Climate

Dealing with emissions could help alleviate effects of Iran crisis on global energy supply, says report.

Tackling methane emissions in the fossil fuel sector would help efforts to hold back climate change and increase energy security, especially as the Iran crisis threatens global supplies, according to a report by the International Energy Agency (IEA).

The oil, gas and coal industries account for about 35 percent of all methane emissions from human activity, notes the IEA’s Global Methane Tracker 2026, released on Monday. However, there is little progress in reducing them, the report points out.

“There is still no sign that methane emissions from fossil fuel operations are falling, despite well-known and proven mitigation pathways,” the IEA said.

Methane, the second-biggest contributor to climate change, stays in the atmosphere for far less time than carbon dioxide, but its warming effect is roughly 80 times more potent over a 20-year period.

The IEA estimates that methane emissions from oil, gas and coal total 124 million tonnes a year. Oil is the largest source at 45 million tonnes (Mt), followed by coal at 43 Mt, and natural gas at 36 Mt.

“A further 20 Mt comes from bioenergy production and consumption, largely from the incomplete combustion of traditional biomass used for cooking and heating in developing economies,” the report added.

Oil prices have soared since the United States and Israel launched their war against Iran in late February and Tehran closed the Strait of Hormuz in response. An April ceasefire between the sides is currently holding, but global energy supplies remain limited.

The ongoing crisis is reshaping the global energy system and disrupting about 20 percent of global liquefied natural gas (LNG) trade flows.

Nearly 100 billion cubic metres of natural gas could be made available annually through a global effort to cut methane from oil and gas operations, the IEA said, estimating that nearly 15 billion cubic metres could be made available in a sufficiently short period of time to provide some relief to gas markets.

A further 100 billion cubic metres would be unlocked through the elimination of non-emergency flaring worldwide, it added.

Paris initiative

France, using its role as rotating chair of the Group of Seven (G7) bloc of industrialised powers, convened government officials, industry leaders and experts on Monday to build momentum on cutting methane emissions.

The conference aimed at reducing methane emissions ahead of the United Nations’ November COP31 summit.

“I sincerely hope that the discussions we will have today will enable us to join our forces to accelerate the implementation of effective solutions to reduce methane emissions,” French Ecological Transition Minister Monique Barbut said in a speech.

“Of course, action on methane is not a fight of any single actor and nobody can win it alone,” she added, noting that the world remains “very far” from meeting a pledge to cut methane emissions by 30 percent by 2030 compared with 2020 levels.

“Reducing methane emissions remains one of the best things we can do to slow global warming while cleaning up our air, improving public health, and increasing our energy security,” British Secretary of State for Energy Security Ed Miliband said in a video message.

Wildfire and insurance — issues amped by climate change — along with the price of gas, took center stage at the California governor’s debate on Tuesday night.

Here are some of the candidates’ defining statements, starting left of the stage:

Tony Thurmond

The Democratic State Superintendent of Public Instruction addressed the state’s wildfire insurance crisis, where private insurers have been dropping policies as climate changes fuels more frequent catastrophic fire. The state has allowed insurers to raise rates in return for writing more policies, but so far its backup FAIR Plan, meant to provide coverage when other companies will not, continues to grow.

Thurmond said he would withhold tax credits, subsidies and benefits from non-cooperative insurers, although moderators and other candidates raised questions about the legality of this strategy.

“The governor can certainly work with the Insurance Commissioner to say there should be no rate increase unless the insurance industry is actually writing policies. They have failed California in our greatest need. They’ve taken the money for premiums and then when people needed to have support to rebuild their homes, they said, ‘whoops, we’re not going to help you.’ Then they got a rate increase. I’m sorry, where I come from, when you do a bad job, you don’t get a raise.”

Chad Bianco

The Republican Riverside County Sheriff said insurers aren’t leaving California because of climate change, but because the state has failed to pass and enforce vegetation management and defensible space policies that would reduce wildfire risk.

“It wasn’t global warming, stop believing that. It was a failed environmental policy that doesn’t allow fire departments to prevent defensible space around our homes or clear out the brush for 30 years that are building in our mountains and in our hills that took out a city. [Insurers] specifically said we were going to lose a city, and our governor said ‘we don’t care.’ And so the insurance companies left.”

Inadequate brush clearance has contributed to other fires in the state, although it’s not a factor experts cite in the Los Angeles fires specifically.

Tom Steyer

The Democratic billionaire hedge fund founder who is positioning himself as the climate candidate in the race, touted his drive to make oil companies pay for damages from climate change, including rising insurance rates and homes lost to wildfires.

“In environmentalism, I have three real rules. Number one is polluter pays. It’s absolutely critical that if people are going to pollute and damage the environment and cause harm to their neighbors, they pay. Two, we have to include environmental justice in every single environmental rule. And third is we need to start to deploy all of the clean energy stuff that’s cheaper now and get us back to the front of the world in leading it.

“There is one person that the corporations are going after, including Big Oil, who is spending millions of dollars to stop me. The electric monopolies, PG&E, millions of dollars to stop me, because I’m the person on this stage who’s the change agent.”

Steve Hilton

The former Republican Fox News commentator said insurers should be allowed to raise rates consistent with actual wildfire risk. He also advocated for “modern forest management,” removing fuel from forests, as a way to protect against wildfires, reduce carbon emissions from fire, and revive the state’s timber industry.

“We can create jobs and opportunity in rural California and reduce carbon emissions in the process, because we won’t have the mega wildfires.”

Asked if he supports the transition to electrification, he promoted natural gas: “Yes, but let’s be sensible about electric. Right now, we have a fleet of gas fired power stations generating electricity that are running at 10 to 15% of their capacity, even though we have abundant natural gas in California that we could be using to generate affordable, reliable electricity that would lower the cost of electric bills for consumers and businesses.”

According to the U.S Energy Information Administration, California’s natural gas production provides less than one tenth of what the state consumes.

Xavier Becerra

The former Health and Human Services Secretary said he would call a state of emergency as governor to require wildfire insurers to freeze rates and come to the table.

“This affordability crisis is hitting every family, and we have to act as if this were a break glass moment … Rate payers have to understand what their risk is, so they understand why they are going to pay for what they’re going to pay for their home insurance. But an insurance company has to be open and transparent about how its pricing its policies so people can afford it.”

Moderator Julie Watts noted that California home insurance rates are below the national average and questioned the legality of a freeze.

Katie Porter

The former Democratic Orange County Congresswoman was asked whether California should keep its refineries. Two of them closed in the past year, reducing the state’s refining capacity by 20 percent and causing California to lean more heavily on imports.

She said the state should keep the remaining refineries open, but also rapidly scale up green energy to meet the state’s growing electricity demand: “Right now we need to keep all of our energy sources online. That’s just the reality that we’re in. … Right now those refineries, they’re up, they’re running, they’re creating good jobs. Let’s keep them there. But I want to be really clear … The people who work at those refineries, and the people who live in Kern County also face some of the worst pollution and lower life expectancies. Green energy gets us out of that.”

She also backed an idea to have state dollars cover insurance for insurers, known as reinsurance.

Matt Mahan

Democratic San Jose Mayor called to suspend the state’s 61 cent-per-gallon gas tax, used to fund road repairs, bridges, and public transport. The state is looking at a $216.4 billion revenue shortfall over the next decade due to increasing fuel economy and electric vehicles. The other Democratic candidates support keeping the tax; Mahan has instead proposed a flat fee on all vehicles.

He said: “I’m the only candidate on this stage who has pledged to suspend and then reform the gas tax. It is the most regressive tax in California. Working people, rural people, are spending three times as much maintaining our roads as wealthier EV owners.”

On the wildfire insurance crisis he said: “The government in Sacramento created so many restrictions, including taking over a year to approve any rate changes, prohibiting insurance companies from using climate data to project future costs, that they stopped writing new policies. The answer is bring them back, force them to compete, allow them to appropriately price risk, and then hold government accountable for maintaining our wildland, reducing all that vegetation and wildfire risk so that we don’t have these catastrophic fires.”

Antonio Villaraigosa

The former Democratic L.A. mayor expressed his concerns with the readiness of the state’s infrastructure to support a transition to electric vehicles.

“We need an all of the above strategy that understands we’ve got to transition from oil and gas to renewables. But here’s an example: the 2035 mandate [to ban gas-powered car sales]. We built 167,000 charging stations in the last 10 years. We need 2 million more to get to that mandate, and if we build them, we don’t have a grid. So we ought to build the grid instead of arguing about whether or not we need an all-of-the-above policy.”

Water sustains life, but what happens when it is weaponised? In the ongoing US-Israel war on Iran, desalination plants supplying millions in the Gulf have become targets. This reflects a growing pattern: water infrastructure is increasingly vulnerable as global scarcity intensifies. The United Nations warns of looming “water bankruptcy” driven by climate change and rising global demands, including AI data centres.

Presenter: Stefanie Dekker

Guests:

Kaveh Madani – Director, UNU Institute for Water, Environment & Health

Zeina Moneer – Environmental policy and climate programmes expert

On the outskirts of Somalia’s southern port city, the land has become an open graveyard for cattle. Some are left where they fell, while others are buried in shallow graves after consecutive failed rainy seasons.

For many families here, pastoralists who rely on livestock for milk, meat, and income, animals were everything, but what was once a lifeline of food and income has now become a stark symbol of loss.

The impact is not just felt in Kismayo, but across the country, with 6.5 million people forced to skip meals and go hungry every day. Drought and rising costs only pushing the country deeper into crisis.

The humanitarian director at Save the Children, Francesca Sangiorgi, says the crisis is being driven by repeated climate shocks that are compounding over time. “We’re seeing multiple rainy seasons that have failed across the country,” she tells Al Jazeera, adding that even when rain arrives, it is often too uneven and too late to restore livelihoods that have already collapsed.

What’s the scale of the crisis?

The scale of Somalia’s hunger crisis is severe and rapidly worsening.

With a third of the population facing severe food insecurity (classified as IPC Phase 3 and above), many households are struggling to get enough food to meet their basic daily requirements (PDF) — and in some cases going without food altogether, leaving them more vulnerable to malnutrition and illnesses such as diarrhoea, measles, and other infections.

Of these, more than 2 million people are in the most critical conditions short of famine (IPC Phase 4 or emergency levels), where families are facing extreme shortages and are increasingly forced into displacement in search of basic needs, moving towards already overcrowded aid camps where resources are rapidly dwindling.

Children are among the most affected. According to the UN, an estimated 1.8 million children under five in Somalia are at risk of acute malnutrition, putting their survival in immediate danger.

Sangiorgi notes that the deterioration has been unfolding rapidly, its effects already evident.

“The situation of children across the country is extremely concerning,” she explains. “We’re seeing the spread of child illnesses across the country. Dropout rates are extremely high right now, and they continue to rise because of the drought. We want to make sure that children have a chance at life—access to the health and nutrition services they need, as well as education.”

According to Doctors Without Borders, known by its French initials MSF, more than 3.3 million people have been displaced, severely straining the already limited resources and basic services in these communities.

What does the crisis look like on the ground?

Near Kismayo, one of Somalia’s largest camps for displaced people has formed, sheltering families who have nothing to eat and have travelled from across Jubbaland.

One woman describes how her herd has fallen from 200 cattle to just four, ending her very livelihood.

Barwaqo Aden, a displaced Jamame resident in Lower Juba, arrived at the camp only recently, but her eight-month-old daughter is already in the local hospital with severe malnutrition due to the lack of resources.

Others arrive after exhausting journeys, fleeing areas controlled by the armed group al-Shabab. A displaced resident, Hodhan Mohamed, walked for days and crossed the River Juba by boat before reaching a crowded settlement, unsure what she would find. Like many new arrivals, she now waits for assistance that is limited and uncertain.

Sangiorgi explains that secondary displacement – when people who have already been forced from their homes are displaced again – is becoming increasingly frequent. “As services and commodities continue to shrink across the country, the prices of essential goods keep rising as well.”

More than 3.8 million Somalis are currently displaced, making up 22 percent of the population. Many have been uprooted multiple times, moving from one settlement to another as aid resources dwindle and access to support becomes more limited.

What’s driving the crisis?

At its core, the crisis is primarily driven by climate shocks.

Somalia has had three consecutive failed rainy seasons in recent years, drying out rivers, wells, and pasturelands.

For livestock-dependent communities, the impact has been immediate: animals are dying, and with them, livelihoods are disappearing.

As local production collapses, families are forced to buy from markets even as food, fuel, and water prices continue to rise. In rural areas, especially, incomes no longer stretch far enough to meet needs.

Insecurity caused by armed conflict adds further strain, displacing communities and limiting access for aid workers in some regions.

Beyond Somalia, the global economic crisis linked to the US–Israeli war on Iran has also played a role in constricting supply chains. A UN aid chief told the Reuters news agency in March that these disruptions are compounding costs and weakening the ability to deliver assistance, as humanitarian systems come under growing strain.

