we've come to expect so little from media outlets like the latimes, but it's frustrating that even an article from jpl would not provide basic order of magnitude to ground the risks, not just an attention grabbing headline.
methane is estimated to cause about 25% of pollution effects, so 1/3 of that is on the order of 8% of california's pollution effects, which means addressing these super-emitters could be impactful, though not game changing.
The headline was not intended to be merely attention-grabbing.
It was trying to illustrate that although leaks are a fractal phenomenon, you can make significant progress by starting at the top few. For more on this, see the abstract of the Nature paper at:
You'll notice the abstract focuses on what we'd call the "80/20" nature of the problem.
Going all the way to risk (of warming?) would enlarge the scope of the investigation a lot. I think I've seen talks by Riley Duren, the PI, where he gives some percentage breakdowns of the form: "CH4 is x% of GHG potential over the next Y years and in our study region, z% of CH4 came from these sources."
we're agreeing on a lot of the substance (it's a problem that should be addressed right away, along with other super-emitters), but the title is absolutely clickbait. i did skim the latimes article (and as an LA resident, it's of particular interest)--not even one attempt at grounding the actual risks, but absolutely filled with emotional language. without a sense of the collective risk involved, it's certainly meant to automatically push the alarm buttons of the less well-informed. methane, oh my god, what's next, cancer?!
it's the same tried-and-true sensationalist tactic of making the issue de jure outsized relative to the danger. it's worked with aids, 9/11, covid, etc. fear sells.
again, 8% reduction at the limit is nothing to sneeze at, but it's not by itself going to change our lives materially (except for those nearby, reason enough to adjure action). that's why the sensationalism was added, to make the story seem more relevant than it is. but we as citizens should not, and do not, need that kind of manipulation to do the right thing. it's cynical and infantalizing.
Oh, I didn't like the LAT formulation either. I thought you were referring mostly to the JPL press release. (The JPL work was really about CH4's contribution to greenhouse warming, not at all to personal health -- I'm very familiar with that work.)
The LAT didn't say anything about whether the emission levels they suggest (~100 kg/hour = ~200 m^3/hour) are large from a health perspective, and they didn't say anything about the actual risk from CH4.
A BOE calculation shows that if the wind is 5km/hour, and the CH4 disperses over a cross-section 100m x 20m (very tight), then the steady-state concentration in the plume would be about 20ppm, which is a bit over the overall atmosphere (~2ppm). The NIOSH maximum safe concentration, however, is 1000ppm.
This makes me guess that the leak isn't very consequential from a health POV. It would be nice to have the LAT ask someone who knows more!
methane is estimated to cause about 25% of pollution effects, so 1/3 of that is on the order of 8% of california's pollution effects, which means addressing these super-emitters could be impactful, though not game changing.