Q&A with Professor Robert Stavins

Robert N. Stavins is the A.J. Meyer Professor of Energy & Economic Development at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, Director of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program, Director of Harvard’s Graduate Studies for the Doctoral Program in Public Policy and the Doctoral Program in Political Economy and Government, Co-Chair of the Harvard Business School-Kennedy School Joint Degree Programs, and Director of the Harvard Project on Climate Agreements. Stavins is also a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research, a University Fellow of Resources for the Future, former Chair of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental Economics Advisory Board, and a member of the editorial councils of scholarly periodicals.

His research has examined diverse areas of environmental economics and policy and has appeared in a variety of economics, law, and policy journals, as well as several books. Stavins directed Project 88, a bipartisan effort co-chaired by former Senator Timothy Wirth and the late Senator John Heinz to develop innovative approaches to environmental problems. He has been a consultant to government agencies, international organizations, corporations, and advocacy groups. He holds a BA in philosophy from Northwestern University, an MS in agricultural economics from Cornell, and a PhD in economics from Harvard University.

Emily Chien: Good afternoon, Professor Stavins. Thank you for joining me to discuss methane emissions and the exciting progress in this area. You've been actively involved in the Conference of the Parties (COP) of the United Nations Framework Agreement on Climate Change (UNFCCC) since 2007, and COP28 placed significant focus on methane emissions. In addition, it was a big year for actions on methane emissions reductions – the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Biden administration announced new rules to cut emissions from the oil and gas industry including monitoring, and Harvard researchers found extreme methane leaks that were previously unnoticed. Why is methane receiving all this attention now, and what has changed?

Robert Stavins: I think there are two reasons for the greater attention to methane. One is that we used to think about climate change as something in the very distant future – perhaps in 2050 or 2100. However, it has become clear to people around the world, including those in government, private industry, and the general public, that climate change is happening now. Therefore, it’s important to think about the short-term, as well as the long-term.

CO2 has a half-life of over a hundred years in the atmosphere, so the focus was historically on CO2. emissions.However, methane gas has a very high global warming potential, and short atmospheric lifetime compared with CO2. In fact, methane has 80 times the global warming power of CO2 over its first 20 years, and it takes only 12 years or so to break down from the atmosphere. Methane emissions and CO2 concentrations have been rising for decades. So, given that climate change is happening now, we could significantly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) atmospheric concentrations, related global warming and associated damages to the environment, human health, and agriculture. That’s why it’s very important. The change in our temporal focus makes methane stand out much more than it did previously.

The second reason is that within the oil and gas industry, which is one of the primary sources of emissions alongside agriculture and landfills, there is the possibility of public policies being win-win, that is, it being in the interest of the oil and gas companies. If oil and gas companies can reduce methane leaks in their production, they can keep more in the pipeline, and that’s a merchantable product (as a primary constituent of natural gas). There's an economic incentive since there’s a sales price on it, and that's one of the primary reasons the industry has become more interested in reducing methane emissions. Thus, you have both policy and private sector forces looking increasingly at methane emissions.

Chien: In fact, the International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that methane is responsible for around 30% of the current global temperature rise since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

You lead a Salata Institute for Climate and Sustainability Research Cluster to Reduce Global Methane Emissions which includes faculty across many disciplines – law, public health, science, engineering, international policy, economics, as well as senior collaborators from the Environmental Defense Fund and MIT. Why are you pursuing an interdisciplinary approach and what outcomes are you focused on?

Stavins: A multidisciplinary perspective is very helpful if you want to be communicating effectively with people outside of academia, such as in government, NGOs, or the private sector. So, you need a lens broader than a single discipline. The Salata Institute, through its Research Clusters like the Methane Initiative, focuses on research and engagement. We bring together experts from different fields to conduct research and engage with policymakers, industry, and NGOs.

For example, in one of our nine projects under the Methane Research Cluster, we brought together Daniel Jacob, a professor of Earth and Planetary Science, with Carrie Jenks from Harvard Law School in a project on “Using Satellite Observations of Atmospheric Methane to Serve U.S. Reporting and Regulatory Needs.” Jacob is an expert in using satellite measurement of methane concentrations to infer emissions from particular locations at specific points in time, while Jenks is an expert on methane regulations and has been working closely with the EPA. Together, they are addressing an important question: how can estimates of emissions from satellite detection be used for regulatory compliance or be made available in ways that provide value to private industry, so they know where to look for the leaks.

Chien: This is a great example of how two disciplines working together can create real world impact. Another project of the Salata Institute Methane Research Cluster is building satellite-based measurement and emissions attribution. The whole Harvard community is celebrating the early March MethaneSAT satellite launch, which is a collaborative effort between the Environmental Defense Fund, space technology experts, and faculty and researchers at the Harvard Paulson School of Engineering & Applied Sciences and the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

Why is this satellite significant and what does it mean for detecting, analyzing, reporting, and regulating methane pollution?

Stavins: The launch of the new methane monitoring satellite (MethaneSAT), is indeed a milestone. Its enhanced resolution and wide view path allow advanced AI algorithms to help us more quickly and precisely detect and report methane emissions that we could not pinpoint previously at specific, individual locations and facilities. While existing technologies such as aircraft and the Tropomi satellite provide very good resolution, MethaneSAT takes it to a new level, making it exceptionally valuable for detection, reporting, and regulation to stop unnecessary leakage (and flares). That’s why people are excited about MethaneSAT.

Chien: I can appreciate its value, having led AI climate offerings at IBM. The power of real-time data, greater resolution, view span and AI reduces uncertainty and makes the data actionable. How have oil and gas companies reacted to better satellite monitoring data and our ability to spot leaks faster?

Stavins: They are clearly very interested in this. That’s why the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI), one of the oil and gas sector’s private industry consortia, has been very supportive of this satellite work. The capability to pinpoint sources of leaks allows companies to retain more methane in their pipelines and avoid unknown leaks, so they can transform it into salable product. This win-win scenario aligns with both policy objectives and private sector interests.

Chien: Now, let’s shift our focus to COP28. Last December in Dubai, the Harvard University delegation made major contributions at COP28 to help advance methane emissions abatement. Which stakeholder engagements do you think were most helpful in moving the ball forward?

Stavins: The most important thing we did with regards to methane at COP28 were the numerous meetings that we held. In addition to the official Harvard side event on methane, we conducted meetings with governments, NGOs, and private industry stakeholders who want to know what we’re doing on methane at Harvard. In these meetings, we listen to what questions they’re asking, so we can identify additional work Harvard can advance. We met with the World Bank, the Clean Air Task Force, the Climate and Clean Air Coalition, the U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, the Environmental Defense Fund – and that’s by no means a complete list. We participated in a few dozen meetings over the few days that I was on the ground at COP28.

Chien: On the domestic front, there has been an effort to strengthen methane regulation. It’s not surprising that there's some controversy over the Biden administration's Methane Rule and the fines it would impose on the oil and gas companies for the first time. What’s the industry's reaction, what is the status of the OGCI monitoring campaign, and as an economist, can you share your thoughts on the Biden Methane Rule?

Stavins: Well, the oil and gas industry has had mixed reactions to the Methane Rule, as far as I can tell. There are aspects that they like. Having a better understanding of the regulatory constraints – that's good news. However, there are two main aspects that have attracted attention.

Firstly, there has been some push back on the fees since nobody likes paying taxes. However, from any economic perspective, that fee is very important. It not only addresses methane emissions but could also set a precedent for implementing a carbon tax on CO2 emissions in the future, which would be crucial in the United States.

Secondly, the oil and gas industry has been concerned about citizen monitoring. Citizens will now be empowered to measure and report emissions, which has the industry concerned. Imagine someone buying methane detection equipment from Amazon (which apparently you can do), and possibly submitting inaccurate evidence to the EPA. I'm not going to validate that concern or refute it, because I don't have the information to do so. However, I do know that it is a concern that has been voiced within the oil industry.

Chien: So, how will this be operationalized? There are other satellites in orbit. Will all these satellites be submitting methane detection data to the EPA?

Stavins: That's exactly what Jacob and Jenks, members of our Salata Institute sponsored Research Cluster, are working on. Their project is to look at how satellite data can be integrated within the regulatory framework. Initial findings will be posted on the Salata Institute website, with updates expected throughout 2024.

Chien: Alongside the United States, what are other countries doing? Based on existing satellite data, certain regions seem to emit a disproportionately higher share of the world’s oil and gas methane emissions. Could you speak about the COP28 Global Methane Pledge and the Methane Summit involving the U.S., China, the UAE?

Stavins: The global picture arises in two principal ways. Firstly, within the Paris Agreement where the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) of each country are established regarding greenhouse gas emissions. Remember that the NDCs are developed by the individual countries, which decide whether to include only CO2 or other greenhouse gases such as methane. A growing number of countries are including methane in their pledges.

Secondly, and of great importance is something that's outside of the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement – the Global Methane Pledge. This consortium was launched by the U.S. and the European Union two years ago, with the initial pledge for a 30% aggregate reduction in methane emissions by the year 2030.

In contrast, the numerous proclamations about Net Zero by 2050 don’t excite me as much, because how credible is that? By the year 2050 you may still be here, but I won't be around then. Who will remember what was pledged in 2024, more than two decades later? To me, statements for 2030 or 2035 are much more compelling, and that's one of the values of the Global Methane Pledge. In addition to that, the coalition is expanding, and over 150 countries have now signed on. Even large methane emitters such as Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan signed on at COP28. So, that's quite exciting.

Chien: This progress in methane abatement is a really bright spot where we can actually make a significant impact at a time when climate change might seem like doom and gloom. Looking ahead, what excites you the most about the future?

Stavins: Well, I've never been one to dwell on doom and gloom. I tend to see the glass of water as half full, or at least 25% full. Climate change is a long-term challenge. Each one of these COPs are part of a marathon, not a sprint. It’s about passing the baton to the next year, essentially like a relay race. So, I remain relatively positive.

I’m most excited about three things. First, seeing results from this first year of the Salata Institute Methane Research Cluster across our nine projects, with some preliminary results already emerging. Second, I’m looking forward to identifying new projects for the second year of our three-year initiative. And last, I’m looking forward to COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, in November, and continuing to work on methane emissions reduction, because I don't think there's any reason to think that the interest level peaked at COP28. I see a trend here of increasing interest, attention, and action, and I want Harvard to be contributing to it.

Chien: That that sounds like a very busy year! I’m curious about the Global Methane Pledge, who is responsible for tracking progress? Is that part of the NDC tracking process, or is it managed somewhere else?

Stavins: It's voluntary on the part of the member countries, first of all. It’s up to the countries to decide whether to include methane emissions in their NDCs and whether or not to take policy actions. However, there is now an official secretariat, the Climate and Clean Air Coalition. So, to whatever extent there is responsibility for oversight, it resides there.

Chien: On behalf of the Social Impact Review audience, thank you for your leadership in this important work and the exciting progress on methane emissions reduction, Professor Stavins. Any closing thoughts?

Stavins: Emily, thank you for the opportunity to discuss our collective progress in reducing methane emissions. I want to emphasize that our methane work is crucial but should not be considered as a substitute for our overall efforts to accelerate greenhouse gas emissions reductions, including emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2). If I thought that focusing on methane would compete with the very important greenhouse gas emissions mitigation efforts, I would not be doing this work. Methane emissions reduction is supplementary and complementary, it is not a substitute.

About the Author:

Emily A. Chien is a Senior Fellow at Harvard University, specializing in Climate Finance, the Net Zero transition and commercialization of new Climate Solutions. She led IBM’s Global Climate Offerings and Partnerships and is a founding co-chair of the 100 Women in Finance ESG C-Suite Peer Advisory Group. As a long time champion of and innovator in AI and digital, Emily led AI transformations for IBM clients in banking, investments and insurance and was a 2021 AI Fellow with the World Economic Forum.

In her prior leadership positions with JP Morgan, Fidelity Investments, Prudential Financial, Booz and American Express, Emily built, commercialized, and ran new solutions, platforms and markets working at the intersection of business, strategic partnerships, AI, data, and technology. Emily holds a patent for digital capabilities now used by Amazon.com, serves on the Harvard Data Science Initiative Advisory Board, is a member of the Women’s Bond Club, 100 Women in Finance and was a Chair for the 2023 Impact Investing Symposium.

This Q&A has been edited for length and clarity.