Trascrizione completa di METHANE. Mitigation: How Do You Solve a Problem like Methane?

Methane Emissions Observatory, and I've been working on this issue of methane mitigation for about 10 years with various organizations, also with the Environmental Defense Fund, which has to a very large extent put this issue on the agenda. 00:06:12.639 --> 00:06:15.120 And before that, I spent a decade with Shell. 00:06:15.439 --> 00:06:20.720 I was the head of the LNG business, and at the time nobody knew what LNG was, but that somewhat changed. 00:06:20.959 --> 00:06:23.839 I was also the head of sustainable development for the Shell Group. 00:06:24.000 --> 00:06:35.040 Going backwards, originally I'm a theoretical physicist, and I've always been interested in system change, and I've written a number of books on the consequences of complex systems on public policy. 00:06:35.360 --> 00:06:41.040 I mentioned two principles in the founding of IMEO, one being the prioritization of data. 00:06:41.199 --> 00:06:42.560 Why was this so important? 00:06:43.040 --> 00:06:56.000 One of the curious things about the entire climate space is that we have a lot of science detail about how much greenhouse gases are in the atmosphere, so how much is emitted globally. 00:06:56.319 --> 00:07:01.199 But there is very little data about where it exactly comes from. 00:07:01.439 --> 00:07:09.920 And so what we've done is we've taken these global numbers, and those have been allocated back to countries and industries and sectors and so on. 00:07:10.160 --> 00:07:19.759 But you we shouldn't be surprised that then countries and sectors actually have relatively little ownership of the numbers because it's an allocation game through emission factors. 00:07:20.160 --> 00:07:22.639 What do you mean by emission factors? 00:07:23.199 --> 00:07:29.120 So basically, we use averages, an average factor across all sorts of assets. 00:07:29.759 --> 00:07:31.360 And that's the way we run it. 00:07:31.439 --> 00:07:39.759 And so the big idea behind the observatory is in order to fix something, you know you need to know what the exact emissions are at a specific site. 00:07:40.000 --> 00:07:49.120 And that allows the people who run those sites to then prioritize actions and know what the particular problems are at that specific site. 00:07:49.279 --> 00:07:50.879 That is what IMEO is. 00:07:50.959 --> 00:07:58.240 It's the place where methane emission data will be assembled under the flag of the UN with all its neutrality. 00:07:58.399 --> 00:08:06.639 You know, if you want to know what the trusted source of methane data, empirical methane data is, then that's where you go. 00:08:07.199 --> 00:08:12.639 Speak to anyone about the methane emissions issue, and this question of data will likely come up. 00:08:12.959 --> 00:08:18.639 The more we investigate and gather data, the more we realize the problem is much bigger than we thought. 00:08:18.879 --> 00:08:32.559 Two studies in the US, for example, recently found that the actual emissions of methane from one region's oil and gas operators were six times higher than the emissions that were being reported using emission factors and estimates. 00:08:32.799 --> 00:08:38.879 The Romanian study of oil and gas, which we talked about in episode three, found similar discrepancies. 00:08:39.039 --> 00:08:44.799 Measured emissions were almost five times higher than those that had been estimated by the IEA. 00:08:44.960 --> 00:08:52.240 Here's Raul Kazan from 2Celsius talking to me about it when we first started discussing the idea of creating this podcast. 00:08:52.879 --> 00:08:55.759 The thing is that that we we do not have data. 00:08:55.840 --> 00:09:00.720 You know, this is also really the scarcity of data is is a big, big problem. 00:09:01.360 --> 00:09:06.720 And when data is not there, companies are just like uh happy with this ignorance. 00:09:07.759 --> 00:09:11.360 So that's the first problem that the observatory seeks to resolve. 00:09:11.519 --> 00:09:13.600 But what about the second principle? 00:09:14.080 --> 00:09:17.759 Why does change need to be agent-centric? 00:09:18.559 --> 00:09:31.360 So you need to figure out who do you need to do something different on a Monday morning as opposed to a Friday evening, and figure out how do we change the context so that that individual can act differently. 00:09:31.600 --> 00:09:40.320 You know, a lot of the narratives around climate action are about influencing policymakers and getting CEOs to sign up to stuff and ministers, etc. 00:09:40.639 --> 00:09:44.080 And all of these people obviously matter, but they're contextual. 00:09:44.320 --> 00:09:48.000 They're context to the person who actually needs to do the thing. 00:09:48.159 --> 00:09:49.679 They're not the actors. 00:09:49.840 --> 00:09:50.799 They're important, right? 00:09:50.879 --> 00:09:55.440 I'm not mocking them at all, but we have to think of them as context. 00:09:55.679 --> 00:10:04.399 So those are the two elements that went into IMEO design is this idea of a trusted source of data that's essential for collective action. 00:10:04.559 --> 00:10:07.600 And the other thing is make it agent-centric. 00:10:07.759 --> 00:10:10.480 Those are the two elements of IMEO. 00:10:11.440 --> 00:10:21.360 Giving that responsibility to workers and managers who are actually on site is a priority because of the nature of methane emissions from oil and gas. 00:10:21.519 --> 00:10:25.200 They're not a byproduct of burning gas, they are the gas. 00:10:25.360 --> 00:10:34.399 It's practices on these plants like using the right valves, checking for leaks, monitoring the efficiency of flaring that will bring the emissions down. 00:10:34.720 --> 00:10:40.879 For example, there's this fan, there's this amazing project that happened in the Dutch North Sea a couple of years ago. 00:10:41.039 --> 00:10:44.639 The government signed a covenant, is a typical Dutch policy thing. 00:10:44.720 --> 00:10:47.840 You don't regulate, but you sign a covenant with industry. 00:10:48.320 -->

00:10:56.720 So they signed a covenant with the oil and gas industry that they would reduce their methane emissions in the North Sea platforms by 50% in two years. 00:10:57.120 --> 00:10:59.200 And this was off a pretty good base, right? 00:10:59.279 --> 00:11:00.879 Because they weren't sloppily run. 00:11:00.960 --> 00:11:03.679 I mean, it's, you know, it was a reasonable environment. 00:11:03.919 --> 00:11:06.000 And they managed to deliver that. 00:11:06.080 --> 00:11:10.799 And I asked the person who managed the projects, who's an X Shell engineer. 00:11:10.960 --> 00:11:12.960 I said, you know, how did you do this? 00:11:13.200 --> 00:11:15.600 And he said, Well, you know, it's quite simple. 00:11:15.840 --> 00:11:22.559 We actually went and talked to the people who run the platforms and said, You know, what's going on here? 00:11:22.720 --> 00:11:24.399 What's the what's this venting thing? 00:11:24.559 --> 00:11:26.080 Why are you venting methane? 00:11:26.320 --> 00:11:34.159 And they know, they know where it vents, and they said, Well, it's because, you know, these guys from headquarters forced us to put this valve in. 00:11:34.240 --> 00:11:36.799 It's the wrong valve, but they won't listen to us. 00:11:37.039 --> 00:11:48.080 And because they, in a sense, gave more agency to the people, the blue-collar workers and not the white-collar workers, they gave them more agency and and a budget. 00:11:48.159 --> 00:11:52.480 So they swapped out the valve and they don't even no longer need it to vent. 00:11:52.720 --> 00:12:01.039 Part of it is getting better empirical data, but part of it is also, you know, listening to the people who actually run the kit. 00:12:01.600 --> 00:12:12.320 If that sounds simple, it's because for a lot of it, it is, which is why methane emissions from oil and gas are considered such low-hanging fruit in the methane fight. 00:12:12.720 --> 00:12:18.799 I mean, our chief scientist says that, you know, half of the emissions can be fixed by a guy with a wrench. 00:12:18.960 --> 00:12:22.879 And and this is a powerful image because it's actually true. 00:12:23.120 --> 00:12:26.799 A lot of this is is you know, is really silly stuff. 00:12:27.039 --> 00:12:29.279 Valves that are open that should be closed. 00:12:29.519 --> 00:12:33.200 Of course, you know, when you get to the second 50%, it becomes harder, right? 00:12:33.279 --> 00:12:38.480 You have to swap out, you have to have different equipment and design, etc., and it becomes more difficult. 00:12:38.720 --> 00:12:41.919 But the initial reductions tend to be really easy. 00:12:42.240 --> 00:12:52.480 According to the International Energy Agency, or the IEA, up to 70% of the emissions from oil and gas could be mitigated at no net cost to the industry. 00:12:52.720 --> 00:12:54.240 But enough about the theory. 00:12:54.480 --> 00:12:57.039 What does IMAO look like in practice? 00:12:57.279 --> 00:13:01.840 In its day-to-day operations, it has three main work streams. 00:13:02.080 --> 00:13:15.919 One is the funding and development of the sorts of scientific studies that we heard about in Romania to not only get a more accurate data picture, but also to enable local operators to know where they can start to reduce. 00:13:16.080 --> 00:13:22.559 The second focus is the coordination of satellite data, which is becoming invaluable for methane mitigation. 00:13:23.120 --> 00:13:32.960 The third is an industry partnership framework to encourage companies to start to monitor, report, and verify their own emissions independently. 00:13:33.200 --> 00:13:37.919 This is known as the oil and gas methane partnership, or OGMP. 00:13:38.320 --> 00:13:45.759 As you'll hear, the theory of change underpinning OGMP is very much in the spirit of partnership and cooperation. 00:13:46.080 --> 00:13:50.639 The industry partnerships obviously get a lot of attention and rightly so. 00:13:50.720 --> 00:13:52.000 So maybe let's move on to that. 00:13:52.080 --> 00:13:56.000 What is OGMP and how does it help? 00:13:56.399 --> 00:14:03.919 So OGMP is what's referred technically referred to as an MRV system, which is measurement, uh, reporting and verification. 00:14:04.080 --> 00:14:28.080 So essentially, companies sign up an MOU with UNEP, and they promise to do a certain number of things, which is to measure the emissions at each of their assets according to a methodology that we've defined, together with the world's methane scientists and with the companies, etc., there's quite a specific methodology that you need to follow. 00:14:28.320 --> 00:14:38.399 They report the emissions and we verify them using satellites and consistency checks, and then we publish annually the aggregated reports. 00:14:38.559 --> 00:14:48.080 So for every company, we we publish in an extensive annual report what their measurements have been the past year and also the quality of those measurements. 00:14:48.159 --> 00:14:53.600 And this is really important because the first year we expect the quality to be poor. 00:14:53.919 --> 00:14:56.240 This is what we call level one reports. 00:14:56.399 --> 00:15:01.440 And so we say these are numbers, but they're poor quality numbers. 00:15:01.759 --> 00:15:11.039 And it takes a number of years for companies to move from poor quality measurements to high quality measurements because these it's not easy, and these are very large companies. 00:15:11.279 --> 00:15:23.759 So we're not only transparent about the emission numbers, but also what the quality of those numbers are, which I think is really crucial because it means that the uncertainty margin is very, very large. 00:15:24.320 --> 00:15:27.200 Can I just ask, though, with that quality question? 00:15:27.440 --> 00:15:31.440 I mean, some of these companies, obviously you want to work in partnership with them, right? 00:15:31.519 --> 00:15:36.000 So you want to say, yeah, it's okay if at the beginning you're level one and your data is is poor. 00:15:36.240

--> 00:15:39.600 But should we give them such a free pass for poor quality data? 00:15:39.759 --> 00:15:44.720 They have the money, they know how to, you know, they do a lot of complex things on site at asset level. 00:15:44.879 --> 00:15:48.240 Why is it so hard for them to measure methane emissions? 00:15:49.360 --> 00:15:51.600 Because it's hard and it takes time, right? 00:15:51.679 --> 00:16:05.120 You need to create the capacity that guides and the you know the contracts with service providers to do this on one or two sites really well and then then roll it out to the next ones. 00:16:05.279 --> 00:16:07.120 And that just takes a number of years. 00:16:07.279 --> 00:16:11.440 And it's really important to recognize that industrial reality, right? 00:16:11.519 --> 00:16:17.759 If you're operating in dozens of countries around the world, you know, you you can't turn on a dime. 00:16:17.840 --> 00:16:19.679 This this really takes a while. 00:16:19.759 --> 00:16:26.240 And you know, for example, to develop you know a major oil or gas operation takes a decade. 00:16:26.399 --> 00:16:28.399 They also don't do that in six months. 00:16:28.559 --> 00:16:31.759 You know, these things really are complex and they just take time. 00:16:32.399 --> 00:16:33.279 Why do they join? 00:16:33.440 --> 00:16:34.480 Why do companies sign up? 00:16:34.559 --> 00:16:35.360 What's in it for them? 00:16:35.759 --> 00:16:37.039 There are a number of reasons. 00:16:37.360 --> 00:16:46.399 One is that the societal license to operate gas really is they recognize that it's increasingly tied to this. 00:16:46.559 --> 00:16:46.799 Right? 00:16:46.879 --> 00:16:55.440 You you you know, an oil and gas company can be forgiven for producing a fuel that that emits CO2 because that's what they do, and we use it. 00:16:55.679 --> 00:16:59.360 But losing a lot of it along the way is really embarrassing. 00:16:59.759 --> 00:17:09.359 And and you know, the people who work in these companies also have friends and kids, etc., who ask them, you know, so what do you do about the climate? 00:17:09.519 --> 00:17:11.119 Because it's eminently avoidable. 00:17:11.359 --> 00:17:14.640 We we have companies that are near zero emitters. 00:17:14.880 --> 00:17:16.160 So it is possible. 00:17:16.480 --> 00:17:27.440 The current iteration of OGMP, sometimes referred to as OGMP 2.0 because it replaced an earlier version, has now been around for about two and a half years. 00:17:27.680 --> 00:17:29.359 What progress has been made? 00:17:29.920 --> 00:17:38.880 Today we cover almost 40% of the world's oil and gas production, as well as chunks of the downstream and pipelines, etc. 00:17:39.200 --> 00:17:45.279 And so we cover, for example, almost 80% of the world's LNG flows are included in OGMP. 00:17:45.440 --> 00:17:48.400 So it's quite strong coverage. 00:17:48.720 --> 00:17:50.400 Who still needs to join? 00:17:50.559 --> 00:17:56.880 Notably, Exxon and Chevron are not part of uh and not for lack

of discussing with them. 00:17:57.039 --> 00:18:00.559 And then all these companies are essentially the small ones, right? 00:18:00.720 --> 00:18:03.119 Exxon and Shell are small companies. 00:18:03.359 --> 00:18:08.799 The big ones are the Gazproms and the Aramcos are much, much, much larger. 00:18:09.039 --> 00:18:11.920 The state-owned, the large state-owned companies. 00:18:12.079 --> 00:18:14.079 And there are quite a few who are members. 00:18:14.160 --> 00:18:25.599 So it's Petronas, Petrobras, Ecopetrol, and there's quite a long list of, and so it's not that this is just an alliance of, you know, a bunch of Western companies. 00:18:25.759 --> 00:18:29.839 It's very global and it's very diverse in terms of its membership. 00:18:30.079 --> 00:18:33.039 And we're signing up companies almost every week, right? 00:18:33.119 --> 00:18:35.200 So we've only started two years ago. 00:18:35.279 --> 00:18:40.559 So to get from zero to 40% of the world's production is not so bad in two years. 00:18:40.960 --> 00:18:41.920 Not bad at all. 00:18:42.160 --> 00:18:45.599 And since our interview, ExxonMobil has joined too. 00:18:46.000 --> 00:18:49.440 I find OGMP is a very interesting model. 00:18:49.759 --> 00:18:52.079 It is a new model in climate diplomacy. 00:18:52.240 --> 00:19:05.039 I mean in diplomacy in general, you know, in these sort of treaties are very original and they might actually work because that's a way of putting companies and states, but mostly companies, in front of each other. 00:19:05.200 --> 00:19:18.559 And they will learn from one another, you know, and focus on direct measurements and have at least have an idea where they stand, you know, and knowing that they already can do something about it. 00:19:19.279 --> 00:19:21.759 But like everything, there are challenges. 00:19:22.319 --> 00:19:27.599 It was exciting to see ExxonMobil come on board, but some of the other state-owned groups that Dr. 00:19:27.759 --> 00:19:36.720 Cooper's mentioned, like Gazprom, the Russian Gas Company, and Aramco, the Saudi Arabian oil company, have shown little interest. 00:19:37.039 --> 00:19:47.359 One study that looked into the barriers to getting good MRV in place found that companies tend to not want to spend money that they can avoid spending, even if they have it. 00:19:47.519 --> 00:19:51.200 And remember, this is the UN's flagship methane program. 00:19:51.680 --> 00:19:59.680 While there are plans afoot to expand to other sectors, for now its focus is very much what's in the name, oil and gas. 00:20:00.000 --> 00:20:01.759 Here's chemo down again. 00:20:02.319 --> 00:20:11.920 Does something like OGMP not work as something like a structure in terms of giving, if not countries, then companies at least a framework? 00:20:12.319 --> 00:20:12.880 Absolutely. 00:20:13.119 --> 00:20:18.559 OGMP is kind of the state-of-the-art monitoring and reporting framework, but that's just for the energy sector. 00:20:18.640 --> 00:20:23.119 And methane is

also emitted by in the agriculture sector and in the waste sector. 00:20:23.279 --> 00:20:30.960 And obviously, it's super important to put a lot of emphasis on the energy sector because it's the low-hanging fruit, but we can't just overlook agriculture and waste. 00:20:31.039 --> 00:20:34.960 And we need to provide some kind of framework for those sectors as well. 00:20:35.359 --> 00:20:45.200 OGMP has been used, is used already, and it's great, but we would need to kind of figure something out kind of similar for waste and agriculture. 00:20:46.000 --> 00:20:52.799 Voluntary initiatives can get a lot of early momentum, but often for actual change, you need a little more force. 00:20:52.960 --> 00:20:54.400 In short, regulation. 00:20:54.559 --> 00:20:58.640 Deborah Gordon is another voice you may recognize from the last episode. 00:20:58.799 --> 00:21:06.160 She's based at Brown University in the States and is a senior principal at the US-based climate NGO RMI. 00:21:06.880 --> 00:21:08.960 It needs to be in regulation. 00:21:09.119 --> 00:21:11.839 It can't be left voluntarily to be done. 00:21:12.079 --> 00:21:13.599 That's what we found with the sector. 00:21:13.759 --> 00:21:19.920 It's fine to start with voluntary efforts like you know OGMP and Yes, exactly. 00:21:20.000 --> 00:21:24.240 Like the industry will lean in to certification or OGMP 2.0. 00:21:24.400 --> 00:21:31.599 But the reality is that that's a good first step, but the real durability of that is regulation that's enforceable. 00:21:35.519 --> 00:21:41.200 This is where we turn to next, and one example of methane regulation in particular. 00:21:47.519 --> 00:22:09.039 In November 2023, just before the start of the COP28 summit, the three different bodies of the European Union the Commission, the Council, and the Parliament, agreed to the text of a New landmark methane regulation, which was the first of its kind for the union, and globally was the most stringent law on methane emissions to date. 00:22:09.200 --> 00:22:16.640 It took almost two years of negotiations, under the pressure, of course, of intense lobbying from multiple interest groups. 00:22:16.880 --> 00:22:22.960 So, how did the regulation evolve and where might it succeed or fail relative to OGMP? 00:22:23.359 --> 00:22:26.799 Kim O'Dowd was close to the process the whole way through. 00:22:27.279 --> 00:22:33.839 So it covers the oil, gas, and coal sector and includes monitoring and reporting measures and mitigation measures. 00:22:33.920 --> 00:22:48.480 For monitoring and reporting, it kind of follows the OGMP 2.0 framework, which is with extended timeframe, like to reach level 5 OGMP, it's longer than what the OGMP requires to the participants. 00:22:48.640 --> 00:22:52.400 For mitigation, we have provision on leak detection and repair. 00:22:52.559 --> 00:22:55.119 Then you have limits to venting and flaring, which is good. 00:22:55.279 --> 00:22:57.680 And it introduces also standards. 00:22:57.759 --> 00:23:03.519 So basically, you have to replace components that are venting by design, so that's quite positive. 00:23:03.759 --> 00:23:16.000 For inactive wells, which a lot of people don't know, but once you stop using oil or gas well, it can continue to emit quite a lot of methane emissions if it's not properly sealed or plugged. 00:23:16.160 --> 00:23:27.440 And that causes a risk for like for climate, obviously, because methane is emitted, but also for groundwater pollution, and also it's just a risk of explosion because it's just gas. 00:23:28.079 --> 00:23:33.759 And here we actually don't have a clear picture of how many inactive wells there is in Europe. 00:23:34.400 --> 00:23:43.359 So the regulation asks member states to do an inventory of all their wells and to develop mitigation plans to properly seal those wells. 00:23:43.839 --> 00:23:47.440 Already then there are aspects that can't be covered by OGMP. 00:23:47.680 --> 00:23:52.640 Leak detection and repair schedules force companies to check for leaks more regularly. 00:23:52.880 --> 00:24:01.680 Limits to venting and flaring make it illegal to have flares below certain efficiency levels or components that vent when they don't have to. 00:24:02.000 --> 00:24:13.440 If incentives and voluntary approaches don't work, legal performance standards can be enforced at least, and are far more likely to be adhered to under a regulatory framework than a voluntary one. 00:24:13.680 --> 00:24:20.319 Downsides, it's way more costly and requires quite a high institutional capacity to enforce. 