MSF reported last month that transport costs have risen by up to 50 percent in parts of Somalia, making it harder for people to reach health facilities and increasing the cost of delivering care as fuel prices climb.

The organisation also said more than 200 health and nutrition facilities have closed since early 2025 due to sharp funding cuts, leaving critical gaps in already overstretched health services.

What does the aid collapse look like?

As the need for aid rises, humanitarian funding and response capacities are only shrinking.

The UN response plan for Somalia is currently funded at just 20 percent of what is required — with $1.42bn needed but only $288m received. That discrepancy has forced major cuts, reducing the number of people targeted for assistance from 6 million to just 1.3 million.

For Somalia, which relies heavily on imported food and external assistance, the consequences are immediate. Fewer supplies are reaching ports, while the cost of delivering essentials continues to rise, testing an already fragile system.

As UN humanitarian chief Tom Fletcher told Reuters in March, “These [constraints] will damage our humanitarian supply chains, reduce ‌the ⁠humanitarian supplies we can get to people who need them, but they’ll also drive up energy costs and food costs across the region, this really is a perfect storm of factors right now, and I’m seriously worried,” he stated.

The humanitarian response has been cut by 75 percent, meaning millions of Somalis are no longer receiving assistance, even as the crisis deepens on the ground.

If you were going to pick a single issue whose treatment exemplifies the forces at work in this midterm election, the best choice would be one over which there’s been relatively little contention — climate change.

That’s not because there is any broad agreement among the candidates on the severity of global warming or human activity’s contribution to it. To the contrary, the question seldom has been discussed in this campaign because views on it have become utterly politicized. Skepticism about human technology’s role in accelerating climate change, and doubt concerning the phenomenon’s very existence, have become, at least on the Republican side, a matter of lock-step partisan orthodoxy.

For example, 19 of the 20 GOP candidates who are in closely contested races and have expressed a position on the issue say they have doubts about the scientific evidence for global warming, despite the overwhelming consensus among scientists. That includes Arizona’s John McCain, who formerly supported legislation to reduce carbon emissions. Mark Kirk of Illinois, who voted for cap-and-trade as a congressman, is the lone Republican holdout. Some of the other senatorial candidates express ambivalence about the science but firmly reject any legislative or regulatory remedy; more agree with Louisiana’s David Vitter, who calls the evidence for climate change “pseudo-science garbage.”

Recent polls show just how deeply partisan the split over global warming has become, and how closely it conforms to the deep fissures that have reshaped this year’s electoral landscape. A survey by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, for instance, found that over the last four years, the percentage of Americans who believe there’s solid scientific evidence for climate change has declined from 79% to 59%. In 2006, half of us believed that global warming was caused by human activities; today, only 34% do. An Opinion Research Corp. survey found that while 82% of Democrats feel the United States should take a leading role in addressing global warming, only 39% of Republicans now do.

In part, public opinion researchers agree, the rise of the “tea party” movement accounts for both the growing skepticism and the demand, which we now can recognize as characteristic, for ideological conformity. In its survey, for example, Pew found that 70% of self-described tea party sympathizers don’t believe there’s convincing evidence that the Earth is warming. A New York Times/CBS poll found that only 14% of tea party supporters say that “global warming is an environmental problem that is having an effect now.” Opinion Research reported that only 27% of tea party adherents support the idea of America taking a leading role on the problem.

The New York Times also has documented among some tea party adherents a strong streak of religious objection to the reality of climate change. As Norman Dennison, one of the group’s Indiana founders, told the paper, global warming “is a flat-out lie…. I read my Bible. He made this Earth for us to utilize.” Another Indiana tea party member asserted that “being a strong Christian, I cannot help but believe the Lord placed a lot of minerals in our country, and it’s not there to destroy us.”

The fundamentalist delusion, whether about the Constitution or theology, and demands for a purified orthodoxy are defining characteristics of this campaign. When it comes to the politicization of a purely scientific question — climate change — so too is the role of money quietly or covertly dispensed by big business and the self-interested rich. Some of the tea party’s biggest funders, including Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks, are creatures of the oil and coal companies. They’ve also supported virtually the entire network of fringe scientists, think tanks and publishers who over the past few years have raised a host of spurious questions and allegations concerning the consensus on climate change among reputable scientists.

They’re the same individuals and companies putting up big money to support Proposition 23, which would gut California’s attempts to reduce carbon emissions. Koch Industries and Murray Energy Corp. already are major givers to the U.S. Senate’s biggest deniers, including James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), who has called global warming “the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.”

Think back to the billions Big Tobacco spent on the long guerrilla war to stave off regulation of its death-dealing products and you’ve pretty much got the picture here, though this time around, the corporate manipulators are hoping that they’ve co-opted the climate skeptics in order to fill the oil and coal companies’ coffers for years to come.

timothy.rutten@latimes.com

The global fallout of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz may create the impression that the world cannot function without fossil fuels. Nothing could be further from the truth. Every single industry can and must decarbonise.

For global shipping, this process would be relatively easy because technological solutions exist and a single United Nations agency can set legally binding rules for all ships. The first steps have already been made.

In 2025, member states of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) agreed on a policy mechanism to cut shipping emissions: the Net-Zero Framework (NZF). But they opted to postpone a decision on formal adoption of this landmark agreement.

This delay is emblematic of obstructive tactics used by countries opposing climate action.

The IMO Framework – the world’s first global carbon price on any international polluter – took years of compromises and watering-down. As it stands, it is the lowest possible bar Pacific Island states like the one I represent can accept. We cannot give in another inch.

While I join the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels in Santa Marta, Colombia, next week, delegates will gather again at the IMO in London to decide whether to uphold their unanimous commitment to phase out fossil fuels in a just and equitable way.

The delegates of Vanuatu who travel to London have a mandate to push for the adoption of the NZF this year.

Should anyone reopen the framework to water it down, our position is clear: We will revert to our original Pacific demand for a universal levy on emissions of $150 per tonne of carbon dioxide.

Last year my country abstained from the vote on the NZF agreement. We reached that decision because the mechanism is not nearly ambitious enough. Even so, it is a starting point we can work with.

But since then, the tide has shifted dramatically.

After the delay in adoption, a small group of countries is now suggesting further weakening the ambition in the framework to meet the demands of particularly influential states whose current policy positions are not aligned with climate ambition. This strategy is problematic as reducing our collective actions to align with those that want no climate action at all is incompatible with our people’s continued survival.

The world’s poorest countries, and the planet, simply cannot afford anything less than what is already on the table.

The framework, as it is, gives the world and the industry some chance of meeting the climate obligations that IMO countries committed to in 2023, namely reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 in a just and equitable way.

The NZF introduces penalty fees – eg emission pricing for noncompliance with the regulation. This provides the regulation with a “stick” to ensure ships comply or else they must pay.

The penalties also represent revenues, up to $10bn to $12bn a year, to both incentivise industry transition and enable a fair transition for all. This fund is a lifeline for developing – and especially least developed – states to be able to afford clean maritime energy upgrades and compensate for the rising trade costs because of this transition.

Some claim that revenues raised by the NZF will blow out transport costs. This is preposterous.

The penalties charged through this framework come down to less than $1.50 per year for every living human being – although the biggest polluters should pay this cost. If the richest 10 percent of the world’s population foots this bill, it adds up to less than $15 per person. That’s a few coffees a year, which the world’s richest can easily spare.

Losing both financial penalties for noncompliance and financial support for countries like mine in the name of a political compromise with rich oil-producing states is a bad deal. Not just for all climate-vulnerable states but also for the industry that demands and deserves clarity.

If anything, we need more action and more ambition in the framework.

For years, Pacific states have pushed for the IMO regulation to be in the form of a universal levy on emissions, by pricing all emissions. We managed to get the majority of IMO member states on board, including the European Union, South Korea and Japan, as well as important Global South states, such as Panama and Liberia. However, the US has been very effective in exerting its influence in this area, which is resulting in shifts to some positions to the detriment of us all.

Our position was always backed by the best available scientific evidence.

A levy on all shipping emissions is the best way to send an unambiguous signal to the industry: Invest in the future now! The revenues, up to 10 times more than those from the NZF, serve as both a bigger stick for polluters and a bigger carrot for first movers and cash-poor countries.

This is not a handout: Hitting net zero by 2050 is not possible if our countries cannot invest in clean ships.

The bridge we have built in the form of the NZF through years of compromise and evidence is still standing. Let us cross it together by adopting it as agreed without any further dilution.

Pacific states stand ready to fight for what science and justice demand, and we call on our partners to stand with us.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.