
Gas flaring created 389 million tonnes of carbon pollution last year, report finds
The fossil fuel industry pumped an extra 389 million tonnes of carbon pollution into the atmosphere last year by needlessly flaring gas, a World Bank report has found, in an 'enormous waste' of fuel that heats the planet by about as much as the country of France.
Flaring is a way to get rid of gases such as methane that arise when pumping oil out of the ground. While it can sometimes keep workers safe by relieving buildups of pressure, the practice is routine in many countries because it is often cheaper to burn gas than to capture, transport, process and sell it.
Global gas flaring rose for a second year in a row to reach its highest level since 2007, the report found, despite growing concerns about energy security and climate breakdown.
It found that 151 billion cubic metres (bcm) of gas were burned during oil and gas production in 2024, up by 3bcm from the year before.
'Flaring is needlessly wasteful,' said Zubin Bamji, the manager of the World Bank's Global Flaring and Methane Reduction partnership (GFMR), which wrote the report. '[It's] a missed opportunity to strengthen energy security and improve access to reliable power.'
In many cases, observers complain, the rules to prevent needless flaring are weak and poorly enforced, and companies have little incentive to stop doing it because they do not have to pay for the pollution it causes.
The report found that nine countries – Russia, Iran, Iraq, the US, Venezuela, Algeria, Libya, Mexico and Nigeria – were responsible for three-quarters of all gas flaring in 2024. Most of the worst offenders were countries with state-owned oil companies.
Despite efforts to stop the practice, the intensity of flaring – the volume flared per barrel of oil produced – had remained 'stubbornly high' over the last 15 years, the report found.
Flaring intensity in Norway, one of the cleanest oil and gas producers, is 18 times lower than in the US, and 228 times lower than in Venezuela, according to the data.
Andrew Baxter, an oil and gas expert at the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund, who was not involved in the report, said it was 'deeply disappointing' to see a return to the gas flaring levels of 2007.
'Such levels of flaring are an egregious waste of resources,' he said. '[They] are catastrophic for climate and human health.'
The International Energy Agency has called for the elimination of all flaring except in emergencies by 2030. The value of gas flared last year, which would have been worth about US$63 billion at EU import prices for 2024, is more than half of the upfront costs that the IEA says are needed to stop the practice altogether.
Jonathan Banks, a methane expert at the nonprofit Clean Air Task Force, who was not involved in the report, said solutions were well known and often cost-effective. 'What is missing is the political will and regulatory pressure to implement them at scale.'
The report highlighted areas of progress, pointing to some oil and gas producers, such as Angola, Egypt, Indonesia and Kazakhstan, that had successfully reduced the amount of gas flared.
Kazakhstan, which has levied steep fines on companies that break the rules, had reduced flaring by 71 per cent since 2012.
Banks said: 'We need more of this kind of action and more support to help lower-income, high-flaring nations overcome infrastructure and governance barriers.
'We also need global coordination, particularly from major oil importers, to create incentives that reward responsible producers and raise the bar for everyone.'
The report, which used satellite data to estimate flared gas, was produced by the GFMR, which is made up of some of the world's most polluting governments and companies.
Its funders include European energy firms such as BP, Eni, Equinor, Shell and TotalEnergies, as well as major oil-producing countries such as the US, Norway and the United Arab Emirates.
The group has encouraged countries and companies to end routine flaring by 2030. According to the report, countries that endorsed the World Bank's Zero Routine Flaring by 2030 initiative have on average reduced their flaring intensity by 12 per cent since 2012, though absolute volumes have fallen only slightly in that time, while countries that have not made the pledge increased their flaring intensity by 25 per cent.
'Reducing gas flaring is not without challenges,' said Bamji. 'It requires upfront investment, adequate infrastructure, strong regulatory frameworks and sustained political will.'
If those conditions were in place, countries could significantly cut flaring, 'often while unlocking new sources of revenue and improving energy access'.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


National Observer
25-07-2025
- National Observer
BP to sell US onshore wind business as it shifts back to oil
This story was originally published by The Guardian and appears here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration BP has agreed to a deal to sell off its onshore wind business in the US as the oil multinational turns its back on renewable energy after a failed attempt to go green. The company said it would sell its share of 10 wind farms, which generate enough clean energy to power more than 500,000 US homes, to the New York-headquartered LS Power. The terms of BP's deal with the power and energy infrastructure company were not disclosed. However, the value of the wind farms, nine of which are operated by BP, is understood to be lower than the US$2 billion (£1.5 billion) valuation estimated for BP's onshore wind business in the past. The sale is part of BP's plan to offload US$20 billion in assets 'to simplify and focus the business' after a failed attempt to reinvent the oil multinational as a net-zero energy company, and as it comes under pressure over its sluggish share price. BP said it was 'no longer the best owners' to take the wind business forward. Renewable energy in the US has faced increasing pressure under Donald Trump's presidency. The deal emerged weeks after one of the architects of BP's failed green agenda, Giulia Chierchia, stepped down from her role as executive in charge of sustainability strategy to 'pursue other opportunities' outside the company as it shifted back towards oil and gas production. She will not be replaced at BP, the company said. Amid increasing pressure from President Donald Trump and a sluggish share price, the oil multinational says it is no longer the best owner to take its onshore wind business forward. BP's botched green ambitions have contributed to a collapse in the company's share price over recent years, which has made the 120-year-old company easy prey. Shell was forced last month to deny market speculation that it planned to snap up its smaller rival. Shell has lost almost a third of its market value in the past year and is now worth about £58 billion. Its reported interest in BP emerged months after the activist hedge fund Elliott Management amassed a stake in the company to agitate for changes to BP's strategy and its board. So far, the turnaround plan spearheaded by BP's chief executive, Murray Auchincloss, has failed to convince investors that the company can recover from a difficult few years during which its rivals have thrived by focusing on fossil fuels while global markets have been volatile. Auchincloss plans to shore up BP's balance sheets by completing $3 to 4 billion of divestments this year, and has already agreed to deals worth $1.5bn. He is expected to set out further progress on the divestment drive alongside the company's financial results for the second quarter in the first week of August. Meanwhile, BP is searching for a new chair to replace Helge Lund. William Lin, the head of the company's gas and low-carbon energy business, said: 'We have been clear that while low-carbon energy has a role to play in a simpler, more focused BP, we will continue to rationalise and optimise our portfolio to generate value. 'The onshore US wind business has great assets and fantastic people, but we have concluded we are no longer the best owners to take it forward.'


National Observer
25-07-2025
- National Observer
Gas flaring created 389 million tonnes of carbon pollution last year, report finds
This story was originally published by The Guardian and appears here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration The fossil fuel industry pumped an extra 389 million tonnes of carbon pollution into the atmosphere last year by needlessly flaring gas, a World Bank report has found, in an 'enormous waste' of fuel that heats the planet by about as much as the country of France. Flaring is a way to get rid of gases such as methane that arise when pumping oil out of the ground. While it can sometimes keep workers safe by relieving buildups of pressure, the practice is routine in many countries because it is often cheaper to burn gas than to capture, transport, process and sell it. Global gas flaring rose for a second year in a row to reach its highest level since 2007, the report found, despite growing concerns about energy security and climate breakdown. It found that 151 billion cubic metres (bcm) of gas were burned during oil and gas production in 2024, up by 3bcm from the year before. 'Flaring is needlessly wasteful,' said Zubin Bamji, the manager of the World Bank's Global Flaring and Methane Reduction partnership (GFMR), which wrote the report. '[It's] a missed opportunity to strengthen energy security and improve access to reliable power.' In many cases, observers complain, the rules to prevent needless flaring are weak and poorly enforced, and companies have little incentive to stop doing it because they do not have to pay for the pollution it causes. The report found that nine countries – Russia, Iran, Iraq, the US, Venezuela, Algeria, Libya, Mexico and Nigeria – were responsible for three-quarters of all gas flaring in 2024. Most of the worst offenders were countries with state-owned oil companies. Despite efforts to stop the practice, the intensity of flaring – the volume flared per barrel of oil produced – had remained 'stubbornly high' over the last 15 years, the report found. Flaring intensity in Norway, one of the cleanest oil and gas producers, is 18 times lower than in the US, and 228 times lower than in Venezuela, according to the data. Andrew Baxter, an oil and gas expert at the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund, who was not involved in the report, said it was 'deeply disappointing' to see a return to the gas flaring levels of 2007. 'Such levels of flaring are an egregious waste of resources,' he said. '[They] are catastrophic for climate and human health.' The International Energy Agency has called for the elimination of all flaring except in emergencies by 2030. The value of gas flared last year, which would have been worth about US$63 billion at EU import prices for 2024, is more than half of the upfront costs that the IEA says are needed to stop the practice altogether. Jonathan Banks, a methane expert at the nonprofit Clean Air Task Force, who was not involved in the report, said solutions were well known and often cost-effective. 'What is missing is the political will and regulatory pressure to implement them at scale.' The report highlighted areas of progress, pointing to some oil and gas producers, such as Angola, Egypt, Indonesia and Kazakhstan, that had successfully reduced the amount of gas flared. Kazakhstan, which has levied steep fines on companies that break the rules, had reduced flaring by 71 per cent since 2012. Banks said: 'We need more of this kind of action and more support to help lower-income, high-flaring nations overcome infrastructure and governance barriers. 'We also need global coordination, particularly from major oil importers, to create incentives that reward responsible producers and raise the bar for everyone.' The report, which used satellite data to estimate flared gas, was produced by the GFMR, which is made up of some of the world's most polluting governments and companies. Its funders include European energy firms such as BP, Eni, Equinor, Shell and TotalEnergies, as well as major oil-producing countries such as the US, Norway and the United Arab Emirates. The group has encouraged countries and companies to end routine flaring by 2030. According to the report, countries that endorsed the World Bank's Zero Routine Flaring by 2030 initiative have on average reduced their flaring intensity by 12 per cent since 2012, though absolute volumes have fallen only slightly in that time, while countries that have not made the pledge increased their flaring intensity by 25 per cent. 'Reducing gas flaring is not without challenges,' said Bamji. 'It requires upfront investment, adequate infrastructure, strong regulatory frameworks and sustained political will.' If those conditions were in place, countries could significantly cut flaring, 'often while unlocking new sources of revenue and improving energy access'.


National Observer
24-07-2025
- National Observer
Trump and the energy industry are eager to power AI with fossil fuels
This story was originally published by Wired and appears here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration AI IS 'NOT my thing,' President Donald Trump admitted during a speech in Pittsburgh on Tuesday. However, the president said during his remarks at the Energy and Innovation Summit, his advisers had told him just how important energy was to the future of AI. 'You need double the electric of what we have right now, and maybe even more than that,' Trump said, recalling a conversation with 'David'—most likely White House AI czar David Sacks, a panelist at the summit. 'I said, what, are you kidding? That's double the electric that we have. Take everything we have and double it.' At the high-profile summit on Tuesday — where, in addition to Sacks, panelists and attendees included Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, Google president and chief investment officer Ruth Porat and ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods — companies announced $92 billion in investments across various energy and AI-related ventures. These are just the latest in recent breakneck rollouts in investment around AI and energy infrastructure. A day before the Pittsburgh meeting, Mark Zuckerberg shared on Threads that Meta would be building 'titan clusters' of data centers to supercharge its AI efforts. The one closest to coming online, dubbed Prometheus, is located in Ohio and will be powered by onsite gas generation, SemiAnalysis reported last week. For an administration committed to advancing the future of fossil fuels, the location of the event was significant. Pennsylvania sits on the Marcellus and Utica shale formations, which supercharged Pennsylvania's fracking boom in the late 2000s and early 2010s. The state is still the country's second-most prolific natural gas producer. Pennsylvania-based natural gas had a big role at the summit: The CEO of Pittsburgh-based natural gas company EQT, Toby Rice — who dubs himself the 'people's champion of natural gas' — moderated one of the panels and sat onstage with the president during his speech. All this new demand from AI is welcome news for the natural gas industry in the US, the world's top producer and exporter of liquefied natural gas. Global gas markets have been facing a mounting supply glut for years. Following a warm winter last year, Morgan Stanley predicted gas supply could reach 'multi-decade highs' over the next few years. A jolt of new demand — like the demand represented by massive data centers — could revitalize the industry and help drive prices back up. Natural gas from Pennsylvania and the Appalachian region, in particular, has faced market challenges both from ultra-cheap natural gas from