Road to COP29: Who's delivering on the global methane pledge?

For a long time, no one spoke much about methane. In the climate conversation, carbon dioxide took centre stage. That isn’t surprising: carbon dioxide was (and remains) the greatest contributor to global warming, and we’re rightly – if not with sufficient urgency – attempting to address it. But methane, thanks to the work of a relatively small number of climate thinkers and private companies, as well as the advent of Earth Observation technologies, is now seen, correctly, as the major threat and potent greenhouse gas that it is. Methane’s warming power over its first 20 years in the earth’s atmosphere is more than 80 times that of carbon dioxide.

It was with this in mind that the Global Methane Pledge (GMP) was first introduced at COP26. It commits its signatories to cut global methane emissions by at least 30% from 2020 levels by 2030. And more and more countries have added their names to the list of signatories in the years since then. Now, with COP29 just over the horizon, the question on everyone’s lips is: How are we doing? Are methane emissions being cut? Or, more bluntly, who’s keeping their promises – and who isn’t?

Big on ambition

But let’s step back for a second. Last year, at COP28, where we were in attendance as part of Emmanuel Macron’s delegation, we witnessed a large number of talks on methane, as well as several major pledges. As the creators of Methane Watch, this was music to our ears: the US promised to cut methane emissions from oil and gas operations by nearly 80% below predicted future levels. The EU adopted its first-ever methane legislation, putting in place tough criteria for both domestically produced and imported fossil fuels; this included a methane import standard to be introduced by 2030. Canada said it would slash methane emissions in the upstream oil and gas sector by 75% below 2012 levels by 2030​. So far, so good.

But as we all know, saying something and doing it are different. Fulfilling these ambitious promises isn’t straightforward. Indeed, ambitious pledges often lack any systematic plan for honouring them. The Clean Air Task Force concluded in a report that big promises often fail.

Promising signs

Some countries have made meaningful progress. The EU has put in place strict methane regulations that include monitoring and mitigation for both domestically produced and imported fossil fuels as well as mandatory leak checks and a ban on venting and flaring practices. This was decided following a period of consultation with a number of organisations, including us at Kayrros. Their approach shows real leadership, and should be seen as a model for others looking to assemble a regulatory framework for methane reductions. Given the struggles that other countries have had following through on their promises, it should be celebrated. 

But the EU is an exception. Brazil has set guidelines for methane reduction in its oil and gas sector. So too has Egypt. Nigeria has taken big strides with its Nigeria Gas Flare Commercialization Program (NGFCP), which aims to capture over half of all gas flaring volumes in the country. Their goals are admirable, and that matters. But these and other countries must work hard to ensure they move beyond the planning stages and show concrete progress.

Failing to follow through

It isn’t just that some countries are failing to bring down methane fast enough. Some are repeat offenders in respect of massive methane leaks – methane leaks which, in some cases, are comparable in emissions terms to driving about 700,000 petrol cars for a year. Kazakhstan is a case in point. The country signed the GMP last year, yet has failed to enforce the needed regulations. When the Karaturun field, operated by one of Kazakhstan’s largest oil producers, exceeded permissible levels by 480 times, the punishment was a paltry $780,000 – nothing in the grand scheme of things, and certainly not enough to serve as a deterrent or end the negligence that led to one of the biggest methane leaks in history.

What’s frustrating is that methane emissions are actually relatively simple and relatively cheap to address. We have mapped all of the world’s super-emitters: we know where the worst emissions originate. And methane reduction technology is highly cost-effective and can be introduced swiftly. If you were to fix the leaks in oil and gas infrastructure that cause so much harm to the planet, and instead capture the gas that might otherwise be flared, you wouldn’t just be doing the planet a favour. You’d be making more money than you spent. Methane abatement activities are some of the best possible forms of climate action that we can take. We just need to see them taken.

A little less talk, a little more action

As New York Climate Week’s 2024 theme – ‘It’s Time’ – suggests, we need to stop talking and start doing. We need to set attainable goals and develop comprehensive plans, of course, but now we must execute them. Where possible, we need to share what we’ve learned with our friends abroad, or, as in the EU’s case, simply model good climate policy and lead by example. After 12 consecutive months of breaching the 1.5 degree limit, we have very little time to lose. There is an opportunity here to slash our methane emissions and start to regain control of the climate situation. Let’s take that opportunity.