Satellite vs Inventory Methane: The Under-Reporting Gap

Findings

For the 2023 reporting year, the EDGAR v8.0 data in emissions_records records the top methane emitters totalling 5,945 MtCO2e (AR6 GWP100). Independent satellite analyses, the IEA Global Methane Tracker and Climate TRACE, conclude that real fossil-fuel methane (oil-and-gas system leaks, coal-mine ventilation, flaring) runs materially higher than countries report: the IEA's 2024 Tracker puts global fossil methane roughly 70% above self-reported inventories, concentrated in a handful of major producers. That gap applies to the fossil slice specifically, not to agricultural or waste methane, which satellites track more closely, so it should not be read as a uniform uplift on the totals below.

Fugitive emissions: where the gap concentrates

Pulling the fugitive-sector CH4 from emissions_records (oil-and-gas leaks, coal-mine ventilation) isolates the slice where the satellite-vs-inventory gap is concentrated. Major hydrocarbon producers, Russia, the United States, Iran, China, show large fugitive methane in EDGAR, and these are the same operations where satellite measurements most often flag under-reporting. The top 10 by EDGAR fugitive-CH4 are below.

Why the gap matters

Methane's twenty-year global-warming potential is roughly 80× CO2's. Its hundred-year GWP under AR6 is 27.9× for fossil methane and 27.0× for biogenic, the figures applied above. The under-reporting gap is therefore a non-trivial slice of total radiative forcing being added to the atmosphere without appearing in any country's nationally-determined contribution under the Paris Agreement. As satellite measurement quality improves and Climate TRACE's facility-level estimates become more granular, expect the next several years of UNFCCC inventories to be revised upward for fossil methane. That upward revision is genuine new information about a previously-invisible portion of the atmosphere, it is not new emissions, only newly-measured ones.

The policy implication is asymmetric. Closing the methane gap is among the most cost-effective near-term decarbonization moves available, methane leaks have direct economic value once captured, and the abatement technology is mature. The IEA estimates that roughly half of fossil-methane emissions could be eliminated at no net cost or even with cost savings. The international Global Methane Pledge, over 150 country signatories committed to a 30% reduction in methane emissions by 2030, relies on accurate baseline accounting to verify progress. As satellite-derived baselines replace self-reported figures, the question of which country is on track shifts.

Methodology

Methane figures on this page are loaded from emissions_records WHERE gas_code='CH4' AND year=2023 AND source_code='EDGAR' - they are EDGAR's reported values. The ~70% fossil-methane gap discussed above is the IEA Global Methane Tracker's published conclusion about the fossil-fuel slice specifically; we cite it as external context and do not apply it to the EDGAR figures shown. For methodological detail see PlainEmissions methodology, the IEA Global Methane Tracker, and the Climate TRACE documentation at climatetrace.org.

Limitations

The 70% under-report multiplier is sector-specific (fossil-fuel methane) and country-mix-dependent. It does not apply to agricultural methane (enteric fermentation, manure management, rice cultivation), where bottom-up activity-data plus emission factors are reasonably aligned with satellite-derived signals. Brazilian and Indonesian biogenic methane from land use and waste sit outside the fossil-methane gap entirely. Applying a flat 1.70× multiplier across all top-12 emitters therefore overstates the gap for countries whose methane is predominantly agricultural (India, China at the margin) and understates for hydrocarbon-export economies (Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran). The country-specific gap will sharpen significantly when Climate TRACE 2023 loads into emissions_records alongside EDGAR, at which point the actual per-country, per-sector divergence is queryable directly rather than via a single global multiplier. Users with research interests in cross-source methane should consult both EDGAR and Climate TRACE primary publications.

Related

• Top 15 Emitting Countries (2022)
• Multi-Source Emissions Reconciliation
• Climate TRACE explained
• Methodology & Data Sources