00:00 Good morning,
00:01 everyone.
00:03 Uh,
00:03 warm greetings from Washington DC,
00:06 where we are preparing for Thanksgiving.
00:09 It's a good time to have this discussion on trade and methane
00:13 and reflect on the outcomes of COP 27.
00:17 At the outset,
00:18 I would like to recognize the strong collaboration between the World
00:21 Trade Organization and the World Bank in the trade and climate change
00:26 effort,
00:26 including the joint seminar series on trade and climate change that
00:30 we have been running throughout the year with the strong support
00:34 of the World Bank Geneva office.
00:37 From the time we launched our World Bank report
00:40 on the trade and climate change nexus in September
00:43 of last year,
00:45 To the WTO's successful launch of its World Trade
00:49 report on trade and climate change at COP 27,
00:53 it's very encouraging to see
00:55 that the analytical breadth and dialogue has increased,
00:58 and various fora are emphasizing the fact
01:01 that trade remains
01:03 a critical part of the solution
01:05 to climate change.
01:08 We also want to thank our audience,
01:10 audience members who have been with us
01:13 on this learning and knowledge sharing journey.
01:16 Our objective is to emerge informed,
01:19 better informed about the types of trade and climate-related
01:23 policies that can support the low carbon transition and adaptation
01:28 of developed of the developing world.
01:32 The topic of today's discussion is new to many of us.
01:36 We have certainly heard of methane emissions,
01:39 how potent they are,
01:40 and how urgent it is to address them.
01:44 Methane has more than 80%
01:46 the warming power of CO2 over the 1st 20 years after it reaches the atmosphere.
01:52 It contributes 40% to global warming,
01:55 and at least 25% of today's global warming is driven by methane from human actions.
02:03 And of course key emitting sectors,
02:05 as you know,
02:06 are oil and gas,
02:07 livestock,
02:08 agricultural practices,
02:09 and landfills
02:12 all have,
02:13 many have a trade angle.
02:16 This is the first time that we are drawing linkages
02:19 between methane emissions and the role of trade policy.
02:24 The World Bank recognizes methane as a top priority
02:28 in the transition
02:29 and has a long record of engagement on
02:32 methane reduction across the key areas of agriculture,
02:36 energy,
02:37 and sanitation and waste.
02:39 At COP 27,
02:41 in a session dubbed it's time to sprint,
02:44 targeting methane emissions,
02:47 President Malpas stressed
02:49 that methane's short-term potency.
02:52 poses a serious climate challenge,
02:55 and yet emissions are growing at the fastest rate ever.
02:59 This message was also emphasized during our annual meetings in October.
03:05 To this end,
03:06 the World Bank is deepening its engagement for a fast mitigation sprint
03:12 with several projects underway,
03:14 from reducing gas flaring in Iraq
03:17 to pushing for alternative technologies of rice growing in Vietnam.
03:23 It's increasingly recognized
03:26 that there are several cost-effective interventions
03:29 to reduce methane emissions in the key sectors of agriculture and food,
03:35 energy and sanitation,
03:37 and waste.
03:38 And we are focusing on bringing these solutions to our client countries.
03:45 With regard to trade policies.
03:48 Trade reforms over the past 50 years have tended to maintain a narrow focus,
03:54 mainly discussing how to address carbon emissions.
03:58 Our seminal research that will be presented by Paul Brenton today
04:04 and will be published in a forthcoming report
04:07 will show what has been missing in the analysis
04:11 and giving us a distorted picture
04:13 of policy focus.
04:16 Very quickly,
04:17 what's commonly known is that the contribution of low-income
04:21 countries to overall emissions from exports is very small
04:25 and negligible for carbon emissions.
04:29 But what's not known is that for low income countries,
04:33 greenhouse gas emissions from exports are primarily
04:36 driven by a limited number of sectors
04:39 that are actually intensive in methane emissions.
04:43 So our trade policy interventions for for climate
04:47 have really been largely misguided.
04:51 What does it mean for us today in terms of policy implications?
04:55 It means that policy efforts should take
04:58 a broad approach to all greenhouse gas emissions
05:02 and not focus only on carbon emissions
05:05 as it has traditionally
05:06 been done.
05:08 Technical assistance targeted to these methane intensive sectors
05:13 could have substantial impact
05:14 on overall low-income country green gas,
05:17 uh,
05:18 greenhouse gas emissions.
05:21 So just keeping the focus on the trade policy lens,
05:25 uh,
05:25 it gives me a great honor
05:27 to invite a friend and a,
05:29 and a champion of trade multilateralism,
05:32 uh,
05:32 Annabel Gonzalez,
05:33 who is currently
05:34 the deputy director general of the World Trade Organization,
05:38 to reflect on why today's research on methane and trade policy is useful.
05:44 And what it means for WTO members,
05:47 especially when it comes to negotiations.
05:50 Annabelle,
05:51 the floor is yours.
05:54 Thank you,
05:54 thank you very much,
05:55 uh,
05:55 Mona,
05:56 uh,
05:56 and thanks also to Maria.
05:59 I am delighted to join this event,
06:01 um,
06:02 on behalf of the WTO,
06:04 I,
06:04 I want to start by recognizing the excellent collaboration,
06:07 uh,
06:08 with the World Bank on trade and environment,
06:11 uh,
06:11 which aims at increasing our understanding and that of our members of the data and,
06:17 uh,
06:18 policy implications in this,
06:19 uh,
06:20 area.
06:20 So thank you,
06:21 thank you very much.
06:23 Uh,
06:23 in this context,
06:24 I also would like to start by congratulating Paul,
06:27 uh,
06:27 for an excellent paper.
06:28 Uh,
06:29 it's not an easy read,
06:30 uh,
06:30 but it is a rewarding one.
06:33 The paper's creative and skillful use of new environmental
06:37 input-output data reveals fresh insights that improve our understanding
06:42 of the critically important relationship between trade and climate change.
06:47 Creating climate change is also the topic of this year's World Trade Report,
06:52 the WTO's flagship publication launched by our Director General,
06:56 Doctor Ngozi Okonjo-Iwaa
06:58 at COP 27 in Sharm el-Sheikh,
07:01 uh,
07:01 just a couple of weeks ago,
07:02 uh,
07:03 and I encourage all of you to have,
07:04 uh,
07:05 uh,
07:05 to have a look.
07:06 Now the world's trade report's overreaching message is that international trade
07:11 can serve as a force multiplier to accelerate the investment,
07:16 scale up the technological solutions,
07:18 and incentivize the innovation needed to drive progress towards a net zero future.
07:24 But to harness the full potential of trade to fight climate change,
07:28 governments need to align their trade policies much more closely
07:33 with the goals and commitments of the Paris Agreement,
07:36 a point uh similar to the one that Mona was making just a few minutes ago.
07:41 Now a key challenge in all this is how to reduce emissions from trade
07:47 while ensuring that trade remains open and continues to
07:50 offer a path to economic prosperity for all countries,
07:54 especially to those who have contributed little to the climate crisis.
07:57 Climate crisis,
07:58 are suffering the brunt of its consequences,
08:01 and have yet to integrate fully into global value chains.
08:05 Now Paul Paul's paper makes a significant contribution
08:09 to understand the full nature of the challenge.
08:12 The paper looks under the hood of trade-related emissions,
08:16 and by doing so it provides a useful guidance on how developing countries
08:21 can grasp green export opportunities and avoid being shut out of foreign markets.
08:27 So let me elaborate on this by highlighting three
08:30 main takeaways I see from this important work.
08:33 The first is that not all greenhouse gas emissions are created equal.
08:38 Most analysis of the trade-related emissions have so far focused on
08:42 carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel
08:44 combustion related to energy generation.
08:47 Uh,
08:48 the paper that we are,
08:49 um,
08:50 that we're discussing today,
08:51 uh,
08:52 argues that trade researchers and policymakers
08:55 must pay attention not just to carbon,
08:57 but to other greenhouse gas,
08:59 uh,
09:00 gasses too,
09:01 uh,
09:01 nitrous oxide and methane included.
09:04 Methane,
09:05 whose warning potential is more than 80 times that of CO2,
09:10 has contributed roughly 30% of rising temperatures to date.
09:14 Cutting methane is one of the most effective things we can do
09:18 to reduce uh near-term global warming
09:21 and avoid the catastrophic risk of tipping points.
09:24 That's because methane stays in the atmosphere for about
09:27 10 years compared with 100 years for uh CO2.
09:32 So we're starting to see action at COP 26 in Glasgow last year.
09:36 More than 100 countries,
09:38 representing nearly half of global human cost,
09:41 methane emissions,
09:42 and over 2/3 of global GDP,
09:45 joined a global methane pledge,
09:48 a voluntary.
09:49 Global methane pledge and by doing so
09:52 they agreed to collectively reduce methane emissions at
09:55 least 30% from 2020 levels by 2030.
09:59 Now this is an important first step,
10:01 but much more can and must be done,
10:03 uh,
10:04 not least by us in the trade policy community.
10:07 And that brings me to my second takeaway,
10:10 which is that when it comes to action to reduce trade-related emissions,
10:15 broad is better.
10:17 The paper shows clearly that the picture of trade-related emissions hotspots
10:23 differs significantly depending on whether you consider
10:26 all greenhouse gasses or just carbon,
10:29 and whether the goods in question are widely traded or not.
10:32 The analysis offers some important pointers
10:35 on how initiatives on trade-related emissions
10:38 should be designed to deliver maximum mitigation benefits.
10:43 First,
10:43 initiatives to reduce trade-related emissions that
10:46 focus exclusively on carbon emissions,
10:48 and leave out methane or nitrous oxide
10:51 may miss opportunities to reduce emissions.
10:54 Second,
10:55 uh,
10:55 initiative that focus narrowly on carbon intensive products may
10:59 have the unintended consequences of increasing overall emissions if they
11:03 cause export demand to shift away from carbon intensive sectors
11:07 and towards sectors that are methane or NO2 intensive,
11:10 and I found that point uh very interesting.
11:13 And third,
11:14 initiatives that focus exclusively on export sectors
11:17 with high emission intensities such as cattle,
11:20 may have limited impacts compared with broader
11:23 initiatives that include sectors like electronics,
11:26 which have relatively low emissions intensity but are widely traded.
11:31 Now the paper also provides new insights into the bias
11:34 of past tariff reforms in favor of emission intensive,
11:38 uh,
11:38 sectors,
11:39 um,
11:40 and here again I think that the policy advice is that broader is,
11:45 is better.
11:46 We cannot rely on just one tool,
11:48 tariff reductions,
11:49 to reform,
11:50 for instance,
11:51 agriculture.
11:52 trade policies,
11:53 but instead we must reach for every tool in our toolbox
11:57 to promote global trade in agricultural food and food products
12:01 that is open,
12:02 fair,
12:02 and predictable,
12:03 and that contributes fully
12:05 not just to climate sustainability but also to food security,
12:09 nutrition and health.
12:12 Now thanks to important work over the past few years,
12:16 we have built a strong empirical foundation to guide these efforts.
12:20 Let me just highlight here
12:22 the important contribution of the World Bank,
12:24 especially on repurposing domestic support towards investment
12:28 that reduce emissions and improve productivity.
12:32 My 3rd and final takeaway
12:34 is that we need more cooperation on trade and climate.
12:38 This is one of the main messages coming out of the
12:41 WTO's World Trade Report and finds an echoes in Paul's analysis.
12:46 The paper shows that exports of low income countries remain
12:50 concentrated in sectors that are intensive in methane emissions,
12:55 especially fossil fuels and agricultural products,
12:58 and this makes low income countries potentially vulnerable to
13:01 trade-related climate mitigation measures imposed by their trading partners,
13:06 even though their contribution to overall emissions from exports is very small.
13:11 Yet
13:12 the analysis has a silver lining.
13:14 It reveals it reveals differences across countries
13:18 in the emission intensity of exports,
13:20 and that suggests that low income countries
13:23 could reduce the emissions intensity of their
13:25 exports by adopting better technologies and techniques.
13:29 For example,
13:30 we see that many technologies to address methane emissions already exist
13:34 in the agricultural sectors,
13:36 many companies are already commercializing feed additives for cattle,
13:40 while alternative approaches to water,
13:42 soil carbon,
13:43 nitrogen,
13:44 and land management provide proven options to rice and crop farmers.
13:49 So in my view,
13:50 all of this suggests three important areas of trade cooperation.
13:54 First,
13:55 promoting trade in climate goods and services,
13:57 reducing barriers for trading climate goods and services would make it easier and
14:02 less costly for low-income countries to
14:04 access the technological solutions that they need
14:07 to increase the emissions efficiency of their exports.
14:11 Second,
14:11 reforming agricultural trade policies
14:14 to help make the food and agricultural system fit for purpose,
14:18 and it is beyond time to update the agricultural trade rulebook
14:22 so that trade can play a bigger role in ensuring food security
14:26 and improving nutrition,
14:28 promoting sustainability,
14:29 and alleviating poverty.
14:31 And third,
14:32 reinforcing trade-related technical assistance and capacity building.
14:36 So it is essential that farmers and businesses in developing countries,
14:40 especially the least developed ones,
14:41 have the support that they need
14:43 to take,
14:43 to seize the new trade,
14:45 uh,
14:45 green trade opportunities.
14:48 At the WTO,
14:49 we see some encouraging signs of progress in this and other areas.
14:53 For example,
14:54 since 2020,
14:55 there have been renewed efforts by a group of
14:57 WTO members of all sizes and levels of development
15:00 to explore ways to promote trade in environmental goods and services,
15:04 and discussions are ongoing,
15:06 and we hope that WTO members will soon turn them into practical and concrete action.
15:12 Another area where we see movement is agricultural trade.
15:16 At our 12 ministerial conference last June,
15:18 WTO members reaffirmed their commitment to make progress
15:21 towards a fair and market-oriented agricultural trading system,
15:25 and WTO members exchanged many ideas
15:28 on how to put this commitment into practice
15:31 at a recent brainstorming session convened by our Director General.
15:35 And finally,
15:36 we must harness the full potential of the Aid for Trade initiative,
15:40 which is increasingly about investment for trade
15:43 to help developing and least developed
15:44 countries take advantage of green export opportunities
15:47 and lower their trade-related emissions.
15:50 As a key player in the Aid for Trade initiative,
15:53 the World Bank has a critically important role to play,
15:56 as many as,
15:57 as have many of our partners.
16:00 So,
16:01 let me conclude by commending
16:03 uh the World Bank,
16:05 Paul and the team,
16:06 uh once again for an excellent piece of work.
16:09 This analysis provides a strong evidence base to help
16:12 bring trade and climate change policies closer together,
16:15 and I hope that trade officials will integrate some
16:18 of the paper's findings into their own discussions in Geneva
16:21 and in capitals.
16:22 From the perspective of the WTO Secretariat,
16:25 I know the paper will enrich our own reflections on trade and climate
16:29 and on how to strengthen even more collaboration with the
16:32 World Bank and other partners on this vital topic.
16:35 Thank you very much.
16:39 Thank you very much,
16:40 uh,
16:40 Annabel.
16:41 Uh,
16:42 these were excellent points,
16:43 and this is a critical time where it's really,
16:46 uh,
16:46 very important that our organizations work together to find solutions for,
16:51 uh,
16:51 this really important,
16:53 uh,
16:53 issue.
16:54 And,
16:54 uh,
16:54 with that,
16:55 I would like to ask Maria to please take over to chair the next session.
16:59 Thank you very much.
17:02 Thank you very much,
17:03 uh,
17:03 Mona and Annabelle for your valuable insights and,
17:06 uh,
17:07 many thanks on my side as well for the excellent collaboration to organize,
17:10 uh,
17:11 yet another event.
17:12 Uh,
17:13 so,
17:13 uh,
17:13 to detail the findings of this important research,
17:16 we have Paul Brendon,
17:17 uh,
17:17 our colleague who is our lead economist in the macroeconomics,
17:20 Trade and Investment Global practice of the World Bank.
17:23 Uh,
17:24 Paul,
17:24 I'm coming to you.
17:25 Could you please give us a deep dive into what your research is telling us,
17:28 and more importantly,
17:30 what it means for developing countries?
17:32 The floor is yours.
17:34 Thank you very much Maria.
17:35 Uh I hope you can hear me OK.
17:37 Yes,
17:37 very well.
17:38 Great.
17:38 And,
17:39 and thanks very much to Mona
17:40 and to Annabelle for the,
17:41 those great introductions,
17:42 and I,
17:42 I've got the opportunity to,
17:44 to drill down a little bit on some of the key points that,
17:46 uh,
17:47 that they were making.
17:48 Um,
17:48 but I want to stress that this is part of a,
17:50 a,
17:50 a teamwork,
17:51 uh,
17:51 with my colleagues Vicky Chemutai,
17:53 Marilla Marizuka,
17:54 and Eugene Jung who work,
17:56 you know,
17:56 on the,
17:57 the trade and climate change program here at the World Bank.
18:00 Um,
18:00 I don't know if Yason,
18:01 if the,
18:01 the presentation is ready.
18:03 Um,
18:04 great,
18:04 thank you.
18:05 Um.
18:06 So yes,
18:07 we've,
18:07 we've been working on the issue of,
18:08 of trade and climate change for,
18:10 for several years now,
18:11 uh,
18:12 and,
18:12 and stressing
18:13 that whilst trade is an important contributor
18:16 of greenhouse gas gas emissions,
18:18 it's also part of the solution
18:20 to climate change and the mitigation of those emissions.
18:24 Um,
18:25 but
18:25 as,
18:26 as it was previously mentioned,
18:27 most of the focus to date has been on,
18:29 uh,
18:30 carbon dioxide emissions.
18:32 And this work really looks at,
18:33 you know,
18:34 what is the importance of methane
18:35 and why we should take it more seriously.
18:37 Uh,
18:38 so if you can go to the next slide please.
18:42 So the first question is,
18:42 you know,
18:43 why trade,
18:43 why methane?
18:44 I,
18:44 I think,
18:44 uh,
18:45 Mona and Annabelle answered that in,
18:47 in,
18:47 in many ways.
18:48 Uh,
18:49 you know,
18:49 we know that trade is an important contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.
18:53 You know,
18:53 the rough ballpark estimates are around 25%
18:56 of all emissions of greenhouse gas emissions
18:59 are the result of trade and trade related activities,
19:02 whether that's the production of traded goods
19:04 or their,
19:05 their movement around the world.
19:07 Um,
19:08 and so,
19:08 you know,
19:09 trade,
19:09 trade is an important point where,
19:11 uh,
19:11 the,
19:11 you know,
19:11 mitigation opportunities
19:13 are,
19:14 are,
19:14 are apparent,
19:15 um.
19:16 And as we're saying,
19:17 existing analysis has really focused on,
19:19 on CO2,
19:21 and most of the
19:22 trade-related climate policies that are being discussed
19:25 are also related to CO2 only.
19:27 You know,
19:28 for example,
19:29 the,
19:29 the European Union's carbon border adjustment mechanism
19:32 and their emissions trading scheme
19:34 only really considers carbon dioxide.
19:37 Um.
19:38 But we might anticipate
19:40 that emissions from methane and other greenhouse
19:43 gasses might be important because they are,
19:46 we know that they're the principal emissions.
19:48 From sectors such as agriculture
19:50 and fossil fuels,
19:52 which are key traded products.
19:54 Uh,
19:54 so it's therefore,
19:55 it's,
19:55 it's,
19:56 it's relevant and it's interesting,
19:57 I think,
19:58 to look at,
19:58 uh,
19:59 methane.
20:00 And what we find is that methane,
20:02 uh,
20:03 mitigation is,
20:04 is a challenge
20:05 and an opportunity,
20:06 especially for low income countries,
20:07 and that's something that will develop,
20:09 uh,
20:09 as we go along.
20:11 But first,
20:12 a little bit about,
20:13 about the data.
20:14 Um,
20:15 yeah,
20:16 the analysis is only as good as the,
20:17 the data that,
20:18 that we have,
20:19 um,
20:19 and,
20:19 and this data that we have here reflects an initiative,
20:23 uh,
20:23 at Purdue University in particular Maxim Chapeliev to translate
20:27 some of the information,
20:28 the information that we have on emissions
20:31 into,
20:32 uh,
20:32 uh,
20:33 allocated across sectors using input output data.
20:36 Um,
20:37 so this is using the GTAP database.
20:39 And what we have is information on
20:42 three,
20:42 the three main greenhouse gasses,
20:44 uh,
20:44 CO2,
20:45 methane,
20:45 and nitrous oxide.
20:47 And we can,
20:47 and that's allocated across 45 traded sectors
20:51 and importantly for the GTAP,
20:53 uh,
20:53 YGTAP.
20:54 Data is particularly useful
20:56 is it's available for 120 countries including uh a
20:59 a a large number of developing countries,
21:02 whereas some of the other data sets uh uh don't
21:04 get into that detail when it comes to developing countries
21:07 and you know our focus here of course is,
21:09 is on developing countries and how they can
21:11 seize the opportunities
21:13 that are going to arise in this transition to a low carbon,
21:16 uh,
21:16 world.
21:17 And what we find is that,
21:18 you know,
21:19 around 1/5
21:20 or a little bit more
21:21 of
21:22 emissions from trade.
21:24 Uh,
21:25 are the result of,
21:26 of methane,
21:27 uh,
21:27 and around 7% nitrous oxide.
21:30 Um,
21:30 so these are,
21:31 you know,
21:31 important emissions,
21:32 uh,
21:33 and it's,
21:33 it's,
21:33 you know,
21:34 they're,
21:34 they're,
21:34 uh,
21:35 sort of lack,
21:36 uh,
21:36 of,
21:36 of the participation in the discussion is an important,
21:39 uh,
21:40 omission.
21:41 Um,
21:42 just one final comment on the data,
21:43 we're focusing here on,
21:45 on sort of export data,
21:46 the,
21:46 the emissions associated with exports.
21:48 So,
21:49 you know,
21:49 it's similar to,
21:50 to production.
21:51 Um,
21:52 and we're looking at the emissions that are,
21:55 uh,
21:55 uh,
21:56 that take place in the exporting country.
21:58 We're not really,
21:59 we're not saying anything here about who's responsible,
22:02 uh,
22:02 for those emissions,
22:03 um,
22:04 in terms of,
22:04 you know,
22:05 the consumption demand,
22:06 which is another way of looking at,
22:07 at,
22:07 at,
22:08 at emissions.
22:08 We're just looking at where those emissions arise.
22:11 Uh,
22:12 if we may move to the,
22:13 the next slide,
22:13 please.
22:16 And I think the first key point
22:18 is that including methane and nitrous oxide
22:21 gives a very different picture
22:23 about emission intensity.
22:25 If you look first at the,
22:27 the right-hand figure,
22:28 uh,
22:29 the right hand figure shows,
22:30 um.
22:32 The emissions intensity
22:33 in terms of just CO2,
22:35 uh,
22:35 of exports.
22:36 This is the amount of emissions per dollar of export.
22:39 So this is what,
22:40 you know,
22:40 up to now,
22:41 uh,
22:42 you know,
22:42 analysts have been looking at in terms of emission intensities.
22:45 And it's,
22:45 it's the,
22:46 you know,
22:46 the,
22:46 the,
22:46 the,
22:46 the,
22:47 the normal sectors we talk about as being emissions intensive
22:50 are,
22:50 you know,
22:51 metals,
22:51 mineral products,
22:52 um,
22:53 chemical products,
22:54 etc.
22:56 If you now look at the left hand figure and it's the same scale.
23:00 This shows the emissions intensity
23:02 when you include,
23:03 uh,
23:03 methane and nitrous oxide.
23:05 And as you can see,
23:06 that gives a very,
23:07 very different picture as to what are the most emission intensive sectors.
23:11 Uh,
23:11 agricultural sectors are by far,
23:14 uh,
23:14 the most emissions intensive
23:16 and that's because of methane.
23:17 And as,
23:18 uh,
23:18 I think both
23:19 Mona and Annabelle were saying,
23:21 this is because methane is a particularly potent
23:23 greenhouse gas.
23:24 Um.
23:26 So,
23:27 agriculture,
23:28 you know,
23:28 in looking at methane and including agricultural sectors,
23:31 uh,
23:32 gives a very different picture
23:33 of emissions intensity,
23:35 um.
23:36 It's important though to take into account that the,
23:39 these,
23:39 the agricultural sectors are,
23:41 are not the most intensively traded sectors.
23:44 So some of these low emission intensity sectors
23:48 contribute
23:49 more
23:50 to emissions
23:51 or may contribute more to emissions than some of the high emission sectors.
23:55 Um,
23:55 so,
23:56 you know,
23:57 the,
23:57 the two extremes are,
23:58 you know,
23:58 um,
23:59 bovine cattle in,
24:01 in our data,
24:01 there's two extremes of bovine cattle and pharmaceutical products.
24:05 Uh,
24:05 and a dollar of exports of bovine cattle
24:08 contributes,
24:08 you know,
24:09 almost 60 times
24:10 more
24:11 GHGs,
24:13 uh,
24:13 per dollar of exports than pharmaceutical products.
24:16 But it's,
24:16 uh,
24:16 bovine cattle contribute much,
24:18 much less in terms of total emissions than
24:21 pharmaceutical products because trade in pharmaceutical products is,
24:24 is much,
24:24 much greater.
24:26 Indeed,
24:27 uh,
24:27 the sector which contributes most to emissions,
24:30 um,
24:31 is,
24:31 is the,
24:32 is,
24:32 is,
24:32 is one of the low intensity sectors which is electronic products,
24:35 uh,
24:36 but that's because it's the most heavily traded.
24:39 Um,
24:40 but even so,
24:41 uh,
24:41 including methane and,
24:42 and greenhouse gasses does give a very picture,
24:45 very different picture about emissions intensities.
24:47 If we can go to the next slide,
24:49 please.
24:52 Um,
24:53 as was mentioned,
24:54 yeah,
24:54 there's previously been some very important work
24:57 which has shown that for
24:59 CO2,
25:00 uh,
25:01 tariffs,
25:02 uh,
25:02 customs tariffs
25:03 are biased
25:04 towards dirty industries.
25:06 The tariffs are lower
25:08 on higher emitting
25:10 sectors
25:10 than they are on lower emitting sectors.
25:13 And you know,
25:14 the first figure here confirms that
25:16 in our data.
25:17 If we just look at carbon dioxide emissions
25:20 and tariffs,
25:21 uh,
25:22 we see
25:23 this is a downward sloping uh relationship with higher intensity
25:27 product uh sectors
25:28 uh subject to to.
25:29 Lower customs tariffs
25:31 here
25:32 this is very simple analysis.
25:34 We're just looking at global average tariffs for each
25:36 sector and the average CO2 emission intensity of exports.
25:40 The key paper here by Shapiro is much more rigorous and robust,
25:43 but this just captures that finding.
25:47 What we find,
25:48 and this replicates some,
25:49 some of the initial work that,
25:51 that Maxim has done,
25:53 is that once you include
25:55 other greenhouse gasses,
25:57 this relate this negative relationship between
25:59 tariffs and emissions intensity disappears.
26:02 Uh,
26:02 there's no strong,
26:03 uh,
26:03 relationship now
26:05 between the emissions intensity and the tariff.
26:07 Um,
26:07 and that's because
26:09 the,
26:10 uh,
26:10 high,
26:11 uh,
26:12 methane emissions sectors are agriculture,
26:15 and they have
26:16 high tariffs.
26:17 Uh,
26:18 manufacturing and most fossil fuels have been subject to uh,
26:22 you know,
26:22 considerable periods of,
26:23 of,
26:24 of tariff reduction over the last 30,
26:25 40 years,
26:27 whereas tariff liberalization of agricultural sectors has been much slower.
26:31 And that.
26:32 You know,
26:32 uh contributes or accounts for why we,
26:34 we no longer see this relationship between tariffs and,
26:37 and,
26:37 and emission intensity
26:39 because high high emission agricultural sectors
26:41 have
26:42 high customs tariffs.
26:46 However,
26:47 if we
26:48 exclude agricultural sectors,
26:50 um,
26:52 we find again this negative relationship between tariffs and greenhouse gasses
26:57 for,
26:58 uh,
26:59 manufacturing and fossil fuel sectors.
27:01 Um,
27:02 so,
27:03 um,
27:03 for all greenhouse gasses,
27:05 uh,
27:06 for manufacturing and,
27:08 uh,
27:08 extractives,
27:09 we find this bias towards
27:11 high emission intensive sectors.
27:13 So there are,
27:14 there is a policy issue here,
27:15 uh,
27:16 about how to remove that bias,
27:18 uh,
27:18 and in,
27:19 in removing that bias
27:20 uh against
27:21 uh carbon di uh against uh the,
27:24 the high emission intensive sectors.
27:27 Um,
27:27 you will not only get benefits in terms of,
27:29 uh,
27:30 CO2,
27:31 but also methane and nitrous oxide.
27:35 However,
27:35 as I think Annabelle stressed,
27:37 if we have to be careful that we don't want to shift demand
27:41 towards
27:42 the uh uh
27:43 methane intensive agricultural sectors
27:46 because overall emissions could,
27:47 could possibly then increase.
27:50 If we can go to the next slide,
27:51 please.
27:54 Here we,
27:54 we'll drill down a little bit
27:56 on uh the contribution or the source
27:59 of emissions uh from exports
28:02 according to income groups.
28:04 Um,
28:04 and so the first table shows for each greenhouse gas,
28:08 uh,
28:09 which,
28:09 which income group
28:10 is the source of,
28:12 uh,
28:13 each emission.
28:14 Um,
28:15 so,
28:15 you know,
28:16 for example,
28:16 for methane.
28:17 Uh,
28:18 fully 55%
28:20 of global emissions of,
28:22 of methane
28:23 from exports
28:25 come from,
28:26 uh,
28:26 low-income countries.
28:28 Only 0.2%
28:30 of global emissions of CO2 from exports come from low-income countries.
28:35 So,
28:35 you know,
28:35 the contribution of low,
28:36 the,
28:37 the,
28:37 the share of uh low-income countries is,
28:39 you know,
28:40 very negligible.
28:41 The CO2 and,
28:42 and N20,
28:43 a little bit more
28:45 significant for,
28:45 for methane.
28:47 But it's the,
28:48 uh,
28:48 you know,
28:48 the,
28:48 the,
28:49 the,
28:49 the richer countries,
28:50 particularly the upper middle income and the high-income countries
28:53 that are primarily responsible
28:56 for the emissions from exports
28:58 of all three,
28:59 of these,
29:00 uh,
29:01 greenhouse gasses.
29:03 Um,
29:04 the table below tries to put this in a,
29:06 uh,
29:07 uh,
29:07 in a bit of perspective,
29:09 and what this shows is the,
29:11 the share of the ratio of each country in emissions,
29:16 uh,
29:17 relative to their share of exports,
29:19 their share of global exports.
29:21 Um,
29:22 so
29:22 here the interesting thing is that for low income countries,
29:25 their,
29:26 their share of methane emissions from exports is 37 times higher
29:31 than their
29:32 their share of global exports,
29:33 um.
29:35 And I think again,
29:35 again,
29:36 again,
29:36 as Annabelle was saying this reflects that one,
29:38 low income countries have low shares of global trade,
29:41 um,
29:42 and that's,
29:43 that's a big challenge and it's a big challenge we need to address
29:45 to increase uh the share of low income countries in global trade.
29:48 But also that the structure of exports
29:51 is still,
29:52 uh,
29:52 dominated by methane intensive products,
29:55 uh,
29:55 agriculture and,
29:56 and fossil fuels.
29:59 So
30:00 in,
30:00 in this,
30:01 in this light,
30:02 uh,
30:02 you know,
30:02 the challenge for methane
30:04 is a particularly strong one for for low income countries.
30:07 What we find in the data is that as countries
30:11 develop
30:12 as they move to higher levels of income,
30:14 we see a decreasing share
30:16 of methane emissions in total emissions from
30:18 exports and an increasing share of CO2.
30:21 And that reflects,
30:22 you know,
30:23 as,
30:23 as countries develop,
30:24 they shift out of agriculture,
30:26 uh,
30:26 they diversify their exports into manufacturing,
30:29 and that's why we see the share of CO2 increasing
30:32 and the share of methane decreasing.
30:35 If we may go to the next slide,
30:36 please.
30:40 Now
30:41 where do these emissions come from?
30:42 It's interesting to,
30:44 to,
30:44 to think about the source of,
30:45 of these emissions,
30:46 and typically we classify emissions into 33 scopes.
30:51 Uh,
30:51 scope one is emissions that come directly from the establishment,
30:55 uh.
30:56 Uh,
30:57 that's under,
30:57 under,
30:57 under examination,
30:59 uh,
31:00 scope two are emissions that come from energy
31:04 that's,
31:04 uh,
31:05 that,
31:05 that it
31:06 energy that's used by the establishment that's generated externally,
31:09 um,
31:10 and,
31:10 and is imported into the establishment if you like,
31:13 and scope 3 are other
31:14 types of
31:15 inputs,
31:16 uh,
31:17 that come from outside of the establishment,
31:18 the firm or the sector.
31:20 Um,
31:21 And interestingly here and perhaps not surprisingly,
31:25 the vast majority
31:26 of emissions,
31:28 greenhouse gas emissions from exports from low-income countries,
31:32 uh,
31:32 are attributed to scope one.
31:34 So they,
31:34 they're directly uh arise
31:38 from the activities of that sector.
31:40 Um,
31:40 and that's because,
31:41 yeah,
31:41 for agriculture
31:43 and for extractives,
31:44 a lot of the emissions arise in,
31:46 at that point of production.
31:48 And they're in scope 2,
31:50 which is,
31:50 you know,
31:51 electricity generation in
31:53 energy generation,
31:54 um,
31:55 and scope 3 of,
31:56 of,
31:56 uh a very,
31:57 uh,
31:57 small share of,
31:58 of,
31:59 of,
31:59 of the total emissions.
32:01 It's a very different picture,
32:02 uh,
32:02 for,
32:03 for other income groups,
32:04 um,
32:05 but it does suggest that for low income countries
32:08 targeting emissions from the side of production,
32:11 um,
32:11 is,
32:11 is,
32:12 is,
32:12 is how to be most effective in mitigating emissions,
32:15 um.
32:16 But other countries,
32:18 you know,
32:18 it,
32:18 it's,
32:19 you need to look
32:20 also at the source
32:22 of,
32:22 uh,
32:23 the,
32:23 the emissions in terms of SOO 2 and how
32:26 greening the electricity grid,
32:27 the energy grid,
32:28 uh,
32:29 will be an important
32:30 but not the dominant,
32:31 uh,
32:32 source of mitigation opportunities in many cases.
32:35 Um,
32:36 but,
32:36 and,
32:37 and also looking at scope 3 emissions for these other inputs from outside the firm.
32:42 It's interesting there for high income countries that the,
32:44 the main source of emissions is scope one,
32:46 but I think that reflects that
32:48 a number of the high income countries are actually fossil fossil fuel exporters.
32:54 If you may move on,
32:55 please.
32:59 Another key
33:00 feature of the data that we have
33:02 is that the emission intensity varies across exporters for a given sector.
33:08 So for a particular sector,
33:09 we see a very wide variation
33:11 in the emission intensities
33:13 across different countries.
33:15 Here we've just got two sectors.
33:16 Uh,
33:17 one is a methane emission intensive sector and
33:19 the other is a CO2 emission intensive sector.
33:22 Um.
33:23 And what we see,
33:24 and these are the top 10 exporters,
33:26 uh,
33:27 for each of these,
33:28 uh,
33:28 each of these sectors.
33:30 We see,
33:30 you know,
33:31 a very wide variation,
33:32 um,
33:33 in emissions intensity,
33:35 uh,
33:35 for,
33:35 for meat exports,
33:37 um,
33:37 by a matter of 5 or or more.
33:39 Um.
33:41 Reflecting at least
33:43 in part,
33:44 different technologies
33:45 that are being used in different approaches
33:48 in the different exporting countries.
33:50 And then similarly for
33:52 uh electronic equipment,
33:53 one of the biggest export sectors,
33:55 um,
33:56 where it's,
33:57 um,
33:58 CO2
33:59 that is the,
34:00 the dominant,
34:01 uh,
34:02 Gas,
34:03 uh,
34:03 that's emitted.
34:04 And again,
34:05 we see significant,
34:07 uh,
34:08 differences in emission intensities,
34:10 uh,
34:10 across exporters.
34:12 Uh,
34:13 you know,
34:13 China here,
34:14 which is the,
34:15 the largest exporter
34:16 of electronic equipment,
34:18 is also the highest emission
34:20 intensive country.
34:21 So there are enormous opportunities here,
34:24 uh,
34:24 for emissions reduction
34:26 from what appears to be overall a low emission intensive sector,
34:31 but because there's this considerable variation
34:33 in emission intensity across countries.
34:36 So on the one hand,
34:38 this is a uh a a
34:40 a source of uh potential uh competitiveness
34:43 for countries.
34:44 Countries that are low emission
34:46 exporters of a particular sector
34:49 may,
34:49 uh,
34:50 will have a competitive advantage
34:52 as we,
34:52 we increasingly put a,
34:54 uh,
34:54 a price,
34:55 uh,
34:56 on emissions
34:57 and we move to schemes that,
34:58 that may,
34:58 may tax,
34:59 uh,
35:00 products at the border
35:01 according to their emission,
35:03 uh,
35:04 content.
35:05 Um,
35:05 but also that there are opportunities for high emission countries,
35:09 uh,
35:09 to reduce their emissions
35:10 if they can adopt technologies
35:12 that are available elsewhere.
35:14 And if we may move to the next slide,
35:15 please.
35:17 Um,
35:19 This is a,
35:20 a very simple,
35:21 very simple scenario,
35:23 um.
35:24 It's a,
35:25 you know,
35:25 a real back of the envelope calculation,
35:27 which is at my age,
35:28 all I'm,
35:29 I'm capable of,
35:30 uh,
35:31 anymore.
35:31 Um,
35:32 but what it shows here is what would happen
35:35 if
35:36 all those exporters that are currently above average
35:40 in their emissions intensity
35:42 were able
35:43 to produce
35:44 and export at the average emissions intensity
35:48 for the sector,
35:49 for each sector concerned.
35:51 Um,
35:51 so all we're doing is taking the above average emitters
35:54 and assuming that they can export,
35:56 uh,
35:56 at the average emission intensity.
35:58 So it's,
35:58 it's not a,
35:58 it's not a hugely,
36:00 uh,
36:00 optimistic or demanding scenario.
36:02 It's,
36:02 it's,
36:02 it's,
36:02 it's,
36:02 it's one that's,
36:03 you know,
36:04 uh,
36:04 a very simple and,
36:05 and,
36:05 you know,
36:05 should be feasible.
36:07 Um,
36:08 and what that shows in the first column there
36:10 is,
36:11 you know,
36:11 substantial reductions in emissions
36:13 that would be achieved,
36:15 um.
36:16 Around 1/3 or more
36:18 of total emissions from exports
36:21 could be
36:21 mitigated or abated
36:24 by this
36:25 transfer of technology
36:27 that allows above average emission intensity,
36:30 uh,
36:31 exporters
36:32 to produce at the average emission intensity.
36:34 Um,
36:35 the second part of the table shows,
36:37 you know,
36:37 the source which,
36:38 which countries would contribute
36:41 most,
36:41 um,
36:42 and again
36:43 for methane.
36:44 Um,
36:45 low income,
36:46 yeah,
36:46 for low-income countries,
36:47 again,
36:47 it's,
36:47 it's a methane story.
36:48 Um,
36:49 the,
36:50 the key thing here is the transfer of,
36:51 of methane mitigating technologies,
36:54 uh,
36:54 to low-income countries.
36:57 For other,
36:57 you know,
36:58 income groups,
36:59 uh,
36:59 it's CO2 becomes much,
37:00 much more important,
37:02 particularly for upper middle income countries.
37:04 Uh,
37:05 under this scenario,
37:06 upper middle income countries would contribute almost three quarters
37:09 of the reduction in CO2 emissions.
37:11 And again,
37:12 that reflects
37:13 if countries such as,
37:14 uh,
37:15 China
37:16 can,
37:16 um.
37:17 Access technologies that can reduce their emissions um
37:21 in in sectors such as electronics,
37:23 um,
37:24 where they are the key exporters.
37:26 And if we may go to the next slide,
37:28 please.
37:30 Now these funny,
37:31 funny figures uh are really just trying to
37:33 sort of promote a discussion or,
37:35 or reflect on
37:37 what,
37:37 what,
37:37 uh,
37:38 what this all entails in terms of competitiveness,
37:40 challenges and opportunities,
37:42 uh,
37:43 in a low greenhouse gas world.
37:45 What we're showing here on the figures are exports.
37:47 Each bubble
37:48 is an export sector,
37:50 and the size of the bubble reflects the size of exports.
37:53 Uh,
37:53 and what we're plotting,
37:55 uh,
37:55 these against is the CO2 intensity,
37:58 the relative CO2 intensity.
38:00 And the relative
38:01 uh methane intensity,
38:02 so relative to all other exporters of that sector.
38:06 So if all the uh uh the bubbles were,
38:08 were,
38:09 uh,
38:09 clustered around the where the axes intersect at north north,
38:13 that that country would be exporting at the average,
38:16 uh,
38:16 for all its sectors.
38:18 So here very quickly what we,
38:20 what we show for say Egypt is there's
38:22 a range that Egypt's export sectors are arranged
38:26 along a range of relative emissions.
38:30 There are some export sectors which are below average,
38:34 and this is particularly with regard to
38:36 CO2.
38:36 Methane is much less of an issue.
38:39 Some sectors in Egypt which are,
38:41 are,
38:41 are
38:42 below average in terms of emission intensity,
38:45 but a number of sectors and some of the key current export sectors
38:49 have above average emission intensities.
38:51 So there are competitiveness challenges
38:53 and
38:54 opportunities
38:56 for Egypt
38:56 in terms of CO2.
38:58 Looking at Kenya,
39:00 uh,
39:00 we see a very different picture.
39:01 For Kenya,
39:02 uh,
39:03 most sectors are,
39:04 are,
39:04 are below average in terms of CO2,
39:07 but,
39:07 but methane is much more of an issue.
39:10 So for Kenya we might,
39:11 you know,
39:11 the focus
39:12 uh uh on uh mitigation in and in terms of addressing competitiveness challenges
39:18 seems to be much more of a methane one than it does of a CO2.
39:21 Um,
39:22 but I think,
39:22 you know,
39:22 we,
39:22 we shouldn't take these,
39:23 these,
39:24 uh,
39:24 these figures
39:25 too seriously,
39:26 but they,
39:27 they,
39:28 they may promote a debate
39:29 about where the challenges and the opportunities lie,
39:32 not just in terms of CO2,
39:34 but in terms of other greenhouse gasses in a,
39:36 in a low GHG world.
39:38 And if we can go to the last slide,
39:40 I think,
39:40 which is for the conclusions and just to raise some issues.
39:44 I think first of all,
39:45 you know,
39:46 we need to invest in data
39:47 and monitoring of emissions.
39:48 The data that we're discussing are really top down data
39:51 that come from estimates of overall
39:54 emissions that are then allocated
39:56 uh across sectors.
39:58 Um,
39:59 we have very poor data,
40:00 particularly in,
40:01 uh,
40:02 developing countries,
40:03 which is sort of a bottom up approach
40:05 where we,
40:06 we collect data at the site level,
40:08 um,
40:08 and we need to,
40:09 you know,
40:10 much more effort needs to be made on that.
40:12 Uh,
40:12 and especially so that we can monitor,
40:14 uh,
40:15 emissions,
40:15 um,
40:16 to identify where there are short-term benefits,
40:19 um,
40:20 or where there are benefits from some,
40:22 from mitigation and how those,
40:23 uh,
40:23 that mitigation is achieved.
40:26 As has previously been said,
40:27 you know,
40:28 we need to have a broader policy approach to,
40:30 to mitigation of,
40:31 of greenhouse gas emissions that goes beyond
40:34 CO2,
40:35 but includes,
40:36 uh,
40:37 methane and nitrous oxide.
40:38 So,
40:39 there are risks,
40:39 risks,
40:40 uh,
40:41 of,
40:41 of a partial approach that addresses only CO2
40:44 if that shifts demand into methane
40:46 and nitrous oxide intensive products.
40:49 There are
40:50 opportunities
40:52 um
40:52 to reform tariffs
40:54 um
40:55 to have an impact on mitigations.
40:57 Currently
40:58 tariffs favor
40:59 emission intensive sectors,
41:01 um,
41:02 and
41:03 uh removing that bias in favor of CO2 emission intensive sectors
41:07 uh could have important mitigation
41:10 benefits,
41:10 sizable mitigation benefits.
41:13 But there is a challenge
41:14 when it comes to
41:16 agricultural sectors which are high methane and nitrous oxide intensive.
41:20 They've been largely left out
41:23 of tariff reform over the last 30 years.
41:26 They are subject to,
41:28 you know,
41:28 distortive subsidy regimes,
41:30 and so there's a need to coordinate trade reform
41:33 with the repurposing of subsidies
41:35 and together with the,
41:36 you know,
41:36 appropriate environmental policies.
41:39 And so that is a key challenge.
41:41 It's a particular challenge because of
41:43 the political economy issues around agriculture,
41:45 you know,
41:46 the reason agriculture
41:47 has not been included in in tariff reform
41:50 is because of the strong political economy,
41:52 uh,
41:52 factors associated with it
41:54 and similarly perhaps,
41:56 uh,
41:56 as to why it's not included in emission reduction schemes as well.
42:01 But I think
42:02 they're also to stress that there are enormous opportunities here
42:04 from the transfer of technologies that can mitigate emissions.
42:08 Many of these are low cost
42:10 and many of these can actually be productivity enhancing.
42:13 So some of the,
42:14 uh,
42:14 you know,
42:15 uh,
42:15 Annabelle mentioned some of the food
42:17 additives,
42:18 um,
42:19 into for food for cattle,
42:20 uh,
42:21 different,
42:21 uh,
42:22 approaches to the way that cattle are raised
42:24 can actually be
42:25 productivity enhancing at the same time
42:28 as,
42:28 uh,
42:29 emission mitigating.
42:31 Uh,
42:31 you know,
42:31 if you can capture methane,
42:33 uh,
42:33 that can largely or can offset in,
42:36 in substantially,
42:38 uh,
42:38 the cost of,
42:39 of capture technologies
42:40 and also contribute to,
42:42 uh,
42:42 you know,
42:42 a,
42:42 a,
42:42 a source of energy.
42:44 So
42:44 how do we make these,
42:45 the,
42:46 the technologies,
42:47 uh,
42:47 flow?
42:47 They,
42:47 they,
42:48 they.
42:49 They don't seem to be widely
42:50 uh or as widely applied as they could be at the moment.
42:54 So what is holding up the transfer of technologies?
42:56 Um,
42:57 11,
42:58 issue is we could expand
42:59 the definition of environmental goods and
43:01 services that are subject to discussion,
43:03 uh,
43:04 at the WTO,
43:05 uh,
43:06 to include agricultural technologies such as these,
43:08 you know,
43:09 additives to food,
43:10 um,
43:10 given they have this strong potential for,
43:13 uh,
43:13 climate,
43:14 uh,
43:14 greenhouse gas mitigation.
43:16 So with that,
43:16 thank you very much and look forward to the discussion.
43:20 Thank you very much,
43:21 Paul,
43:21 for the excellent presentation.
43:23 We now have uh a similarly,
43:25 an excellent group of panelists to help us break
43:28 down the issues that uh Paul has raised,
43:30 but also previously also
43:32 Mona and Annabel.
43:34 Manfredi Cartagironeer is the head of the International
43:38 Methane Emissions Observatory in the UN Environment Program.
43:42 Susan Subak is an environmental scientist and author who has
43:45 written widely on embodied emissions of methane in international trade,
43:49 and Ben Cajil,
43:50 senior fellow in the Energy Security and Climate Change
43:54 Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
43:58 Thank you all very much for being with us today.
44:00 Let us start with you,
44:01 Manfredi.
44:03 Tell us,
44:03 why does methane matter and why is methane
44:06 mitigation a key element under any decarbonization scenario?
44:10 Over to you.
44:11 Thank you,
44:12 thank you,
44:12 Maria,
44:13 and,
44:13 and let me
44:14 start by,
44:15 by thanking you,
44:16 of course,
44:17 but,
44:17 but also,
44:18 uh,
44:18 Mona and Annabella's
44:20 other representative of the World Bank and the World Trade Organization for,
44:23 for your leadership,
44:25 for,
44:26 uh,
44:26 really,
44:27 this is uh,
44:27 uh,
44:28 another example of how methane has been,
44:31 uh,
44:31 taking,
44:32 uh,
44:32 upper,
44:33 uh,
44:34 place in the international agenda on,
44:36 on climate change and,
44:37 uh.
44:38 Uh,
44:38 and,
44:39 and,
44:39 and the importance that is,
44:40 uh,
44:41 that is acquiring in,
44:42 in the international discourse that it's,
44:44 uh,
44:44 clearly very,
44:45 uh,
44:45 very promising,
44:46 uh,
44:47 fact.
44:48 Um,
44:48 so
44:49 why,
44:50 why methane matter?
44:51 Mona and,
44:52 and Annabelle I've,
44:53 I've explained it,
44:54 so I,
44:54 I won't get into the details of,
44:56 of this,
44:56 but it's really
44:57 the combination of the high potency of,
45:00 of methane,
45:01 over 80 times more powerful than CO2 in,
45:03 in warming the.
45:05 The climate over the 1st 20 years,
45:08 it is in the atmosphere,
45:09 but also this relatively short duration
45:13 in the atmosphere.
45:14 So
45:15 effectively acting on methane between now and 2030
45:19 is the is the only way we have to have an impact
45:23 on the trajectory of the climate warming in the following decade.
45:29 analysis that UNEP has performed together with the Climate and Clean Air Coalition
45:34 show how a reduction of methane emissions by around 40 to 45% by 2030
45:40 would avoid around 0.3 degrees
45:44 of warming
45:46 by the mid-40s,
45:48 so in,
45:49 in,
45:49 in the next 20 years.
45:51 Uh,
45:51 and,
45:51 and this is a very,
45:53 uh,
45:54 you know,
45:54 informed audience,
45:55 and,
45:55 and I'm sure you,
45:56 you appreciate the enormity of,
45:58 of,
45:59 of this avoided reduction,
46:00 even if it's
46:02 calculated in 0.3 degrees that is,
46:06 that again,
46:07 it's,
46:07 it's very significant.
46:09 Um,
46:10 so methane has been largely.
46:16 has been largely
46:17 kept,
46:18 uh,
46:19 you know,
46:20 has had the lower attention compared to CO2
46:22 as,
46:23 as we have realized,
46:24 and,
46:24 and I think one of the reasons why this has
46:27 really changed over the last few years is that we're experiencing
46:30 the effect of climate change on,
46:32 on our societies,
46:33 on our economies,
46:34 on.
46:35 Uh,
46:36 including on international trade systems,
46:39 uh,
46:39 and,
46:40 and,
46:40 and there is a,
46:41 there is a further realization of,
46:43 of the importance of of acting on,
46:46 on using the ladder that can have the most impact
46:50 in the short term,
46:51 and we have seen the debate,
46:52 the heated debate that has happened at COP on on
46:56 on fossil fuel use and phase out and phase down and
47:00 so there is,
47:01 there is quite a vast.
47:05 Difference between uh uh countries on uh
47:08 uh on,
47:09 on,
47:09 on the trajectory that,
47:10 that we should take to,
47:11 to decarbonize the uh the,
47:13 the eco our economies between now and,
47:16 and 2050.
47:18 Methane,
47:19 as we have noted,
47:21 is effectively the determine
47:24 the
47:24 the
47:25 the gas who determines how quickly
47:28 we're going to reach the temperature that that CO2
47:31 will lead us to.
47:33 And so it is important to consider
47:36 methane mitigation under any decarbonization scenario because effectively
47:40 reducing methane now allows us to buy time.
47:44 To put in place decarbonization efforts that we know will take,
47:49 will take longer.
47:50 And,
47:51 and this is true under any decarbonization scenario.
47:54 So independently on,
47:55 on the aggressiveness of,
47:57 of the government's intention to reduce,
48:02 reduce the use of fossil fuels in their economies.
48:05 Direct me and mitigation can,
48:07 can add immediate benefits on or
48:10 or or more immediate benefits
48:13 compared to the carbonization
48:16 efforts alone.
48:17 Uh,
48:17 I'll,
48:18 I,
48:18 I,
48:18 I'll leave it here,
48:19 uh,
48:19 Maria.
48:20 I don't want to monopolize the discussion,
48:22 but I very much look forward to the,
48:24 uh,
48:24 to the continuation of,
48:26 of this debate.
48:28 Thank you very much,
48:29 Manfred.
48:30 Susan,
48:30 I'm turning to you.
48:31 In 1995,
48:33 you wrote a paper analyzing the implications for global emissions
48:36 of methane embodied in the international trade of commodities.
48:40 What has changed since 1995,
48:43 particularly with regards to emissions related to agriculture?
48:46 And do you see a role for trade policy in mitigating these types of emissions?
48:52 Yes,
48:53 thank you.
48:55 Uh,
48:55 when I wrote that paper almost 30 years ago.
48:59 The IPP IPCC had just released
49:02 uh their first
49:04 methods and guidelines
49:06 for
49:08 Estimating national emission inventories.
49:12 Um,
49:12 that was 1994,
49:15 and I had been involved in,
49:16 in some of that work
49:18 and it produced very,
49:19 uh,
49:19 detailed
49:20 guidelines that have been improved since that time.
49:24 But when I was working on it,
49:25 I realized
49:27 that
49:28 trade was
49:29 entirely ignored.
49:32 Um,
49:32 and also processes,
49:34 what was the emission intensity of particular goods.
49:38 Uh,
49:38 and it struck me,
49:39 um,
49:39 this was an,
49:40 an important area,
49:41 but how important was the question.
49:43 And,
49:44 uh,
49:44 a team had started to look at CO2
49:47 embodied in trade
49:48 in 1994 in a,
49:50 in a paper in er in Energy Policy.
49:53 Uh,
49:53 so I,
49:54 I looked at it
49:55 for in the agricultural side for methane,
49:58 and I looked at,
49:59 uh,
50:00 rice,
50:01 uh,
50:01 milk and beef,
50:02 and for six countries,
50:04 six major importing,
50:05 exporting countries including the US.
50:08 Um,
50:09 in the UK,
50:09 Canada,
50:10 uh,
50:10 France,
50:11 Germany,
50:12 um,
50:12 and,
50:12 and it,
50:13 it did really turn out as something that was significant.
50:17 I mean,
50:17 it,
50:17 it,
50:17 for those countries at that time,
50:19 really not huge,
50:20 but,
50:21 uh,
50:21 significant.
50:22 Uh,
50:23 there was actually then,
50:24 there wasn't much interest in this topic,
50:26 but
50:27 about 10 years later,
50:28 especially,
50:29 uh,
50:29 2008,
50:30 2009,
50:32 uh,
50:32 you know,
50:32 the development of GTAP,
50:34 uh,
50:35 and Glenn Peters' work
50:36 and
50:38 Especially in Europe,
50:40 uh,
50:40 governments and policymakers realized
50:43 that the
50:45 greenhouse gas intensity of goods
50:47 could really imported,
50:48 would really change the picture of what looked to be
50:51 our own
50:52 responsibility.
50:54 And um I,
50:56 I noticed in the UK especially that they started
50:59 presenting some of the important trade data
51:01 along with their national emission inventory,
51:04 and there was actually quite a lot of uh detailed analysis
51:07 on whether the whole national inventories
51:10 should be changed from looking at production
51:12 emissions within your uh national boundaries
51:15 to looking at consumption
51:17 that would involve the trade.
51:19 Um,
51:19 now,
51:19 I think as many know,
51:21 that's actually a very complicated undertaking.
51:24 So it was never actually,
51:26 we never really shifted our inventories to do that,
51:29 um,
51:29 but I think it's very welcome that there is
51:31 this attention to trade because it is important.
51:34 And,
51:35 um,
51:35 I'd like to take a few minutes,
51:37 uh,
51:37 just
51:38 highlighting a few things um
51:40 of recent trends.
51:42 So if we could,
51:42 can we have the,
51:43 um,
51:44 the
51:44 slides,
51:45 please,
51:45 and start with slide number 3,
51:47 please.
51:53 Uh,
51:53 yes,
51:53 slide number 3,
51:54 yup.
51:55 Keep going.
51:56 Yeah.
51:56 OK.
51:57 So I don't know if folks really think of
51:59 the US as a rice exporting country,
52:02 but
52:02 the rice exports have,
52:03 uh,
52:04 increased a lot in the last 30 years,
52:06 and,
52:06 uh,
52:06 rice production in the US
52:08 uh has increased,
52:09 uh,
52:10 much faster than population.
52:12 Uh,
52:12 I,
52:12 I see this as an opportunity to try to advance mitigation.
52:16 Measures in the rice sector.
52:18 Uh,
52:19 there's already very promising approaches by changing,
52:22 especially
52:23 the water management of rice,
52:24 alternative
52:25 wetting and drying,
52:27 intermittent irrigation,
52:29 mid-season drain,
52:30 and,
52:30 and even more aerobic rice production.
52:33 Uh,
52:34 next slide,
52:35 uh,
52:35 the US is actually like the 5th
52:38 largest exporter of rice.
52:40 So,
52:40 I,
52:40 I see this as an opportunity to,
52:42 to try to help
52:43 and scale up,
52:44 um,
52:44 these approaches which already
52:46 are fairly established scientifically.
52:50 Um,
52:50 in Paul's presentation,
52:52 I,
52:52 I think he very much highlighted,
52:54 uh,
52:55 the importance of bovine,
52:56 um,
52:58 export,
52:58 you know,
52:59 meat-related,
52:59 uh,
53:00 products as well.
53:01 Um,
53:02 so I'd,
53:02 I'd like to look at a few things with that.
53:04 Um,
53:04 I think we can just go to the next,
53:06 uh,
53:06 next slide on that,
53:07 please.
53:08 So,
53:08 even in,
53:09 like in the US,
53:10 uh,
53:10 beef consumption has mainly declined.
53:13 Uh,
53:13 so
53:15 Not,
53:15 it's not a complete downward slope,
53:17 but it,
53:17 it has declined.
53:18 So in,
53:19 in that
53:20 respect,
53:20 it's actually rather surprising and I think worrying at looking at some of the,
53:24 the recent uh changes in import-export patterns since
53:28 the US is such a,
53:29 a large consumer given,
53:31 um,
53:32 given the size.
53:33 Uh,
53:33 can we have the next slide,
53:34 please?
53:36 So,
53:36 um,
53:37 10 years ago,
53:39 Uh,
53:40 the pattern of imports and exports,
53:42 you know,
53:42 is mainly with our neighbors,
53:43 Canada and Mexico.
53:45 Um,
53:45 and that's still true
53:47 to a large extent,
53:48 but very recently,
53:50 uh,
53:50 the US has been exporting,
53:52 um,
53:53 beef
53:53 from South American countries.
53:56 Um,
53:56 and,
53:56 and Brazil,
53:57 in,
53:58 in particular,
53:59 it's a very,
53:59 uh,
54:00 dramatic increase.
54:01 It's actually
54:02 about an 8-fold increase in the last 10 years.
54:05 Um,
54:05 also increases in Uruguay and Argentina.
54:08 Um,
54:08 and,
54:09 and I raised this because this shows some of the complexity of,
54:12 of dealing with this
54:13 because,
54:14 uh,
54:14 Brazil,
54:15 in particular,
54:16 um,
54:16 we have a large,
54:18 uh,
54:18 potential carbon component
54:20 with land clearing and land degradation,
54:22 um,
54:23 and,
54:23 uh,
54:23 changes,
54:25 uh,
54:25 to the pasture land and also
54:27 the,
54:27 uh,
54:28 expansion of crop
54:29 cultivation in Brazil,
54:31 which then make it into the,
54:33 uh,
54:33 the,
54:33 the US,
54:34 uh,
54:34 retail market.
54:37 Now,
54:37 um,
54:38 one might ask,
54:38 well,
54:39 why was there such a dramatic change?
54:41 And I,
54:42 I think that this is something it's very important to understand
54:45 is a,
54:46 a lot of the methane trade
54:48 is actually
54:49 related to actually
54:50 health issues,
54:51 um,
54:52 and,
54:52 and not necessarily
54:54 economic or climate issues,
54:56 um,
54:56 and
54:57 In this case,
55:00 Uh,
55:01 in,
55:01 whereas a decade ago,
55:02 there were limitations
55:04 on imports in countries
55:06 that had suspected foot and mouth disease,
55:08 a lot of those restrictions,
55:10 uh,
55:10 were,
55:11 have been lifted.
55:12 Uh,
55:13 can we jump to the map
55:14 slide,
55:15 please?
55:15 Uh,
55:16 one more.
55:17 Yeah,
55:17 so this is the World Organization of Animal Health,
55:21 and this is a worldwide picture of where
55:25 uh there's restrictions are not
55:27 uh related to foot and mouth disease.
55:29 And you can see that South America now,
55:32 um,
55:33 is,
55:33 is,
55:33 is free of these,
55:36 uh,
55:37 Of a disease.
55:39 And also the trade restriction.
55:42 Uh,
55:42 we still have some in Central Asia and in Southeast
55:46 Asia.
55:47 So,
55:47 what we have is
55:49 a celebration on the health side and the economic side,
55:52 um,
55:53 and perhaps,
55:53 uh,
55:54 some new worries
55:55 in terms of the intensity of the methane
55:58 carbon,
55:59 um,
55:59 component.
56:00 Uh,
56:01 so,
56:01 um,
56:01 I think that,
56:02 I'll,
56:03 um,
56:03 and with that for this question and just
56:06 highlight that there needs to be
56:08 kind of an understanding of how these other
56:11 developments,
56:12 uh,
56:12 will reflect that,
56:14 will reflect on the
56:15 greenhouse gas intensity.
56:19 Thank you very much,
56:19 Susan.
56:20 Ben,
56:21 let me turn to you.
56:22 Could you reflect on the issues of,
56:24 uh,
56:25 data accuracy,
56:26 as well as the institutional challenges that prevail in most developing countries
56:30 when it comes to what is needed to facilitate the
56:33 change of technologies that are needed in methane mitigation.
56:36 Over to you,
56:37 Ben.
56:39 Thank you,
56:39 Maria.
56:40 Thank you to the WTO and the World Bank for organizing this webinar.
56:43 It's a pleasure to be part of it.
56:45 Um,
56:45 so I'm mostly focused on the energy sector and my answers will
56:49 reflect that,
56:49 that experience.
56:50 Um.
56:52 If we think about data from methane emissions from the,
56:55 from the energy sector,
56:57 we're learning that they're quite a bit worse than we thought.
56:59 And that's because the technology around
57:00 methane detection is evolving so quickly.
57:03 If you take the energy sector as a whole,
57:05 including the oil and gas industry,
57:07 as well as coal,
57:08 it accounts for about 40% of human-caused methane emissions.
57:12 So wrapping our hands around the scale of this problem
57:15 with methane emissions from energy is a big deal.
57:18 Um,
57:18 and we really need to grapple with,
57:19 um,
57:20 the fact that
57:21 total methane emissions from this industry is,
57:23 is,
57:24 as I said,
57:24 much worse than we thought.
57:26 So to give you a feel for this,
57:27 in 2018,
57:28 there was a study published in Science that
57:30 showed that US oil and gas methane emissions
57:33 were 60% larger than the previous
57:36 estimates by the Environmental Protection Agency
57:38 or EPA using the inventory-based approach.
57:42 Um,
57:44 So
57:44 the,
57:45 the method that we've used for calculating methane emissions from the oil
57:48 and gas industry in particular for many years uh is wrong.
57:52 Um,
57:52 the old system is basically an engineering-based approach.
57:55 You count up all the different pieces of equipment out there in the field,
57:58 all the kit,
57:59 and you multiply it by a standard emissions factor
58:02 for
58:03 each piece of equipment,
58:04 and voila,
58:05 you get total emissions.
58:06 That's a simplification,
58:07 but basically that's the way it worked for years.
58:10 We're now quickly moving towards a world where we have much more
58:14 empirical,
58:15 scientifically vetted,
58:17 robust,
58:18 real data on methane emissions.
58:20 Um,
58:21 and we're getting more and more data from satellites,
58:24 from drone and airplane-based surveys,
58:26 as well as ground-based monitoring of methane
58:29 emissions from oil and gas equipment.
58:31 And again,
58:31 it's showing that this problem is much worse than we thought.
58:34 Uh,
58:34 and it's really underscoring the sense of urgency to solve it.
58:38 And so one of the big questions is what do we do with all this data?
58:42 Uh,
58:42 Monfredi and his colleagues are doing great work on trying to
58:45 integrate all this data that's emerging from around the world,
58:48 from scientific studies,
58:50 from private providers of,
58:51 of,
58:51 uh,
58:52 satellites monitoring methane emissions from the energy sector.
58:56 Information inventories,
58:58 synthesizing this,
58:59 uh,
58:59 vetting it,
59:00 and then making it available to people.
59:02 Because we can't fix this problem if we don't know where the problem is occurring.
59:05 Um,
59:06 so that's really significant work.
59:07 It's gonna involve multiple institutions and
59:09 a lot of collaboration across countries.
59:12 Um,
59:14 And
59:15 there's a real sense of urgency to
59:17 fix these problems where they occur.
59:19 The significance of oil and gas methane emissions is that,
59:22 you know,
59:22 unlike a lot of industries,
59:23 say,
59:24 uh,
59:24 agriculture,
59:25 which Paul talked about in some detail,
59:27 um,
59:28 rice cultivation and waste,
59:30 you know,
59:30 there are things to do in all those
59:31 different industries to solve the methane emissions problem.
59:34 The oil and gas industry is a special case because many of these problems can be fixed
59:38 pretty cheaply.
59:39 It's just a matter of replacing leaky,
59:41 outdated equipment.
59:43 Shutting off valves,
59:44 um,
59:44 and fixing leaks where they occur.
59:47 And the International Energy Agency estimates that about 40% of
59:50 these fixes can be made at no net cost.
59:52 In other words,
59:53 if you make these fixes,
59:54 you capture more gas,
59:55 you can sell it.
59:56 If you're a gas producer or a pipeline company,
59:59 it's in your interest to make these fixes.
1:00:01 Uh,
1:00:01 it makes economic sense,
1:00:03 uh,
1:00:03 and there's growing shareholder and investor pressure on companies
1:00:06 right across the value chain to fix these problems.
1:00:09 So that's good if you are,
1:00:11 you know,
1:00:12 in the United States or Europe,
1:00:13 there's growing scrutiny on your operations and what
1:00:16 is your plan to fix your methane mitigations.
1:00:19 Uh,
1:00:19 problem,
1:00:20 what's your methane abatement strategy?
1:00:21 What are your medium to long-term targets?
1:00:24 There's increasing attention paid to this.
1:00:26 But I think one of the challenges is that we have a lot of companies around the world,
1:00:30 lots of jurisdictions,
1:00:32 and huge variation in terms of technical capacity.
1:00:35 Uh,
1:00:36 and access to this data.
1:00:38 So as we learn more about methane emissions,
1:00:40 we have to make sure that that information is put
1:00:42 in the hands of companies and regulators across the world.
1:00:45 And we have to look beyond the United States and Europe and try to fix this problem.
1:00:49 Um,
1:00:50 and I think that raises a couple of challenges.
1:00:52 Let me just give you a hypothetical example.
1:00:54 When a national oil company,
1:00:55 say,
1:00:56 in Iraq or Algeria,
1:00:58 uh,
1:00:58 or Venezuela
1:00:59 has a big methane leak,
1:01:01 uh,
1:01:01 and satellite data
1:01:03 shows this,
1:01:03 you can see the methane plume.
1:01:05 What do we do with that data?
1:01:07 How do we encourage people to fix it?
1:01:09 This is the challenge.
1:01:10 And I think we're moving towards a world where
1:01:12 we're gonna have this data,
1:01:13 maybe not in real time,
1:01:14 but pretty quickly when these leaks occur.
1:01:16 And we need to think about how to get this data in the hands of that company.
1:01:19 Even the plant manager,
1:01:21 you know,
1:01:21 at a very granular level and say,
1:01:22 you've got this methane leak,
1:01:23 what are you gonna
1:01:24 do to fix it?
1:01:25 We might need a kind of model where we have
1:01:27 technical consultants who go in and provide this data to companies
1:01:31 and provide advice on how to fix it.
1:01:32 That's really where we're gonna move
1:01:34 the needle on fixing the methane problem.
1:01:37 Um,
1:01:37 and I think there's obviously a lot of opportunity to leverage all the technical
1:01:40 capacity of this global oil and gas industry and help fix these problems.
1:01:45 Um,
1:01:46 and we also need to make sure that we're kind of
1:01:47 making the operational and management changes so that there's a systematic review
1:01:52 of methane challenges,
1:01:53 and we don't just plug holes,
1:01:55 fix problems where they occur,
1:01:56 but companies adopt a different mindset and
1:01:58 a different approach to stopping methane emissions,
1:02:01 uh,
1:02:01 and do it in a more systematic way.
1:02:03 So I just say that there's a lot of attention paid
1:02:05 to the big companies like ExxonMobil and Chevron and BP.
1:02:09 Those companies have some problems too,
1:02:10 and the industry as a whole has to get its arms around this methane challenge.
1:02:14 But we have to think about the rest.
1:02:15 We have to think about how to leverage all this data and put it to good use.
1:02:20 Thank you very much,
1:02:21 Ben,
1:02:22 and everyone,
1:02:23 very interesting perspectives.
1:02:24 Allow me to,
1:02:25 uh,
1:02:25 come back to all of you to dig,
1:02:27 uh,
1:02:27 a little bit deeper on,
1:02:28 on your initial thoughts,
1:02:29 uh,
1:02:30 uh,
1:02:30 and I will ask you to be brief in the second round of questions,
1:02:33 so we have time for,
1:02:34 uh,
1:02:35 for the discussion afterwards.
1:02:36 Manfredi,
1:02:37 uh,
1:02:37 please share with us a little bit more on all the
1:02:39 good work that you're doing in UNOP to promote methane mitigation
1:02:43 actions and what is the role of the International Method,
1:02:46 the missions Observatory that you had.
1:02:49 Thank you.
1:02:50 Thank you,
1:02:51 thank you,
1:02:51 Maria.
1:02:51 Yeah,
1:02:52 I'll try,
1:02:52 I'll try to be sure.
1:02:53 Uh,
1:02:54 Air really exists as,
1:02:55 as Ben was explaining to,
1:02:57 to,
1:02:57 to make,
1:02:58 uh,
1:02:59 open,
1:03:00 reliable,
1:03:01 actionable data to those with the,
1:03:04 with the ability to reduce emissions,
1:03:06 uh,
1:03:07 on the ground.
1:03:07 So the asset managers in the case of the oil and gas sector,
1:03:11 uh,
1:03:12 the.
1:03:13 But also governments,
1:03:14 NGOs,
1:03:15 uh,
1:03:16 and governments both on the producing and consuming side
1:03:20 of the energy sector,
1:03:21 uh,
1:03:21 to start.
1:03:22 And,
1:03:22 and the focus on the energy sector,
1:03:24 I think it's,
1:03:25 it's important to note because this is where the highest reduction potential
1:03:31 lies,
1:03:31 at least in the short term.
1:03:33 Uh,
1:03:33 Ben was reminding us of analysis of the,
1:03:36 the International Energy Agency.
1:03:38 Noting that up to 70% of emissions
1:03:41 could be reduced with technology that exists today
1:03:43 and up to 40% at zero,
1:03:46 at zero cost.
1:03:48 Uh,
1:03:48 so actually making money by bringing this
1:03:51 product that,
1:03:52 let's remind ourselves is the main component of natural gas.
1:03:56 So indeed it has a value and we see now with,
1:03:59 with all the,
1:04:00 the,
1:04:00 you know,
1:04:00 the,
1:04:00 the difficulties on.
1:04:02 Uh,
1:04:03 international trade of,
1:04:04 of,
1:04:04 of fossil fuels,
1:04:06 uh,
1:04:07 the,
1:04:07 the price that natural gas,
1:04:09 uh,
1:04:09 has.
1:04:09 So the,
1:04:10 the focus is very much on,
1:04:12 uh,
1:04:12 integrating data from a variety of sources,
1:04:15 from measurements that we,
1:04:16 we perform or we sponsor,
1:04:18 uh,
1:04:18 satellite data,
1:04:20 uh,
1:04:20 reporting from companies in line with the methodology that we have
1:04:26 jointly developed with,
1:04:27 with them as well as with governments and,
1:04:29 and NGOs.
1:04:31 And to make them to be to present a better picture
1:04:36 at this aggregated level as possible
1:04:39 of where emissions come from,
1:04:42 how much of those emissions
1:04:45 are occurring,
1:04:46 and most importantly,
1:04:48 how those vary over time.
1:04:50 Uh,
1:04:50 because this is really key to be able to understand
1:04:53 what kind of actions are working in reducing emissions,
1:04:57 what is not working and should be,
1:05:00 should be abandoned,
1:05:01 um,
1:05:02 and,
1:05:02 and so it's going to give us all,
1:05:04 all these insights that they are going to allow us to reach this
1:05:08 very high level of,
1:05:09 of reductions that that the science tell us
1:05:13 we need.
1:05:13 To,
1:05:13 we need to achieve without,
1:05:15 without forgetting that
1:05:17 meat and mitigation has also co-benefits from,
1:05:20 from,
1:05:20 from health
1:05:22 to to air pollution,
1:05:24 uh,
1:05:25 to,
1:05:25 to yield productivities,
1:05:26 for example.
1:05:28 So it is something that makes sense not only from a climate perspective,
1:05:32 not only from a business perspective in the case of the oil and gas sector,
1:05:35 because once again,
1:05:37 Companies can make money out of it,
1:05:39 but it makes sense from a,
1:05:41 from a much broader societal perspective,
1:05:44 and,
1:05:44 and I couldn't agree more with Ben.
1:05:46 It is important that this is a challenge that in
1:05:49 the energy sector is taken by the entire industry.
1:05:52 It is not enough to,
1:05:54 to,
1:05:54 to,
1:05:55 to have engaged on,
1:05:56 and on the leadership.
1:05:58 Uh,
1:05:59 pathway,
1:05:59 uh,
1:06:00 the,
1:06:00 the international oil companies,
1:06:02 we really need
1:06:03 national oil companies and independent companies to engage on,
1:06:07 on this process,
1:06:08 and I,
1:06:09 and,
1:06:09 and,
1:06:10 and I think there is a,
1:06:11 there is an increasing understanding of how trade tools
1:06:15 can really play a role in um in
1:06:18 incentivizing.
1:06:20 Uh,
1:06:21 product that have the least possible methane
1:06:24 associated with the production and transportation to the
1:06:27 to the consuming countries,
1:06:29 and,
1:06:30 and I'm hopeful that that
1:06:32 together as a community we can,
1:06:34 we can achieve this deeper,
1:06:36 deeper reduction that that that are needed.
1:06:38 Thank you.
1:06:40 Thank you,
1:06:40 Manfredi,
1:06:41 and,
1:06:41 and great that you highlighted also the
1:06:43 co-benefits across policy areas very important to,
1:06:46 to keep in mind.
1:06:46 Excellent points.
1:06:48 Susan,
1:06:48 could I ask you to share a couple of concrete examples in different parts of the world
1:06:53 that have implemented some trade policies that
1:06:55 could contribute to reducing methane emissions?
1:07:01 Yeah,
1:07:01 thanks.
1:07:02 Um,
1:07:03 well,
1:07:04 actually,
1:07:04 I'd like to answer that,
1:07:06 um,
1:07:06 in,
1:07:07 in a similar way perhaps than what we've just been discussing with what is needed.
1:07:12 And,
1:07:12 um,
1:07:13 I,
1:07:13 I agree with the previous speaker and also,
1:07:15 uh,
1:07:15 some of the points,
1:07:16 um,
1:07:17 Paul made in his paper,
1:07:18 um,
1:07:18 is that we're actually lacking,
1:07:21 um,
1:07:21 some fundamental data on emissions related to processes.
1:07:25 And I think this is especially true,
1:07:28 you know,
1:07:28 for
1:07:29 cattle and meat production.
1:07:31 And um it,
1:07:32 it might be something to,
1:07:33 to consider in trade,
1:07:34 but
1:07:35 I think it's really important
1:07:37 that uh
1:07:38 on a country level that we develop
1:07:41 countrywide
1:07:42 um guidance on this,
1:07:44 and we have an IPCC process for national inventories.
1:07:47 I think,
1:07:47 for example,
1:07:48 in the US and in Europe,
1:07:49 we need a special interagency process
1:07:53 for developing a high-quality.
1:07:55 Um,
1:07:55 estimate
1:07:56 of what are the emissions from very few important methane-intensive
1:08:01 goods,
1:08:02 and I would start with beef.
1:08:03 Um,
1:08:04 and in the US there's been a huge amount of confusion
1:08:07 about how important beef is in terms of the whole climate.
1:08:11 Um,
1:08:12 equation.
1:08:13 Is it
1:08:14 less than 2%?
1:08:15 Is it
1:08:16 more than 50%?
1:08:17 I mean,
1:08:18 these numbers are thrown around,
1:08:20 um,
1:08:20 but to really understand the scale of that,
1:08:23 I think we just,
1:08:24 we need
1:08:25 better domestic,
1:08:26 um,
1:08:27 information
1:08:27 and we need to be strategic on understanding
1:08:31 the intensity of some of these imports,
1:08:33 especially from
1:08:34 areas that have tropical forests.
1:08:38 Thank you very much,
1:08:39 Susan.
1:08:40 And then,
1:08:41 let me,
1:08:41 uh,
1:08:42 conclude this round with you.
1:08:43 Earlier this year,
1:08:44 you wrote about reducing methane emissions from global gas,
1:08:48 uh,
1:08:48 policy and markets.
1:08:50 Perhaps you can share a little bit on how global gas trade,
1:08:53 especially the liquefied natural gas sector,
1:08:56 can evolve in ways that can help to lower
1:08:58 methane emissions.
1:09:00 And what,
1:09:00 uh,
1:09:00 supporting trade policies would be most useful in this regard,
1:09:04 according to your view?
1:09:08 You have to keep in mind that
1:09:09 governments don't buy and sell gas companies do.
1:09:13 So we really have to think about the strategic
1:09:15 and commercial drivers
1:09:16 for companies in the international gas
1:09:19 world.
1:09:20 Um,
1:09:21 that means thinking about buyers and sellers,
1:09:23 as well as banks and financial institutions
1:09:26 and regulators across the world.
1:09:28 Companies have very different mandates and drivers.
1:09:30 Think about national oil companies,
1:09:33 fully state-owned companies,
1:09:34 um,
1:09:35 fully state-owned utilities that,
1:09:36 you know,
1:09:37 operate power plants and,
1:09:38 and are some of the biggest gas buyers in the world.
1:09:41 So a big question for me is how we can
1:09:44 leverage the buyers and bring them into this discussion
1:09:47 and start to create
1:09:48 a stronger demand pull for
1:09:50 quote unquote cleaner gas or less emissions intensive gas.
1:09:54 Um,
1:09:55 so as part of that,
1:09:55 I did some research in the last year talking with a lot of buyers,
1:09:58 especially in Asia,
1:09:59 about whether or not they're looking at methane intensity of gas they buy,
1:10:02 if it's a commercial priority for them,
1:10:04 if they're looking at data to examine
1:10:07 all these different cargoes,
1:10:08 and if they're willing to pay a premium for it.
1:10:10 And the answer is essentially not yet.
1:10:12 Companies,
1:10:13 especially in Asia,
1:10:13 were just starting to grapple with all these issues.
1:10:16 They weren't really getting much pressure yet from banks,
1:10:18 financial institutions,
1:10:19 and governments to make methane intensity a bigger priority in the way they
1:10:24 buy gas.
1:10:25 And decide where to source cargoes from.
1:10:28 But I think there's a good reason to think that could change.
1:10:30 Uh,
1:10:31 the data is improving all the time.
1:10:33 Um,
1:10:33 a lot of the data is focused on the upstream and the midstream.
1:10:36 In other words,
1:10:36 how the gas gets produced and taken out of the ground,
1:10:39 how it's transported throughout the system,
1:10:41 and how it's liquefied.
1:10:43 Uh,
1:10:43 it's really complicated to come up with,
1:10:45 you know,
1:10:45 a methane intensity metric for the entire
1:10:48 cargo of liquefied natural gas because you have to consider the upstream,
1:10:51 the midstream processing,
1:10:53 all the rest.
1:10:54 But companies are starting to do this.
1:10:56 Uh,
1:10:56 for example,
1:10:57 Chenier,
1:10:57 which is the largest liquefied natural gas exporter in the United States,
1:11:01 is offering something called cargo emissions tax.
1:11:04 We actually
1:11:05 quantify the emissions associated with each cargo,
1:11:08 very specific using a methodology that they spelled out,
1:11:11 you know,
1:11:12 in,
1:11:12 in some detail,
1:11:13 um.
1:11:14 In a peer-reviewed paper,
1:11:16 uh,
1:11:16 and saying,
1:11:17 here are the emissions associated with this cargo.
1:11:20 I don't think every company is going to do that,
1:11:21 but we're moving towards a world where things like
1:11:23 that will become possible thanks to the data.
1:11:25 And so if we can get the buyers more involved and start to exert their influence,
1:11:29 this could spread throughout the system.
1:11:31 And I think the story with the global LNG industry is that
1:11:34 some of the big buyers,
1:11:35 especially in countries like Japan and South Korea,
1:11:38 they can kind of lead the industry by
1:11:41 getting involved in things like this.
1:11:43 Um,
1:11:43 it is a big challenge though.
1:11:45 I mean,
1:11:45 I think we have to be honest today.
1:11:47 There's a crisis in the global gas market.
1:11:49 Prices are extremely high.
1:11:51 This is really challenging for everyone,
1:11:53 uh,
1:11:53 in Europe and in Northeast Asia as well.
1:11:56 Um,
1:11:56 and getting
1:11:57 buyers to care about methane intensity is a challenge when prices are this high.
1:12:01 They're
1:12:01 panicking about energy security,
1:12:03 frankly,
1:12:03 so anything that's going to add to the cost
1:12:06 is a tough sell.
1:12:07 But things are changing.
1:12:08 Uh,
1:12:09 I would draw everyone's attention to an announcement
1:12:11 that was made just recently on November 11th.
1:12:13 The United States,
1:12:14 the EU,
1:12:15 Canada,
1:12:16 Norway,
1:12:16 Singapore,
1:12:17 and some other countries
1:12:18 basically came together and passed a document,
1:12:20 a joint resolution trying to deepen the understanding
1:12:23 of methane emissions and globally traded gas,
1:12:26 uh,
1:12:26 encouraging the development of frameworks or standards for
1:12:29 fossil energy suppliers to provide accurate and transparent.
1:12:33 And reliable information about CO2
1:12:35 emissions and methane emissions associated with
1:12:37 gas trade
1:12:39 and supporting frameworks and standards to improve
1:12:41 the accuracy and transparency of these things.
1:12:44 So I think in the next couple of years there'll be
1:12:46 much more attention paid to this and I'm
1:12:48 pretty encouraged by the progress seen so far.
1:12:51 It's,
1:12:51 it's a challenge to do this at a time of,
1:12:53 you know,
1:12:54 the global energy crisis and high prices,
1:12:56 but
1:12:57 I think individually companies and governments are starting
1:12:59 to move in a pretty significant way.
1:13:01 The last thing I'll say is that the EU is playing a really important role
1:13:04 leveraging its power as a gas buyer
1:13:07 by basically demanding that global gas sellers provide a lot more data about
1:13:12 the emissions associated with the gas they're selling and
1:13:14 forcing them to provide information about the measurement,
1:13:17 reporting,
1:13:17 and verification they're doing.
1:13:19 The idea is to send a positive ripple effect throughout the industry,
1:13:21 and that's a pretty significant move.
1:13:25 Thank you very much,
1:13:26 Ben.
1:13:26 You have,
1:13:27 uh,
1:13:27 in your remarks,
1:13:28 all of you addressed many of the questions that we have,
1:13:31 uh,
1:13:31 received by participants ahead of the event.
1:13:34 Uh,
1:13:34 this is a really good practice and we very much appreciate all the questions shared.
1:13:38 Um,
1:13:38 a couple refer to
1:13:40 who and how objectively,
1:13:42 um,
1:13:42 the amount of methane emissions are,
1:13:44 uh,
1:13:44 assessed and,
1:13:45 and are they tracked like,
1:13:47 uh,
1:13:47 carbon emissions,
1:13:48 and I think you have all alluded to that.
1:13:51 Um,
1:13:51 there is a question by our colleague from
1:13:53 the International Telecommunication Union in the chat,
1:13:56 and many thanks,
1:13:57 Filipa,
1:13:57 for also sharing your,
1:13:58 uh,
1:13:58 thoughts as uh the discussion is evolving.
1:14:01 Um,
1:14:02 the question says,
1:14:02 why precisely does,
1:14:04 uh,
1:14:04 anyone imagine that the temperature increase is going to
1:14:06 stop at 1.5 or 2 or even 10 degrees?
1:14:10 Has anyone seen any research considering
1:14:12 what happens under the runway,
1:14:14 uh,
1:14:14 greenhouse gas emissions effect?
1:14:17 I don't know if anyone would like to,
1:14:19 uh,
1:14:20 help address this question as it relates to our discussion today.
1:14:28 Or we can,
1:14:29 uh,
1:14:29 take it back and the,
1:14:30 the series of discussions,
1:14:31 uh,
1:14:32 continue,
1:14:32 and maybe take it in a,
1:14:34 in another occasion.
1:14:35 Um,
1:14:36 there is another,
1:14:37 uh,
1:14:37 very,
1:14:37 very good question,
1:14:38 uh,
1:14:39 by Guillaume,
1:14:40 uh,
1:14:40 Ferry,
1:14:41 um,
1:14:42 on where to start,
1:14:43 what are the burning priorities and actions in the next 12 months?
1:14:47 Uh,
1:14:47 I think,
1:14:47 uh,
1:14:48 both Mona and Annabel,
1:14:49 and Paul and all of you have alluded to valuable recommendations.
1:14:53 Maybe,
1:14:54 Paul,
1:14:54 let me come back to you and,
1:14:56 and give you the opportunity to reflect on that,
1:14:58 also taking into account all,
1:14:59 all the valuable insights by
1:15:02 our,
1:15:02 uh,
1:15:03 speakers and panelists.
1:15:07 Thanks,
1:15:07 Maria.
1:15:08 Yeah,
1:15:08 I,
1:15:08 and I,
1:15:08 I think we,
1:15:09 we,
1:15:09 we get back to,
1:15:10 uh,
1:15:11 the data issue,
1:15:12 but obviously where,
1:15:12 where to start and where to focus are on the hotspots.
1:15:16 Where are the hotspots for greenhouse gas emissions and,
1:15:19 and particularly methane,
1:15:20 and I think Benya and Manfred have been discussing,
1:15:23 you know,
1:15:23 the,
1:15:24 the,
1:15:24 the fossil fuel sector,
1:15:26 which is clearly
1:15:27 a hotspot,
1:15:28 uh,
1:15:28 and identifying the,
1:15:29 uh,
1:15:29 the actions they,
1:15:30 they've laid out some,
1:15:31 some very clear actions that are,
1:15:32 are being undertaken.
1:15:34 Elsewhere,
1:15:35 when it comes to sort of agriculture,
1:15:37 um,
1:15:39 again,
1:15:40 as,
1:15:40 as Susan was saying,
1:15:41 you know,
1:15:41 we know beef
1:15:42 is,
1:15:43 you know,
1:15:43 a very intensive,
1:15:44 uh,
1:15:45 sector in terms of,
1:15:46 of emissions.
1:15:47 Rice,
1:15:47 she also alluded to,
1:15:49 um,
1:15:49 and,
1:15:50 but we do know that there are technologies there that are available.
1:15:52 So,
1:15:53 the,
1:15:53 the issue is how,
1:15:54 as it,
1:15:54 as it was in the gas sector,
1:15:56 how to incentivize
1:15:57 adoption
1:15:58 of those technologies,
1:16:00 um.
1:16:01 And I think the bank
1:16:02 is supporting,
1:16:03 for example,
1:16:04 changes in,
1:16:05 in,
1:16:05 and so these are not necessarily large investments,
1:16:08 they may just,
1:16:08 they may be changes in,
1:16:09 in the way in,
1:16:10 in techniques
1:16:11 of production,
1:16:12 and we know that in rice,
1:16:14 uh,
1:16:14 changing the way of production
1:16:16 can have important methane mitigation opportunities.
1:16:19 Um,
1:16:19 and so how to incentivize that,
1:16:22 uh,
1:16:22 I think is an important issue,
1:16:24 um,
1:16:25 and
1:16:26 you know,
1:16:26 one might want to start thinking about,
1:16:29 um,
1:16:30 yeah,
1:16:30 uh.
1:16:31 How to measure and verify
1:16:33 emissions at the product level
1:16:35 so that producers which are able to,
1:16:37 to verify
1:16:39 low methane emission,
1:16:40 uh,
1:16:41 production
1:16:42 will get benefit for that
1:16:43 in the market,
1:16:44 um,
1:16:45 and so some form of labeling scheme perhaps as,
1:16:48 as,
1:16:48 as,
1:16:49 you know,
1:16:49 is envisaged
1:16:50 for
1:16:51 the CO2,
1:16:52 um,
1:16:53 but I think there's also,
1:16:54 you know,
1:16:54 the role for global buyers and that gets back to the same for the gas industry.
1:16:58 That
1:16:59 global buyers
1:17:00 are under pressure from their shareholders
1:17:03 and from their corporate social responsibility
1:17:05 to,
1:17:05 to take responsibility for emissions that are
1:17:07 associated with the activities that they are
1:17:10 um uh supporting,
1:17:12 uh,
1:17:12 and so
1:17:13 I think you're looking again at at how global buyers are affecting,
1:17:17 uh,
1:17:18 you know,
1:17:18 the way that the products that they're producing are produced,
1:17:21 uh,
1:17:21 and the emission reduction potential that is there
1:17:24 I think is also an important thing to to explore.
1:17:26 Thank you.
1:17:28 Thank you very much,
1:17:29 Paul.
1:17:30 Manfredi,
1:17:31 any last thoughts
1:17:32 on uh data that you would like to leave the audience with
1:17:36 for today?
1:17:37 No,
1:17:37 I,
1:17:38 I think,
1:17:40 I think it,
1:17:40 it is important to recognize there are things that we can do today.
1:17:43 We do not wait for perfect data to,
1:17:46 to enact action that can help in reducing methane emissions.
1:17:50 We know there are,
1:17:51 uh,
1:17:53 there are,
1:17:53 there are processes and,
1:17:54 and,
1:17:55 and,
1:17:55 and methodologies including more frequently detection and
1:17:57 repairs in the oil and gas industry,
1:18:01 pre
1:18:01 pre-drainage,
1:18:03 uh,
1:18:03 in,
1:18:04 in coal production that,
1:18:05 that can have significant reduction benefits.
1:18:10 The issue is how do we move to a 75% reduction in the next 86 months
1:18:16 and to reach this
1:18:18 very deep level of mitigation,
1:18:20 then we need,
1:18:21 we need
1:18:23 a much better understanding that we have today.
1:18:25 But,
1:18:25 but again,
1:18:27 it is important to note that there are things that
1:18:29 can be done today that should be done today.
1:18:31 And,
1:18:32 and then uh
1:18:33 with,
1:18:33 with time we're gonna increase this,
1:18:35 this availability of data
1:18:37 and be able to,
1:18:38 to,
1:18:39 to move the,
1:18:39 the mitigation
1:18:41 potentially even further uh to,
1:18:43 to again achieve this high level of reductions.
1:18:47 Thank you very much.
1:18:49 Ben,
1:18:49 any,
1:18:50 uh,
1:18:50 quick thoughts on the technology transfer side?
1:18:53 Anything that you would like to leave the audience with?
1:18:58 I think we mentioned a couple of times the global methane pledge.
1:19:00 This is this collective pledge to cut methane emissions by
1:19:03 30% by the year 2030.
1:19:06 Um,
1:19:06 there's been a lot of focus on the number of countries that have signed up.
1:19:09 It's great to have a lot of countries sign up,
1:19:11 but so what?
1:19:12 What's next?
1:19:13 Um,
1:19:13 I think the key is to have an action plan in place
1:19:16 to really provide the technical assistance and guidance to help companies,
1:19:19 you know,
1:19:20 realize.
1:19:21 Uh,
1:19:22 the potential of signing the global methane pledge
1:19:24 by making concrete
1:19:25 changes in the way they regulate the industry,
1:19:28 the way they monitor company's performance.
1:19:30 Everybody has a role to play.
1:19:32 A lot of the methane emissions problem,
1:19:34 uh,
1:19:34 in the global oil and gas industry is going to be solved on the
1:19:37 production side.
1:19:38 But the gas buyers have a role to play too in
1:19:41 cutting methane emissions from the assets that they own and operate.
1:19:44 That's their scope 1 and 2 emissions really.
1:19:46 Um,
1:19:46 these are the things that they have an immediate incentive to fix
1:19:49 by cutting leaks and storage and transportation systems and,
1:19:53 uh,
1:19:53 you know,
1:19:53 adopting more efficient systems.
1:19:55 Um.
1:19:57 A lot has happened in the last year.
1:19:58 There was a huge
1:19:59 focus on
1:20:01 methane in the run-up to COP 26
1:20:03 with really important regulations being proposed in the United States and the EU.
1:20:07 So the momentum is there.
1:20:08 It's really just a matter of capitalizing on this,
1:20:10 and I think the next year or two will be a critical time.
1:20:15 Thank you very much,
1:20:16 Ben.
1:20:16 And Susan,
1:20:17 a couple of last thoughts uh from you.
1:20:19 You spoke about agriculture,
1:20:21 but any last thoughts on global rice trade on,
1:20:24 on your side,
1:20:24 as we had a question also from the audience,
1:20:27 you already reflected on that,
1:20:28 but anything you would like to add?
1:20:31 Um,
1:20:31 well,
1:20:31 I mean,
1:20:31 I,
1:20:32 I agree with the comments that um
1:20:34 there is a
1:20:35 great work done on methane mitigation.
1:20:38 Um,
1:20:38 some of this has been going on decades,
1:20:41 um,
1:20:41 and there's been hundreds of experiments
1:20:44 on changes in methane emissions
1:20:46 with changes in the way water is handled and also fertilizer.
1:20:50 Um,
1:20:51 so I,
1:20:51 I think it's more,
1:20:53 let's scale up,
1:20:54 let's scale this up
1:20:55 and,
1:20:56 um,
1:20:56 and invest more in it.
1:20:58 And,
1:20:59 um,
1:20:59 also the,
1:21:00 the methane reduction
1:21:02 measures available for agriculture,
1:21:04 a lot of those
1:21:05 through diet,
1:21:06 those experiments have also been going on for decades.
1:21:09 I actually
1:21:10 feel that to me it doesn't look like it's a,
1:21:12 a,
1:21:12 a,
1:21:12 a huge potential,
1:21:14 but of course,
1:21:15 uh,
1:21:15 you know,
1:21:15 it should be continued.
1:21:17 Um,
1:21:18 I,
1:21:18 I agree with folks who say that,
1:21:20 you know,
1:21:20 we could probably do much more through trying to label goods.
1:21:23 I mean,
1:21:23 we need the data improvement in order to do that,
1:21:26 um,
1:21:27 but
1:21:28 there's been a lot of labeling and,
1:21:29 and other
1:21:30 goods,
1:21:30 but in the methane-intensive goods,
1:21:32 some,
1:21:33 um,
1:21:33 I actually don't see much labels.
1:21:34 So,
1:21:35 uh,
1:21:35 hopefully,
1:21:36 the data will improve and we'd have a,
1:21:38 a better basis for doing that.
1:21:41 Thank you very much,
1:21:42 Susan.
1:21:43 Uh,
1:21:43 this,
1:21:44 this has been a brilliant discussion.
1:21:46 We have learned a lot.
1:21:47 Uh,
1:21:47 it was valuable to share insights from different perspectives.
1:21:50 I thank you all very much.
1:21:52 Allow me to,
1:21:54 uh,
1:21:54 thank,
1:21:54 uh,
1:21:55 the trade team in the,
1:21:57 in the,
1:21:57 on the bank side and also Jun Yong Lee,
1:22:00 our colleague from the WTO for the excellent collaboration to put this together.
1:22:04 The discussion will continue.
1:22:05 Uh,
1:22:06 we are very much,
1:22:07 uh,
1:22:08 looking forward to also receiving ideas on your side.
1:22:10 We will continue to discussing on the next.
1:22:12 of,
1:22:13 uh,
1:22:13 climate action,
1:22:14 environment and trade,
1:22:15 but also from the Geneva office,
1:22:17 you will hear us,
1:22:18 uh,
1:22:18 bringing discussions on,
1:22:19 on the nexus of climate actions with other policy areas,
1:22:23 uh,
1:22:23 like,
1:22:23 uh,
1:22:24 fragility,
1:22:25 conflict and violence,
1:22:26 health,
1:22:26 uh,
1:22:26 digital.
1:22:27 Uh,
1:22:28 so,
1:22:29 please reach out to us and express also your own ideas.
1:22:32 Uh,
1:22:32 with that,
1:22:33 uh,
1:22:33 again,
1:22:33 a huge thanks to all our wonderful speakers,
1:22:36 and I look forward to continuing the discussion and seeing you all again soon.
1:22:40 Thank you.
1:22:40 Have a good rest of the day.
- add-style
- lp-body-content