Background

Greenhouse gases (GHGs) consist of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and fluorinated gases. Most GHGs are caused by human activity¹, and they linger in the atmosphere, trapping excess heat, which has led to global warming. 

Carbon dioxide is the most prevalent GHG (79%), followed by methane (11%) and nitrous oxide (7%)². It is believed that methane emissions from human activity cause about one-third³ of the global warming we have today.  

You’ll have spotted the discrepancy between the methane figures I have just given: 11% of emissions are methane, which is responsible for 30% of global warming.

The reason? Methane is more potent, trapping 30 times as much heat as carbon dioxide (compared over 100 years). So sharp cuts in methane over the next decade will have a near-term beneficial impact on the climate, says the Environmental Protection Agency⁴ (EPA), prompting more than 100 countries to sign the Global Methane Pledge⁵ to cut methane by 30% by 2030. 

Despite this, methane doesn’t seem to factor into fashion and textile industry emissions targets and is absent from the emissions reduction narrative. Why? And what might the consequences of this ‘methane blindness’ be?

About methane emissions

Methane (CH₄) is emitted primarily during coal, natural gas, and oil production and transport⁶. However, it is also released from livestock and other agricultural practices, land use and the decay of organic waste (for example, food) in municipal solid waste landfills.

In contrast, carbon dioxide (CO₂) is mainly generated from burning fossil fuels to power manufacturing, transport, aviation and other industries. Carbon dioxide is far more abundant than methane and persists in the atmosphere for longer, but causes lower levels of warming.

So, reducing methane emissions is a powerful lever against global warming in the short-term. Why, then, is (almost all) the focus on reducing carbon emissions? Is there a tipping point at which methane should be the focus? To find the answers, additional context is needed:

Most methane emissions are caused by the extraction, production and transportation of fossil fuels – not something connected to the everyday lives of citizens.

Most carbon emissions are caused by generating energy from burning fossil fuels to power industries, cars, aeroplanes, and homes – something citizens are connected to daily (especially in industrialised countries).

This gap between consumers and methane emissions was exploited⁷ in 2000 by the advertising firm Ogilvy and Mather, working on behalf of British Petroleum (BP). They established the term “carbon footprint”, releasing a carbon calculator in 2004 to seemingly shift responsibility for global warming onto consumers. The calculator quantifies personal carbon emissions from homes, food, travelling and shopping. However, any personal adjustments are incremental, even if the personal sacrifice in the name of carbon-cutting feels large to the consumer. This deft campaign not only placed the onus on consumers, but also implied that carbon was the main GHG concern – successfully removing the methane emissions caused by oil and gas companies from the picture.  

Also important to note is that oil and gas company’ methane emissions fluctuate and are self-reported. Moreover, the reporting is only partially regulated by third parties, and since most methane escapes within petrochemical company boundaries, it has been challenging for external bodies to conduct independent assessments, until recently.

New evidence gathered over a three-year period by US researchers discovered large methane leaks that, if repaired, could significantly reduce emissions⁸. The researchers used new infrared imaging technology for long-distance methane detection (their data is recorded here). Unfortunately, further investigation⁹ showed that the emissions the researchers recorded had been either wildly underreported to the EPA (by the petrochemical companies) or not reported at all.¹⁰

In a similar example in Europe, a methane leak¹¹ from Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines in the Baltic Sea released methane equivalent to nearly a third of Denmark’s annual GHG emissions. ‘A third’ may sound proportionately low, but at 30 times the warming impact of carbon dioxide, the methane will cause 83%¹² more warming in the next 20 years than the carbon emissions.

Fashion’s methane problem

Methane leaks have specific relevance for the fashion and textile industries because most textile fibres are derived from fossil fuels. They accounted for 62% of global fibres in 2020 – a figure that is projected to rise interminably¹³. As concerns over fibre and material impacts grow, so do questions about the methods of data collection and analysis. Underreported methane emissions are already painting ‘fossil fuel fibres’ as having a lower impact than they are, but how incorrect are the figures? Are methane emissions considered within Life Cycle Assessments? If so, is this data from the same flawed EPA source as quoted, or self-reported by oil and gas companies? How bad, exactly, is the industry’s methane blindness?

Please stand by for part 2 of this Intel, where we share insights from scientists who specialise in LCA methodology, get to grips with how the global warming potential of materials and products is calculated, and quantify the magnitude of fashion’s methane problem (along with potential solutions).