Higher Natural Gas Leaks From Gas Stoves Than Expected
Environmental Science & Technology article
A Los Angeles Times article titled "Gas stoves are worse for the climate than previously thought, study says," caught my attention while searching various news articles. The study they refer to is "Methane and NOx Emissions from Natural Gas Stoves, Cooktops, and Ovens in Residential Homes," an article from the scientific journal Environmental Science & Technology. Natural gas leaks in the supply chain pipeline across the United States have been studied, but it goes up to the residential meters and stops. However, little research has been done "post-meter," which includes the stovetops, ovens, and possible leaks within their indoor pipes. The peer-reviewed article remedied this oversight.
I read the peer-reviewed article first to gain the information I needed to easily tell what was miscommunicated while reading the news article. The article focused on how the authors measured methane and nitrogen oxides from the different phases of gas stove and oven use in California homes. The authors found that while methane leaks during steady-state-off measurements (taken while the stove and oven were off and not in use) were around four times less than when in use, they account for 76% of the total methane emissions since the stoves and ovens (herein referred to as stoves) are off most of the time. They also explained that currently, there are no indoor NO2 standards or exposure guidelines in the U.S., only a 100 ppb/h NO2 outdoor limit. This outdoor NO2 limit can be quickly exceeded in a poorly ventilated kitchen when the stove is in use. Lastly, they used two different methods of scaling their results from 53 homes to the whole U.S. to compare to standard climate measurements. The authors use comparison that methane is 86 time more potent than CO2 on a 20-year timescale to compare their results: "Using a 20-year timeframe for methane, annual methane emissions from all gas stoves in U.S. homes have a climate impact comparable to the annual carbon dioxide emissions of 500 000 cars." It may also be noteworthy to mention that there was a correction to the peer-reviewed article in April, which only changed the r-squared value in Figure 3A from 0.59 to 0.58.
It was only after reading both articles that I realized they were published the same day, January 27, 2022, which is not uncommon. The news article's, Borenstein, mostly used quotes to convey the information within his article. Contact was made with the first author and co-author of the peer-reviewed article for multiple quotes outside the article text. Borenstein also used quotes from two people unassociated with the peer-reviewed article. However, one was referenced within the paper, Merrin, who previously did a similar study with similar findings but neglected to do the steady-state-off measurements.
The two articles agree on most points. The news article is very short and gives many quotes from different people, which reduces the possibility of miscommunication by reducing paraphrasing. Borenstein seemed to have taken most of the information from the abstract and interviews. The news article echoes the main point of the peer-reviewed article that gas stoves emit much more methane and nitrogen oxides than previously calculated. They also agree that the steady-state-off measurements account for around three-quarters of the total stove methane emissions. However, Borenstein used definite words, like"are putting 2.6 million tons of methane... into the air," instead of adding any uncertainty, which may help the general audience accept the claim. The news article did not mention the other phases of stove use or their effects. The news article also may have downplayed the scaling from 53 homes to the whole U.S. The most significant problem in the news article was when Borenstein did not use quotes to explain the amounts of emissions. It states that 2.6 million tons (MMT) of CO2 equivalents (CO2e) in methane are emitted each year during the steady-state-off phase, which is not included in the 6.8 MMTCO2 that stoves emit per year, but the peer-reviewed article states that it's "an additional 2.4 MMTCO2e from methane emissions, or 39% of the 6.2 MMTCO2year-1." Lastly, in regards to the steady-state-off emissions, the news article states, "That's equivalent to the annual amount of greenhouse gases from 500,000 cars or what the United States puts into the air every 3 1/2 hours." This quote differs from the quote I used earlier from the peer-reviewed article. I found a ScienceDaily article about the peer-reviewed article (also published the same day), trying to find a possible source of the number discrepancies, with no results. The numbers in the news article were either typos or from an unspecified source.
For such a short news article about a significant problem, Borenstein did very well in conveying the information in a succinct and (mostly) accurate way. Even though it seemed to retell the abstract with additional quotes from people, the information stayed the same and made it accessible to the general public. However, the emissions number discrepancies bring down my score. Overall, I feel like this news article deserves a higher score: 7.5/10. In addition to correcting the numbers, I have a few suggestions to make the news article a little more impactful. As an essential take-home message, Borenstein should have put more emphasis on suggesting that the range hoods be used with each use of the stove to reduce the buildup of the emitted gases. A link to the peer-reviewed article was missing, and the link to Environmental Science & Technology was to the home page, so I had to search the authors' names and "gas stoves" on Google before I found the referenced article. Linking this peer-reviewed article would help the audience find more information on the topic.
Hi Monica,
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you that the author could have done more to highlight the co-emitted nitrogen oxides pollutants. I was surprised after reading the ES&T article that the aspect of simultaneous NOx emissions is only mentioned in the second-to-last paragraph of the news article. In terms of public interest, I would think that the potential for poorly ventilated kitchens to exceed the national standard of nitrogen dioxide within just minutes of stove use would be an extremely compelling facet of the journal article's findings. How do you think the wider public can best be educated about the potential health hazards of using gas stoves without proper ventilation?
Hi, Madeline! I believe that this news article would have been a great tool in conveying the potential health hazards without proper ventilation, but they missed their opportunity to talk about it. A follow-up article could help, with a link to this and the ES&T articles for more context.
DeleteHi, Monica!
ReplyDeleteFirst off, great work on your blog post. I think you did a really good job detailing what you found most important in both the article and scientific paper including how well the article was written based on your criteria. What caught my attention was in the LA Times news article when they seemed to 'slip in' at the very end that there is no indoor quality standard for NO2 levels without further elaborating on it. I feel that the article could have been more impactful if they maybe researched and included why there are no such standards; this would have given a few brownie points for credibility on the article author's behalf. Without any elaboration, it seems a little bit forced and randomly placed. What do you think?
Thank you! I felt that the addition at the end was an afterthought since it was glossed over. Determining the rating was more difficult than expected. I definitely took off points for incorrect numbers and the lack of emphasis on the safety recommendation.
DeleteI really appreciate your detailed comparison of the scientific article and the news article! I'm curious about what other "phases" of stove use there are aside from the steady-state-off phase and in use?
ReplyDeleteThank you! All the other phases are within the in use category. Turning on, turning off, staying on, and cycling the oven (when it has to heat back up since heat is lost during use).
DeleteHi Monica,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your analysis, and I found the topic of discussion very interesting. I was curious when you mentioned that the authors used two different methods to scale their results up from 53 homes to the entire U.S. How did they accomplish this, and how much uncertainty did these methods introduce?
Hi Monica! I think you did a great job with this analysis, and I definitely agree that more emphasis should have been used in promoting the use of ventilation. When I was reading through the LA Times article, something that struck me was that it never mentioned what the health effects are for breathing excess nitrogen oxides. Do you think that talking about specific health consequences would add to their point, or do you think the mention that the measurements they took exceeded outdoor air quality standards is enough?
ReplyDeleteThank you, Katie. I agree with you. The news article has the important task of speaking to the general public and giving them information about these health damaging gases. By mentioning NOx in passing, the general public doesn't understand that NOx is dangerous (except by inferring it) and by ignoring their effects, the public doesn't understand why or how they are dangerous, so they are unlikely to change behavior.
DeleteHey Monica,
ReplyDeleteI'm curious to hear your opinion on the role of news articles in this instance. Because gas stoves are in so many homes around the world, the weight of the news article may be heavier for the average citizen than let's say... permafrost melting in the Arctic. Do you think that a news article should take more of a urgent tone when it comes to something like this, or is their job to purely reflect what was displayed in the study?
I feel like it's more of ScienceDaily's job to reflect the study's information. As I mentioned in another comment, it's the news article that has a greater duty to the larger general population to tell them what is most important. So yes, a more urgent tone would be appropriate, as long as the information is correct and thorough.
DeleteHi Monica, great post! I noticed, as is typical for popular media articles such as this one, that the author didn't include any of the limitations listed in the scientific article. Do you think that including these in some way would make the article more informative/accurate?
ReplyDeleteNoting limitations is always important, as long as the general public is able to understand the main take-away without confusion.
DeleteHi Monica, I really enjoyed reading your post! I found it interesting that the article would make the mistake that the steady-state-off emissions were on top of the already high 6.8 million tons of CO2 that the stoves emit annually. In addition to the definite/not uncertain quotes the author uses, do you think this could possibly be intentional to draw a bigger reaction from the reader?
ReplyDeletePersonally, I don't believe the slight inflation of the numbers was to incite a bigger reaction. I don't believe that the audience knew the numbers to begin with, so that small of a change wouldn't make much sense. I still think it was either a typo or its from an unspecified source.
DeleteHi Monica,
ReplyDeleteI thought you did a great job in your blog post! What surprised me the most was that both of the articles were published on the same day. This was a really small but important point to highlight because it showcases how quickly the author of the news article was in the production of the piece. It could be because of this, the author was incorrect in certain interpretations and quotes of the specific measurements.
Hi Monica, very interesting set of articles to choose! Something interesting that I observed is that the news article highlighted that methane is more potent than carbon dioxide, but is a shorter-lived species. I have always found this topic interesting as carbon dioxide is often labeled as the sole offender of climate change in the popular media even though several other molecules are major contributors as well. Do you think the popular media can back track on previous claims on carbon dioxide and shift the general population to have a broader view of what gases are driving climate change? Likewise, do you think the author of the news article highlighted the role of methane in climate change sufficiently? A concern I have is that they claimed methane does not last in the air as long and is not as plentiful in the air as carbon dioxide that may lead the public to think methane is not a major problem to be concerned with. In contrast, the Environ. Sci. Technol. Article gave a more complete picture in terms of impact on two different time scales. I am curious to hear your thoughts on this, thanks for a great post!
ReplyDeleteHi Monica - I enjoyed hearing your thoughts on this article and how well it conveys the science to a more general audience. One thing that I immediately noticed upon opening the L.A. Times article was the photo of the researcher collecting samples from one of the stoves. While this image may seem trivial, I don't think its role in the article should be dismissed. The use of photos can have a powerful effect on making scientific research more tangible to a general audience. In an article like this that is very data-heavy and uses a lot of scientific language, it is helpful to be able to visualize the actual apparatus that is used to get these numbers. While this image is not included in the scientific publication, I think its inclusion in the news article adds to its credibility in that it is capturing the data collection process by one of the scientists who is on the original publication.
ReplyDeleteHi Monica! Thanks for posting :). I thought these articles were very interesting. What caught my attention was the correction that you mentioned in the peer-reviewed article. This might be an oversight on my part since I don't know much about reporting acceptable r2 values, but when I first saw the r2 values of 0.59 and 0.79 in the caption of Figure 3, I thought they were kind of low. I guess my question is what r2 value constitutes a correlation in this field?
ReplyDeleteHi Monica, I really appreciate that you pointed out that the two articles are published on the same day. When I was reading the two articles, I totally did not set my eyes on the date, but the date really shows how quickly these news articles are produced, and potentially causing the news article to be misleading and not scientific enough. I also want to point out that the title of the news article only mentioned gas stoves being detrimental to the climate issue, which certainly catches readers' eyes with greenhouse gases being a hot topic. But as someone who studies chemistry, I would be more worried about the NOx species that affect human health more directly especially in poorly-ventilated kitchens. I really think the news article will make an even bigger impact if they had mentioned or done research on the indoor/outdoor NOx limit.
ReplyDeleteHi Monica!
ReplyDeleteGreat picks! First off, I think that it was wild that they did not link the article that they are referencing in the LA times article. That was very irresponsible of the author since that is prohibiting their audience to learn more deeply about this if they so choose to. Also, for many people, daily action items are usually what people look for in articles like these. It seems like they really only suggest getting proper ventilation. Are there any other action items that you would suggest based on the peer reviewed paper?
Hi Monica,
ReplyDeleteFirst off, great work! I really enjoyed reading your articles! I think you picked a topic crucial to our current environmental problem: climate change. You did a really detailed analysis of these two articles, especially on the publication timing. I also think it is pretty nice that the news did deliver correct information to the general audience, which is really rare nowadays.
Hi Monica,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, really comprehensive review and fantastic job finding such a relevant article! I thought the peer-reviewed journal article did a great job writing a clear, logical publication that was relatively easy to follow, which is important because this article is impactful for almost anyone with an in-home kitchen. Overall, the article acknowledged and quantified a serious issue pertaining to the public, but I would have liked to have seen a few things:
1.) A better acknowledgement of why stoves leak in the steady-state-off phase - is it due to poor welding in the pipes, do cracks for over time in these pipes of certain metals/materials, why do different stoves vary in how much gases they leak? Although these might seem like obvious questions, it would be nice to explicitly state what factors affect leakage so that engineers and manufacturers can potentially try to rectify this going forward.
2.) Building off of that, I wish the article had more detail suggesting how we should move forward in addressing this issue other than continuing to monitor emissions. I certainly agree with their point, especially to locate huge gas emitters, but I think they did a great job already proving that this is a problem that might pertain to a significant portion of the population. What can homeowners, manufactures, etc do to rectify this issue now that it is acknowledged? What action steps must be taken?
3.) I think it would have been interesting to acknowledge factors like temperature and home elevation in this study, unless I missed it. We know how temperature and pressure affect the behavior of gases, like in the Ideal Gas Laws, so I am curious to know if the high emitting stoves were, on average, from homes that had higher indoor/outdoor temperatures and at lower pressures.
4.) Would have liked to have seen more margins of errors in reported values, even those from other studies, especially considering this is an analytical chemistry paper.
Those are just some minor comments, but overall I think the journal article was fantastic and very impactful, can't wait to discuss it in class!
Hi Monica!
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed your choice of blog, and you did a great job communicating the key points. As you and others have noted, I felt the news article did not effectively communicate the severe impact of these new emission figures, and overlooked potential solutions for consumers. The L.A. Times author failed to mention any mitigation solutions, although range hood installation to reduce steady-state-on emissions was explicitly proposed in the scientific article.
In this day and age, I think it's especially important that authors writing about climate change are especially intentional about their wording -- a small change can alter the impression in a reader's head. When describing methane's impact the L.A. Times author writes it "is dozens of times more potent than carbon dioxide but doesn’t stay in the atmosphere nearly as long and isn’t as plentiful in the air." The potency of methane is undercut by the emphasis on low concentration and decreased lifetime. In the journal article this order is switched: "Methane is a shorter-lived gas than carbon dioxide but is nevertheless 34–86 times more potent than carbon dioxide on 100 and 20 year timescales, respectively." This phrasing aptly emphasizes the serious impacts of methane emissions, while the news article made me do a double take. Though this may come off overcritical, I think it illustrates how tiny details are often the most significant in translating science.
I believe climate change communicators have a very challenging balance to strike: They must convey the severity of the discovery's impact on our climate, while simultaneously combatting the fatalistic narrative that the media at large has woven. How do you feel that this author did at striking the balance?
Hi! This was a great post. You mentioned that they were able to test this with 53 homes and scale it up to the whole of the US. How was this done? Do you think that would have played a major role in generalizing the findings? Would that extra data be useful for the general audience to have?
ReplyDelete