Methane, Burn It or Not?
- Hüsnü Tolga Eyyuboğlu
- Feb 17
- 4 min read
Updated: Mar 5
As I reflect on the intricate relationship between global warming, the Siberian tundras, and methane release, one unavoidable question arises:
"Burn Methane or not?"
This question, deceptively simple, challenges our understanding of environmental science and demands that we consider the ethical and practical implications of our actions in the face of climate change.
The Threat Beneath the Ice
The Siberian tundra, a sprawling expanse of frozen ground, has served as one of the Earth’s great carbon sinks, storing organic material locked away for millennia. However, as global temperatures rise, this icy vault begins to thaw, releasing methane—a greenhouse gas with a global warming potential (GWP) over 80 times greater than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period.
The numbers paint a dire picture. Arctic permafrost holds an estimated 1,400 gigatons of carbon, and between 300 to 500 gigatons could be released as methane or carbon dioxide if significant thawing occurs. To contextualize, releasing just 1% of this methane—3 gigatons (Gt)—would add the equivalent of 252 Gt of CO₂ in warming potential over two decades. Such a release could effectively double annual global emissions, further accelerating the warming of our planet.
Burn It? A Complex Solution
Burning methane is often proposed as a mitigation strategy. Combustion converts methane into carbon dioxide and water vapor, reducing its warming potential significantly. For instance, burning 1 ton of methane releases approximately 2.75 tons of CO₂, which, while still a greenhouse gas, has a far lower warming potential than unburned methane.
If the same 3 Gt of methane were burned instead of released, the total carbon footprint would be 8.25 Gt of CO₂—a drastic reduction compared to the equivalent 252 Gt of CO₂ from methane release. However, burning methane is no perfect solution. The logistics of capturing and flaring methane across vast, remote tundra regions are formidable. Infrastructure costs for such endeavors could quickly escalate into the billions. A single methane capture and flaring system costs roughly $1 million per site, and scaling this to Siberia’s sprawling landscape would be a monumental and disruptive undertaking.
The Hidden Costs
Beyond financial hurdles, ethical considerations weigh heavily. The Siberian tundra is not an uninhabited expanse; it is home to indigenous communities whose traditions and livelihoods are intricately tied to the land. Large-scale industrial projects, even with good intentions, could irreparably alter their way of life. Additionally, incomplete combustion during flaring could release pollutants like black carbon, further complicating the ecological impact.
Prevention as the True Solution
Rather than focusing solely on mitigating methane once it escapes, a more sustainable approach targets the root cause: global warming itself. By reducing greenhouse gas emissions and limiting global temperature increases, we can slow the rate of permafrost thaw and the subsequent release of methane.
Scientists estimate that keeping warming below the critical 1.5°C threshold could limit methane releases from permafrost to less than 100 Mt annually, a manageable figure compared to the catastrophic potential of uncontrolled emissions. Achieving this requires aggressive decarbonization, transitioning to renewable energy, and implementing global climate policies that prioritize sustainability.
Source | Annual CO₂ Equivalent Emissions (Gt) | Percentage of Total Emissions | Details |
Energy Production | 15 (20-25) | 37% | Increased fossil fuel reliance as renewable transitions slow, higher energy demand globally. |
Industry | 9 (12-15) | 22% | Growth in industrial activities, particularly in emerging economies, without decarbonization. |
Transportation | 7.2 (10-12) | 18% | Increased fuel consumption from growing vehicle numbers and aviation demand. |
Agriculture & Livestock | 6 (8-10) | 15% | Expansion of livestock farming and fertilizer use to meet rising food demand. |
Deforestation & Land Use | 4.2 (5-8) | 10% | Accelerated forest loss for agriculture and urbanization, with reduced natural carbon sinks. |
Waste Management | 1.6 (2-3) | 4% | Growing waste generation and lack of effective methane capture from landfills. |
Permafrost Thaw | ~0.5-1.0 (5-20) | ~1-2% | Massive release of methane and CO₂ due to exponential permafrost thaw as temperatures rise. |
Values inside brackets under "Annual CO₂ Equivalent Emissions" row represent what would be the emmission if global warming is uncontrolled.
Key Insights with Uncontrolled Warming:
Energy production emissions could increase by 33-67% due to delayed renewable energy adoption and reliance on coal, oil, and gas.
Industrial emissions may rise significantly as demand grows in rapidly developing nations without decarbonization measures.
Transportation emissions could nearly double as vehicle and aviation demand accelerates, especially in developing countries.
Agricultural emissions may see a 30-60% rise due to food production expansion for a growing global population.
Deforestation could further escalate, exacerbating emissions and reducing natural carbon absorption capacity.
Permafrost thaw represents the most alarming growth potential, with emissions increasing 10-20 times current levels, equivalent to 5-20 Gt annually, becoming one of the largest sources of carbon if warming is unchecked.
This projection underscores the urgent need for global climate action, particularly to limit warming below 1.5-2°C and prevent catastrophic feedback loops like permafrost thaw.
The Numbers Don’t Lie
From a purely numerical perspective, burning methane is far less harmful than letting it escape. However, this strategy is not a panacea. Even if we captured and burned 50% of the methane released from thawing permafrost, we would still add 4.13 Gt of CO₂ emissions annually—a figure comparable to the total annual emissions of the United States. This underscores the need for systemic change rather than temporary fixes.
A Stark Reminder
The Siberian tundra serves as a stark reminder of what is at stake in the climate crisis. It symbolizes not just the fragility of our planet’s ecosystems but also the interconnectedness of environmental, social, and economic challenges. As we grapple with the question of whether to burn methane, it becomes clear that the real solution lies in prevention, not reaction.
Releasing methane directly into the atmosphere would be catastrophic, amplifying global warming at an alarming rate. Burning it is the lesser evil, significantly reducing its warming potential but carrying immense logistical and ethical challenges. Ultimately, the most sustainable path forward is one that addresses the root causes of methane release—slowing global warming, preserving ecosystems, and respecting the rights of indigenous communities.
The Siberian tundra isn’t just a landscape; it is a critical tipping point for the Earth’s climate system. How we choose to address the methane dilemma will shape not only the future of this fragile region but the trajectory of global climate efforts. Let this be a call to action: a reminder to rethink, innovate, and prioritize sustainability for the sake of our planet and future generations.
Comments