Europe cuts methane emissions from coal mines for the first time

Euronews

08-05-2025

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?'