the Permian Basin in Texas and New Mexico as well as a lack of infrastructure to carry supply out of the region. These economic headwinds are 'why the industry is doing their best to sort of create this drumbeat or this narrative around the need for AI data centers,' says Clark Williams-Derry, an energy finance analyst at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. It appears to be working. Pipeline companies are already pitching new projects to truck gas from the northeast — responding, they say, to data center demand. At a Pennsylvania conference last week, the US president did his best to wed the futures of AI and fossil fuels — but not everyone in the tech sector is on board with embracing the latter. The industry is finding a willing partner in the Trump administration. Since taking office, Trump has used AI as a lever to open up opportunities for fossil fuels, including a well-publicized effort to resuscitate coal in the name of more computing power. The summit, which was organized by Republican senator (and former hedge fund CEO) Dave McCormick, clearly reflected the administration's priorities in this regard: No representatives from any wind or solar companies were present on any of the public panels. Tech companies, which have expressed an interest in using any and all cheap power available for AI and have quietly pushed back against some of the administration's anti-renewables positions, aren't necessarily on the same page as the Trump administration. Among the announcements made at the summit was a $3 billion investment in hydropower from Google. This demand isn't necessarily driven by a big concern for the climate — many tech giants have walked back their climate commitments in recent years as their focus on AI has sharpened — but rather pure economics. Financial analyst Lazard said last month that installing utility-scale solar panels and batteries is still cheaper than building out natural gas plants, even without tax incentives. Gas infrastructure is also facing a global shortage that makes the timescales for setting up power generation vastly different. 'The waiting list for a new turbine is five years,' Williams-Derry says. 'If you want a new solar plant, you call China, you say, 'I want more solar.'' Given the ideological split at the summit, things occasionally got a little awkward. On one panel, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, who headed up a fracking company before coming to the federal government, talked at length about how the Obama and Biden administrations were on an 'energy crazy train,' scoffing at those administrations' support for wind and solar. Speaking directly after Wright, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink admitted that solar would likely support dispatchable gas in powering AI. Incredibly, fellow panel member Woods, the ExxonMobil CEO, later paid some of the only lip service to the idea of drawing down emissions heard during the entire event. (Woods was touting the oil giant's carbon capture and storage business.) Still, the hype train, for the most part, moved smoothly, with everyone agreeing on one thing: We're going to need a lot of power, and soon. Blackstone CEO Jonathan Gray said that AI could help drive '40 or 50 percent more power usage over the next decade,' while Porat, of Google, mentioned some economists' projections that AI could add $4 trillion to the US economy by 2030. It's easy to find any variety of headlines or reports—often based on projections produced by private companies—projecting massive growth numbers for AI. 'I view all of these projections with great skepticism,' says Jonathan Koomey, a computing researcher and consultant who has contributed to research around AI and power. 'I don't think anyone has any idea, even a few years hence, how much electricity data centers are gonna use.' In February, Koomey coauthored a report for the Bipartisan Policy Center cautioning that improvements in AI efficiency and other developments in the technology make data center power load hard to predict. But there's 'a bunch of self-interested actors,' Koomey says, involved in the hype cycle around AI and power, including energy executives, utilities, consultants and AI companies. Koomey remembers the last time there was a hype bubble around electricity, fossil fuels and technology. In the late 1990s, a variety of sources, including investment banks, trade publications and experts testifying in front of Congress, began to spread hype around the growth of the internet, claiming that the internet could soon consume as much as half of US electricity. More coal-fired power, many of these sources argued, would be needed to support this massive expansion. ('Dig More Coal—The PCs Are Coming' was the headline of a 1999 Forbes article that Koomey cites as being particularly influential to shaping the hype.) The prediction never came to pass, as efficiency gains in tech helped drive down the internet's energy needs; the initial projections were also based, Koomey says, on a variety of faulty calculations. Koomey says that he sees parallels between the late 1990s and the current craze around AI and energy. 'People just need to understand the history and not fall for these self-interested narratives,' he says. There's some signs that the AI-energy bubble may not be inflating as much as Big Tech thinks: in March, Microsoft quietly backed out of 2GW of data center leases, citing a decision to not support some training workloads from OpenAI. 'It can both be true that there's growth in electricity use and there's a whole bunch of people hyping it way beyond what is likely to happen,' Koomey says.