Latest news with #EUMethaneRegulation
Euronews
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Euronews
Climate killer methane: On the hunt for natural gas leaks with Theo
Théophile Humann-Guilleminot grabs his 100,000 euro suitcase, a special high-tech camera: "Today we are going on the hunt for methane emissions in Croatia. We analyse oil and natural gas plants." Thermal imaging technician Theo works for the international climate protection organisation CATF and has already undertaken 500 "methane hunts" from Romania to Spain. He always found what he was looking for! Methane is responsible for a third of global warming. In a 20-year comparison, methane is even 80 times more harmful to the climate than CO2. Agriculture, poorly sealed landfill sites and the use of fossil fuels are the main man-made sources. Compared to pre-industrial levels, the methane content in the atmosphere has risen by 260 per cent. Since 2000, so much methane has been added every year that the climate damage is as great as that caused by 350 million cars. If nothing changes, the Earth could become up to four degrees Celsius hotter by the end of the century. Methane escapes particularly during the extraction, processing, transport, distribution and storage of natural gas. The climate killer is released into the air from boreholes and flaring, as well as from leaking pipelines and compressor stations. Together with 159 partner countries, the European Union has committed to reducing methane emissions worldwide by a third between 2020 and 2030. The EU Methane Regulation, which has been in force since summer 2024, is intended to help with this: Theo has set up his special camera in front of a processing plant in Velika Ludina, right on the edge of the village: "I'm afraid we'll discover leaks in the storage tanks, they look dilapidated." Instead of feeding methane back into the system, some companies prefer to invest in new oil and gas fields, which brings higher profits in the short term. The problem often lies with subcontractors - or there is a lack of technical knowledge and goodwill. Workers wearing gas masks move between the valve wheels and tanks. Théophile looks at his detector: "A leak! This is madness! That's intentional, they know they're releasing this gas." One of the tank caps has been opened, "they want to let the oil breathe", explains CATF expert Theo, the system is "ventilated", the methane is released into the ambient air. "The new methane regulation in Europe states that this practice is prohibited," emphasises Theo. A few kilometres further on, in the middle of the small town of Dugo Selo, we discover a flame, a kind of "waste product" of oil extraction and processing. Suddenly we hear a hiss, and the flame is now several metres high. "This practice of flaring is prohibited in the EU," says Theo. "We have had the EU Methane Regulation since August 2024, and burning gas in this way is not legal." In Paris, I meet the methane expert from the International Energy Agency, Tomás de Oliveira Bredariol. How can methane emissions be prevented from being concealed? "There is satellite data. We also need measurements on the ground," says de Oliveira. Independent supervisory authorities should be involved here. But aren't methane emissions completely inadequately recorded? De Oliveira agrees: "If we combine all officially reported emissions, we arrive at 40 million tonnes of methane emissions from the oil and gas sector. Our own IEA estimate is 80 million tonnes of methane, which is twice as much!" And why is methane so dangerous? De Oliveira: "Methane is responsible for around 30 per cent of global warming to date. Methane emissions from fossil fuels are expected to fall by 25 % by 2030. That is a far cry from what we need, namely a reduction of 75 per cent." EU member states and industry sectors are concerned over the inclusion of aircraft on the list of US products targeted in retaliatory measures under preparation in Brussels, according to MEP Bernd Lange (Germany/S&D), chair of the Parliament's Trade Committee. 'The big part [on the list] is the question of aircraft," said Lange, flagging that the sector would form part of the ongoing trade negotiation with the US, especially since there remains residual trade aggravation between the two sides following a protracted dispute over subsidies to Boeing and Airbus. On 8 May the European Commission proposed a list of US products worth €95 billion that could be hit with EU counter-tariffs should Washington maintain trade barriers following a 90-day pause declared by US president Donald Trump in the trade war he launched in mid-March. Among targeted entities is US airspace champion Boeing. The list is now the subject of consultation with EU industry sectors, and the member states are trying to defend those of strategic importance to their economies by negotiating the withdrawal of certain US products for fear of reprisals. Shortly after the EU countermeasures were presented, the US administration announced an investigation into the aircraft sector, which could directly threaten European champion Airbus. France, Germany, Spain, where Airbus produces aircraft, fear US retaliation. For 17 years, the EU and the US were locked in a bitter battle over state subsidies to their respective aerospace giants — Airbus and Boeing. The saga began with a 1992 agreement designed to regulate government support for the two aircraft giants. But by 2004, Washington had grown dissatisfied, accusing the EU of unfairly subsidising Airbus. The US withdrew from the deal and launched a formal complaint at the WTO. What followed was a drawn-out legal and diplomatic confrontation, which reached its peak during the first Trump administration. In 2019, the WTO authorised the US to impose tariffs on nearly $7.5 billion worth of EU goods and services annually. A year later, in 2020, the pendulum swung in the EU's favour. The WTO granted Brussels the right to impose tariffs on US imports in response to subsidies received by Boeing. In 2021, a breakthrough was announced: both sides agreed to suspend the tariffs, marking a temporary truce. However, the détente is only set to last until 2026. Last week saw evidence of some movement in the negotiations over the trade dispute: the US sent a letter to the EU which replied. Since mid-March the US has imposed 25% tariffs on EU steel, aluminium and cars and 10% on all EU imports to the US. Brussels prepared retaliatory tariffs but suspended them following Trump's announcement of a 90-Day truce. However, if the negotiation fails, EU tariffs will be implemented and a fresh list of tariffs against US goods will be presented.
Yahoo
09-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
2025 is ‘a pivotal year for methane mitigation' in EU thanks to world-first rules. What's changing?
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. Related Methane could make or break the world's global warming limit. Where in Europe is it leaking most? 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. Related Coca-Cola and Unilever among dozens of plastic brands tied to Texas fracking, investigation reveals 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. Related Flooded and forgotten: How Europe's disused coal mines are successfully being used to heat our homes 83 per cent of 5-year-olds will be exposed to 'unprecedented' extreme heat in their lifetime 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.
Euronews
08-05-2025
- Business
- Euronews
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?'
Reuters
28-03-2025
- Business
- Reuters
Commentary: US LNG exporters could hit methane snag in Europe
March 28 - The Trump administration's broad policy goal of achieving 'energy dominance', opens new tab may run into headwinds in the country's largest export market, the European Union, due to new methane regulations. While European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has indicated that the EU may be willing to import more U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG), in part to reduce the bloc's trade deficit with the U.S., making this happen could get complicated. First, many utilities in the EU are hesitant about signing long-term LNG contracts, opens new tab given the uncertainty, opens new tab about the region's future gas demand and the price impact of the product's expected supply growth, opens new tab in the coming years. Rapidly deteriorating political relations with Washington are also not helping. Another complicating factor is the EU Methane Regulation, opens new tab that was adopted in August 2024. This framework established rules and obligations for companies operating in the EU related to monitoring, reporting, and verifying methane emissions as well as deterring and addressing methane leaks. This framework did not emerge in a vacuum. A major effort has been underway globally to better measure and monitor methane emissions associated with fossil fuel production and transport, as illustrated by forums such as the Global Methane Pledge, opens new tab, the Oil and Gas Methane Partnership, opens new tab, and the Oil and Gas Decarbonization Charter, opens new tab. The U.S. was previously part of this movement. The Biden Administration adopted a set of measures, including a methane fee, to curtail so-called 'fugitive' methane emissions from oil and gas systems through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)., opens new tab But the efforts in the U.S. are now facing headwinds in the early days of the Trump administration. PESSIMISTIC SCENARIO Going into 2025, the optimistic view was that the framework installed by the previous administration could be amended to make sure that U.S. LNG exporters could benefit from looser rules in the U.S. while still being able to compete in the global marketplace with a supposedly superior product. Unfortunately, early indications are that a more pessimistic scenario is playing out. In February, the U.S. Senate repealed the aforementioned fee on excess fugitive methane emissions, though the outright elimination of these fees is proving more difficult, opens new tab due to other stipulations in the IRA. More fundamentally, President Trump, in one of his executive orders, opens new tab, urged the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to challenge and possibly rescind the Agency's 2009 endangerment finding, which concluded that six types of greenhouse gas emissions pose a threat to public health and welfare. The EPA may face legal and scientific barriers, opens new tab if it tries to rescind this finding, as the EPA's authority and obligations to regulate GHG emissions have been cemented in the Clean Air Act through the IRA. But even talk about a change of this magnitude is generating significant uncertainty among U.S. energy producers, especially LNG exporters who still need to comply with stricter environmental rules in Europe. PATH FORWARD So what is next for U.S. LNG? Global demand for natural gas is robust and likely to remain so for decades. And U.S. LNG companies, which tend to have a long-term focus given the lengthy lead time of their projects, are apt to look beyond the Trump administration and seek to abide by European environmental standards to further cement their growing market share there. It is notable that American companies have been among the few to constructively engage with Brussels to find a pragmatic path to implement the current methane rules. However, U.S. natural gas supply chains are incredibly complex, and technologies to help detect and mitigate GHG emissions are by no means perfect. Consequently, improving the environmental footprint of U.S. LNG will be a long-term process. And that process may now be severely disrupted, so it will likely come down to the industry itself to make progress, possibly in close collaboration with lawmakers and regulators in jurisdictions like the EU. On the U.S. side, the LNG industry could push the Trump Administration to preserve the IRA's tax credits for carbon capture and storage (CCUS) technology, which Secretary of Energy Chris Wright seems to support, opens new tab, as do many oil and gas companies, opens new tab. And natural gas producers and shippers could make it clear how disruptive, and thus counterproductive, it would be for the endangerment finding to be rescinded. In a less constructive scenario, U.S. policymakers could mirror their counterparts in Qatar, who in December indicated to the European Commission that LNG exports would be halted if the country's state-owned company were to be fined under the bloc's corporate sustainability directive. The White House could also push back against the EU Methane Regulation or make it part of larger tariff negotiations, opens new tab. U.S. gas producers, LNG exporters, and EU lawmakers have an interest in preventing a zero-sum showdown, but it remains unclear how they will navigate this unfamiliar energy landscape where, at least politically, the U.S. and EU are moving further apart. (The views expressed here are those of Dr. Gautam Jain, a Senior Research Scholar at the Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP) of Columbia University, and Dr. Tim Boersma, a consultant and a Fellow at CGEP.)
