Leading an alliance of more than 100 countries, US President Joe Biden and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen have launched the Global Methane Pledge – an agreement to cut methane emissions by 30% between 2020 and 2030. Methane is a greenhouse gas that has caused about 0.5°C of global warming, according to the latest assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Each molecule added to the atmosphere is about 26 times more potent at warming than a CO₂ molecule but only remains in the atmosphere for about a decade. Methane leaks from oil and gas wells, landfills and is belched out by livestock. Countries signed up to the agreement encompass two-thirds of the global economy and half of the top 30 methane emitters, including Brazil. China, India and Russia however have not signed at the time of writing. I have been working on and talking publicly about methane emissions and their effect on the climate for about a decade. During that time, the levels of methane in the atmosphere have gone rapidly upwards, causing more global warming. So while I think it would be great to reduce methane emissions by 30% by 2030, what is that niggling at the back of my mind?It’s the suspicion that so much noise about methane cuts will (deliberately or not) be a good news story that obscures slow progress on CO₂ emissions. You might ask: is this such a problem? Isn’t any action to be applauded? Yes, and no. Yes, because any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is progress towards the Paris Agreement temperature goals. That is undeniable. No, if it displaces effort away from the main driver of global warming – fossil CO₂ emissions.                 https://theconversation.com/cop26-a-global-methane-pledge-is-great-but-only-if-it-doesnt-distract-us-from-co-cuts-171069?utm_campaign=Carbon%20Brief%20Daily%20Briefing&utm_content=20211103&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Revue%20Daily

 ^{Courts are stepping in where politicians fear to tread — forcing governments and companies to take radical action to slash greenhouse gas emissions. In a landmark ruling on Wednesday, a Dutch court ordered the oil giant Shell to cut its emissions by 45 percent this decade. The ruling marks the first time a court has mandated such a policy on a major energy company and, crucially, establishes Shell's responsibility for the environmental damage caused by its products and a failure to adequately plan to reduce its emissions. “The courts are having to step in to address the legal implications of glaring policy failures,” said Paul Benson, a lawyer with ClientEarth, an NGO. “If government policy and corporate policy ... was already sufficiently adequate, there wouldn’t be much of a role for courts to play." Such cases are increasingly common. About 3,000 have been filed since 2000, and their pace is expected to grow as concern rises about climate change, according to a new report from Verisk Maplecroft, a risk consultancy."The 2020s are a key decade for climate action. Therefore, sovereigns and corporates should expect more climate lawsuits to come down the line," the report said, noting that "companies risk fines reminiscent of tobacco trials."}

^{https://www.politico.eu/article/big-oil-is-the-next-big-tobacco/?utm_campaign=Carbon%20Brief%20Weekly%20Briefing&utm_content=20210528&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Revue%20Weekly}