This is the starting point for Europe’s lofty dreams of greener air travel – a collection point in Malaysia for greasy plastic bottles filled with discarded frying oil, thousands of miles from its final destination.
One Saturday morning last month in the city of Melaka, volunteers in green T-shirts rushed over as Adibah Rahim and her husband drove into the central square, eager to unpack, weigh and register her consignment of used cooking oil (UCO) – the “liquid gold” in European plans to ramp up production of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF).
Rahim left the collection point 90 ringgit ($21) richer, three ringgit per litre of oil – a welcome boost to her family’s household budget.
“We usually collect UCO from around 200 members of the public,” said Michael Andrew, sales manager for Evergreen Oil & Feed, the company running the Melaka collection with the local council and a supplier to leading European SAF producers including Spain’s Repsol, UK-based Shell and Finland’s Neste.
When made from waste such as UCO, rather than agricultural commodities like soy or palm oil, backers say SAF can slash planet-heating emissions by up to 80% over kerosene jet fuel, without taking up land that would otherwise be used for food crops, or fuelling forest destruction.
But behind SAF’s climate-friendly facade, a months-long investigation by Climate Home News and its partner The Straits Times has uncovered an opaque global supply chain that exposes jet fuel providers and their aviation clients to significant fraud risks, raising doubts about the climate benefits of the sector’s main green hope for the years ahead.
As SAF producers scramble for limited raw materials to meet new blending quotas in Europe and growing demand elsewhere, barely used and virgin palm oil is being passed off as UCO to traders that supply fuel companies, experts and industry operators told us. Palm oil that is not considered waste is not permitted under European Union rules for SAF because of its links to deforestation.


Our reporting focused on the UCO trade between Malaysia, the world’s second-biggest palm oil producer, and Spain, the EU’s largest aviation market and home to one of its SAF pioneers – oil-and-gas giant Repsol.
Fried in Spain?
Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January, Repsol CEO Josu Jon Imaz held up his company’s new 250-million-euro ($285 million) plant for renewable fuels, including SAF, near the historic Spanish port town of Cartagena as an example of how Europe can pursue a fair, green transition. Nearly half of the plant’s cost was financed by the EU’s lending arm, the European Investment Bank.
Repsol, which aims to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, started large-scale production of biodiesel and jet fuel – with its SAF mainly made from UCO – at the plant early last year.
Contrasting this with electric vehicles, many of them imported from China, Imaz said the raw material for Repsol’s renewable fuels “comes from Spanish farms and from the Spanish rural economy”.
In a promotional video for those fuels, Spanish celebrity chef Susi Díaz is seen dispensing advice to young cooks in the kitchen of her La Finca restaurant. Olive oil is then poured out of a pan into steel jugs as a voiceover explains how the waste cooking residue will be sent to the Repsol biofuels refinery.
Spain’s restaurants, however, are not the main source of Repsol’s UCO.
In 2024, more than 126,000 tonnes of UCO from Asia – enough to fill 50 Olympic-sized swimming pools – arrived in the Spanish region of Murcia, where Repsol’s flagship biofuels plant is located, according to trade data published by Spain’s tax agency.
Nearly two-thirds came from Malaysia, whose UCO exports to the region saw a 10-fold rise in the same year the energy heavyweight fired up its Cartagena SAF refinery.
The figures do not specify who provided or bought the raw material. But Climate Home obtained a list of shipments of UCO certified for the European market that were sourced from Malaysia by Repsol’s trading unit in Singapore, based on analysis of customs records provided by Data Desk, an investigative consultancy.
Repsol told Climate Home it “complements with imports when necessary” and receives raw material shipments from more than 20 countries. It declined to provide more details about its imports for “competitive reasons”.
The company is promoting the recycling of UCO from Spanish households – of which it says only 5% is currently collected – at its fuel stations across the country. But according to the trade data, Repsol purchased at least 53,000 tonnes of UCO from five Malaysian companies, including Evergreen Oil & Feed, in 2024.
No incidents involving fraudulent UCO were detected in Repsol’s supply chain, with its imports meeting EU rules on green certification. But our investigation found the company’s heavy reliance on Malaysian supplies exposes it to fraud risks that raise wider questions about global assertions over the sustainability of SAF.
-
Factbox: How we tracked Repsol’s UCO supply chain
Climate Home set out to find out what sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) are made of and how sustainable they really are. We focused on the supply chain of Repsol as the leading fuel supplier in the EU’s largest aviation market and a prominent advocate of SAF as a solution to decarbonising the sector.
