New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

A Figurative War to Replace a Real One

Curbing methane and soot may be a fast, if incomplete, way to slow global warming

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Humanity has done little to address climate change. Global emissions of carbon dioxide reached (another) all-time peak in 2010. The most recent international talks to craft a global treaty to address the problem pushed off major action until 2020. Fortunately, there’s an alternative—curbing the other greenhouse gases. An economic and scientific analysis published in January in the journal Science found that taking steps to curb methane and black carbon (otherwise known as soot) could improve air quality, human health and agricultural yields. Even better, the team found that implementing just 14 soot and methane emissions-control measures globally would deliver nearly 90 percent of the potential benefits. An extra bonus: the 14 steps also curb global warming by roughly 0.5 degree Celsius by 2050, according to computer modeling.

Both methane and black carbon remain in the atmosphere for a short time compared with CO2. By some accounts, we could see an effect within weeks or months, rather than decades, as with CO2 emissions. The methods that would immediately slow global warming include eliminating methane releases from coal mines by capturing the gas and burning it; eliminating the venting or accidental release of methane co-produced by oil and gas drilling; capturing the gas from landfills in the U.S. and China; and promoting the recycling and composting of biodegradable trash.

This doesn’t mean we wouldn’t have to deal with CO2 emissions. By continuing to emit at present rates, we’d still be storing up future trouble. But starting with soot and methane would buy time and, perhaps even more important, significantly reduce the chances of catastrophic climate change.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


This article was published in print as "Soot Soldiers."

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe