
Europe cuts methane emissions from coal mines for the first time
Methane emissions from EU coal mines have dropped for the first time, according to the latest annual report from the International Energy Agency (IEA).
The region is the first to officially constrain this major source of pollution after adopting a Methane Regulation last year. Coal mine methane emissions decreased by 8 per cent in 2024 compared to 2023.
But the greenhouse gas - which is responsible for around 30 per cent of the rise in global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution - remains a huge problem in Europe and around the world.
Record production of oil, gas and coal has kept emissions above 120 million tonnes (Mt) annually, according to the IEA's 2025 Global Methane Tracker. The analysts included abandoned wells and mines for the first time - finding that these sources contributed around 8 Mt to emissions in 2024.
The EU Methane Regulation was the world's first regulation to set a threshold on how much active underground mines, as well as abandoned and closed underground mines, can emit.
It forces the fossil fuel industry to follow measurement, reporting and verification requirements; bans routine flaring and venting; sets leak detection and repair (LDAR) mandates for all oil and gas facilities; and limits venting in thermal coal mines.
'2025 marks a pivotal year for methane mitigation, with coal mine emissions decreasing for the first time as the EU Methane Regulation for the energy sector takes effect,' says Dr Sabina Assan, methane analyst at global energy think tank Ember.
The new regulation also stipulates that by 2027, importers must demonstrate that imported fossil energy meets the same requirements.
'By ensuring that all fossil fuels meet the same methane standards, the regulation will create a level playing field between importers and domestic producers, extending the regulations' impact far beyond European coal mines,' adds Dr Assan.
This is significant, as most of the methane emissions from fossil fuels used in Europe are tied to imports.
In 2024, according to IEA's tracker, methane emissions from the supply chain for oil, gas and coal imports were around 6 Mt - nearly four times what Europe emits within its own fossil fuel sector.
Around 55 per cent of the fossil fuel methane emissions that occur within Europe come from the oil and gas sector, mostly from downstream operations. 45 per cent come from coal mines, mainly in Poland and Ukraine.
Upstream oil and gas operations are responsible for the majority of emissions in Romania and the UK. Norway and the Netherlands have the lowest upstream intensities in the world, it says, while most other countries in the region perform near the global average.
Abandoned underground coal mines constitute a significant and overlooked source of methane emissions.
Methane gas is generated when organic matter turns to coal and is buried underground in these coal seams. When mining creates a route to the surface, much of the methane escapes. If it is not plugged, these emissions can continue for decades after a mine is abandoned.
Globally, the IEA estimates that abandoned coal mines emitted nearly 5 Mt of methane in 2024, and abandoned oil and gas wells released just over 3 Mt. Combined, these sources would be the world's fourth-largest emitter of fossil fuel methane - after China, the US and Russia, and ahead of Iran, Turkmenistan and India.
Since most emissions result from mines and wells that have recently been abandoned, timely action is critical, the IEA urges. Options include plugging and monitoring wells that are no longer in use, sealing abandoned coal mines, and directing methane flows for energy use.
In total, the energy sector – including oil, natural gas, coal and bioenergy – accounts for more than 35 per cent of methane emissions from human activity.
The agriculture and waste sectors are also major sources of methane emissions, but fossil fuel supply offers the greatest potential for immediate reductions in methane emissions, the IEA notes.
Wildfires driven by climate change contribute to as many as thousands of annual deaths and billions of dollars in economic costs from wildfire smoke in the US, according to a new study.
The paper, published Friday in the journal Nature Communications Earth & Environment, found that from 2006 to 2020, climate change contributed to about 15,000 deaths from exposure to small particulate matter from wildfires and cost about $160 billion (€142bn).
The annual range of deaths was 130 to 5,100, the study showed, with the highest in states such as Oregon and California.
'We're seeing a lot more of these wildfire smoke events,' said Nicholas Nassikas, a study author and a physician and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.
So he and a multidisciplinary team of researchers wanted to know: "What does it really mean in a changing environment for things like mortality, which is kind of the worst possible health outcome?'
Lisa Thompson, a professor at Emory University who studies air pollution and climate change and was not involved in the paper, said it is one of the first studies she has seen to isolate the effect of climate change on mortality.
Looking at the impacts across time and space also made it unique, she said.
The paper's researchers focused on deaths linked to exposure to fine particulate matter, or PM2.5 - the main concern from wildfire smoke.
These particles can lodge deep into lungs and trigger coughing and itchy eyes with short-term exposure. But longer term they can make existing health problems worse and lead to a range of chronic and deadly health issues.
Children, pregnant people, the elderly and outdoor workers are among the most vulnerable. The Health Effects Institute estimated the pollutant caused 4 million deaths worldwide.
Evidence is emerging that PM2.5 from wildfire smoke is more toxic than other pollution sources.
When wildfires encroach into cities, burning cars and other toxics-containing materials, it adds to the danger.
Numerous studies have tied human-caused climate change - caused by the burning of coal, oil and gas - to a growth in fires in North America.
Global warming is increasing drought, especially in the West, and other extreme weather. Drier conditions suck moisture from plants, which act as fuel for fires. When drier vegetation and seasons are mixed with hotter temperatures, that increases the frequency, extent and severity of wildfires and the smoke they spew.
Jacob Bendix, professor emeritus of geography and environment at Syracuse University, said he was 'dismayed' by the findings but not surprised.
'[T]hese numbers are really significant. I think there's a tendency for people outside of the areas actually burning to see increasing fires as a distant inconvenience… This study drives home how far-reaching the impacts are,' said Bendix in an email. He wasn't involved in the study.
The study's authors drew on modeled and existing data to reach their findings. First, they sought to understand how much area burned by wildfires was attributable to climate change.
They did that by analysing the real climate conditions - heat and rain, for instance - when wildfires erupted from 2006 to 2020, and compared that to a scenario where weather measurements would be different without climate change.
From there, they estimated the levels of PM2.5 from wildfire smoke tied to climate change using the same approach.
Lastly, integrating the current understanding of how particulate matter affects mortality based on published research, they quantified the number of deaths related to PM2.5 from wildfires and calculated their economic impact.
This framework showed that of 164,000 deaths related to wildfire-PM2.5 exposure from 2006 to 2020, 10 per cent were attributable to climate change. The mortalities were 30 per cent to 50 per cent higher in some western states and counties.
Marshall Burke, global environmental policy professor at Stanford University, said the evidence linking climate change to burned areas was 'rock solid,' but the subsequent steps were harder.
'Linking burned area to smoke is trickier because you never know exactly which way the wind's going to blow,' he said, and he wondered how the death estimates compared to fatalities tied to general air pollution. Still, their approach was sensible and reasonable, Burke said.
Johns Hopkins University lecturer in climate and energy policy Patrick Brown said he had some concerns about the study. One was conceptual. The study acknowledges the power non-climate drivers have on wildfires, but it doesn't give them proper weight, he said in an email.
Brown, who was not involved in the study, worries decision-makers could wrongly conclude that mitigating planet-warming carbon emissions is the only solution. 'Yet in many regions, the more immediate life‑saving action may be fuel breaks, prescribed burns, ignition‑source regulation, public health efforts, etc.,' he said.
Land management practices such as prescribed burns can reduce wildfire fuel, Nassikas said. But ultimately, the study notes, the problem of deaths from wildfire smoke will only get worse without the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
'Part of the study is raising awareness," he said. 'And then once we kind of understand that… now what are the interventions that we can deploy at a personal level, at a community level, and then obviously at a larger level across the country and across the world?'
Hashtags

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


Fashion Network
3 hours ago
- Fashion Network
French Senate approves ‘anti-fast-fashion' bill chiefly targeting Shein, Temu
Louwagie said that the government will notify the European Commission of this bill even before the end of the joint parliamentary committee work that will start soon, and that the government will also work on the decrees regulating the bill's application, and notably define the thresholds that will formally identify an operator as 'ultra-express' or 'ultra-fast-fashion'. Before the vote, the representatives of the various Senate groups spoke to explain their positions on the vote. An opportunity to underline for some the positive amendments made to the bill, and its weaknesses for others. Many senators welcomed the removal of a provision of the 2022 anti-waste law on unsold goods, which allowed ultra-fast-fashion operators to benefit from tax allowances when donating unsold goods to charitable associations. The re-introduction of a blanket ban on advertising for ultra-express fashion operators was also appreciated. 'This law does not prohibit, it protects by defining what is abnormal. It protects our environment and that of our children. It protects the economy and our textile industry. We can be happy we are giving ourselves the means to achieve our goals,' said Nicole Bonnefoy, representing the Socialist, Ecologist and Republican group, adding that 'we welcome the re-introduction of article three, which will form a negotiation basis for requesting an amendment to the European e-commerce directive, so that these restrictive measures can be made to apply to companies based for example in Ireland.' Although the amendments have been approved by the groups, several points still prompted strong reservations. The introduction of the term 'ultra-express fashion' has led to much teeth-gnashing among environmental associations and sustainable fashion brands, which believe that the aim of fencing in all types of fast-fashion practices is no longer being pursued. Jacques Fernique of Ecologist group Solidarité et territoires insisted on this aspect, emphasising that the various laws will not enter into force for many months yet, since they have to be examined again by the European Commission and the joint parliamentary committee, something which won't happen before the autumn. 