If there was one take away from the Environment meeting of the Healing the Nations conference, it was this: reducing methane emissions is imperative to slowing climate change. The possibility of reducing methane emissions can be seen as a beacon of hope for slowing global warming, with the UN Secretary General declaring the task as ‘a fight we can win’, during London Climate Action Week. 

Why methane matters:

Often described as the ‘low-hanging fruit’ of climate action, methane, a potent greenhouse gas, is responsible for nearly one third of warming to date. Methane is 80 times as effective at trapping heat in atmosphere as carbon dioxide, over the twenty-year period after release. Although carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for much longer, methane has a far more intense short-term impact on global warming. This means that reducing methane emissions can effectively slow the rate of warming within just a few decades. Methane reduction is unique in climate policy in that benefits of acting now can be felt imminently.  

Cutting methane emissions has become a global priority in tackling climate change, as one of the fastest, most powerful, cost-efficient ways to slow global warming. At COP26 in 2021, more than 100 countries signed the Global Methane Pledge, committing to reduce human-caused methane emissions by at least 30 per cent from 2020 levels by 2030. Although progress has been made, global methane emissions continued to rise through 2025. In June, the UN Secretary-General, Secretary-General António Guterres renewed his call for action, stressing that the pledge’s target is still within reach if governments act now.  

Reducing methane also offers benefits beyond slowing climate change including reducing air pollution. Methane contributes to the formation of ground level ozone, an air pollutant that damages human health and agriculture. The UN estimates that rapid methane mitigation could prevent nearly one million premature deaths, avoid millions of tonnes of crop losses and deliver significant economic benefits. 

Where do emissions come from? 

Human-caused activities accounts for 60% of global methane emissions, and come from three main sectors: fossil fuels, agriculture, and waste. The largest source by far is agriculture, making up 40% of anthropogenic methane emissions, with livestock and rice cultivation as the two major contributors. Livestock produces methane in two ways: through enteric fermentation, in which during digestion, microbes break down food in the animal’s stomachs which generates methane and secondly, through the decomposition of animal manure without much oxygen. Rice cultivation produces methane when flooded rice paddies lack oxygen, leading to the release of methane as a waste product. 

The fossil fuel sector accounts for around 35% of global methane emissions, mainly from oil and gas extraction, pumping and transportation. Coal mining is also a major contributor. Leaks, gas venting and flaring within the oil and gas sector are huge sources of methane. Gas venting refers to the deliberate practice of releasing unwanted gas, a fossil fuel containing methane, that accompanies the oil exaction process to maintain safe conditions, while flaring refers to the burning of methane. Leaks refer to unintentional release of methane emissions across oil and gas extraction system from downstream processes including refining, transmissions and distribution of gaseous products. 

Waste is responsible for 20% of methane emissions, primarily from landfills and wastewater. When organic waste is buried, it decomposes without oxygen and releases methane, food waste is a large source for this, along with landfills and unmanaged dumpsites. 

What can be done? 

UN Secretary-General Call to Action report on Methane sets out a set of priority actions and solutions across the three sectors to be rolled out by 2030. The report names the fossil fuel sector to have largest potential to reduce emissions with existing technology to reduce methane emissions being not only highly developed, but widely available.  

Oil and gas emissions can be avoided by up to 75% with existing technology, this includes minimising escapes of methane gas through replacing equipment such as pumps with low or zero emission alternatives, regular leak detection and repair programme to reduce leaks and ensure they are handled quickly. In addition, the use of vapour recovery units and related systems, which can be used to direct waste methane and vents to productive uses, reducing or ending venting and flaring. 

There are also opportunities to capture or destroy methane from gas drainage and ventilation shafts in coal mines, as well as measures such as pre-mine degasification and mine closure management to reduce emissions. Methane reduction in the fossil fuel sector offers the most effective route to reducing methane emissions, as well as the most cost effective.  

In the agriculture sector, methane emissions can be reduced by producing food more effectively through improved livestock nutrition and breeding, better animal health, enhanced manure management. Alongside this reducing food waste, to reduce consumption and food losses across the supply chain makes food production more efficient. Minimising consumption of animal products as individual reduces demand for livestock production that is methane intensive. Rice cultivation can reduce methane emissions through practices such as alternate wetting and drying (AWD). Instead of keeping rice paddies continuously flooded,  the fields should be periodically drained, allowing the soil to dry. This introduces oxygen into the soil, reducing the activity of methane-producing microorganisms and therefore lowering methane emissions. Another approach is to expand the production of upland, or dryland, rice, which is grown without continuously flooded paddies and relies mainly on rainfall or other forms of irrigation. Since the soil is generally not waterlogged, upland rice produces considerably less methane than conventional flooded rice cultivation.

To reduce methane in the waste sector solutions, include both avoiding generating methane and capturing methane to reduce emissions. One of the most important measures is to divert organic waste away from landfills through separate collection and composting, and capturing methane from landfill gas, anaerobic digestion and wastewater treatment. The gas captured can generate electricity, heat and renewable fuels, turning methane mitigation into an economic opportunity.  

Across all three sectors, the measures are strikingly cost-effective, with most of the reduction potential available at low or no net cost. In the fossil fuel sector, mitigation costs only a small fraction of the industry’s annual income. In agriculture, the low-cost measures cost a small share of what governments already spend on agricultural subsidies. In waste, the measures can even pay for themselves, in some cases the value of the recovered biogas exceeds the cost of capturing it. Cutting methane can therefore deliver major economic benefits alongside its climate gains, and implementation should be viewed as an investment rather than simply a cost. 

Financing, however, remains the bottleneck. Current methane finance falls far short of what is needed to implement the technical measures across all three sectors by 2030, so funding must rise substantially. The UN Secretary-General’s report highlights the need for governments, banks, climate funds and private investors to help close this gap. Financial support will be especially important in developing countries, where high upfront costs can make these measures harder to adopt. 

The Implementation Gap 

So, what is preventing the reduction of methane emissions from playing out in practice? There is no simple explanation for this aside from the lack of action. Whether it be countries or companies, for one reason or another the lack of implementation is primarily political or regulatory, not technological. The excuse of lack of information or ability is no longer acceptable. The implementation gap is therefore primarily a governance problem, rather than one of technology. 

 Alongside the existing solutions and technology, accountability is inescapable due to the emergence of technologies capable of identifying emissions in real time. Satellite monitoring is changing methane from being difficult to track and invisible to one that can be increasingly traced to individual facilities and specific events. The UNEP International Methane Emissions Observatory (IMEO) Methane Alert and Response System (MARS) uses satellite instruments and AI-supported analysis to identify major emissions. In February 2026 UNEP’s MARS system sent over 5,000 alerts across 33 countries identifying major emissions events. The challenge is not whether emissions can be identified but whether governments or companies act accordingly when they are found. 

On top of this, examples of successful methane reduction show that cutting methane is possible on a global scale and that we already have solutions that work. For example, Norway is one of the lowest methane emissions intensities of upstream oil and gas production in the world and has long restricted routine flaring and has used taxation to discourage emissions. Routine flaring was banned in 1971; a tax was imposed on CO2 and methane emissions from petroleum production and transport in 1991, and the tax on flaring and methane emissions was increased in 2017. If the rest of the world adopted these policies, global methane emissions from oil and gas operations would fall by over 90 per cent. 

The pledges exist, the technology exists, however the policies and regulations do not match the potential of either. However, hope is not entirely lost. There is a huge opportunity to optimise methane reduction in a rapid, productive way. The UN Secretary General’s Call to Action reiterates that the work has already been done, the technology exists and the next decade must focus on implementation and acceleration.  

Governments and industries must move from pledges and voluntary action towards enforceable standards, transparent report and penalties for failing to comply. Companies must be required to disclose exact methane emissions, utilising new technology which allows them to do so. Emissions must be measured accurately to be sufficiently regulated and addressed. The responsibility to cut methane emissions is widespread from governments, cities, the private sector, the UN system, international organizations, there is necessary action on all parts.  

Reducing methane is not a substitute for cutting carbon dioxide emissions. CO₂ must still be reduced to address long-term climate change, but methane offers a rare opportunity to slow the rate of warming quickly while longer-term decarbonisation takes place. 

What can you do? 

The scale of methane’s impact of climate change can feel overwhelming, but our individual action becomes collective forces of change and can have an impact. There are a number of things you can do that can reduce your methane footprint and contribute to the reduction of methane emissions as a whole. 

 One of the most impactful ways is reducing your consumption of animal products. Eating a plant-based diet and cutting down on meat consumption, especially beef, can lower the demand for methane intensive production. Reducing your food waste is another significant way to cut methane emissions. This is a straightforward way to make a change; plan to only buy what you need, make use of leftovers and compost food scraps. Reducing your intake of methane-intensive products, for example rice, or choosing alternatives that produce less methane can also help.

You can also make a difference by supporting businesses and products that are committed to reducing methane emissions, choosing renewable energy where possible, and encouraging others to take action. 

However, the most powerful impact is not just changing personal consumption habits, but using our votes, voices, and spending power to push governments and companies to cut methane at its biggest sources.  Staying informed and talking about methane can help make it a bigger part of the climate conversation. While one person’s actions may seem small, millions of people making changes can create demand for more sustainable policies and put pressure on businesses and governments to act.