Earlier this month, China published its long-awaited plan to reduce methane emissions.
The document is seen as an important step for China, which is the world’s largest emitter of methane.
It has a focus on emissions from the energy, agriculture and waste sectors. It lists a series of actions, but lacks numerical targets for emissions reduction.
The action plan had been promised in the US-China joint climate statement, issued during the COP26 climate talks in 2021. It finally emerged just days before the launch this month of a new US-China “Sunnylands statement” on climate, in which China pledged to expand its next international climate pledge to cover all greenhouse gases, not just carbon dioxide (CO2).
This Q&A looks at why tackling methane is important, where China’s methane emissions come from, what is in the action plan and whether it will be successful.
The Q&A also looks at the challenges China will face and the prospects for global cooperation.
This is an extended version of a Spotlight section published in the latest issue of Carbon Brief’s China Briefing email newsletter. For the latest on China’s energy and climate policy, sign up here.
- Why is tackling methane important?
- Where do methane emissions come from in China?
- What does the methane action plan say?
- Will China’s plan be effective in curbing emissions?
- What are the most pressing challenges in curbing methane?
- What does this mean for global cooperation on methane?
Why is tackling methane important?
Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, with around 30 times the warming power of CO2 100 years after it is emitted.
It is the second-biggest contributor to current warming, responsible for around 30% of the rise in global temperatures since the industrial revolution.
Reducing methane emissions by 30% by 2030 – the target of the global methane pledge, which China is not a signatory to – is the “fastest way to reduce near-term warming” and keep 1.5C “within reach”, according to a US and EU factsheet.
Cutting methane releases during fossil fuel production to 75% below current levels by 2030 is a key “pillar” to get on track for 1.5C, says the International Energy Agency (IEA).
Methane also leads to the formation of ground-level ozone, according to the UN environment programme, exposure to which causes one million premature deaths every year.
Where do methane emissions come from in China?
China is responsible for 10% of all human-caused methane emissions, with two estimates in 2021 placing its annual output at 58m tonnes (Mt) and 65Mt, respectively, equivalent to 1.7-1.9bn tonnes of CO2 equivalent (GtCO2e).
This makes China the world’s largest emitter of the gas, according to the IEA.
Around 40% of China’s methane emissions are gas that escapes during the mining of coal, according to the Institute for Global Decarbonization Progress (iGDP), a Chinese thinktank.
Another 42% is from agriculture, including livestock and rice cultivation, says the iGDP. Different studies attribute different levels of agricultural emissions to different sources, but, generally, cattle and mid-season rice paddies are considered the largest contributors.
Meanwhile, 10% is attributed to waste and wastewater as a whole. At least 3.2Mt of methane was emitted solely from animal manure, as per China’s last official tally in 2014.
Coal-mine methane emissions are particularly challenging to detect, according to the IEA, as they are “diffuse”.
It adds that abandoned mines, which could contribute “almost one fifth” of global methane emissions, cannot be included in calculations as “reliable data” is often unavailable.
“Many of the methane sources are fugitive emissions, which are usually difficult to accurately account for,” Zhang Yuzhong, a researcher at China’s Westlake University, tells Reuters.
Climate Home reports, however, that according to Global Energy Monitor (GEM) research, “the real figure for coal-mine methane [in China] is almost double what the government claims”.
Shanxi province in northern China, the country’s largest coal-producing region, could emit as much methane from its coal mines as the rest of the world combined, according to GEM.
What does the methane action plan say?
The Methane Emission Control Action Plan, released jointly by the ministry of ecology and environment (MEE) and 10 other Chinese ministries, describes China’s approach as to “control methane emissions in a scientific, rational and orderly manner”, with a specific focus on the energy, agriculture and waste sectors.
It includes 20 “key tasks” in emissions monitoring, technological innovation, development of policy frameworks, global cooperation and other areas.
During the 15th five year plan period (2026-2030), monitoring and accounting of methane emissions will be “significantly enhanced”, it adds. Methane utilisation, emissions control technologies and policy frameworks will be “effectively improved”.
Other notable pledges include that, by 2030, oil and gas producers will “strive” to “gradually” eliminate flaring, and utilisation of coal mine methane will reach 6bn cubic metres annually.
This “corresponds to about 10%” of the coal-mining sector’s total methane emissions, says Lauri Myllyvirta, lead analyst at Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA).
(While current levels of coal-mine methane utilisation are unknown, various Chinese oil and gas giants, including Sinopec, PetroChina and the China National Offshore Oil Corporation, have been “actively promoting methane emission reduction”, say two researchers from the Central University of Finance and Economics (CUFE) in China.)
In agriculture, the methane emissions intensity per unit of agricultural product will “steadily decline”. “Utilisation” of livestock waste will reach 80% by 2025 and 85% by 2030.
The document calls for control of both enteric fermentation – the digestive process in ruminant livestock – and methane emissions from rice paddies. The language around rice is more tentative, with calls for control to be pursued “in an orderly manner”.
Will China’s plan be effective in curbing emissions?
The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), a global NGO with a significant presence in China, has written on WeChat it believes that, “in the long term”, the plan will provide “a clear guiding framework” and better coordination of methane reduction efforts in China.
EDF also points to the role that the plan’s alignment with carbon trading policy could play in methane reduction, by helping to establish “a monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) system” for the gas. This could underpin a methodology for methane in the “China Certified Emission Reductions” (CCER) mechanism, China’s voluntary carbon market.
Dr Teng Fei, deputy director of the Institute of Energy, Environment and Economy at Tsinghua University, has similarly identified the impact on carbon trading in comments to China Dialogue.
In his view, China needs to establish either binding emissions standards or subsidies for methane utilisation through carbon markets, saying that, without the incentive, “policy targets will be hard to deliver”.
Dr Chen Meian, program director and senior analyst at iGDP, tells Carbon Brief that some of the sector-specific targets in the plan “can help China to reduce methane emissions”, particularly from coalbed methane, livestock manure, sewage sludge and landfill waste.
However, she adds, it is “difficult” for China to set hard targets at this point.
“China is still facing challenges in methane emission data monitoring and data collection”, she says, “[which is why] China also listed the improvement of methane emissions MRV as one of its key tasks”.
Others are less convinced. The plan is “too ambiguous”, “descriptive” and lacking in quantitative targets, Refinitiv lead carbon analyst Yan Qin tells Reuters.
What are the most pressing challenges in curbing methane?
Developing technological solutions to reduce methane emissions from the agriculture sector and sewage treatment will be “crucial” to achieve carbon neutrality, iGDP tells the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post. (China’s 2060 carbon neutrality target includes all greenhouse gas emissions, according to climate envoy Xie Zhenhua.)
Methods to cut down methane emissions in the agriculture and waste sectors are already in practice in China, including system of rice intensification (SRI), using drought-resistant rice, installing digesters in farms to utilise biogas – for example, in electricity generation – and optimising livestock feed to reduce enteric fermentation.
However, many of these methods are challenging to scale. SRI “isn’t practical”, according to China Dialogue, as farmers found it confusing.
Cattle farms “tend to be small-scale and use non-standardised methods”, researchers at the Feed Research Institute of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences tell the outlet, making it hard to assess emissions and plan accordingly.
Nevertheless, methods that reduce methane through efficiency gains or monetising emissions cuts could gain more traction.
“I don’t have strong feelings about climate change, melting ice caps or rising sea levels”, one farm executive tells China Dialogue, “but I believe waste has its value…That’s why I’m interested.”
The challenge lies in resolving the “large initial investment, insignificant short-term returns and high levels of technical risk” that deter companies from implementing methane utilisation projects, according to CUFE.
Challenges measuring methane emissions from coal mines also complicate China’s methane mitigation efforts. Ember’s methane analyst Anatoli Smirnov tells Climate Home that the “only real solution to reduce methane emissions is to close coal mines”.
The outlet also quotes CREA’s Myllyvirta saying there is a lack of “political will and buy-in” to curb methane in China. He states that China stopped releasing methane emissions figures in 2014, which he believes was to avoid calling attention to the “huge increase” in emissions since the Paris Agreement.
“I think China is trying to be realistic in target-setting [for its] coal-sector emissions,” Chen tells Carbon Brief. She adds that China “used to set ambitious targets” for coalbed methane capture and utilisation in its five-year plans, but that it repeatedly missed them.
She adds:
“This is in part due to coal mine safety concerns and a lack of cost-effective technologies in methane capture and use for low-concentration coalbed methane (with methane concentration of less than 30%) and ventilation air methane, which is the largest source of methane emissions in China’s energy sector.”
The MEE itself has signalled a cautious approach to curbing methane emissions. In a press conference covered by BJX News, it says that its implementation of the plan will “give full consideration to the actual affordability [of methane utilisation]…and take easy steps before difficult ones”.
One next step, the MEE adds, is to “strengthen coordination” between departments and define different stakeholders’ responsibilities.
Chen agrees that it would be important for local governments to “set their own methane plans…tailored to local conditions” and to improve data monitoring.
What does this mean for global cooperation on methane?
A week after the plan was released, the US and Chinese climate envoys John Kerry and Xie Zhenhua issued a declaration on enhancing climate cooperation, known as the “Sunnylands statement”.
It includes commitments to establish a working group that will look at several areas of cooperation, including methane emissions, and to create another working group to focus on “building on” their current national methane plans.
In addition, the pair have committed to include “actions/targets” on methane reduction in their nations’ next climate pledges under the Paris Agreement, which will also cover other non-CO2 greenhouse gases. They will host, with the UAE, a summit on non-CO2 gases at COP28.
COP28 president-designate Sultan Al Jaber said China’s announcement was a “crucial step for global climate action”, the Financial Times reports.
At COP26, China and the US issued a joint declaration committing to cooperate on a variety of climate change issues, including methane emissions.
In this 2021 declaration, China committed to issuing a national action plan on methane emissions. It finally released the plan just days before the Sunnylands statement.
“Methane is particularly important for our cooperation,” US climate envoy John Kerry told a US congressional hearing in July, according to Reuters.
Li Shuo, director of the China climate hub at the Asia Society Policy Institute, has described China’s decision to publish the plan as “a goodwill gesture”, Bloomberg reports.
While it is “too early to tell” what other outcomes for bilateral methane cooperation might be, without China’s plan there “certainly wouldn’t have been further deals”, he adds.
However, differences in the sources of the US and China’s methane emissions could hamper cooperation. Teng tells China Dialogue that the main source of EU and US methane emissions is oil and gas, compared to coal mining for China.
Tackling coal-mining methane emissions is harder and more costly than oil and gas, analysts told Carbon Brief in 2020. This could be why China has not signed up to the global methane pledge, which may be easier for the EU and US to meet, says Teng.
The post Q&A: What does China’s new methane plan mean for its climate goals? appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Q&A: What does China’s new methane plan mean for its climate goals?
N.C. Gov. Josh Stein wants state lawmakers to rethink tax breaks for data centers. The industry’s opacity makes it difficult to evaluate costs and benefits.
Tax breaks for data centers in North Carolina keep as much as $57 million each year into from state and local government coffers, state figures show, an amount that could balloon to billions of dollars if all the proposed projects are built.
The Global Environment Facility (GEF), a multilateral fund that provides climate and nature finance to developing countries, has raised $3.9 billion from donor governments in its last pledging session ahead of a key fundraising deadline at the end of May.
The amount, which is meant to cover the fund’s activities for the next four years (July 2026-June 2030), falls significantly short of the previous four-year cycle for which the GEF managed to raise $5.3bn from governments. Since then, military and other political priorities have squeezed rich nations’ budgets for climate and development aid.
The facility said in a statement that it expects more pledges ahead of the final replenishment package, which is set for approval at the next GEF Council meeting from May 31 to June 3.
Claude Gascon, interim CEO of the GEF, said that “donor countries have risen to the challenge and made bold commitments towards a more positive future for the planet”. He added that the pledges send a message that “the world is not giving up on nature even in a time of competing priorities”.
-
UK imports of “green” jet fuel linked to Amazon deforestation
A Texas refinery shipping sustainable aviation fuel to Europe has sourced beef tallow with links to a meatpacking firm fined over illegal cattle purchases -
Italy pushes coal exit back after gas prices rise
Analysts say the move sends a negative signal, but its impact will be limited given coal’s marginal role in Italy’s energy mix
Donors under pressure
But Brian O’Donnell, director of the environmental non-profit Campaign for Nature, said the announcement shows “an alarming trend” of donor governments cutting public finance for climate and nature.
“Wealthy nations pledged to increase international nature finance, and yet we are seeing cuts and lower contributions. Investing in nature prevents extinctions and supports livelihoods, security, health, food, clean water and climate,” he said. “Failing to safeguard nature now will result in much larger costs later.”
At COP29 in Baku, developed countries pledged to mobilise $300bn a year in public climate finance by 2035, while at UN biodiversity talks they have also pledged to raise $30bn per year by 2030. Yet several wealthy governments have announced cuts to green finance to increase defense spending, among them most recently the UK.
As for the US, despite Trump’s cuts to international climate finance, Congress approved a $150 million increase in its contribution to the GEF after what was described as the organisation’s “refocus on non-climate priorities like biodiversity, plastics and ocean ecosystems, per US Treasury guidance”.
The facility will only reveal how much each country has pledged when its assembly of 186 member countries meets in early June. The last period’s largest donors were Germany ($575 million), Japan ($451 million), and the US ($425 million).
The GEF has also gone through a change in leadership halfway through its fundraising cycle. Last December, the GEF Council asked former CEO Carlos Manuel Rodriguez to step down effective immediately and appointed Gascon as interim CEO.
Santa Marta conference: fossil fuel transition in an unstable world
New guidelines
As part of the upcoming funding cycle, the GEF has approved a set of guidelines for spending the $3.9bn raised so far, which include allocating 35% of resources for least developed countries and small island states, as well as 20% of the money going to Indigenous people and communities.
Its programs will help countries shift five key systems – nature, food, urban, energy and health – from models that drive degradation to alternatives that protect the planet and support human well-being by integrating the value of nature into production and consumption systems.
The new priorities also include a target to allocate 25% of the GEF’s budget for mobilising private funds through blended finance. This aligns with efforts by wealthy countries to increase contributions from the private sector to international climate finance.
Niels Annen, Germany’s State Secretary for Economic Cooperation and Development, said in a statement that the country’s priorities are “very well reflected” in the GEF’s new spending guidelines, including on “innovative finance for nature and people, better cooperation with the private sector, and stable resources for the most vulnerable countries”.
Aliou Mustafa, of the GEF Indigenous Peoples Advisory Group (IPAG), also welcomed the announcement, adding that “the GEF is strengthening trust and meaningful partnerships with Indigenous Peoples and local communities” by placing them at the “centre of decision-making”.
The post GEF raises $3.9bn ahead of funding deadline, $1bn below previous budget appeared first on Climate Home News.
GEF raises $3.9bn ahead of funding deadline, $1bn below previous budget
Tropical cyclones that rapidly intensify when passing over marine heatwaves can become “supercharged”, increasing the likelihood of high economic losses, a new study finds.
Such storms also have higher rates of rainfall and higher maximum windspeeds, according to the research.
The study, published in Science Advances, looks at the economic damages caused by nearly 800 tropical cyclones that occurred around the world between 1981 and 2023.
It finds that rapidly intensifying tropical cyclones that pass near abnormally warm parts of the ocean produce nearly double – 93% – the economic damages as storms that do not, even when levels of coastal development are taken into account.
One researcher, who was not involved in the study, tells Carbon Brief that the new analysis is a “step forward in understanding how we can better refine our predictions of what might happen in the future” in an increasingly warm world.
As marine heatwaves are projected to become more frequent under future climate change, the authors say that the interactions between storms and these heatwaves “should be given greater consideration in future strategies for climate adaptation and climate preparedness”.
‘Rapid intensification’
Tropical cyclones are rapidly rotating storm systems that form over warm ocean waters, characterised by low pressure at their cores and sustained winds that can reach more than 120 kilometres per hour.
The term “tropical cyclones” encompasses hurricanes, cyclones and typhoons, which are named as such depending on which ocean basin they occur in.
When they make landfall, these storms can cause major damage. They accounted for six of the top 10 disasters between 1900 and 2024 in terms of economic loss, according to the insurance company Aon’s 2025 climate catastrophe insight report.
These economic losses are largely caused by high wind speeds, large amounts of rainfall and damaging storm surges.
Storms can become particularly dangerous through a process called “rapid intensification”.
Rapid intensification is when a storm strengthens considerably in a short period of time. It is defined as an increase in sustained wind speed of at least 30 knots (around 55 kilometres per hour) in a 24-hour period.
There are several factors that can lead to rapid intensification, including warm ocean temperatures, high humidity and low vertical “wind shear” – meaning that the wind speeds higher up in the atmosphere are very similar to the wind speeds near the surface.
Rapid intensification has become more common since the 1980s and is projected to become even more frequent in the future with continued warming. (Although there is uncertainty as to how climate change will impact the frequency of tropical cyclones, the increase in strength and intensification is more clear.)
Marine heatwaves are another type of extreme event that are becoming more frequent due to recent warming. Like their atmospheric counterparts, marine heatwaves are periods of abnormally high ocean temperatures.
Previous research has shown that these marine heatwaves can contribute to a cyclone undergoing rapid intensification. This is because the warm ocean water acts as a “fuel” for a storm, says Dr Hamed Moftakhari, an associate professor of civil engineering at the University of Alabama who was one of the authors of the new study. He explains:
“The entire strength of the tropical cyclone [depends on] how hot the [ocean] surface is. Marine heatwave means we have an abundance of hot water that is like a gas [petrol] station. As you move over that, it’s going to supercharge you.”
However, the authors say, there is no global assessment of how rapid intensification and marine heatwaves interact – or how they contribute to economic damages.
Using the International Best Track Archive for Climate Stewardship (IBTrACS) – a database of tropical cyclone paths and intensities – the researchers identify 1,600 storms that made landfall during the 1981-2023 period, out of a total of 3,464 events.
Of these 1,600 storms, they were able to match 789 individual, land-falling cyclones with economic loss data from the Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT) and other official sources.
Then, using the IBTrACS storm data and ocean-temperature data from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, the researchers classify each cyclone by whether or not it underwent rapid intensification and if it passed near a recent marine heatwave event before making landfall.
The researchers find that there is a “modest” rise in the number of marine heatwave-influenced tropical cyclones globally since 1981, but with significant regional variations. In particular, they say, there are “clear” upward trends in the north Atlantic Ocean, the north Indian Ocean and the northern hemisphere basin of the eastern Pacific Ocean.
‘Storm characteristics’
The researchers find substantial differences in the characteristics of tropical cyclones that experience rapid intensification and those that do not, as well as between rapidly intensifying storms that occur with marine heatwaves and those that occur without them.
For example, tropical cyclones that do not experience rapid intensification have, on average, maximum wind speeds of around 40 knots (74km/hr), whereas storms that rapidly intensify have an average maximum wind speed of nearly 80 knots (148km/hr).
Of the rapidly intensifying storms, those that are influenced by marine heatwaves maintain higher wind speeds during the days leading up to landfall.
Although the wind speeds are very similar between the two groups once the storms make landfall, the pre-landfall difference still has an impact on a storm’s destructiveness, says Dr Soheil Radfar, a hurricane-hazard modeller at Princeton University. Radfar, who is the lead author of the new study, tells Carbon Brief:
“Hurricane damage starts days before the landfall…Four or five days before a hurricane making landfall, we expect to have high wind speeds and, because of that high wind speed, we expect to have storm surges that impact coastal communities.”
They also find that rapidly intensifying storms have higher peak rainfall than non-rapidly intensifying storms, with marine heatwave-influenced, rapidly intensifying storms exhibiting the highest average rainfall at landfall.
The charts below show the mean sustained wind speed in knots (top) and the mean rainfall in millimetres per hour (bottom) for the tropical cyclones analysed in the study in the five days leading up to and two days following a storm making landfall.
The four lines show storms that: rapidly intensified with the influence of marine heatwaves (red); those that rapidly intensified without marine heatwaves (purple); those that experienced marine heatwaves, but did not rapidly intensify (orange); and those that neither rapidly intensified nor experienced a marine heatwave (blue).
Dr Daneeja Mawren, an ocean and climate consultant at the Mauritius-based Mascarene Environmental Consulting who was not involved in the study, tells Carbon Brief that the new study “helps clarify how marine heatwaves amplify storm characteristics”, such as stronger winds and heavier rainfall. She notes that this “has not been done on a global scale before”.
However, Mawren adds that other factors not considered in the analysis can “make a huge difference” in the rapid intensification of tropical cyclones, including subsurface marine heatwaves and eddies – circular, spinning ocean currents that can trap warm water.
Dr Jonathan Lin, an atmospheric scientist at Cornell University who was also not involved in the study, tells Carbon Brief that, while the intensification found by the study “makes physical sense”, it is inherently limited by the relatively small number of storms that occur. He adds:
“There’s not that many storms, to tease out the physical mechanisms and observational data. So being able to reproduce this kind of work in a physical model would be really important.”
Economic costs
Storm intensity is not the only factor that determines how destructive a given cyclone can be – the economic damages also depend strongly on the population density and the amount of infrastructure development where a storm hits. The study explains:
“A high storm surge in a sparsely populated area may cause less economic damage than a smaller surge in a densely populated, economically important region.”
To account for the differences in development, the researchers use a type of data called “built-up volume”, from the Global Human Settlement Layer. Built-up volume is a quantity derived from satellite data and other high-resolution imagery that combines measurements of building area and average building height in a given area. This can be used as a proxy for the level of development, the authors explain.
By comparing different cyclones that impacted areas with similar built-up volumes, the researchers can analyse how rapid intensification and marine heatwaves contribute to the overall economic damages of a storm.
They find that, even when controlling for levels of coastal development, storms that pass through a marine heatwave during their rapid intensification cause 93% higher economic damages than storms that do not.
They identify 71 marine heatwave-influenced storms that cause more than $1bn (inflation-adjusted across the dataset) in damages, compared to 45 storms that cause those levels of damage without the influence of marine heatwaves.
This quantification of the cyclones’ economic impact is one of the study’s most “important contributions”, says Mawren.
The authors also note that the continued development in coastal regions may increase the likelihood of tropical cyclone damages over time.
Towards forecasting
The study notes that the increased damages caused by marine heatwave-influenced tropical cyclones, along with the projected increases in marine heatwaves, means such storms “should be given greater consideration” in planning for future climate change.
For Radfar and Moftakhari, the new study emphasises the importance of understanding the interactions between extreme events, such as tropical cyclones and marine heatwaves.
Moftakhari notes that extreme events in the future are expected to become both more intense and more complex. This becomes a problem for climate resilience because “we basically design in the future based on what we’ve observed in the past”, he says. This may lead to underestimating potential hazards, he adds.
Mawren agrees, telling Carbon Brief that, in order to “fully capture the intensification potential”, future forecasts and risk assessments must account for marine heatwaves and other ocean phenomena, such as subsurface heat.
Lin adds that the actions needed to reduce storm damages “take on the order of decades to do right”. He tells Carbon Brief:
“All these [planning] decisions have to come by understanding the future uncertainty and so this research is a step forward in understanding how we can better refine our predictions of what might happen in the future.”
The post Marine heatwaves ‘nearly double’ the economic damage caused by tropical cyclones appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Marine heatwaves ‘nearly double’ the economic damage caused by tropical cyclones
-
Climate Change8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases8 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
-
Renewable Energy6 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits