At the Cop26 climate summit in Glasgow on Tuesday evening, the conclusion of the methane agreement, which was mainly promoted by the USA and already announced at the G20 summit in Rome, was celebrated: champagne in the pavilion “The Methane Moment”.

Hundreds of countries, it was said, had agreed to release at least 30 percent less fossil methane into the atmosphere by 2030 - methane gas that is released during the production of natural gas and crude oil and from leaks while being transported into gas pipelines will.

Joachim Müller-Jung

Editor in the features section, responsible for the “Nature and Science” section.

  • Follow I follow

In fact, however, as the ad hoc analysis of the scientific project “Climate Analytics” has shown, only 53 countries have so far signed the agreement.

"About 25 other states" are said to have signed, which is, however, unconfirmed.

In fact, 149 states had included methane emission restrictions in their national climate protection plans (NDCs) by August this year.

However, according to a report recently published by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), only 12 countries have so far planned the reduction of fossil, i.e. industrial, methane.

So does the methane agreement turn things around?

How important is the methane agreement for climate protection?

Very important for short-term climate protection goals. Unlike carbon dioxide, which is chemically more stable and can stay in the air for hundreds of years, the more reactive methane is broken down in the atmosphere within a few years. Methane is seen as a greenhouse gas over a period of twenty years, but is 86 times as effective as carbon dioxide, so it heats the atmosphere much more effectively. Emission restrictions therefore have a more direct effect. Fossil methane from oil and natural gas production is therefore one of the low-hanging fruits in climate policy. Especially since a switch to more environmentally friendly production and the closing of leaks in the pipelines also brings considerable financial advantages for the industry.

However, all experts agree that the limitation of methane emissions from industrial sources does not replace the urgently needed lowering of carbon dioxide emissions, even in the short term. Because the carbon dioxide that is emitted today will have a negative impact on the climate in the centuries to come. The methane agreement is important because methane and carbon dioxide emissions are closely linked. In other words: If the methane reductions are realized, this will automatically lead to a certain reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. If you take Glasgow's methane promise seriously, Climate Analytics has calculated that 60 percent of the methane reductions announced in it could be achieved by shutting down the production of oil and gas alone. So the methane agreement works most effectively,when it is accompanied by significant carbon dioxide reductions. Seen in this way, if the treaty is followed, it could lead the way in curbing carbon dioxide emissions this decade.

What effect will the methane agreement have on the climate?

If the signatory states to the new methane treaty, which represent around 30 percent of global methane emissions, keep their promise, warming could be an estimated 0.2 degrees lower by the end of this decade. In 2030, the "emissions gap" to the Paris target would be reduced by 14 percent, that is: If the signatory states emit 30 percent less fossil methane, the emissions of the other greenhouse gases - above all carbon dioxide - will have to be reduced by 14 percent, to limit the warming of the earth to a maximum of 1.5 degrees. This calculation comes from "Climate Analytics", the independent research group in which Carl-Friedrich Schleussner from the Humboldt University of Berlin is a leader. In its latest scenarios for an emissions pathway, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)which is compatible with the 1.5-degree target, a reduction of 25 to 53 percent (based on 2020 emissions) is calculated. If methane emissions were to be reduced by 45 percent in the next twenty years, according to Unep's calculations, this would have the same effect in terms of climate protection as the closure of a thousand coal-fired power plants worldwide.

How realistic are rapid methane emission reductions?

According to Unep, “70 percent of emissions from oil and gas production can be prevented with the technologies and measures available”.

Unep quotes the International Energy Agency (IEA) as saying that 40 percent of the costs for this alone are cost-neutral - in other words, can be achieved at zero cost.

From an economic point of view, the investments are even more profitable if the states additionally subsidize the methane reductions.

It is therefore quite possible that with appropriate investments and regulations similar successes will be achieved as at the time with the Montreal Agreement, which was about reducing the industrial production of particularly harmful chlorofluorocarbons within a few decades and thus increasing the "ozone hole" in the atmosphere impede.