Repsol does not publicly disclose detailed information on where the raw materials used in its SAF production are sourced from. A company representative told us that Repsol operates in “a global market, and for competitive reasons, we do not specify the origins or percentages of the raw materials”.
We analysed the summary audit report for the sustainability certificate issued for Repsol’s flagship SAF refinery in Cartagena. The document from International Sustainability and Carbon Certification (ISCC) lists the raw materials used at the plant, but provides only limited information on the origin of each specific feedstock.
We submitted a freedom of information request to the European Commission asking for a detailed list of shipments to Spain of used cooking oil (UCO), which we knew was Repsol’s main feedstock. In response, the Commission sent a highly redacted document obscuring the names of suppliers and recipients. We asked the Commission to review the decision, but after a nine-month wait, its original response was largely upheld.
Spanish authorities had asked for the names to be redacted, arguing that their disclosure would “infringe the legitimate interests” of those concerned, the Commission said.
We then analysed foreign trade records published by Spain’s tax authority. While the data did not include names of individual companies, it pointed to a spike in imports of UCO destined for the Murcia region – where Repsol’s SAF plant is located – from Malaysia and China in 2024.
Working with Data Desk – an investigative consultancy – we obtained a list of Malaysian companies that supplied UCO to Repsol’s trading unit in Singapore. This unit has said publicly that it is “deeply involved” in the supply chain for raw materials – mainly UCO – from Asia for renewable fuels, including SAF.
Having located Repsol’s suppliers, we then sent a reporter to attend a UCO collection event organised by the largest of these, Evergreen Oil & Feed, in the city of Melaka, where its owner confirmed it sells UCO to the Spanish energy giant.
Asked what steps it takes to fight fraud, Repsol said it operates a rigorous supplier monitoring system to ensure the sustainability and integrity of its SAF production. A “very strong” compliance process means dubious raw materials and suppliers suspected of misconduct are quickly weeded out, it added.
“Repsol firmly rejects any fraud that distorts competitiveness in the sector and supports all initiatives by relevant authorities to combat it,” the company said in emailed comments.
Shrinking air travel’s carbon footprint
Europe’s green aviation fuel refineries are boosting output because of new requirements by the EU and the UK for planes to use more SAF in the coming decades. From the start of this year, fuel supplied to airports across Europe needs to contain at least 2% of SAF, with targets rising gradually over the next 15 years, putting huge strain on tight global supplies.
SAF is crucial for shrinking aviation’s carbon footprint, according to industry body the International Air Transport Association (IATA), and is expected to account for 65% of emissions reductions by 2050, when the sector has committed to reaching net zero.
In 2023, emissions from international plane travel accounted for 2.5% of the world’s energy-related carbon emissions. As air travel increases, and other sectors are more easily able to decarbonise, that share is set to grow.
Repsol’s Imaz told financial analysts early last year that emissions-cutting alternatives to SAF – such as restricting short-haul flights – would represent “a drop in the ocean”.
But surging demand for SAF’s feedstock of choice, UCO, and a global certification system based on self-declaration at the start of the supply chain are encouraging fraud that undermines the new fuel’s green credentials.
‘Ridiculous’ collection numbers
This investigation found that by the time Asia-based traders ship UCO supplies overseas to refineries for processing into SAF, guaranteeing their environmental integrity is virtually impossible – despite the certification system on which fuel companies and airlines rely.
A source at a leading Malaysian UCO supplier to companies including Repsol told The Straits Times that some UCO collectors and restaurants are committing fraud by providing oil that does not qualify as used, although it is difficult to prove.
In Malaysia, which is among the world’s leading suppliers of both UCO and virgin palm oil, government-subsidised cooking oil is cheaper than UCO – providing a clear incentive for fraud.


In a 2024 report, Brussels-based environmental group Transport & Environment (T&E) cited figures showing that Malaysia already exports about three times as much UCO as it is estimated to collect domestically and import, raising concern about where that oil is coming from – and what it consists of.
The analysis by consultancy Stratas Advisors, used as a basis for the report, says the “substantial deficit” indicates the “risks of fraud and palm oil potentially compensating for the shortfall”.
In 2023, 458,000 tonnes of UCO originating in Malaysia were registered with International Sustainability and Carbon Certification (ISCC), the leading certification scheme recognised by the European Commission to demonstrate compliance with its biofuels sustainability criteria.
In absolute terms, that puts Malaysia second only to China. But if all that UCO were collected from its population, it would have had by far the highest volumes per person worldwide: 15.2 litres for each Malaysian inhabitant, compared with 0.9 litres per capita in neighbouring Indonesia and 3.8 litres in Spain.
Cian Delaney, campaigns coordinator at T&E, said that figure is “ridiculous”, adding that for it to be feasible, Malaysia would need to be “a world leading collection and refining system – which it isn’t”.
Exactly what it says on the bottle?
The waste ingredients from which SAF is made change hands multiple times in a largely opaque system. To verify their sustainability, European regulators rely on checks by private auditors and agencies that issue green certificates based on their findings.
But there is a blind spot: the restaurants, street stalls, households and factories from which the UCO is pooled self-declare the origin and authenticity of their contributions. Aside from ad-hoc spot checks and sampling, there is no way of knowing that all of these providers are telling the truth.
“The opportunity, or incidents, of fraud is very high,” said Vasu R Vasuthewan, the former Malaysia head for the ISCC.
Malaysian authorities recently uncovered criminal syndicates that had pocketed thousands of dollars a day by getting hold of large amounts of subsidised cooking oil, mixing it in with UCO, and then selling it on to industrial UCO traders.


Industry sources told Climate Home and The Straits Times that many households and restaurants are motivated to replace cooking oil after a single use – contrary to standard practice – and then sell it on as UCO. Cooking oil is considered waste when it is no longer fit for frying – generally after being used between three and five times.
“Restaurant compliance [with sustainability standards] may be very low,” said Vasuthewan, who now runs his own UCO import and export business. “Many will fake their declaration, hoping they won’t get caught.”
Malaysia’s Deputy Minister of Plantation and Commodities Chan Foong Hin, who has acknowledged that fraud is an issue in the UCO sector, said authorities are “actively monitoring the industry to prevent fraudulent activities” and strengthening enforcement mechanisms.
“To maintain supply chain integrity, various measures are in place, including traceability systems, certification requirements, and stringent export documentation,” he told The Straits Times.
Delaney of T&E said it is difficult for auditors to physically check the origin of the oil, since hundreds of restaurants can supply the same collection point, making it a “notable blind spot”.
Spot checks, patchy audits
In theory, there is a system in place to keep fraudulent stocks out of the supply chain. Buyers and regulators in Europe rely on audit companies to trace the raw materials used in SAF and prove their green credentials.
Those audits are verified by authorised certification systems like ISCC – which is led by the biofuels industry and, according to one source, enjoys “a kind of monopoly” in the sector. It then issues sustainability certificates to commodities traders and fuel suppliers.
ISCC says its certification process supports “sustainable, fully traceable, deforestation-free and climate-friendly supply chains”.


Yet while auditors conduct random field checks in some cases, that happens less often in countries outside the EU, industry experts say.
According to James Cogan, compliance and markets lead at Irish biofuel firm Clonbio, it is far easier for fraud to occur outside the EU where “it’s much less visible to us”.
An analysis by T&E in China, for example, showed that sampling of points of origin happened in less than 10% of the ISCC-approved audits, whereas in the EU it was about 30%.
Adam Kirby, ISCC’s senior sustainability manager, told Climate Home that auditors monitor volumes coming in and out of collection points for any suspicious behaviour, in addition to carrying out spot checks.
He added that the ISCC follows the requirements established by regulators like the European Commission.
-
Factbox: How ISCC verification works
Throughout the complex SAF supply chain, the ISCC requires operators to pass certified information on the origin of the raw materials and their carbon savings from one operator to another.
Traders typically receive UCO from individuals and restaurants at collection points or storage facilities audited under the scheme. But those bringing in the oil are mostly not vetted directly. In the majority of cases, they are simply required to fill out a self-declaration form stating that their UCO meets the definition of waste, meaning that it is not just regular palm oil, and is compliant with the ISCC’s sustainability criteria.
UCO collectors are required to keep all these forms in a database available for inspection by third-party auditors who check that the same amount of UCO coming into a facility is then going out.
If everything stacks up, the ISCC issues a “proof of sustainability” certificate which fuel producers like Repsol rely on to confidently buy the raw material in compliance with EU and/or international regulations.
Airlines are given access to these certificates as evidence they are buying SAF that meets sustainability requirements
In 2024, ISCC also conducted 79 special “integrity assessments” – around two-thirds targeting Asia-based suppliers – which independently monitored the work of auditors. In a third of cases, it found violations of its certification requirements, including an inability to demonstrate the traceability of products, leading to the withdrawal of 11 certificates.
From frying pan to frequent flier
Under the current system, the entire SAF supply chain relies on a long paper trail rooted in those self-declarations and sporadic inspections at the points where UCO is collected.
In Malaysia, Evergreen’s owner CK Lau told The Straits Times the company follows the “proper processes” in its collection based on the requirements established by the ISCC. He added that the documentation is “critical” as, otherwise, the company would not be able to export its UCO.


Repsol, for its part, said it requires “suppliers to be certified under European Commission-recognised voluntary regimes”.
In turn, airline companies that buy from Repsol such as International Airlines Group (IAG) – the parent company of British Airways, Iberia, Vueling, Aer Lingus and LEVEL – rely on documentation they get from it and other jet fuel providers, to show the SAF they are paying for has green certification.
In exceptional cases, IAG told Climate Home it has sent its own staff to carry out checks on the ground, as with a Shanghai-based Chinese supplier last year. It described the outcome of that audit – which included supply, record-keeping, environmental and health and safety standards – as “positive”.
Robert Boyd, Boeing’s Asia-Pacific sustainability lead who previously worked for IATA, thinks airlines’ exacting standards will bring positive change in the SAF industry. “You’ll see a race to the top… on sustainability, and it will, in a way, be self-regulated,” he added.
SAF certification faces EU scrutiny
In the meantime, following a string of fraud allegations about the authenticity of UCO-derived biofuels imported from China, the EU has been trying to ascertain whether the certification system governments and businesses rely on is fit for purpose.
EU authorities have been in talks to strengthen that system, leading to speculation that the ISCC could be suspended for failing to catch cases of biodiesel fraud. The ISCC denied in a statement that regulators had considered halting automatic EU-wide acceptance of its certificates, adding that its relationship with the European Commission remained constructive.
“There’s always bad actors, there’s always bad people, and there’s only a certain amount of policing that can be done in any industry,” said Kirby. “We at ISCC have done, I think, an incredible job.”
A European Commission spokeswoman said the bloc’s executive arm was “closely monitoring” the SAF market “to detect and prevent fraud, which risks undermining the EU’s ambition to effectively decarbonise air transport”.
Authorities in the US and Singapore, which wants to position itself as a regional SAF hub, have also voiced concern about fraud in the SAF supply chain.
“We are aware of concerns raised by various stakeholders, including the EU and the US, regarding fraudulent practices in the SAF supply chain. We share the same concerns as these pose risks to market confidence, fair trading and development of a nascent SAF market,” said Daniel Ng, chief sustainability officer at the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS).
He said the authority was working with the International Civil Aviation Organization’s Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection to develop “harmonised standards for feedstock verification to prevent further fraudulent practices”.
Demand for UCO sizzles
Whatever action regulators take to keep SAF fraud-free, leading European refiners such as Repsol are pushing for a level global playing field as well as more public funding to bring down costs and help develop the nascent sector on the continent.
IATA warned earlier this month that the European mandates had caused the SAF price paid by airlines to double because of hefty compliance fees being charged by producers.
Repsol’s aviation head Carlos Suárez Cubillo warned that fuel producers in parts of the world with laxer rules could produce SAF “with less regulation and less control of the feedstock… and here in Europe that could de-incentivise the production, the construction of new facilities”.
In Brazil, for example, an emerging SAF industry is gearing up to use crop-based feedstocks that are commonly linked to deforestation – and are therefore banned in Europe – such as soy and palm oil, as well as sugarcane-based ethanol, which has been linked to labour abuses and modern slavery.


An investigation by Climate Home’s partner in Brazil, InfoAmazonia, found that the palm oil producer behind a planned biorefinery in the Amazon region – billed as Brazil’s first SAF project – is growing the crop on land areas subject to sanctions by the national environment agency over illegal deforestation, and is struggling financially after rights abuse allegations.
Brazilian firm behind SAF plan found growing oil palm on deforested Amazon land
IATA hopes its efforts to put in place a global registry for SAF, launched in April as a voluntary initiative, will boost transparency around feedstocks and their greenhouse gas savings – and enable airlines to have some level of visibility and comparability between countries, fuel providers and airports.
SAF producers and airlines are also looking to other waste-based materials to meet rising mandates – especially as more advanced fuels made from green hydrogen and carbon dioxide, known as e-SAF, are still being developed and tested.
Air travel’s ‘holy grail’: Jet fuel made from CO2 and water prepares for take-off
Repsol, for example, recently closed a deal with US vegetable oils giant Bunge to source camelina and safflower – non-food crops that can grow on poor land – to produce hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO) for biodiesel and SAF.


In January, it also announced it would invest more than 800 million euros ($906 million) in Europe’s first plant in the Catalan city of Tarragona to produce “renewable” methanol from organic urban waste that now ends up in landfill, for use in maritime, road and aviation transport from 2029.
But in the meantime, Europe’s overwhelming reliance on UCO means it will continue to import supplies from Asia – despite the concerns over fraud, said Sophie Byron, global head of biofuels pricing at S&P Global Commodity Insights.
“That trade flow is not going away anytime soon,” she said.
‘Token effort’ on aviation emissions?
At Repsol’s vast refinery complex near Cartagena, the colourful pipes and metal cylinders of the flagship SAF unit are dwarfed by the site’s traditional, fossil fuel-refining infrastructure.


Repsol’s plants processed 43.3 million tonnes of crude oil last year, according to its annual report. In contrast, its renewable fuels production capacity stands at 1.25 million tonnes per year – of which the Cartagena plant accounts for 250,000 tonnes, including SAF.
It is a token effort towards tackling rising aviation emissions, said Pedro Luengo of Spanish environmental network Ecologistas en Acción, standing on a hillside overlooking the complex.
As Spain’s airports prepare for another record-breaking summer holiday influx this year, Luengo warned that the hype around SAF could prove counter-productive in the fight against climate change by justifying yet more air travel.
“Instead of gradually substituting fossil fuels with other [green] sources and consuming less, what we are doing is expanding the opportunities because we have more fuels available to use,” he said. “That is a contradiction.”
This investigation was developed with the support of Journalismfund Europe.
The Straits Times in Singapore will publish a version of this story in the coming days.
The post Is the world’s big idea for greener air travel a flight of fancy? appeared first on Climate Home News.
Is the world’s big idea for greener air travel a flight of fancy?
Climate Change
Pawa in Palau
This week our powerful Pacific team is in Palau for the Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Meeting. This is a major moment in our campaigns for Pacific climate justice and to stop deep sea mining. So what’s it all about, what can we expect over the coming days, and why is this year’s meeting in particular so important? Read on to find out!
*Pawa is Melanesian word meaning collective power.
Meet Moemoana Schwenke, our Pacific Climate Campaigner
“When you love something deeply, you do everything you can to protect it.”
What is the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF)?
The Pacific Islands Forum, or ‘PIF’, is our region’s most important political organisation. It is where countries of the Pacific — including Australia and New Zealand — come together to collaborate on shared challenges and to set collective goals.
The PIF Leaders Meeting is an annual weeklong event that includes a dedicated meeting of the Pacific’s small island developing states (PSIDS), many special side events organised by Pacific civil society, the leaders’ meeting itself, and more. At the end of the week, leaders issue a Forum Communiqué, capturing what they have agreed on, their shared priorities and the actions they will take together.
This year’s meeting is being held in the beautiful northern Pacific nation of Palau, the same place our Pacific team gathered back in January to plan for the year.

What’s at stake this year?
Climate change has dominated the PIF for decades. Pacific leaders have been crystal clear it is their number one priority, and the annual gathering is the moment they can exert maximum pressure on Australia over its fossil fuel record.
The voyage to COP31
This year’s meeting comes less than three months before COP31, where Australia will take on the role of President of Negotiations — a role it has committed to undertaking in partnership with the Pacific — and less than a month before the ‘Pacific Pre-COP’, to be held in Fiji and Tuvalu.
Following a fraught round of mid-year negotiations in Bonn, PIF leaders will need to set out a clear vision and priorities for COP31. These include accelerating a just global transition away from fossil fuels, defending science as the foundation of international climate cooperation, and increasing the availability and accessibility of finance for renewable energy and climate adaptation.

Accountability for Australian fossil fuel exports
Since the last PIF Leaders Meeting, Australia has signed the Belém Declaration on the Transition Away from Fossil Fuels. The declaration reaffirmed the legally binding commitment to help limit global warming to 1.5°C and recognised that this is incompatible with new fossil fuel production. Yet, Australia has continued to approve new coal and gas projects, including at least five since the last PIF Leaders Meeting.

What is Greenpeace doing?
We’re going big this year, taking six members of our team to Palau to support Pacific leaders to hold the line, hold Australia accountable, and show the world what’s at stake. We’ll lobby leaders, hold press conferences, share our messages with the world, and support our incredible local partners in Palau.

How can you get involved?
PIF is the first in a drumbeat of major moments where we’ll be carrying the voices of the Pacific to the world. Come October we’ll be voyaging to Fiji on our ship Oceania for the Pacific Pre-COP, and in November we’ll be off to Antalya for the world’s climate negotiations (COP31).
Learn more about the Pacific way to a fossil fuel free future by checking out our report and exhibition.
Follow our journey, and check back here for more ways to join the movement for climate justice. Together we have the pawa!
Climate Change
From firefighting to future-proofing: Preventing wildfires must be the priority
Gill Einhorn is head of the Forest Future Alliance and Natalie Çilem is community lead of the Global Wildfire Leadership Network.
Wildfires have devastated communities across the world this summer, claiming lives, displacing thousands of people and leaving billions in economic damage in their wake. In Europe alone, wildfires have already caused an estimated €19 billion in losses this year.
They are an economic, financial and public health challenge that is growing faster than many governments and markets are prepared for – and exposing the real costs of poor land management.
A system built for recovery, not resilience
Far more money is currently spent responding to the disastrous effects of wildfires than preventing them in the first place. The United Nations Environment Programme estimates that more than half of wildfire-related spending goes towards response, while planning receives only around 0.2 percent. This problem is not limited to wildfires; over 95 percent of disaster aid between 2005 and 2017 was allocated to response, and less than 4 percent was directed towards prevention or preparedness.
Forests are critical, but without investment in how land is managed and protected, their value is neither stable nor guaranteed. Protecting forests requires investing not only in conservation, but in the conditions that keep forests standing.
Each dollar invested in wildfire-resistant construction could save around $210 in avoided future economic losses, according to a report by the World Economic Forum and Forest Future Alliance. Despite this evidence that prevention can significantly reduce future costs, wildfire resilience remains chronically underfunded.
This spending discrepancy is creating significant challenges for insurers, asset owners and financial institutions. Global insured losses from natural catastrophes reached $107 billion in 2025, with wildfires, floods and storms accounting for 92 percent of claims.
In this context, insurers are reassessing where and how they are willing to underwrite risk. Around 56 percent of global wildfire losses between 2000 and 2023 were uninsured. In some high-risk areas, insurers are scaling back coverage altogether, leaving homeowners, businesses and governments to shoulder a growing share of the costs – making it increasingly difficult to break even.
Proven solutions are already paying off
In many regions, wildfires are driven not by natural causes but by the deliberate clearing of land for agriculture. Degraded landscapes are becoming drier, more flammable and increasingly vulnerable to catastrophic loss, creating a vicious cycle of deforestation, economic damage and rising emissions.
The answer is not simply stronger firefighting capacity. Governments, investors and businesses must work together to shift capital upstream into prevention, resilience and long-term landscape stewardship of healthy forests. That means planting appropriately, investing in heat-resistant species, exploring approaches that minimise fire footprints through active management, and exploring the AI and technology solutions that are burgeoning.


Solutions to this already exist and are proven to have an impact. Following devastating wildfires year-on-year, Portugal shifted its approach to wildfire management, increasing prevention spending within its national rural fire management system from around 20 percent in 2017 to approximately 60 percent in 2022. While many countries remain locked in a reactive cycle of disaster response, public policy can shift investment upstream and make resilience a priority before fires occur.
Indigenous communities have long used proactive land stewardship to reduce wildfire risk while supporting healthy and productive landscapes. For example, the Cheslatta Carrier Nation in British Columbia traditionally managed fuels through cultural fire practices but now implements mechanised fuel removal methods under commercial agreements. By combining Indigenous stewardship with sustainable forest management, Cheslatta is generating community benefits while also boosting wildfire prevention.
Resilience can also be strengthened through finance and technology. FireSat, a partnership led by Earth Fire Alliance with Google.org, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and Muon, is a satellite constellation designed for rapid wildfire detection. Scanning every 20 minutes, it can detect fires 400 times smaller than current systems and track them through smoke and darkness in almost real time. In California alone, FireSat could prevent up to 350,000 acres from burning each year. It has recently received significant new investments allowing it to expand towards a constellation of more than 50 satellites that will monitor every point on Earth every 20 minutes or less.
In Brazil’s Pantanal, the Embrace the Forest initiative uses AI-powered detection towers across 2.5 million hectares to support earlier intervention and faster response. During the severe 2024 fire season, the initiative contributed to a 40 percent reduction in burned area compared to 2020.


These examples illustrate what is possible when resilience is treated as an investment priority rather than a recovery cost. But we must ensure funding for these measures is scaled before disaster strikes. Initiatives like the Global Wildfire Leadership Network (GWLN) are key, bringing together corporate decision-makers, investors, insurers, governments and Indigenous leaders to direct investment towards prevention and align finance, technology and stewardship to protect nature, safeguard communities and strengthen future economic stability. With a goal of doing more together than the sum of our parts, the network focuses on Forest Future Alliance GWLN Solutions Labs – where partners sign up with the intent to collaborate.
Rewarding prevention
Financial incentives must be created that reward prevention. This can be done by scaling public-private partnerships, supporting long-term landscape stewardship, investing in community capacity including Indigenous wisdom and technology. Ultimately, our terrestrial natural reserves are critical infrastructure that support resilient economies and thriving communities.
One in three people are dependent on forest services, goods and economic opportunities for survival, so it’s in all our interests to protect what we have. Forests support cooling, water and food security – and are a very cost-effective way of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, where done appropriately.
UN chief warns climate crisis “in overdrive” as El Niño threatens to fuel the fire
No sector can solve this challenge alone. The benefits of wildfire resilience are shared across communities, governments, insurers, investors, utilities and businesses. A single intervention can protect homes and livelihoods, reduce insurance claims, secure water supplies and lower future public costs. Because the benefits are shared, the solutions must be too. Coalitions of actors can take proven approaches further than any one individual or organisation could alone.
As wildfires continue to burn at an unprecedented scale, the opportunity now is to roll out solutions, shift investment upstream and build a future where resilience, rather than recovery, becomes the foundation of thriving economies.
The post From firefighting to future-proofing: Preventing wildfires must be the priority appeared first on Climate Home News.
From firefighting to future-proofing: Preventing wildfires must be the priority
Climate Change
Guest post: Why tough methane cuts are crucial for keeping warming ‘well-below’ 2C
Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas and the second-largest contributor to global warming after carbon dioxide (CO2).
Methane traps heat in the atmosphere more efficiently than CO2, but has a significantly shorter lifespan, fading after just a few decades.
Therefore, reducing emissions of methane – a gas primarily produced by agriculture, fossil fuels and waste management – is a powerful option for limiting global warming in the near-term.
Yet climate strategies and models often only focus on CO2, or combine all greenhouse gases into one metric known as “CO2 equivalent”.
The latter approach makes reducing methane emissions dependent on modelling choices and assumptions about the “equivalence” of methane and CO2.
It hides the opportunities and challenges linked to methane’s high warming and short lifetime.
In a new study, published in Communications Earth & Environment, we offer a different perspective that “decouples” CO2 and methane reduction and takes global warming limits as a starting point for determining the required level of methane cuts.
We show that, even under the most ambitious existing national net-zero targets, an absence of methane reduction leads to peak warming that exceeds 1.85C above pre-industrial levels.
The study highlights that, to limit peak warming to well-below 2C, net-zero CO2 targets must be complemented by stringent methane emissions cuts.
CO2 equivalent
How much methane corresponds to one tonne of CO2?
The question is as difficult to answer as: ‘how much spaghetti equals a chicken?’ You could compare the two meals according to their calories, protein content or cost. Each metric can be convenient, but is only valid for that specific comparison – no amount of spaghetti is the same as a chicken.
The same is true for the conversion of emissions of methane and other gases to CO2-equivalent emissions. It can be convenient, as it allows different gases to be compared or combined into a single number. This is why the metric is used in climate targets or evaluating the effectiveness of different mitigation options.
But, because methane and CO2 have different atmospheric lifetimes and warming properties, any conversion is only valid for a chosen time horizon and a chosen baseline.
Depending on the assumptions baked into calculations, methane mitigation can either appear as an immediate priority or framed as almost unnecessary.
There are a number of metrics that scientists use to convert greenhouse gases – whether methane, hydrofluorocarbons or nitrous oxide – into CO2-equivalent emissions:
- “GWP20” measures how much heat a greenhouse gas traps in the atmosphere over a 20-year period, relative to CO2. It emphasises urgent methane mitigation but has been criticised for its implicit discounting of future damages.
- “GWP100” looks at a 100-year timeline. It gives more weight to long-term warming and is used in “integrated assessment models” (IAMs) used by scientists, national emission reporting to the UN and by the GHG Protocol used by companies.
- “GWP*” considers the rate of emissions, rather than warming over a fixed time horizon. Under GWP*, very limited methane reductions bring CO2-equivalent emissions to zero, meaning remaining methane emissions can be designated as causing “no additional warming”. (This interpretation remains controversial as it assumes the continuation of historical levels of warming.)
IAMs are the tools used to generate future emissions scenarios. Because they combine CO2 and methane emissions, the impact of methane emission cuts alone is difficult to isolate in existing emission scenarios.
IAM-generated scenarios also assume mitigation decisions driven by costs. Combinations of CO2 and methane emission pathways that are not purely cost-effective are, therefore, not represented, even though climate policy is messy and emission pathways are rarely cost-effective in the real world.
Only a few countries – including Japan, Mexico and South Korea – specify methane mitigation targets.
A different approach
In our study, we separate CO2 and methane emissions and treat them as independent.
Instead of choosing a conversion method, we suggest that states and organisations set a limit on peak global warming first, then, based on their existing net-zero targets, determine the minimum compatible methane reduction target.
Companies and countries around the world have set net-zero targets focused on CO2, as well as those that include all greenhouse gases. As a result, our research looks at the necessary methane reductions for both types of goal. We consider scenarios where companies or countries deliver linear – in other words, steady – emissions reductions to reach net-zero.
Using a simple climate model, we systematically combined methane and CO2 (or greenhouse gas) mitigation pathways starting in 2025 and calculated peak warming.
The figure below shows how peak warming depends on both the year of reaching net-zero CO2 and the level of methane cuts.
The blue arrows in the figure show that to limit warming to 1.7C under a 2050 net-zero CO2 scenario, methane emissions would need to fall by at least 69% by 2050, relative to 2020.
Our research also finds that, if an organisation or country’s 2050 net zero-target covers all greenhouse gases, its methane emissions would need to fall by 63% instead.
However, under current policies, methane emissions are expected to increase by around 20% by 2050, relative to 2020. We find that this pathway would result in peak warming above 2C by 2050 – even if global CO2 emissions were to reach net-zero by that date (see purple bar on the right-hand side of the figure above).
The figure also shows how, if methane emissions remained at 2020 levels and net-zero CO2 was delivered by 2040 or later, warming would exceed 1.85C. This level of warming is above what has been argued as consistent with the Paris Agreement’s “well-below” 2C limit.
Conversely, cutting methane emissions by around one-third – in line with the Global Methane Pledge target for 2030 – could reduce peak warming by 0.15C, of which 0.05C could be delivered by interventions that come at no net cost. These are shown by the orange and red bars, respectively, on the figure above.
The table below highlights the minimum compatible methane cuts for three different peak warming levels and net-zero CO2 or greenhouse-gas emission targets.
| Peak warming | Year of net-zero CO2 emissions | Year of net-zero greenhouse-gas emissions | ||||
| 2050 | 2060 | 2100 | 2050 | 2060 | 2100 | |
| 1.7C | -69% | – | – | -63% | – | – |
| 1.8C | -32% | -56% | – | -11% | -47% | – |
| 2C | +8% | -8% | -83% | >50% | +33% | -78% |
Minimum methane emission reductions between 2020 and the year of net-zero emissions, consistent with peak warming of 1.7C, 1.8C, and 2.0C at 50% likelihood, assuming linear emission trajectories. For some net-zero targets and peak warming levels, there are no compatible methane mitigation targets (indicated by “–”).
Remaining carbon budget
The global carbon budget refers to the amount of cumulative CO2 emissions allowable while still meeting a particular global warming threshold.
The 2021 climate science report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and a 2023 Nature study estimated that, by 2025, the remaining carbon budget for holding warming to 2C would be around 1,000-1,150bn tonnes of CO2 (GtCO2).
We find that these estimates are founded on the assumption of methane reductions of 27-35% by 2050, relative to a 2020 baseline. (A 2024 Communications Earth & Environment study reached similar conclusions.)
Under the GWP* metric, where methane emissions are only cut to maintain “no additional warming”, the remaining carbon budget would be constrained. The best estimate of a 2C budget shrinks by around 30% to approximately 750GtCO2.
Finally, if methane emissions are not cut at all in the future, our findings suggest that the remaining carbon budget for 1.7C of global warming has, in effect, already been exhausted.
Our analysis shows how peak warming depends on both CO2 and methane reduction – and how methane-specific targets can help refine existing net-zero targets.
Crucially, we show that complementing net-zero CO2 targets with stringent methane cuts is necessary to limit peak warming to well-below 2C.
Weber, K. et al. (2026) Limiting warming by CO2 and methane mitigation in an expanded scenario space, Communications Earth & Environment, doi:10.1038/s43247-026-03832-1
related
Guest post: France’s June heatwave caused more than 2,700 heat-related deaths
Guest post: Climate change has caused one-fifth of Pine Island glacier retreat
Q&A: What change of power in Colombia could mean for world’s fossil-fuel transition
Guest post: How US renewable-energy growth persists despite federal policy uncertainty
The post Guest post: Why tough methane cuts are crucial for keeping warming ‘well-below’ 2C appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Guest post: Why tough methane cuts are crucial for keeping warming ‘well-below’ 2C
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits

