY of them, but especially in NOx, will affect the rate of methane oxidation, since the lifetime of OH radicals is so short.

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/064601dd0716%24a25f1c40%24e71d54c0%24%40EndorphinSoftware.co.uk.

[Dan Miller]

You can contact him yourself. You can find his contact information here:

Dan

<image001.jpg>

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/064601dd0716%24a25f1c40%24e71d54c0%24%40EndorphinSoftware.co.uk.

[Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk]

Dan

 

As the most important nature-based lever on the methane sink, I thought NOx would be a worth a public mention.

 

As Tom Goreou mentions, other compounds may also be important. For example, HCl, which amplifies the oxidative effect of OH radicals probably at least tenfold. Its atmospheric concentration is naturally much higher near coastlines, and could be boosted a bit in huge remote ocean areas where it’s virtually non-existent.

But no is no and it’s your show.

 

Clive

[Dan Miller]

Today’s show was recorded yesterday, so there was no opportunity to add questions!

Dan

On Jun 28, 2026, at 11:16 AM, Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk wrote:

Dan

 

As the most important nature-based lever on the methane sink, I thought NOx would be a worth a public mention.

 

As Tom Goreou mentions, other compounds may also be important. For example, HCl, which amplifies the oxidative effect of OH radicals probably at least tenfold. Its atmospheric concentration is naturally much higher near coastlines, and could be boosted a bit in huge remote ocean areas where it’s virtually non-existent.

But no is no and it’s your show.

 

Clive

On 28/06/2026 18:48 BST Dan Miller <d...@rodagroup.com> wrote:

 

 

You can contact him yourself. You can find his contact information here: