An artist’s rendering of MethaneSAT, a satellite designed to measure methane pollution around the … More world.
MethaneSAT
When the $88 million MethaneSAT went dark over the Pacific Ocean on June 20, 2025, the official explanation pointed to technical failure. The satellite had been performing well, collecting and publishing data that gave governments and the public unprecedented insights into methane emissions. And then—silence.
MethaneSAT was not just another climate satellite. It was a breakthrough mission, launched by the Environmental Defense Fund with support from the New Zealand government and funding from major philanthropic donors, including the Bezos Earth Fund. Designed to track methane emissions globally with remarkable precision, it filled a crucial gap in climate data infrastructure. In its short operational life, it began to expose just how underestimated methane emissions really are.
Why Methane Matters
Methane is the second-most significant greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide, but it is far more potent in the short term, trapping over 80 times more heat than CO₂ over a 20-year period. It leaks from pipelines, fracking sites, livestock operations, and landfills, and plays a central role in accelerating global warming.
The total yearly methane (CH4) emissions from human activities expressed as weight in megatonnes … More (Mt)
Climate Change Tracker
Unlike CO₂, however, methane breaks down relatively quickly in the atmosphere. That means cutting methane emissions is one of the fastest and most effective ways to reduce global temperatures in the near term.
Watch my short explainer video on how we can cut methane emissions—and why reducing short-lived climate pollutants like methane could help cool the planet by up to 0.5°C in just a few decades.
MethaneSAT was created to provide clear, independent, high-resolution data on where methane was leaking—and who was leaking it. It could single out individual oil fields and drill sites from orbit. And its early results were troubling: emissions from major oil and gas fields in North America and Central Asia were found to be several times higher than companies had officially reported.
What MethaneSAT Managed to Expose Before Falling Silent
Permian Basin, Texas, USA: Emissions at specific oil extraction sites up to five times higher than what companies had officially reported, highlighting widespread underreporting.
Caspian Sea Region, Central Asia: Emissions were up to ten times higher than previously estimated by local government and corporate reporting.
Middle East Oil Fields: Previously undisclosed methane leaks at several major oil and gas facilities.
Agriculture and Landfills: Unexpectedly high emissions from large-scale agricultural operations and major landfill sites, particularly in the U.S. Midwest
A Sudden Silence from MethaneSAT
The satellite’s loss of contact came without warning. According to EDF, the satellite likely experienced a power failure, possibly due to issues with its onboard thruster system or the effects of solar activity. It may never be recovered.
It’s too early to draw conclusions. Space is inherently risky. But when a mission with this kind of potential—and this kind of impact—stops working just as it hits its stride, it raises difficult questions.
Was it just bad luck?
Even before the satellite failed—reportedly due to a technical issue—there were quiet concerns among those close to the mission that it might be deliberately undermined. The mere existence of such fears—that a scientific effort could be politically vulnerable—speaks volumes about the world we now live in.
A Broader Crisis in Climate Monitoring
MethaneSAT’s loss is not an isolated event. Many of the world’s most important Earth-observing satellites are aging rapidly. NASA’s Terra, Aqua, and Aura satellites, launched in the early 2000s, are nearing the end of their operational lifespans. By the end of this decade, most of them will likely be decommissioned.
Yet there is no comprehensive replacement plan. Instead, U.S. political momentum is moving decisively in the opposite direction. The 2025 budget proposal from the House of Representatives includes dramatic cuts to Earth science programs at NASA and NOAA. These cuts threaten everything from climate monitoring to weather forecasting.
At the very moment we need more eyes on the planet, we’re pulling the plug.
Screenshot of press release
The Planetary Society
This week, every living NASA science chief—past and present—signed a joint letter opposing these cuts, warning that eliminating climate science capabilities at this stage would be “flying blind into the storm.”
And the assault goes even deeper.
The Trump administration has also proposed shutting down the Mauna Loa Atmospheric Baseline Observatory, the lab that has measured atmospheric CO₂ continuously since 1958. This is the birthplace of the Keeling Curve—the iconic record that shows CO₂ rising from 313 parts per million to over 430 ppm today. It is the most conclusive, long-term evidence of human-caused climate change. And now, it too is on the chopping block.
If enacted, these proposals would defund much of the U.S. greenhouse gas monitoring network, comprising stations from northern Alaska to the South Pole.
Transparency Under Threat
MethaneSAT’s data was being integrated into broader climate tracking initiatives, such as Climate TRACE—a groundbreaking project backed by former Vice President Al Gore that aggregates real-time emissions data from satellites and AI-driven analysis. As I detailed in my previous Forbes article, Al Gore’s Real-Time Climate Data Just Went Live—Here’s Why It Matters, TRACE represents a revolutionary leap in emissions accountability. But the loss of MethaneSAT creates a critical gap in this otherwise powerful global emissions surveillance network.
The Fossil Gas Industry’s Last Stand
The Methane Regulation is an EU law passed in 2024 aimed at reducing methane emissions in the energy sector, especially from oil, gas, and coal. While it came into force in 2024, rules for importers start applying gradually, and full compliance is expected by 2026–2027, depending on the provision.
Now, the European Commission is considering weakening the Methane Regulation, likely due to threats of tariffs coming from the Trump administration.
The regulation doesn’t ban imports—it just says that if you want to sell gas or oil to the EU, you have to measure, report, and reduce your methane emissions. Pretty reasonable, right?
But now, of course, the fossil fuel industry shows up pleading for mercy.
In an open letter this week, industry reps said the regulation is too complicated, the timelines are too tight, and the compliance burden is just too heavy. They’re asking for a grace period, contract protections, and a delay in enforcement. Why? Because it’s hard, they say, to figure out exactly where their fuel came from or what the emissions were. Because some EU member states haven’t finished their national rulebooks. Because compliance might cost money.
The fossil gas industry rakes in profits in the hundreds of billions of dollars every year. They’ve had plenty of time and capital to invest in tracking systems and cleaner infrastructure. Instead, many of them sat on the cash—or handed it out to shareholders—and now claim they’re not ready.
This regulation didn’t come out of nowhere. The warning signs were clear. The legislation process was long. The deadlines were known. Most infuriating of all, this regulation simply asks companies to do what any responsible, ethical organization would be doing of their own accord.
For decades, fossil fuel companies have externalized the cost of methane leakage—dumping a climate-damaging gas into the atmosphere while claiming their product is a clean “bridge fuel.” This regulation is one of the first serious efforts to change that dynamic. It says: if you want access to the EU market, you have to take responsibility for your environmental footprint.
Powerful Interests at Stake
MethaneSAT’s silence is undoubtedly welcomed by fossil fuel industries that stood to lose significantly from increased transparency and accountability. The disappearance of such detailed emissions data removes immediate pressure and scrutiny, allowing polluters to continue claiming to take action to curb emissions while doing nothing of the sort. Meanwhile, the planet’s remaining carbon budget is rapidly running out.
What’s Next?
We may never know exactly why MethaneSAT stopped transmitting. But its loss underscores a larger issue: our ability to monitor the Earth—its atmosphere, oceans, and emissions—is not just being neglected, but deliberately defunded at a time when it should be rapidly expanding.
Imagine a hospital losing its ability to scan a patient mid-diagnosis. Doctors would be blind to the progression of the disease, unable to treat or even assess it. The loss of MethaneSAT is the climate equivalent. Without precise, reliable data, our efforts to track and combat global warming risk becoming guesswork.
Meanwhile, critical climate infrastructure is under direct attack. The Trump administration’s 2025 budget proposal seeks to shut down the Mauna Loa Atmospheric Baseline Observatory—home of the Keeling Curve and the world’s longest-running CO₂ record. It would also defund NOAA’s broader greenhouse gas monitoring network, comprising stations from northern Alaska to the South Pole. These proposals threaten the continuity of the very data we depend on to understand the crisis.
MethaneSAT showed what was possible
In just 15 months of operation, MethaneSAT delivered what the world desperately needs: near-real-time, high-resolution emissions data—independent, accessible, and globally impactful. The response to its failure should not be retreat, but reinforcement.
Just because one satellite failed doesn’t mean the mission failed. If anything, it proved how vital this kind of monitoring is. Because MethaneSAT showed that information is power. And that power can change everything—if we don’t allow it to be silenced.