Good morning, and happy first day of UT classes to those who celebrate. You can read my latest op-ed in the Dallas Morning News, here,
If you have trouble with the paywall, try viewing the page in reader view, or looking up “Dallas Morning News Jackson Paul,” which will get you the article and will also get you around the paywall. If you are still having trouble, let me know.
The article itself is about methane emissions. Methane, a greenhouse gas, is often vented by drillers for economic reasons, but it would be better for the climate and for public health if they weren’t. Thus, one relatively cheap thing drillers can do for our climate and out environment is to reduce methane leakage into the atmosphere. To be fair, they are already doing that for the obvious economic reasons, but more encouragement won’t hurt. I also emphasize the public relations aspects of the situation in terms of attracting Gen Z workers. Energy companies provide a valuable public service, and should be proud to highlight their accomplishments. The article itself was written at the behest of my old employers at the American Conservation Coalition.
With that said, the brevity and the audience of the article meant that I couldn’t discuss the interesting issue I skirt around— namely, a deeper analysis of the economics and public health of methane emission. I may or may not write a long form article on that at some point. Essentially, it would be interesting to see how much an effect, say, a 1% reduction in methane emissions would have on climate or public health. Conversely, it would be interesting to see what a 1% change would do to energy prices.
Another interesting topic of exploration would be, since methane leakage can be considered as a negative externality, and the emission pricing we normally use in such cases is politically toxic due to its similarity to carbon pricing, whether it would make sense to subsidize drillers to store and sell methane they would otherwise allow to leak. Whether this works depends on if you can actually get the subsidy set up correctly, and even then if the effects of the methane you could reasonably get from such a policy were small enough it would be inefficient to bother.
Anyway, as always, feel free to let me know any feedback you have, and to share the article (and this substack!) with anyone interested.