With voluntary commitments to cut methane pollution floundering, the prime minister of Barbados urged fellow leaders at the United Nations last month to draw up a “legally binding global agreement” to reduce emissions of the particularly potent greenhouse gas.
Mia Mottley told the UN Secretary-General’s Climate Summit in New York that voluntary efforts like the UAE-led Oil and Gas Decarbonisation Charter – signed by over 50 oil and gas companies – were “not enough” to rein in methane. She said governments should urgently discuss a “no more than two-or-three page agreement on the reduction of methane as a matter of legally binding obligations”.
The Barbadian leader – who has a global reputation for proposing new ideas on climate action and finance – said governments “do not need to reinvent the wheel”. She suggested replicating the 1987 Montreal Protocol that has phased out the production and use of CFC and other gases found in fridges and air conditioners that were responsible for opening a hole in the Earth’s ozone layer.
That protocol put in place legally binding reduction targets for these chemicals, many of which are also greenhouse gases, incentivising government policies to make companies redesign their appliances.
Emissions of ozone-depleting substances have since dropped by almost 100%, and the ozone layer is closing, with Mottley calling it “the most successful climate agreement in history”.
Why focus on methane?
Methane is a short-lived greenhouse gas that is more than 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide (CO2). Experts say cutting methane emissions is a “low-hanging fruit” for tackling global warming, as it would make a big difference with relatively small actions.
Methane emissions come mainly from the agriculture sector (40%), the oil and gas industry (35%) and waste (20%).
Since COP26 in Glasgow, 111 countries have signed up to the Global Methane Pledge – which aims to cut methane emissions by 30% by 2030, compared to 2020 levels.
But, in its latest global tracking update in May, the International Energy Agency said methane emissions from fossil fuels remain at stubbornly high levels. Commitments like the pledge have boosted target-setting and momentum, it added, but so far “few countries or companies have formulated real implementation plans for these commitments, and even fewer have demonstrated verifiable emissions reductions”.
Russia justifies fossil gas use by citing contentious COP28 loophole
Mottley told the summit at UN headquarters that tightening regulation on methane emissions made sense for the planet, fossil fuel firms and farmers – and would help buy time in the short-term as countries roll out their national climate plans to cut greenhouse gases across the board.
Her call was backed by French President Emmanuel Macron and Tuvalu’s Prime Minister Feleti Teo, who both said in their speeches that a “binding commitment” on methane is needed. “We know that this is a reachable goal,” Macron said, adding that methane reduction would be a priority when France chairs the G7 next year.
A more difficult challenge than ozone?
But replicating the Montreal Protocol for methane will be challenging. The vast majority of ozone-depleting gases come from a relatively small number of appliances and so could be reduced relatively easily. On the other hand, methane escapes into the atmosphere from a wide variety of sources including belching cows, rice paddies, landfills, leaking gas pipelines, coal mines and oil production facilities.
While some emissions can be prevented cheaply or even profitably – particularly in oil and gas production – others, like those from cows, are more expensive and politically controversial to avoid.
Durwood Zaelke, president of the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development, has previously campaigned against ozone-depleting substances and is now pushing for methane cuts. He spoke alongside Mottley and Macron at a high-profile meeting on methane in New York in late September.
He told Climate Home News that getting a “coalition of the willing” to agree on methane targets is more likely than persuading all the world’s governments to sign up to an agreement. Countries could make their targets legally binding through their own domestic law, he said.
-
Oil giant Pemex fails to control methane emissions, threatening Mexico’s net zero goal
A Climate Home investigation shows Mexico’s state oil firm has struggled to cut its methane emissions as promised, risking the country’s net zero ambitions -
Fossil fuel industry under pressure to cut record-high methane emissions
New regulations and monitoring advances could turn the tide on methane emissions from oil, gas and coal production this year -
World Bank tiptoes into fiery debate over meat emissions
The bank has advised wealthy nations to cut subsidies for high-emissions foods but stopped far short of promoting veganism
An international agreement is possible, he added, “but it also can start from the bottom up” if other governments – including sub-national ones like California and Punjab – adopted similar rules to the European Union’s methane regulation.
The EU requires oil and gas companies to detect and repair methane leaks and bans them from burning gas as a waste product in a process known as flaring. It is also imposing increasingly stringent methane intensity standards – opposed by the Trump administration in the US – on imported fossil fuels.
Zaelke said the next step was for Barbados to try and get the rest of the Climate Vulnerable Forum – a group of around 70 Global South countries which it now chairs – and other small island states on board with the idea.
He predicted that methane would have its “moment” at the COP30 climate summit in Brazil, as reduction of non-CO2 gases is one of the 30 objectives of the COP30 presidency’s “action agenda”.
Mottley’s proposal is expected to be discussed at the pre-COP gathering in Brasilia on October 13-14, although opposition from some countries will likely make reaching global consensus very difficult.
Citing comments by UN chief Antonio Guterres that we are on “the highway to climate hell”, Zaelke said: “We’ve got a methane emergency brake. If you pull it and turn the wheel, you can reverse course and slow warming in the near term more than any other way. I think this is becoming clear and so we’ll see the drumbeat for mandatory pick-up.”
The post Mottley’s “legally binding” methane pact faces barriers, but smaller steps possible appeared first on Climate Home News.
Mottley’s “legally binding” methane pact faces barriers, but smaller steps possible
From the Amazon to the Mekong, migratory freshwater fish underpin food security for millions, but over 300 species need urgent conservation intervention, warns a new UN report.
Beneath the surface of the planet’s rivers and lakes, the historically heaving migrations of freshwater fish are thinning out. The blubbery-lipped Siamese giant carp of Asia’s Mekong River, the mottled brown goonch of India’s Ganges and the ancient-in-appearance beluga sturgeon of Europe’s Danube River are declining.
Climate Change
Border Communities Remain in the Dark About Federal Government’s Billion-Dollar Buoy Project
The industrial-grade buoys, already being installed in Brownsville, Texas, are meant to prevent unauthorized crossings. But experts warn the buoys could intensify flooding and change the river’s course.
Reporting supported by the Water Desk at the University of Colorado, Boulder.
Border Communities Remain in the Dark About Federal Government’s Billion-Dollar Buoy Project
The extraction of minerals needed for the clean energy transition is projected to expand globally in coming years, presenting multiple risks to ecosystems and Indigenous Peoples, necessitating strong global guidelines.
But what are these minerals, what role do they play in our efforts to combat climate change, and how can we source and use them in an environmentally sustainable way? Let’s take a look!
So, what are these key minerals?
Renewable energy and electric vehicle (EV) technologies will play an important role in combating climate change. These technologies rely on key raw materials, such as lithium, cobalt, nickel, copper, manganese, graphite and rare earth elements.
These materials are often referred to as ‘critical minerals’ due to their perceived significance for national interests or ‘transition minerals’ due to their importance in the clean energy transition.
Where are they found?
While these minerals are found globally, some countries have greater reserves than others, based on geology and the economic feasibility of their extraction. The countries listed below have the highest reserves, listed from first to third.
- Lithium: Chile, Australia, Argentina
- Cobalt: Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Australia, Indonesia
- Nickel: Indonesia, Australia, Brazil
- Copper: Chile, Peru, Australia
How is mining these minerals a risk to people and the environment?
There are multiple impacts from mining minerals that are considered critical. Here are a few of them:
- In South America, mining for lithium uses millions of litres of water in and around the drought-prone Andes region, impacting Indigenous Peoples in the area.
- Small scale cobalt mining facilities in the DRC can lack safety measures, leading to fatalities, accidents and serious health issues.
- Nickel mining and processing in Indonesia is causing deforestation and coastal water pollution, in addition to Indigenous and labour rights violations and corruption.
- Global copper mining leads to mining waste in tailings dams which need to be managed carefully to avoid disasters and pollution.
So what can we do?
Some studies projecting massive increases to the demand for transition minerals in coming years are used to justify more mining. However, embracing less mineral-intensive solutions can reduce the need for mining, while still ensuring renewable energy growth.
We need to pressure governments and industries to adopt policies, practices and solutions that reduce demand while also minimising mining’s impacts.
These changes require ambition to go beyond climate action, focusing investment toward less mineral-intensive solutions like EV public transportation, advancing technology to use fewer minerals more efficiently, and expanding reuse and recycling.
What are the solutions to reduce the need for mining?
Given the problems associated with the extraction and use of transition minerals, it is important to remember four key solutions that will help limit the need for mining. They are:
- Sufficiency – prioritise a decent living standard for all while reducing the total energy and material needed across the economy,
- Efficiency – investments to help technologies do the same or better with less materials
- Substitution – remove or reduce the need for certain minerals in products by using different types of technology or energy solutions,
- Recycling – can significantly reduce environmental and social impacts compared to mining, and therefore should be maximised.
Five guiding principles on minerals for energy transition
Greenpeace has developed five key principles essential for ensuring a just and equitable energy transition that can be adapted into local contexts.
- The 1.5°C Guiding Star: We must achieve the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to no more than 1.5°C. Any use of minerals must be prioritised for a fast and green energy transition above non-essential uses, such as for military purposes.
- Just and Equitable Solutions: Justice and equity for people and the environment must be embedded in every aspect of using and sourcing materials from reducing mineral demand, to recycling and mining.
- Reduce Demand: Slowing mineral demand by adopting the concepts of sufficiency (ie. reducing the need for resources) and efficiency (ie. enhancing the effectiveness of resource use).
- Prioritise ‘Above Ground’ Materials: Recycling can significantly reduce environmental and social impacts compared to mining. Potential sources include spent batteries, production waste, household e-waste and industrial scrap piles.
- Protect Sensitive Areas and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities: While there are many initiatives pushing for improved mining practices, the industry continues to pose serious risks to people and the environment. Three requirements are proposed:
- 5.1 Protect ‘No-Go’ zones, areas where mining should not occur
- 5.2 Respect the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities
- 5.3 Companies must act responsibly, preventing and mitigating environmental damage and impacts, and respecting human rights.
Irène Wabiwa is a Biodiversity Programme Manager at Greenpeace International
Read our reports:
Minerals for Energy Transition: Greenpeace’s Guiding Principles
Batteries in Transition: Innovation, Uncertainty, and the Minerals Behind Them
-
Climate Change7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases7 months 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”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
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”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Renewable Energy5 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?