Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Analysis
  • Published:

Global mitigation opportunities for the life cycle of natural gas-fired power

Nature Climate Change volume 12, pages 1059–1067 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Over 100 countries pledged to reduce methane emissions by 30% by 2030 at COP26, but whether gas can serve as a bridge to lower-carbon options remains disputed. With an increasingly global supply chain, countries have different responsibilities in mitigation. We determine the global average of life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from the delivery of gas-fired electricity to be 645 gCO2e kWh−1 (334–1,389 gCO2e kWh−1), amounting to 3.6 GtCO2e yr−1 in 2017 (10% of energy-related emissions). Deploying mitigation options can reduce global emissions from gas-fired power by 71% with carbon capture and storage, methane abatement, and efficiency upgrades contributing 43%, 12% and 5%, respectively. Mitigation falls within national responsibilities, except an annual 20.5 MtCO2e of ocean transport emissions. For gas to truly be a bridge fuel, countries involved with the life cycle of gas-fired power need to deploy all mitigation options while balancing the risk of locking in carbon-intensive electricity.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Conceptual boundaries of the life cycle and jurisdictional analysis.
Fig. 2: Life cycle GHG emissions of countries that have gas-fired power.
Fig. 3: Gross emissions associated with all stages of the life cycle of gas-fired power.
Fig. 4: Emissions cuts from mitigation options: reducing methane emissions, increasing generation efficiencies, reducing losses in electricity T&D, and applying CCS.
Fig. 5: Sensitivity of the results to methane leakage, efficiency, electricity T&D losses, CCS capture rate and the CCS energy penalty.
Fig. 6: Cumulative emissions reductions from applying all mitigation options to the life cycle of gas-fired power.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data are available by request from the corresponding author. Data inputs were sourced from IEA data that require a subscription. As a result, the full model and inputs will be distributed in line with subscriptions to inputs.

Code availability

Models will be provided upon request in line with data subscriptions to IEA data.

References

  1. IPCC Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2021).

  2. Bistline, J. E. & Blanford, G. J. The role of the power sector in net-zero energy systems. Energy Clim. Change 2, 100045 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Gürsan, C. & de Gooyert, V. The systemic impact of a transition fuel: does natural gas help or hinder the energy transition? Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 138, 110552 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. The Role of Gas in Today’s Energy Transitions (International Energy Agency, 2019).

  5. Jordaan, S. M. Wells to Wire. Springer Nature, Switzerland (2021).

  6. IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2018); https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157940

  7. World Energy Model (International Energy Agency, 2021); https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-model (2021)

  8. Seto, K. C. et al. Carbon lock-in: types, causes, and policy implications. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 41, 425–452 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hayhoe, K., Kheshgi, H. S., Jain, A. K. & Wuebbles, D. J. Substitution of natural gas for coal: climatic effects of utility sector emissions. Clim. Change 54, 107–139 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Gilbert, A. Q. & Sovacool, B. K. Benchmarking natural gas and coal-fired electricity generation in the United States. Energy 134, 622–628 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Heath, G. A., O’Donoughue, P., Arent, D. J. & Bazilian, M. Harmonization of initial estimates of shale gas life cycle greenhouse gas emissions for electric power generation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3167 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. O'Donoughue, P. R., Heath, G. A., Dolan, S. L. & Vorum, M. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of electricity generated from conventionally produced natural gas: systematic review and harmonization. J. Ind. Ecol. 18, 125–144 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Trencher, G., Rinscheid, A., Duygan, M., Truong, N. & Asuka, J. Revisiting carbon lock-in in energy systems: explaining the perpetuation of coal power in Japan. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 69, 101770 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Petherick, A. Gas or coal? Nat. Clim. Change 1, 392 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Alvarez, R. A., Pacala, S. W., Winebrake, J. J., Chameides, W. L. & Hamburg, S. P. Greater focus needed on methane leakage from natural gas infrastructure. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 6435–6440 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Global Methane Pledge (2021); https://www.globalmethanepledge.org/

  17. Zhang, X., Myhrvold, N. P., Hausfather, Z. & Caldeira, K. Climate benefits of natural gas as a bridge fuel and potential delay of near-zero energy systems. Appl. Energy 167, 317–322 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Rubin, E. S., Davison, J. E. & Herzog, H. J. The cost of CO2 capture and storage. Int. J. Greenh. Gas. Control 40, 378–400 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Ladage, S. et al. On the climate benefit of a coal-to-gas shift in Germany’s electric power sector. Sci. Rep. 11, 1–12 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Mac Kinnon, M. A., Brouwer, J. & Samuelsen, S. The role of natural gas and its infrastructure in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, improving regional air quality, and renewable resource integration. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 64, 62–92 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Babaee, S. & Loughlin, D. H. Exploring the role of natural gas power plants with carbon capture and storage as a bridge to a low-carbon future. Clean. Technol. Environ. Policy 20, 379–391 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Surana, K. & Jordaan, S. M. The climate mitigation opportunity behind global power transmission and distribution. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 660–665 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Ometto, J.P. et al. Uncertainties in greenhouse gases inventories – expanding our perspective. In: Ometto, J.P. et al (eds) Uncertainties in Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15901-0_1 (2015).

  24. Jonas, M. et al. Quantifying greenhouse gas emissions. Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Glob. Change 24, 839–852 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kasumu, A. S., Li, V., Coleman, J. W., Liendo, J. & Jordaan, S. M. Country-level life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from liquefied natural gas trade for electricity generation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52, 1735–1746 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Abrahams, L. S., Samaras, C., Griffin, W. M. & Matthews, H. S. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from US liquefied natural gas exports: implications for end uses. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 3237–3245 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Balcombe, P., Anderson, K., Speirs, J., Brandon, N. & Hawkes, A. The natural gas supply chain: the importance of methane and carbon dioxide emissions. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 5, 3–20 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Tavakkoli, S., Feng, L., Miller, S. M. & Jordaan, S. M. Implications of generation efficiencies and supply chain leaks for the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of natural gas-fired electricity in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 56, 2540–2550 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Cooper, J., Balcombe, P. & Hawkes, A. The quantification of methane emissions and assessment of emissions data for the largest natural gas supply chains. J. Clean. Prod. 320, 128856 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Heitmann, N. & Khalilian, S. Accounting for carbon dioxide emissions from international shipping: burden sharing under different UNFCCC allocation options and regime scenarios. Mar. Policy 35, 682–691 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Roman-White, S. A. et al. LNG supply chains: a supplier-specific life-cycle assessment for improved emission accounting. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 9, 10857–10867 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Full Lifecycle Emissions Intensity of Global Coal and Gas Supply for Power Generation (International Energy Agency, 2018).

  33. World Energy Balances, 2020, IEA World Energy Statistics and Balances (database) (International Energy Agency, 2021).

  34. Antmann, P. Reducing Technical and Non-technical Losses in the Power Sector (World Bank, 2009); https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/20786

  35. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Energy: Overview (International Energy Agency, 2021); https://www.iea.org/reports/greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-energy-overview

  36. Davis, S. J. et al. Net-zero emissions energy systems. Science 360, eaas9793 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. International Shipping (International Energy Agency, 2021); https://www.iea.org/reports/international-shipping

  38. GE Global Power Plant Efficiency Analysis (General Electric, 2016).

  39. Pospíšil, J. et al. Energy demand of liquefaction and regasification of natural gas and the potential of LNG for operative thermal energy storage. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 99, 1–15 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Methane Tracker 2021 (International Energy Agency, 2021); https://www.iea.org/reports/methane-tracker-2021

  41. CCUS in Clean Energy Transitions (International Energy Agency, 2020); https://www.iea.org/reports/ccus-in-clean-energy-transitions

  42. IPCC Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report (eds Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R. K. & Meyer, L.A.) (IPCC, 2014); https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf

  43. Alvarez, R. A. et al. Assessment of methane emissions from the US oil and gas supply chain. Science 361, 186–188 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Chan, E. et al. Eight-year estimates of methane emissions from oil and gas operations in Western Canada are nearly twice those reported in inventories. Environ. Sci. Technol. 54, 14899–14909 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Matthews, H. D. et al. Opportunities and challenges in using remaining carbon budgets to guide climate policy. Nat. Geosci. 13, 769–779 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Riboldi, L. & Bolland, O. Overview on pressure swing adsorption (PSA) as CO2 capture technology: state-of-the-art, limits and potentials. Energy Procedia 114, 2390–2400 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Marx, J. et al. Environmental evaluation of CCS using life cycle assessment—a synthesis report. Energy Procedia 4, 2448–2456 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Power Generation in the Sustainable Development Scenario, 2000–2040 (International Energy Agency, 2020); https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/power-generation-in-the-sustainable-development-scenario-2000-2040

  49. Mac Dowell, N., Fennell, P. S., Shah, N. & Maitland, G. C. The role of CO2 capture and utilization in mitigating climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 243–249 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Wang, J. et al. Large-scale controlled experiment demonstrates effectiveness of methane leak detection and repair programs at oil and gas facilities. Preprint at https://eartharxiv.org/repository/view/2935/ (2021).

  51. Kemp, C. E. & Ravikumar, A. P. New technologies can cost effectively reduce oil and gas methane emissions, but policies will require careful design to establish mitigation equivalence. Environ. Sci. Technol. 55, 9140–9149 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Ravikumar, A. P. et al. Repeated leak detection and repair surveys reduce methane emissions over scale of years. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 034029 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Erickson, P., Kartha, S., Lazarus, M. & Tempest, K. Assessing carbon lock-in. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 084023 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Is Carbon Capture Too Expensive? (International Energy Agency, 2021); https://www.iea.org/commentaries/is-carbon-capture-too-expensive

  55. Schmelz, W. J., Hochman, G. & Miller, K. G. Total cost of carbon capture and storage implemented at a regional scale: northeastern and midwestern United States. Interface Focus 10, 20190065 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Naims, H. Economics of carbon dioxide capture and utilization—a supply and demand perspective. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 23, 22226–22241 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Net Zero by 2050 (International Energy Agency, 2021); https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050

  58. Weber, C. L. & Clavin, C. Life cycle carbon footprint of shale gas: Review of evidence and implications. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 5688–5695 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Marchese, A. J. et al. Methane emissions from United States natural gas gathering and processing. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 10718–10727 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Weber, C. L., Jaramillo, P., Marriott, J. & Samaras, C. Life cycle assessment and grid electricity: what do we know and what can we know? Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 1895–1901 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Omara, M. et al. Methane emissions from US low production oil and natural gas well sites. Nat. Commun. 13, 1–10 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Chen, Y. et al. Quantifying regional methane emissions in the new mexico permian basin with a comprehensive aerial survey. Environ. Sci. Technol. 56, 4317–4323 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Miller, S. M. et al. Anthropogenic emissions of methane in the United States. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 20018–20022 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Miller, S. M. & Michalak, A. M. Constraining sector-specific CO2 and CH4 emissions in the US. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 17, 3963–3985 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Varon, D. J. et al. Satellite discovery of anomalously large methane point sources from oil/gas production. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 13507–13516 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Hu, H. et al. Toward global mapping of methane with TROPOMI: first results and intersatellite comparison to GOSAT. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 3682–3689 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Lauvaux, T. et al. Global assessment of oil and gas methane ultra-emitters. Science 375, 557–561 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Cellura, M., Cusenza, M. A. & Longo, S. Energy-related GHG emissions balances: IPCC versus LCA. Sci. Total Environ. 628, 1328–1339 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Volkart, K., Bauer, C. & Boulet, C. Life cycle assessment of carbon capture and storage in power generation and industry in Europe. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 16, 91–106.

  70. Lacy, R. et al. Life-cycle GHG assessment of carbon capture, use and geological storage (CCUS) for linked primary energy and electricity production. Int. J. Greenh. Gas. Control 42, 165–174 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Singh, B., Strømman, A. H. & Hertwich, E. Life cycle assessment of natural gas combined cycle power plant with post-combustion carbon capture, transport and storage. Int. J. Greenh. Gas. Control 5, 457–466 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Hertwich, E. G. et al. Integrated life-cycle assessment of electricity-supply scenarios confirms global environmental benefit of low-carbon technologies. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 6277–6282 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Lin, W., Zhang, N. & Gu, A. LNG (liquefied natural gas): a necessary part in China’s future energy infrastructure. Energy 35, 4383–4391 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. British Petroleum. BP Statistical Review of World Energy2021; https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html

  75. Ritchie, H., Roser, M., & Rosado, P. Energy (2020); https://ourworldindata.org/energy

  76. International Energy Data (US Energy Information Administration, 2021); https://www.eia.gov/international/overview/world

  77. Global Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emission Projections & Marginal Abatement Cost Analysis (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2019).

  78. Aspen Plus, Aspen Properties v.10, Aspen Process Economic Analyzer v.10 (Aspentech, 2017).

  79. Koornneef, J., van Keulen, T., Faaij, A. & Turkenburg, W. Life cycle assessment of a pulverized coal power plant with post-combustion capture, transport and storage of CO2. Int. J. Greenh. Gas. Control 2, 448–467 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

S.M.J. and S.M.M. were supported by a Johns Hopkins Discovery Award. S.M.J. was supported by a Johns Hopkins Catalyst Award. D.N. was supported by NSF grant 2017789 and the Wilson E. Scott Institute for Energy Innovation where she is an energy fellow.

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Sarah M. Jordaan, Andrew W. Ruttinger.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

    Sarah M. Jordaan

  2. The Trottier Institute for Sustainability in Engineering and Design, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

    Sarah M. Jordaan

  3. Robert Frederick Smith School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

    Andrew W. Ruttinger

  4. Center for Global Sustainability, School of Public Policy, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

    Kavita Surana

  5. Complexity Science Hub Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Kavita Surana

  6. Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Destenie Nock

  7. Department of Environmental Health and Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Scot M. Miller

  8. Department of Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA

    Arvind P. Ravikumar

Authors
  1. Sarah M. Jordaan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrew W. Ruttinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kavita Surana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Destenie Nock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Scot M. Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Arvind P. Ravikumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

S.M.J. conceived and supervised the study, gathered preliminary data, conducted preliminary analysis, designed the formal analysis and investigation, developed the methodology, provided resources, and contributed to writing the original draft and to reviewing and editing. A.W.R. curated the full dataset, completed the formal analysis and investigation, developed the methodology, contributed resources, developed data visualizations, and contributed to writing the original draft and to reviewing and editing. K.S. provided conceptual feedback throughout the analysis, contributed data on power T&D losses, and contributed to the writing through reviewing and editing. D.N. provided conceptual feedback throughout the analysis, contributed data and methods on power T&D losses, and contributed to the writing through reviewing and editing. S.M.M. provided conceptual feedback, data critique, and contributed to the writing through reviewing and editing. A.P.R. provided conceptual feedback, contributed preliminary data on methane emissions from natural-gas productions systems, and contributed to the writing through reviewing and editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah M. Jordaan.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

A.P.R. has current research support from natural-gas producers and Environmental Defense Fund and is currently serving on the US Department of Transportation’s Pipeline Advisory Committee. The remaining authors declare no competing interests. K.S. is an employee of the company IST cube, which invests in science- and technology-driven start-ups, all unrelated to the present paper.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Climate Change thanks Jasmin Cooper, Thomas Gibon and Xiaojin Zhang for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 The natural gas supply chain evaluated in this study.

This supply chain encompasses the life cycle stages, and resulting emissions, of natural gas-fired electricity generation from extraction to end-user consumption. At all stages, energy consumption leads to direct CO2 emissions. The stages that lead to upstream and downstream methane emissions are explicitly noted.

Extended Data Fig. 2

Overview of the data inputs used in the model development.

Extended Data Fig 3 Comparison of our distribution of calculated country-level life cycle emission intensities for natural gas-fired power generation compared to the distribution provided by the IEA at facility-level50.

(a) compares the distributions with electricity T&D losses included, showing an overprediction in values by our calculated results. However, (b) compares the distributions with electricity T&D losses excluded, showing better agreement between distributions. The distributions begin to deviate at percentile 60, before deviating significantly near percentile 90.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of countries that have gas-fired power, if CCS were to be equipped, in grams of CO2-equivalent per kilowatt-hour (CO2eq/kWh).

(a) represents the spatial distribution of life cycle emissions for the 108 countries with gas-fired power if CCS were to be equipped. (b) compares the emission intensity of gas-fired power generation for each country with and without CCS using the same data as panel (a) and Fig. 2(a) from the main text, with specific countries highlighted for comparison. (c) Represents the results for the cross-section of the world’s 10 largest natural gas producers and consumers. Basemap copyright attributed to Microsoft Corporation, OpenStreetMap, TomTom and others.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Methane leakage for upstream and downstream sources reported by different sources and compared across countries. The range from Balcombe et al.1 is represented by the dashed lines.

(a) presents the upstream comparison for the UNFCCC and the EPA downstream values. (b) presents the downstream comparison for the UNFCCC and the EPA downstream values. (c) includes a smaller subset for available upstream sources in the IEA, UNFCCC and EPA. (d) includes a smaller subset for available downstream sources in the IEA, UNFCCC and EPA.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Discussion and Tables 1–3.

Supplementary Data 1

Life cycle emissions results, with and without combined heat and power; Methane emissions adjustments.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jordaan, S.M., Ruttinger, A.W., Surana, K. et al. Global mitigation opportunities for the life cycle of natural gas-fired power. Nat. Clim. Chang. 12, 1059–1067 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01503-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01503-5

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Anthropocene