To the European Commission
Europe is at a pivotal moment in the global response to climate change. The EU Methane Regulation stands out as one of the most consequential climate measures adopted anywhere in the world, not only because of its ambition, but because of its capacity to deliver rapid, near-term climate benefits.
At a time when the world is already experiencing climate overshoot, methane abatement remains the single fastest lever available to slow the rate of warming this decade. The scientific case is unequivocal. The policy architecture now exists. What is needed is not dilution of ambition, but clarity of implementation.
As Prime Minister Mia Mottley powerfully argued in a recent public intervention, methane reduction represents an “ozone-layer moment” for climate action: a narrow but decisive window in which leadership can deliver disproportionate benefits for planetary stability. Europe’s methane regulation is one of the few policies globally capable of seizing that moment.
Recent reports suggesting pressure to weaken or delay the application of methane requirements for imported gas are therefore deeply concerning. The Methane Regulation was designed, negotiated and adopted in full awareness of Europe’s energy security challenges following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It already includes phased timelines and safeguards that balance feasibility with environmental integrity. Reopening or informally reinterpreting its core provisions would undermine regulatory certainty and risk locking in higher-emissions gas for years to come.
Evidence increasingly shows that strong implementation of the Regulation is compatible with, and can even strengthen, Europe’s energy security. Independent analysis indicates that global supplies of gas capable of meeting robust monitoring, reporting and verification standards will exceed EU demand well before import requirements fully apply. LNG contracting and regasification bookings have continued, demonstrating that market actors are planning for compliance rather than retreating from it.
Where genuine challenges remain, they relate primarily to clarity, not capability. Industry uncertainty is being driven less by the substance of the Regulation than by ambiguity around acceptable implementation pathways, particularly in relation to tracing emissions data back to the production site. In this context, approaches that rely on broad, national-level certification schemes risk creating the appearance of compliance without delivering real emissions reductions. This would weaken the Regulation’s effectiveness and disadvantage companies that have invested in genuine methane mitigation.
The appropriate response to these challenges is not to lower standards, but to provide clear, authoritative guidance that ensures implementation remains aligned with the letter and intent of the law. Certainty on issues such as traceability, MRV equivalence, and enforcement will reduce the risk of contractual disputes, support investment in methane abatement, and protect the credibility of EU climate policy.
The Climate Crisis Advisory Group stands ready to support the Commission in this effort. As a network of climate scientists, policy experts and former senior policymakers, we are keen to contribute to constructive dialogue on implementation pathways that preserve environmental integrity while providing practical clarity to regulators and market participants alike.
Europe’s leadership on methane has global consequences. Holding firm on the Methane Regulation, while strengthening guidance and engagement around its implementation, would reaffirm the EU’s role as a standard-setter at a moment when the world urgently needs credible, science-led climate action.
Yours sincerely,
Sir David King
Chair, Climate Crisis Advisory Group
.png)