'Today's vote is a relatively positive step. Shein, Temu and Amazon are pushing to the extreme a business model that destroys local jobs and our city centres' appeal. But both ultra-express fast fashion and fast fashion adopt the same approach, selling transient, low-cost disposable products. This bill is targeting the ultra-fast fashion explosion, but we can't see why the penalties shouldn't potentially apply to everyone.' Fernique is campaigning for provisions that would 'push back against the kind of disposable fashion sold by foreign platforms but also by French and European companies. It's sustainable fashion that we ought to promote, regardless of the nationality of who sells it.' An issue which the majority of senators did not endorse. 'This bill has set a course. It doesn't pretend to solve everything, but it intends to draw boundaries,' said Valente Le Hir, who is affiliated with the Republican group and is the bill's rapporteur in the Senate. She has advocated for the middle ground in various issues, asserting that the Senate wants to draw up a 'stronger bill, not a travesty of it. We have said it's time to limit the excesses of express fashion without penalising those who are working towards greater sustainability in the industry. [The bill] has distinguished, within a poorly understood sector, what constitutes planned overconsumption and what constitutes sustainable innovation. We've clarified the target. We've drawn a clear line between what we want to regulate, ultra-express fast fashion as embodied by platforms like Shein and Temu, and what we want to preserve, in other words affordable, locally rooted fashion that generates jobs in France, that anchors our communities, creates connections and boosts local industry.' After the government will have sent the text over to the European Commission, the latter will have three to four months to comment. And while French MPs and senators will be working within the joint parliamentary committee, the Commission's analysis and observations will play a key role in the bill's final wording and provisions. In the meantime, the lobbying efforts that have been ongoing for months are set to continue.


France 24
5 hours ago
- France 24
Clothes at what cost? French fast fashion bill puts onus on Chinese brands
France's senate passed a bill to curb advertising and tax pollution on fast fashion, with lawmakers even talking up the distinction of ultra fast fashion - garments made in a hurry - more and more using polyester and other polluting plastics, shipped at warp speed by plane and which fall apart after only a few washes. Has the bill been partially stripped bare though? The new version seems to include a carve-out for European giants that peddle cheap clothes with the focus mostly now on China. In fact, Europeans like the Trump administration are working to close the tax loophole on the kind of small parcels that go out by the millions from small garment factories in China. And while the likes of Shein and Temu enroll big names to lobby, including a former European Commissioner and a former interior minister of Emmanuel Macron, we asked who's winning the hearts and minds of consumers in this battle over an industry that represents up to ten percent of humanity's carbon footprint.

LeMonde
6 hours ago
- LeMonde
EU, Britain strike deal on Gibraltar's post-Brexit status
The European Union and Britain on Wednesday, June 11, sealed a "historic" deal on the status of the territory of Gibraltar, five years after Brexit. The deal will ease the flow of people and goods over the Gibraltar-Spain border, forming part of London's much-vaunted "reset" in ties with Brussels. When Britain left the EU in 2020, the relationship between Gibraltar – historically an important military base for Britain due to its position at the mouth of the Mediterranean Sea – and the bloc remained unresolved. Talks between London, Madrid, Brussels and Gibraltar on a deal had made halting progress during several rounds of negotiations under Britain's previous Conservative government, but the arrival of Labour last summer gave new impetus. EU trade chief Maros Sefcovic said it was "a truly historic milestone for the European Union, including Spain, as well as for the United Kingdom and Gibraltar." "This agreement benefits everyone and will bring legal certainty and confidence to the people and businesses across the region," he said during a news conference in Brussels. He added that he was "absolutely convinced" it would be ratified by the parties because "it's a good agreement." In a statement, the four parties said the agreement would create a fluid border between Gibraltar and Spain, with no physical barriers or checks between the territory and the border town of La Linea. People arriving in the territory by air or sea would undergo dual border checks at Gibraltar port and airport, to be carried out by Gibraltar and Spanish officials. "Spanish officials will be responsible for ensuring the integrity of the Schengen Area," said a UK statement, which likened the arrangement to the system at London's St Pancras station, where French police carry out border checks for passengers bound for the EU. "Immigration and law and order in Gibraltar will remain the exclusive responsibility of Gibraltar's authorities," said the statement from Britain's Foreign Office. 'Delighted' Gibraltar "Today's breakthrough delivers a practical solution after years of uncertainty," British Foreign Minister David Lammy said in a statement. The agreement "protects British sovereignty, supports Gibraltar's economy and allows businesses to plan for the long-term once again," he added. Chief Minister of Gibraltar Fabian Picardo said he was "delighted" about the agreement that will bring "legal certainty to the people of Gibraltar, its businesses and to those across the region who rely on stability at the frontier." The deal, he said, "will protect future generations of British Gibraltarians and does not in any way affect our British sovereignty." Around 15,000 people – over half of Gibraltar's workforce, according to London – cross the land border between Spain and Gibraltar every day. Britain and Spain have disputed control of the tiny territory since it was ceded to Britain in the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht.