The EPA is ending greenhouse gas data collection. Who will step up to fill the gap?

This narrative was initially published by WIRED and is reproduced here as part of Climate Desk collaboration.

Earlier this month, the Environmental Protection Agency revealed its decision to cease requiring polluting companies to report their greenhouse gas emissions, thereby removing a vital mechanism for the United States to monitor emissions and develop climate policy. Advocates in climate NGOs express optimism that they can help fill this data void, yet they and other specialists worry that the capabilities of the EPA will be hard to replicate.

Joseph Goffman, who previously served as assistant administrator at the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, comments, “I don’t believe this system can be entirely supplanted. While it could be approximated, it will take time.”

The Clean Air Act obliges states to gather data on local pollution levels, which are then reported to the federal authorities. For the last 15 years, the EPA has also compiled data on carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases from various sources across the nation exceeding certain emission thresholds. This initiative, known as the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP), “is fundamentally essential to the air quality reporting framework in the United States,” states Kevin Gurney, a professor of atmospheric science at Northern Arizona University.

Amid a multitude of other data collection mechanisms that have been stalled or shut down since the beginning of this year, the Trump administration has targeted this program. In March, the EPA stated it would revisit the entire GHGRP framework. By September, the agency announced a proposed rule to eliminate reporting duties from a range of sources including power plants, oil and gas refineries, and chemical manufacturing facilities—key contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. (The agency justifies the rollback of the GHGRP by asserting it will save $2.4 billion in regulatory expenses, deeming the program “a bureaucratic burden that does little to enhance air quality.”)

According to Joseph, the end of this program cripples “the government’s fundamental ability to design climate policy.” He emphasizes the difficulty of assessing the effectiveness of new emissions-reduction technologies or identifying which sectors are decarbonizing without access to this essential data.

Read Next

See also  How Project 2025 Would Endanger Our Elections

The data amassed by the GHGRP is publicly accessible and serves as a foundation for much of federal climate strategy: understanding the emissions contributions of various sectors is critical for crafting approaches to reduce these emissions. This information is also a linchpin of much US climate diplomacy: the collection of greenhouse gas emissions data is necessitated by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which supports the Paris Agreement. (Although the US exited the Paris Agreement again on the first day of Trump’s second term, it remains—albeit precariously—a party to the UNFCCC.) Moreover, the GHGRP data is vital for state and local climate initiatives, enabling policymakers outside federal confines to assess local pollution levels, establish emission reduction objectives, and monitor progress in decreasing emissions.

There is some optimism that non-governmental entities could play a contributory role. In recent years, many organizations have begun to step in to help estimate greenhouse gas emissions from various sources throughout the US and abroad. These entities utilize a combination of federal, state, industry, and private datasets—from oil and gas industry registries to public and private satellites—to develop tools that assist policymakers and the community in understanding the origins and implications of greenhouse gas emissions. Advancements in technology, including enhancements in artificial intelligence, have further evolved the capacity to track and model emissions from diverse sources.

Since the EPA’s declaration, groups that are involved in emissions data collection and analysis have reported receiving inquiries from numerous stakeholders eager to discuss potential solutions in the event the EPA terminates the program. Goffman indicates that some staff members within the agency are looking to “partner or engage with university initiatives” to maintain data gathering efforts.

Among the more notable efforts in non-governmental emissions modeling is the coalition known as Climate TRACE, established in 2019 with a donation from Google, aimed at monitoring global emissions using satellite technology. This organization has expanded to encompass over 100 collaborating entities and has created a suite of AI models informed by diverse data sources to effectively track and analyze global emissions.

Read Next

See also  Carven Spring 2026 Ready-to-Wear Collection

Cofounder Gavin McCormick expresses concern regarding the timing of the EPA’s decision to discontinue the GHGRP just as Climate TRACE has been developing its models heavily reliant on EPA data. “We initiated this project based on the premise that the US possesses the world’s most effective emissions monitoring system, and other nations could expedite their emissions reductions by achieving a similar standard,” he notes. “We spent the past five years constructing this AI framework to enable other countries to replicate the efficiency of the US system.”

Not solely the climate advocates are apprehensive about the potential loss of this data: there is notable interest from industries in upholding national data collection on greenhouse gas emissions. The lack of US governmental commitment to monitoring climate change does not imply a global consensus. For instance, oil and gas companies operating in the US still possess a vested interest in tracking their emissions for markets where stricter regulations are imposed—such as Europe, which is beginning to introduce strict methane controls for gas imports.

McCormick explains, “Our phones have been inundated with inquiries over the last week, as people are asking, ‘Should we start reporting to you now? You’re not an official source, but you’re the closest alternative we have.’” He adds, “It’s not necessarily obvious to me that we are the best channel for that. However, there are evident business interests driving companies to continue their reporting, even if it’s not mandated.”

Moreover, private sector data could be leveraged to track greenhouse gas emissions, encompassing areas that the EPA data might not fully capture. An example is the Rocky Mountain Institute, a nonprofit focused on market-driven climate solutions, which maintains an index based on private industry data that tracks emissions throughout the oil and gas production cycle. (RMI is part of the Climate TRACE coalition.) This proprietary data allows the index to gain insights into emissions potentially overlooked or underestimated by the GHGRP, including those from facilities that fall below the reporting threshold.

Nonetheless, all experts consulted by WIRED emphasized that the termination of GHGRP data collection would substantially hinder US efforts to quantify and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, regardless of the quality of non-federal alternatives. Numerous challenges await any organization attempting to tackle this pivotal task.

Read Next

“If the EPA ceases to mandate this, it’s very likely that states will still carry on,” Gurney remarks. However, he continues, “there is no other central entity to consolidate this information. Fifty organizations submitting complex data files is an enormous task. The EPA serves a critical role as the data arbiter, ensuring compliance with standardization. This is crucial for the rest of us, as managing that volume of data independently would be incredibly prohibitive.”

Different methods exist for calculating emissions, and the methodologies employed by different organizations can vary significantly. For example, Gurney has been a vocal critic of Climate TRACE’s modeling techniques. Conversely, the EPA’s pollution reporting standards are enforced by law: “A non-governmental entity can’t impose such requirements,” states Goffman.

Furthermore, there is an ongoing debate about whether the estimates provided by non-governmental entities would be legally defensible, particularly if policies based on these estimates face judicial scrutiny. In Louisiana, a law passed last year imposes significant restrictions on communities’ abilities to use affordable emissions-monitoring technologies to assess air quality and pursue legal actions regarding emission infractions; monitoring is now limited to EPA-approved devices. (Organizations advocating for communities near oil and gas operations filed a lawsuit in May, arguing the tools are unreasonably expensive for local advocates and claiming the law infringes upon the free speech rights of residents to utilize their independent air pollution monitoring to alert authorities about hazardous substances entering their homes and schools.)

McCormick reflects that this situation serves as a reminder that the challenges of emissions measurement are not solely scientific or data-related, but also involve considerations about the legality of using specific datasets.