Methane Matters, but Make Polluters Pay: FracTracker’s Response to Carl Pope

Why We’re Weighing In

In a recent New York Times op-ed, longtime environmentalist Carl Pope acknowledged a major oversight: the environmental movement’s long delay in tackling methane emissions. He now calls for an urgent response, including taxpayer subsidies to oil and gas companies to plug methane leaks from fossil fuel infrastructure.

While Pope now voices alarm about methane and applauds swift action, it’s important to recall that during his tenure at Sierra Club from 1992 to 2010, he not only promoted fracked gas as a “bridge fuel,” under his leadership, the Sierra Club also accepted over $25 million in donations from the gas industry, mostly from Chesapeake Energy and its CEO Aubrey McClendon. These donations between 2007 and 2010—which were revealed in 2012 by Time Magazine and confirmed by other sources— were not publicly disclosed at the time.

However, even as Carl Pope criticizes the fossil fuel industry for dragging its feet on methane mitigation, he goes on to suggest that taxpayer-funded subsidies are the only way to accelerate progress. This argument creates a contradiction: if the industry has already failed to act responsibly and promptly, despite decades of profit and ample opportunity, why should it now be rewarded for catching up?

Pope’s pivot—acknowledging industry negligence and then proposing public subsidies as the solution—overlooks a crucial truth: speed and accountability are not mutually exclusive. It is entirely possible, and arguably necessary, to enforce rigorous methane regulations while directing public funds toward cleaner alternatives that deliver broad social and environmental benefits. Relying on subsidies to coax action from an industry that has historically resisted accountability risks further entrenching a broken model and letting polluters off the hook.

Moreover, an exclusive focus on harm reduction, without a clear commitment to phasing out fracked gas, normalizes ongoing extraction. This approach risks entrenching long-term dependence on fossil fuels and prolonging harm to affected communities, as documented by a growing body of research.

At FracTracker Alliance, we agree on the urgency. Methane is one of the most powerful and fast-acting greenhouse gases and addressing it should be a top priority in any climate strategy. But we take a different view on the solution. The polluter should pay, not the public.

What Science Says About Methane

Pope is correct that methane (CH₄) is a climate heavyweight. Over a 20-year period, it traps about 80 times more heat than carbon dioxide. It’s responsible for nearly ~0.4 °C (around a third of the 1.1 °C total warming) human-caused global warming observed so far. And because methane has a relatively short atmospheric lifespan, roughly a decade, reducing emissions can bring near-term cooling benefits.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) and UN Environment Programme estimate that rapid, comprehensive methane abatement could shave up to 0.1 °C from global warming by 2050. That’s a significant margin when we are approaching key climate tipping points.

The Wells He Left Behind

Despite this, Pope’s op-ed makes no meaningful mention of unplugged, orphaned, or abandoned oil and gas wells, a glaring oversight given their well-documented role as major sources of uncontrolled methane emissions and the enormous public costs of remediation. He only vaguely refers to “wells that don’t produce significant amounts of oil or gas” and suggests making it “worth their while” to shut them down. But he never uses the term “orphaned wells,” nor does he acknowledge the scope of the problem or propose any structural solutions for cleanup and accountability.

That’s especially troubling because orphaned and abandoned wells are not only a significant source of uncontrolled methane emissions, but they are also among the most avoidable and cost-effective to address when properly targeted. By failing to confront the scale and systemic causes of the orphaned well crisis, Pope misses a chance to call for measures like stronger regulations, bonding requirements, and long-term funding mechanisms that ensure the oil and gas industry—not the public—takes financial responsibility for the cleanup costs.

Costs Are Low, And Industry Can Afford Them

What Pope omits is that methane mitigation is not only fast, it’s also highly affordable. According to IEA’s Global Methane Tracker 2024, roughly 40 percent of ongoing, operational emissions from the active fossil fuel supply chain could have been eliminated in 2023 at no net cost, thanks to the resale value of the captured gas. The remaining fixes, such as replacing leaky valves, upgrading pneumatic devices, or preventing routine flaring, are relatively inexpensive.

In most cases, these repairs pay for themselves or are financially negligible for oil and gas operators:

Given these low costs, there is no economic justification for shifting the burden onto taxpayers. The industry can—and should—cover the cost of cleaning up its own emissions.

Why Subsidizing Methane Leak Repairs Is the Wrong Approach

While cutting methane emissions is essential, using public subsidies to fund repairs on fossil fuel infrastructure is a flawed and counterproductive strategy. It may sound like a pragmatic solution, but it ultimately reinforces the very system responsible for the crisis. Here’s why:

Subsidies Reward Inaction and Distort Incentives

Publicly funding methane leak repairs creates a perverse incentive: the companies that ignored or deferred maintenance stand to benefit the most. Operators that allowed emissions to accumulate are now first in line for subsidies, while early adopters that proactively addressed leaks receive nothing. 

This undermines responsible corporate behavior and discourages timely action. In effect, subsidies shift the oil and gas industry’s climate obligations from polluters to taxpayers, just as they do with other fossil fuel subsidies like royalty relief and tax deductions for drilling.

They Misallocate Public Resources

Every public dollar spent on leak repairs for profitable fossil fuel companies is a dollar not invested in more impactful climate solutions. Renewable energy development, public transit, building electrification, and orphan well cleanup all offer longer-term benefits and greater returns for the public. 

According to the International Monetary Fund, the U.S. spends roughly $760 billion annually on fossil fuel subsidies, including direct aid and unaccounted costs. Rather than doubling down on this spending model, we should redirect funds toward infrastructure and technologies that support a clean energy transition.

They Reinforce Fossil Fuel Dependence

Subsidized repairs are often framed as progress, but that framing can be misleading. Labeling gas infrastructure as “low-emissions” or “methane-managed” enables companies to promote new pipelines, export terminals, and gas plants under the guise of climate responsibility. 

This locks in fossil infrastructure for decades, despite the scientific consensus that emissions must decline sharply by 2030 to avoid catastrophic warming. The result is a dangerous form of greenwashing that delays the phaseout of fossil fuels and undermines long-term climate goals.

What Public Accountability Looks Like

If the goal is to reduce methane emissions and protect public health, we must pursue solutions that hold polluters accountable, not reward them. Fortunately, there are proven policy tools that don’t require taxpayer giveaways:

• Leak Detection and Repair rules at every facility, backed by penalties for noncompliance.
• Methane fees that make it more expensive to pollute than to prevent. The U.S. fee created under the Inflation Reduction Act will rise to $1,500 per ton of methane by 2026.
• Real-time public monitoring through satellite tools like MethaneSAT, paired with platforms like FracTracker, which enable communities, researchers, and investors to track emissions in context.
• Regulatory standards for trade and domestic use that extend accountability across borders and reinforce emissions limits throughout the supply chain.
• Parallel CO₂ cuts, including renewable energy deployment, energy efficiency, and building electrification, to ensure methane mitigation accelerates—not delays—climate progress.
• Job creation through well plugging programs, which can employ skilled workers to safely decommission orphaned and abandoned wells while reducing methane emissions and supporting local economies.

Regulations are already having an impact. In anticipation of the EPA’s 2023 methane rule, Permian Basin operators cut upstream methane emissions by 26 percent in 2023 alone, even as oil production rose.

Bottom line

Carl Pope is right to sound the alarm on methane. The greenhouse gas is a major driver of near-term warming, and cleaning up oil and gas leaks is one of the most cost-effective short-term harm reduction strategies—but not a substitute for a full transition away from fossil fuels and orphaned well plugging.

Methane mitigation must be paired with strong regulation, structural accountability, and a clear commitment to transition—not strategies that entrench fossil fuel dependence under the guise of progress. If we want real results, polluters must pay for the damage they’ve caused.