00:24:20.880 --> 00:24:27.200 There are relatively few places where you produce oil and gas where you can have effective regulation. 00:24:27.759 --> 00:24:28.160 Right? 00:24:28.240 --> 00:24:36.160 The regulation in the US and in Europe will be, you know, okay to good or whatever it ends up being. 00:24:36.559 --> 00:24:47.759 But if we wait for effective regulation in, you know, in Libya and Iran, in Nigeria, and Kazakhstan, the places where a lot of the emissions are, it's not going to be on time. 00:24:47.839 --> 00:24:53.680 And that's why the kind of principle-based agreement that we have in OGMP is really important. 00:24:54.160 --> 00:25:00.480 I think we really need to have both and not simplify the world to saying, oh, regulation is the solution. 00:25:00.720 --> 00:25:03.119 It matters, but it's not the only thing that matters. 00:25:03.599 --> 00:25:05.200 And it doesn't come as easy. 00:25:05.440 --> 00:25:12.400 Jutta Paulus is a member of the European Parliament for the coalition group known as the Greens and the European Free Alliance. 00:25:12.640 --> 00:25:18.319 She was one of the co-rapporteurs responsible for drafting the Parliament's position paper on the regulation. 00:25:18.480 --> 00:25:24.160 Jutta's well known in the Parliament and among campaign groups for her ambition on environmental policy. 00:25:24.960 --> 00:25:31.359 We have the so-called oil and gas methane partnership,

which is something which occurs at UN level. 00:25:31.440 --> 00:25:41.200 So you have UN and you have industry and you have certain, let's call them, self-obligations on monitoring, reporting, verifying methane emissions. 00:25:41.599 --> 00:25:47.359 And what we're doing here, we're basically putting ODMP into European law. 00:25:47.599 --> 00:25:53.839 So any company who has signed OGMP could really not complain about this regulation. 00:25:54.640 --> 00:25:56.319 But complain they have. 00:25:56.559 --> 00:26:09.359 While the standards within the oil and gas methane partnership weren't really challenged at all, things change when it comes to regulation, and the EU methane regulation met with fierce opposition from industry on almost every level. 00:26:09.599 --> 00:26:15.920 We approached several companies and industry bodies for comment, but unfortunately weren't given a direct statement. 00:26:16.160 --> 00:26:20.160 But here's a flavor of the position of some oil and gas producers. 00:26:20.799 --> 00:26:30.319 Nothing existed in Europe on this, and even at member state level, there was little legislation targeted specifically on methane emissions. 00:26:30.480 --> 00:26:34.400 So we agree and support that such a regulation needs to be developed. 00:26:34.559 --> 00:26:40.799 But it's technically very complex because it goes into the very details of our operations. 00:26:41.039 --> 00:26:45.519 The regulation is also, in some areas, just too prescriptive. 00:26:45.759 --> 00:26:51.599 You can use modern technologies like flying a drone over pipelines or platforms to detect drumms. 00:26:51.839 --> 00:27:21.759 Rather than having a team of specialists being shipped in or flown into our production sites and going with these one or two types of devices that are handheld devices along the steel of our facilities, searching for possible methane emissions, which is very cumbersome, a huge effort, a huge cost, and creating a lot of emissions by itself by this activity, flying with helicopter people on Teams N rather than having just a camera on a flex staff monitoring the plant all the time. 00:27:22.079 --> 00:27:30.079 I just wanted to put to you some of the responses that have been put out by oil and gas producers just to give you a chance to respond to them. 00:27:30.319 --> 00:27:47.279 So they've said they're extremely concerned about the regulation, that some of the requirements rely on technologies that don't exist, which obviously goes against a lot of the claims that the environmental community make that this is a sort of low-hanging fruit mitigation effort because these technologies do exist. 00:27:47.440 --> 00:27:56.400 They've said the regulation is at risk of being impossible to implement by the European oil and gas industry because of certain requirements that are disconnected from reality. 00:27:56.559 --> 00:28:21.599 And then in their last sort of general position statement that they actually published on their website, they wrote, We're concerned that the regulation in large part establishes unnecessary MRV, measurement, verification, and LDAR leak detection and reporting activities, and new service industries with corresponding cost to the industry and consumers, but with no environmental benefit, therefore not being in line with the better regulation principles. 00:28:21.839 --> 00:28:24.480 What do you think when you get pushback like that? 00:28:24.880 --> 00:28:30.559 It's very frustrating to hear, especially because it's not just the environmental community that is saying all those things. 00:28:30.640 --> 00:28:36.079 It's literally like the International Energy Agency, like for years has been talking about this and showing that. 00:28:36.160 --> 00:28:44.400 I mean, there's been studies where they show that 80% of measures in the oil and gas sector are available at no cost or low cost. 00:28:44.960 --> 00:28:56.079 And it can actually be beneficial for, and I don't want to go because I we are very clear that like in we need a fossil show phrase, obviously, so I don't want to hear like I'm promoting oil and gas at all. 00:28:56.240 --> 00:28:57.119 That's not what I'm saying. 00:28:57.359 --> 00:29:04.799 But if they fix their leaks, they will have more product to sell without having to extract more. 00:29:05.119 --> 00:29:07.759 That's obviously true for the for a gas company. 00:29:08.000 --> 00:29:17.119 How does an oil company, if they capture that methane, they can't necessarily take it to market in the same way that a gas company can? 00:29:17.519 --> 00:29:25.759 You can also use the gas in your facilities, for example, instead of using NG like from the external world, you could just use it to power your facility. 00:29:26.000 --> 00:29:38.480 So yeah, I mean, it's not a big surprise that the reaction from the industry face, industry lobbying for absolutely every regulation that touches on climate issues. 00:29:38.640 --> 00:29:39.519 We're used to it. 00:29:39.680 --> 00:29:54.400 It's just it's it's problematic because we've seen that there was a lot of pushback in the whole process of regulation and the final outcome definitely shows that those voices were listened to by certain policymakers. 00:29:54.960 --> 00:29:59.680 It isn't just industry bodies and companies that oppose the stricter forms of the regulation. 00:29:59.920 --> 00:30:10.079 While all member states may agree with the aim to reduce the EU's overall methane emissions, the burden invariably falls on the shoulders of some member countries more than others. 00:30:10.240 --> 00:30:18.160 For those whose oil, gas, or coal industries are a thing of the past, a new regulation on methane emissions on this sector is nothing but good news. 00:30:18.319 --> 00:30:20.799 But this isn't the case for all member states. 00:30:21.039 --> 00:30:28.480 Romania, for example, will face estimated expenses of over a billion euros to meet the new regulation's requirements. 00:30:28.720 --> 00:30:40.319

Another forthright lobbyist from within the negotiating chambers was Poland, who saw the methane regulation as a potential death knell to their main energy industry, not oil and gas, but coal. 00:30:40.480 --> 00:30:42.160 Here's Jutta Paulus again. 00:30:42.720 --> 00:30:49.440 I'll be very frank and open because it's already been out in the media a lot, and so I'm not breaching any secrets. 00:30:49.759 --> 00:30:58.319 What the problem with coal is that we have a lot of underground coal mining which is still occurring in Poland. 00:30:58.640 --> 00:31:08.240 And now this regulation, this methane regulation is framed as the EU tries to close down Polish coal mines through the backdoor. 00:31:08.480 --> 00:31:19.200 Because Poland claims there is no possibility to mitigate those methane emissions from those mines, and therefore our only option would be to close them. 00:31:19.519 --> 00:31:20.720 And Kimu Dowd. 00:31:21.279 --> 00:31:29.680 There was a lot of pushbacks on the coal section, particularly from Poland, and they considerably reduced the impact that the coal section will have. 00:31:29.920 --> 00:31:38.799 What the commission had put for was quite good, but then it was completely walled down during the process, and it kind of only puts the easiest measures on coal that you can do. 00:31:39.200 --> 00:31:44.640 Poland successfully pushed for a major weakening in the emissions reduction measures for coal. 00:31:44.880 --> 00:31:53.680 Coal methane emissions are more complicated than those from oil and gas because many of the leaks persist long after mines are no longer economically viable. 00:31:53.839 --> 00:32:03.599 For Poland's coal miners, the cost of meeting the requirements to monitor and cut these emissions would force closure and end tens of thousands of jobs. 00:32:03.920 --> 00:32:08.160 Someone who focuses exclusively on the methane issue issue from coal is Dr. 00:32:08.319 --> 00:32:11.359 Sabina Asan at the climate NGO EMBA. 00:32:11.519 --> 00:32:16.960 I asked her to explain what the implications were of the weakening of the regulation stance on coal. 00:32:17.119 --> 00:32:19.200 I must just warn you, the sound on Dr. 00:32:19.359 --> 00:32:23.680 Asan's recording is not in stereo, like the rest of our audio recordings. 00:32:24.960 --> 00:32:36.079 One major consequence of these loopholes is that you know, quite frankly, the EU might not be able to reach its climate target of a 58% reduction in its fossil fuel methane emissions. 00:32:36.559 --> 00:32:46.240 The EU also needs to think about what message does this send to other countries that are thinking about how can we reduce and mitigate our coal mine methane emissions. 00:32:46.720 --> 00:33:07.759 As we know, the EU is one of the leaders of the global methane pledge, and it's now agreed to a regulation that is potentially unaligned with the IEA's net zero roadmap, which requires a 75% cut in energy sector methane, and a just a generally unambitious mitigation, which sends a similar message to other countries. 00:33:17.599 --> 00:33:22.559 If only a small share of your emissions come from imports, this might not matter. 00:33:22.799 --> 00:33:29.599 But the European Union is the world's third largest economy and its biggest importer of natural gas. 00:33:29.839 --> 00:33:36.640 Its external methane footprint is estimated to be eight times as big as its domestic one. 00:33:36.880 --> 00:33:38.559 Here's Kim again to explain. 00:33:38.880 --> 00:33:47.839 Imports are particularly important because over 70% of the coal and 90% of the gas and 97% of the oil that the EU consumes comes from imports. 00:33:48.880 --> 00:34:02.319 That means that most methane emissions associated with EU consumption occur long before reaching the border, especially because most methane emissions in the oil and coal sector occurrence extraction, and three-quarters of gas emission comes at the moment of extraction. 00:34:02.400 --> 00:34:04.640 So that's just yeah, where it's extracted. 00:34:04.799 --> 00:34:08.559 So in the US, in Algeria, in Russia, in Qatar, etc. 00:34:08.719 --> 00:34:09.119 etc. 00:34:09.679 --> 00:34:26.960 So if you could extend the rules for EU producers to all producers whose energy the EU uses, that would mean that regardless of the regulatory environment in their own countries, all suppliers would suddenly have to raise their games to meet the same stringent standards. 00:34:27.199 --> 00:34:31.840 This was the most pertinent point during the negotiation process for Jutta Paulus. 00:34:32.320 --> 00:34:40.239 For me, the most important point actually is we need to extend this legislation to imports. 00:34:40.719 --> 00:34:51.679 90% of methane emissions from the energy sector occur outside the borders of European Union because we import most of our oil and gas. 00:34:52.000 --> 00:35:02.239 So by making these provisions on monitoring, reporting, verification, but also on leak detection and repair mandatory. 00:35:02.480 --> 00:35:18.400 I actually had contact to a company which does methane monitoring as a service, and they have customers worldwide, they use open data from Copernicus, which is the European Union satellite program. 00:35:18.800 --> 00:35:28.480 And one of these satellites has an instrument where you can spot super emitters of methane worldwide, which is really an asset. 00:35:28.880 --> 00:35:45.920 This company says they have estimated that if we could really extend this regulation to imports worldwide, that would save 400 million tons CO2 equivalent per year, which is really, really a lot. 00:35:46.639 --> 00:35:56.639 Legislators therefore proposed that the regulation could be far more powerful in effecting change by extending the standards to all those who exported energy to the EU. 00:35:57.039 --> 00:36:02.079 But again, regulation has far more stakeholders than voluntary campaigns. 00:36:02.239 --> 00:36:12.000 And while progressives saw opportunity from a climate security

perspective, from an energy security perspective, the governments of individual member states were wary. 00:36:12.159 --> 00:36:19.119 The regulation was first proposed in December of 2021, and it was a matter of two short months before this. 00:36:42.480 --> 00:36:51.920 Energy ministers were perhaps understandably reticent about discussing onerous methane sanctions and standards to gas that they were going to be hugely dependent on. 00:36:52.079 --> 00:36:53.039 Here's Kim again. 00:36:53.440 --> 00:37:06.079 It was a difficult time, obviously, just before the start of the war in Ukraine, where we were in a context of just in general fear and also from just the public of the soaring energy prices. 00:37:06.159 --> 00:37:09.199 And I live in the UK, definitely there was a big problem here. 00:37:09.440 --> 00:37:23.039 And definitely a lot of people use this context as an excuse to do less, and particularly in the question of imports, when literally the data shows that you could have used those methods to give more gas to Europe. 00:37:23.199 --> 00:37:44.559 I mean, there was a study done by uh Flair Intel, which is a company that looks at flaring events in the world through satellites, and they had found, like I can't remember the exact numbers, but that if northern African countries were to stop venting and flaring, they could start supplying about one-third of what Russia was exporting to Europe. 00:37:44.719 --> 00:37:47.760 Yeah, it's just a question, it's kind of a negative battle, I guess. 00:37:48.079 --> 00:37:50.079 The number wasn't quite one-third. 00:37:50.320 --> 00:38:07.280 The study Kim's referring to by Flair Intel found that four North African gas exporters, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, and Egypt, waste the equivalent of 15% of the quantity of Russian imports to Europe through venting, inefficient flaring, and leaks. 00:38:07.440 --> 00:38:11.760 And in the end, the narrative battle was won by energy security. 00:38:12.079 --> 00:38:23.519 Flavia Solazzo is the senior director on the EU energy transition for the Environmental Defense Fund Europe, which has been pressuring governments to pay attention to methane for over a decade. 00:38:23.840 --> 00:38:29.280 There is the big concern, the regulation doesn't go far enough in addressing methane emissions from imports. 00:38:29.360 --> 00:38:37.679 We need to get it right here, but we also have to use what we do here as a lever to make sure that what we import meets the same standards at least. 00:38:38.000 --> 00:38:41.840 Not all of the timelines and details on imports are fully agreed yet. 00:38:42.000 --> 00:38:52.880 But nevertheless, the EU regulation has set a precedent and has undoubtedly spearheaded a move towards a more global recognition of the need for methane rules in other jurisdictions. 00:38:53.119 --> 00:38:56.000 Here's a summary of what the final text included. 00:38:56.400 --> 00:38:58.960 It kind of introduces a three-step approach. 00:38:59.119 --> 00:39:02.000

The first step being information sharing. 00:39:02.159 --> 00:39:11.280 Operators will have to start telling competent authorities whether the country where they import from have some mitigation or MRV measures or not. 00:39:11.440 --> 00:39:13.360 But if they don't, it's fine, it's not a problem. 00:39:13.440 --> 00:39:15.760 It's just they have to kind of start gathering that data. 00:39:16.000 --> 00:39:28.719 The second step is as of January 2027, countries that export gas, coal, or oil to the EU will have to comply to the MRV measures, so monitoring and reporting and verification measures. 00:39:28.880 --> 00:39:41.119 And then the third step is the introduction of an intensity standard performance standard that will have to be set by the Commission by six years of the implementation of the regulation. 00:39:41.280 --> 00:39:42.800 So that's around 2030. 00:39:43.119 --> 00:39:50.159 So those are the two most promising mitigation measures that have come into force since the Global Methane Pledge in 2021. 00:39:50.400 --> 00:39:59.039 But if you remember, there was one more set of instruments that commonly gets talked about in climate policy, which we haven't mentioned when it comes to methane. 00:39:59.360 --> 00:40:00.400 Financial ones. 00:40:00.639 --> 00:40:03.199 Someone who's looked at this in detail is Dr. 00:40:03.360 --> 00:40:05.920 Ian Parry at the International Monetary Fund. 00:40:06.320 --> 00:40:12.559 I'm in the climate policy division in the Fiscal Affairs Department of the IMF. 00:40:12.800 --> 00:40:22.239 I've been at the IMF for uh 12 years, and uh most of my research focuses on um designing mitigation strategies for our countries. 00:40:22.639 --> 00:40:22.800 Dr. 00:40:22.960 --> 00:40:32.079 Parry prefers financial instruments to regulation when it comes to climate policy because he says they're more flexible and less costly to enforce. 00:40:32.480 --> 00:40:38.159 We have to be careful with regulations if they're telling all firms to adopt the same technology. 00:40:38.239 --> 00:40:40.480 That's not going to be very cost-effective. 00:40:40.639 --> 00:40:46.239 Maybe for some firms it's feasible to adopt that technology, maybe for others it's very costly to adopt that technology. 00:40:46.400 --> 00:40:53.599 Fiscal policies are more flexible, so they they allow firms to choose how to cut their emissions. 00:40:54.000 --> 00:40:57.440 While the IMF considers all kinds of financial instruments, Dr. 00:40:57.599 --> 00:41:03.039 Perry prefers fiscal approaches, that's economic speak for taxes, to trading schemes. 00:41:03.199 --> 00:41:05.199 I asked him to talk me through the difference. 00:41:05.840 --> 00:41:15.360 Emissions trading systems can be designed well, uh, but we we generally recommend carbon taxes in place of emissions trading systems for uh three main reasons. 00:41:15.519 --> 00:41:19.840 First of all, carbon taxes are straightforward from an administrative perspective. 00:41:20.000 --> 00:41:24.639 Most countries already collect taxes on fuels as they enter the economy. 00:41:24.800 --> 00:41:37.760 So a carbon tax is just building off what governments are already doing, whereas an emissions trading system requires monitoring firm emissions and monitoring trading markets, so it's a it takes a bit more institutional capacity. 00:41:37.920 --> 00:41:44.320 Secondly, the government can provide more certainty over the emissions prices or the tax rates going forward. 00:41:44.559 --> 00:41:57.360 That can be very important for promoting adoption of cleaner technologies in the private sector to have uh certainty over uh the emissions the future emissions prices and how much they will save by adopting technologies which uh cut their carbon emissions. 00:41:57.519 --> 00:42:12.559 And then thirdly, under a carbon tax, the revenues just uh accrue to the uh finance ministry for general purposes, for cutting other taxes or maybe funding critical public investments for sustainable development goals. 00:42:12.719 --> 00:42:25.679 Whereas in trading systems often these fiscal opportunities are not exploited because the allowances are maybe given away for free rather than auctioned, or even if they're sold, often the revenues are earmarked rather than going to the general government. 00:42:26.079 --> 00:42:26.480 What Dr. 00:42:26.639 --> 00:42:33.360 Perry and some of his colleagues have proposed is that this is an overlooked solution that could be applied to the methane problem too. 00:42:33.840 --> 00:42:48.960 Countries already have have established business tax regimes for the extractive sector, and so it it's straightforward from the administrative perspective for them just to introduce a fee on methane emissions at the same time that they collect business taxes. 00:42:49.519 --> 00:42:58.800 The best example, he says, is Norway, which introduced a methane tax on vented and leaked emissions for offshore oil and gas a few years ago. 00:42:59.280 --> 00:43:10.400 So one possibility, as in Norway, is to require that these firms, oil and gas producers, monitor their own emissions and report that to the government and then remit taxes based on that. 00:43:10.559 --> 00:43:12.079 That seems to be working well in Norway. 00:43:12.239 --> 00:43:28.079 Another possibility is to say, well, we'll assume a default emission rate for your production, levy a tax based on that, but then if a company installs its own metering and demonstrates that its emission rate is less than the default, they can get a rebate. 00:43:28.559 --> 00:43:29.679 An interesting part of Dr. 00:43:29.840 --> 00:43:36.000 Perry's work has been to actually calculate what kind of level methane could and should be taxed at. 00:43:36.239 --> 00:43:37.519 And they've got a number. 00:43:38.000 --> 00:43:52.320 Well, we think a fee in the order of about$70 of carbon dioxide equivalent from methane is is needed to get global emissions cut by 30% and in in line with temperature targets.

00:43:52.400 --> 00:43:52.559 Yeah. 00:43:53.119 --> 00:43:59.599 That sounds a lot, and it is, but the idea would be for the fees to be graded and potentially staggered to get actual. 00:44:00.320 --> 00:44:00.719 Results. 00:44:00.960 --> 00:44:08.639 On the one hand, better performances by companies, but in the bigger picture, keeping global warming in line with the Paris Agreement goals. 00:44:09.280 --> 00:44:10.239 That's exactly right. 00:44:10.400 --> 00:44:23.039 We're trying to calculate what taxes are needed to cut our emissions, either methane or carbon dioxide, to levels that are required to get on track with our temperature goals. 00:44:23.920 --> 00:44:32.960 The details of OGMP and the fine print of regulation or tax instruments can make the abatement of methane feel like an academic exercise sometimes. 00:44:33.119 --> 00:44:38.800 But ultimately, all of them are aimed at turning environmental ambition into real change. 00:44:38.960 --> 00:44:39.440 Here's Dr. 00:44:39.519 --> 00:44:41.039 Roland Cooper's again. 00:44:41.760 --> 00:44:51.199 All of them matter because, you know, if we get back to the agent who actually needs to do something, all of these things signal to the agent that this matters, right? 00:44:51.280 --> 00:44:54.960 Because people are talking about taxes and regulation and all of these things. 00:44:55.039 --> 00:44:56.960 So it increases the agency. 00:44:57.199 --> 00:45:02.000 So it all matters, but none of them are the only thing. 00:45:02.079 --> 00:45:06.960 And that's what always despairs me is when people say, well, you know, just regulation. 00:45:08.000 --> 00:45:10.400 If we could only tax things, it would be fine. 00:45:10.559 --> 00:45:12.159 It's completely implausible. 00:45:12.320 --> 00:45:16.159 I mean, nothing ever changes at scale with just a single. 00:45:16.400 --> 00:45:18.639 And we know this from systems change theory. 00:45:18.719 --> 00:45:22.159 It's just not a it's just not the way it works. 00:45:23.199 --> 00:45:33.280 So that's a peep through the door for you into the worlds of climate diplomacy and policy and how they're being used to push for change on the emissions of methane. 00:45:33.599 --> 00:45:34.800 Have we got anywhere yet? 00:45:34.960 --> 00:45:40.960 Here's Professor Jonathan Stern, who we spoke to about natural gas in the energy transition in the last episode. 00:45:41.119 --> 00:45:49.440 He's from the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies in the UK and now spends a lot of his time researching emissions from oil and gas. 00:45:49.840 --> 00:45:52.639 We don't really need any more big announcements. 00:45:52.719 --> 00:45:54.400 What we need is action. 00:45:54.639 --> 00:46:00.000 You know, if you look back at the global methane pledge and you ask yourself, right, well, what's happened since then? 00:46:00.239 --> 00:46:08.480 Have governments actually set out, here's how we're going to meet this pledge, year by year, sector by sector, here's how we're going to do

it. 00:46:08.800 --> 00:46:12.000 Because we're not so far away from 2030 now. 00:46:12.320 --> 00:46:18.719 My concern is there's a lot of announcements, there's a lot of important people signing documents. 00:46:18.960 --> 00:46:23.039 I don't want to say I don't see a lot of action because there might be a lot of action, but we don't know about it. 00:46:23.280 --> 00:46:32.639 We don't know whether whether this has caused methane emissions to drop dramatically and in which sectors and in which countries. 00:46:32.880 --> 00:46:39.280 The concern is that when you look at the atmospheric numbers, global uh global methane emissions are still going up. 00:46:39.519 --> 00:46:47.280 Now, obviously methane emissions are divided into anthropogenic, that's caused by human activity, and the rest. 00:46:47.440 --> 00:46:55.840 So it might not be the human activity ones that are going up, but the IEA says that they think fossil fuel methane emissions are still rising. 00:46:56.559 --> 00:46:57.920 But is this all they are? 00:46:58.320 --> 00:47:01.440 Initiatives, pledges, empty promises. 00:47:02.159 --> 00:47:03.440 What more is required? 00:47:03.920 --> 00:47:09.280 At the Environmental Investigation Agency, Chemo Dowd is in no doubt what we need. 00:47:09.920 --> 00:47:11.679 Money and some structure. 00:47:12.159 --> 00:47:16.400 In terms of the progress, you were talking about some of the things that we need to have in place. 00:47:16.719 --> 00:47:23.119 We had a lot of quite significant developments on methane at COP28, which is now two years after the global methane pledge. 00:47:23.440 --> 00:47:29.280 How satisfied were you with the results for methane at COP28? 00:47:29.360 --> 00:47:33.440 And are you in general with the progress that we've seen in the last two years? 00:47:33.760 --> 00:47:38.239 So, yes, uh one billion was announced on methane, which is great. 00:47:38.320 --> 00:47:40.000 I mean, it's a first step, I guess. 00:47:40.159 --> 00:47:47.920 But the climate policy initiative has found that we need 10 billion per year to reach our goal of reducing methane emissions by 30% by 2030. 00:47:48.079 --> 00:47:54.480 So 1 billion, I don't know how to phrase it, friend, but like yeah, 1 billion per year each year until 2030. 00:47:54.639 --> 00:47:56.159 So that's one thing, it's not enough. 00:47:56.239 --> 00:47:59.760 But the second thing is we still don't know where this money is coming from. 00:47:59.920 --> 00:48:03.280 It's not clear and where it's going to, who's gonna benefit from it. 00:48:03.360 --> 00:48:26.719 And this is where I'm gonna get, sorry, I'm gonna repeat myself, but if we had a clear financial mechanism where we say, okay, we have this 10 billion, and someone is gonna decide a secretaria, how much is gonna be given to this country, how much is gonna be given to this country, but not just that, but also they that they tell countries, okay, you'll have that until 2030. 00:48:26.960 --> 00:48:31.280 That's essential for countries to have stable and predictable funding. 00:48:31.440 --> 00:48:42.000 Because we have a few cases we've we've talked to countries who receive some money to, for example, to do methane monitoring in one specific landfill in this particular city in that country. 00:48:42.159 --> 00:48:57.760 Okay, they're gonna do the project, but they have no idea whether they're gonna receive additional money to then, I don't know, exploit the data, develop policy to kind of respond to the data that they found, and also then have like additional monitoring. 00:48:57.920 --> 00:49:05.599 We need to give countries money so that they can do all the spectrum of activity that is needed for MATEM, and that is monitoring and mitigation. 00:49:05.760 --> 00:49:18.320 And monitoring is all on all the sectors, and mitigation is developing policies, having the people in the ministries and in on in the field who are going to make sure that the policies are developed and implemented. 00:49:18.559 --> 00:49:27.199 If you just keep give money for one like one specific project, a country can't like have a global view on their methane emission in their country. 00:49:27.519 --> 00:49:33.920 So even if it was a good step, we definitely need to see more and we need to see it more structured. 00:49:34.159 --> 00:49:42.480 It's been two years now since the pledge was announced, and I think two years is considerably enough to just start acting. 00:49:42.559 --> 00:49:51.199 Because I think we see a lot of just initiatives and new projects and things, but we don't see an actual framework. 00:49:51.360 --> 00:49:54.559 And I think that's two years in, that's what we need now. 00:49:54.880 --> 00:49:56.880 And where would you be looking for that framework? 00:49:57.039 --> 00:50:00.960 Would that framework come out of government policies within those countries? 00:50:01.199 --> 00:50:02.960 Would it come out of UNEP? 00:50:03.199 --> 00:50:06.800 Who is it that we're waiting for to give us the structure? 00:50:07.599 --> 00:50:14.000 I think a first step, definitely a first step would be to create just a financial mechanism because it's the most urgent thing. 00:50:14.079 --> 00:50:26.559 And when you you you listen to the conversation, uh, for example, at the CCAC ministerial meeting that happened at COP28, a lot of developing countries were just saying, listen, we need more support, we can't do this without support. 00:50:26.639 --> 00:50:29.360 We need financial assistance, we need technical assistance. 00:50:29.599 --> 00:50:32.960 This is what we need to make sure that we can actually contribute to the goal. 00:50:33.199 --> 00:50:38.639 So I think we should start by creating this kind of fund or mechanism. 00:50:38.880 --> 00:50:45.199 I don't want to put a word to it, I don't think it's our place, we just want to push for the idea, then can country can decide what shape it should take. 00:50:45.440 --> 00:50:52.079 And we could make the CCAC, the Climate

Clean Air Coalition, in charge of this fund because they already do it. 00:50:52.159 --> 00:51:03.840 They already have money, they already receive money to support projects, but just not enough right now, and not enough to, as I said, give the big amounts to countries on a long time frame. 00:51:04.000 --> 00:51:28.960 From that, we can think about also starting to have some monitoring being done, and then we have like the International Meth and Emission Observatory that's going to be a major help for that and have more and more data, and then push for, and that's also a lot of just organization within uh countries to push for the adoption of policies, and that when we come back to the EU, for example, we like the EU took its first step towards towards uh methamp mitigation with the EU methane regulation. 00:51:29.119 --> 00:51:38.000 And also, if you want to come back to the European Union, it has to start looking at agriculture as well, and not just say, okay, we've done energy, we've done our job over now. 00:51:48.880 --> 00:51:54.000 And with that, we've come to the end of the episode and of the series. 00:51:54.480 --> 00:52:04.079 Methane may sound a bit niche, but I hope we've convinced you that it's pivotal to some major aspects of the climate challenge, which we are now nose up against. 00:52:04.239 --> 00:52:10.800 And while it's relatively easy to tackle, it still takes doing, as Deborah Gordon from Brown University reminds us. 00:52:11.119 --> 00:52:17.280 Methane does present a quick, ready, potent solution. 00:52:17.440 --> 00:52:22.960 But I also think we have to match the challenge by durable solutions. 00:52:23.119 --> 00:52:27.679 So that's the visibility of it with the satellites, the policy action, the market action. 00:52:27.840 --> 00:52:29.199 We need to price leakage in. 00:52:29.360 --> 00:52:32.639 We're gonna need to really do everything we possibly can. 00:52:32.800 --> 00:52:38.880 We can't just be Pollyanna-ish about this is gonna be so easy that it will do itself. 00:52:39.199 --> 00:52:43.760 I think we're gonna have to be really mindful about making it happen. 00:52:44.000 --> 00:52:50.559 It's also at the heart of how our society interacts with the much bigger natural aspects of the climate system. 00:52:50.639 --> 00:52:56.000 And methane feedbacks now represent a very real threat to any gains we're able to make. 00:52:56.239 --> 00:53:02.719 And if we don't, I'll leave the last comment to Jonathan Stone from the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. 00:53:03.119 --> 00:53:12.400 Let's imagine a world where we do embrace the idea of natural gas as the kind of sort of green fossil fuel, and we say yes, we're gonna phase our coal. 00:53:12.639 --> 00:53:16.800 Looking at the United States as an example, a huge shift from coal to gas. 00:53:16.960 --> 00:53:23.840 Can you spell out for people the climate consequences of not getting methane emissions under control in that scenario? 00:53:25.280 --> 00:53:38.159 Not specifically, but I think the easiest way to say this is getting methane under control is easy in relation to other greenhouse gas reducing measures. 00:53:38.400 --> 00:53:45.119 This can make a big and immediate contribution to reducing overall greenhouse gas emissions. 00:53:45.679 --> 00:53:49.280 It's not expensive and it's not technically difficult. 00:53:49.519 --> 00:53:59.199 If we can't do that, if companies can't do that, and if governments can't require companies to do that, it's hard to see that we're going to be able to do much else. 00:53:59.840 --> 00:54:03.679 It remains for me to say a massive thank you to all our contributors. 00:54:03.920 --> 00:54:13.280 If you're interested in reading more about an aspect of their work you've heard discussed, have a look in the show notes for links to their research and to various other related resources. 00:54:13.760 --> 00:54:15.360 Thank you for listening.