- Slashing methane emissions was one of the top agenda items at COP29, where countries discussed ambitious goals for the super pollutant, which has an 86-times higher global warming potential in a shorter time frame.
- India and China, the two biggest emitters of methane, were almost absent from conversations about methane emissions.
- India underlined its position on methane by terming methane emissions as ‘survival’ emissions connected to the livelihood of a billion people in India.
- Developed countries champion cutting methane emissions, but finance flow to the cause doesn’t reflect the commitment.
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has built a Methane Alert and Response System (MARS), which captures data from methane-detecting satellites and releases alerts for countries and companies about methane leakage. It expects the entity to plug the leak after receiving the alert. The UNEP’s International Methane Emissions Observatory (IMEO) has issued 1200 such alerts in the last two years; however, only 15 alarms yielded any action from methane emitters.
Regarding this missed opportunity for climate action, Inger Andersen, the UNEP Executive Director, said, “Governments and oil and gas companies must stop paying lip service to this challenge when answers are staring them in the face.”
The report, which details MARS alarm and inaction, was released during the 12-day climate negotiation in Baku, where curtailing methane or CH4 emissions received a lot of talks. Developed countries wrote an open letter to those who have joined the Global Methane Pledge (GMP) to increase the ambition related to this super pollutant emission cut. GMP, which came into existence in 2021, now has 159 members, with Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Guatemala, and Madagascar joining it in 2024. On November 19, the presidency launched the Reducing Methane from Organic Waste Declaration with 35 countries signatories to the goal.
All the conversation around methane emissions underlined that human-caused methane emissions have contributed to roughly one-third of the planet’s current warming and have an 86-times higher global warming potential in a shorter time frame. Methane remains in the atmosphere for some 12 years, and it is termed an emergency brake for controlling global warming. Cutting methane emissions can slow global warming and can provide some time to curb carbon emissions that remain in the atmosphere for centuries.
However, India, the second biggest methane emitter in 2022, maintained a distance from these conversations and commitments.
India’s stand: Survival vs. Luxury emission
Rajasree Ray, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), agreed that addressing methane and non-CO₂ emissions at the global level is critical for climate change mitigation while explaining India’s stand that any pledge related to slashing methane emissions could affect the livelihood of around 1.4 billion people in the country. While speaking at a side event at the COP29 venue on November 18, she called methane emissions in India “survival emissions.”
Earlier, Indian Union ministers have clarified in the Parliament at least twice why India had not joined the methane-related pledge by putting it in a narrative of survival vs. luxury emissions.
Ashwini Kumar Choubey, the then Minister of State in MoEFCC, explained it in 2023 by saying that the majority of the emissions came from the agriculture sector, and the two predominant sources of methane emissions in India are enteric fermentation and paddy cultivation. In 2016, the total methane emission was 409 million tonnes of CO2e (excluding the change in land use pattern and forestry activities), and 73.96% was from the agriculture sector, 14.46% from the waste sector, and 10.62% from the energy sector.
In his 2023 statement, the former state minister said that a pledge to cut methane emissions from agricultural activities would affect the livelihood of small, marginal, and medium farmers across India.
India’s position on methane has been historically clear and straightforward, said Zerin Osho, Director of the India Programme at the Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development (IGSD), a research and advocacy organisation. India argues that if the West is unwilling to address its lifestyle emissions, then India should not be pressured to act on its survival emissions, such as those from rice cultivation.
Experts say the present global narrative around methane is lopsided. The GMP, championed by the USA and EU, targets diverse sources of methane emissions. For the USA, methane emissions predominantly come from the oil and gas sector, a low-hanging fruit for mitigation compared to India’s rice production, which is an essential part of its food security. “Comparing these sources is like comparing apples and oranges,” Osho said.
The USA produced more crude oil than any nation at any time for the past six years in a row and reached 13.0 million barrels per day in 2023, a record. It was also the largest methane emitter from oil and gas operations in 2023. These records were made under the incumbent regime, which is relatively environment friendly compared to the president-elect Donald Trump, who is famous for saying, “Drill, baby, drill—” a call for more crude oil production.
Osho from IGSD called for a hierarchy in operationalising GMP equitably, first addressing methane from the oil and gas sector, then other sources like enteric fermentation, and only later considering emissions from rice cultivation.
Global politics vs. local need
India has a clear stand on making any commitment related to slashing methane emissions globally, but experts say it makes sense for the country to cut the emissions for its own benefit.
Methane’s contribution to global warming is well known, but it also affects local temperatures by reducing the concentration of sulfate aerosols, which have a cooling effect on the climate. While methane is not typically classified as an air pollutant—since it usually refers to substances directly harmful to human health through inhalation—it contributes approximately 35% to the present-day tropospheric ozone (O₃) burden. This secondary air pollutant is linked to adverse health effects such as asthma and reduced lung function, according to a 2022 study published in Environmental Science & Policy.
Another study published in Urban Climate in November highlighted the rising methane concentrations in Indian cities. It examined the relationship between methane levels and factors like land surface temperature, heat flux, and urbanisation across five major cities—Ahmedabad, Bengaluru, Delhi, Hyderabad, and Jaipur. The study found that methane levels increased in all five cities over five years, with Delhi consistently recording the highest concentrations, which have risen steadily. “This trend might be attributed to factors such as rapid urbanisation, industrial activities, and vehicular emissions,” the study noted. It also pointed out that Indo-Gangetic Plain (IGP) is major hotspots for rising methane emissions. Cities in IGP are already grappling with severe air pollution.
These are crucial aspects for the health of local people. Still, India does not have any focused policy to cut methane emissions, which are indirectly dealt with by various policies such as the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP), Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM), National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA), and National Livestock Mission (NLM), among others. Researchers under these programmes are exploring climate-resilient breeds or varieties of cattle and paddy and efficient waste management that can reduce overall methane emissions.
However, experts underline the importance of tackling all pollutants with clear policy intervention.
Manjyot Kaur Ahluwalia, Regional Lead (Asia) at the Global Methane Hub (GMH), a philanthropic organization, stated that as a developing country, India must approach all policies—whether addressing CO₂, methane, or other super pollutants—through a development-focused lens. “From that perspective, India is already taking action. Its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), which adopt an economy-wide approach, is a testament to this. However, India must work on both fronts: reducing CO₂ emissions and addressing short-lived climate pollutants, including methane,” she said.
Regarding agriculture, Ahluwalia highlighted the need to prioritise farmer livelihoods, productivity, and resilience. “For agrarian economies such as India, we need to put farmers first. Unfortunately, the currently available options are not cost-effective for smaller farmers,” she added.
The waste sector does not have such limitations as agriculture. When asked whether India is on the right track in the waste sector, Osho from IGSD said that it is too early to call. Due to the increase in legacy landfill waste and lack of segregation, some states have also adopted the use of incinerators, which in turn cause air pollution. Like the renewable sector, where the country has a clear-cut policy direction, it is high time India needs similar policy intervention for non-CO₂ emissions, too.
Where is the finance?
All solutions to reduce methane emissions, from research and development of new crop varieties to effective waste management, will require technical and financial support. While there have been calls, mostly from developed countries, to cut methane emissions, their financial contributions have been little more than “lip service.”
Less than 2% of climate finance has been flowing to methane mitigation, according to a 2022 study published by the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI), an independent non-profit research group. More than half of the total methane abatement finance were in the form of debt.
The 2023 CPI study claims that $48 billion annually is needed for methane mitigation by 2030, compared to the existing $13.7 billion. Moreover, finance is not reaching key sectors like fossil fuel, which received less than 1% of finance despite having the highest abatement potential.
There is also a region-wise imbalance in methane abatement finance as Latin America and South Asia, responsible for 26% of global methane emissions (13% each), received only 1.8% and 1.3% of global methane finance, respectively.
Ahluwalia from GMH said, “We are all well aware of the considerable shortfall in climate finance that needs to be mobilised to tackle the climate crisis.” She emphasised the importance of directing funding towards short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) and methane mitigation, particularly focusing on sectors and regions which need it most.
COP29, which was termed the “finance COP,” was hoped to ensure a flow of climate finance from developed to developing countries that would enable ambitious climate action, including slashing methane emissions. However, the final outcome was that developed countries agreed to just $300 billion by 2035. Many criticised it and termed it abysmally low. It remains to be seen how this new finance mechanism agreed in Baku will meet the future financial needs for methane emission reduction.
Read more: COP29 ends with a $300 billion promise overshadowed by distrust and discontent
Banner image: Dark smoke from a chimney in a natural gas and oil field in western Iran. Image by dynamosquito/Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 2.0)
Credits
