Esta entrada también está disponible en:
Ten years after the Kigali Amendment, the Montreal Protocol has shown that mandatory targets, finance and cooperation can forge a pathway to reduce methane emissions.
by Romina Picolotti*
Exactly ten years ago, on October 15, 2016, nearly 200 countries adopted the Kigali Amendment showing that international cooperation was capable of tackling a planetary existential threat. Today, this date and the results of Kigali forces the question: if we were able to create binding rules to contain gases that were destroying the ozone layer and dangerously impacting the planet, why do we accept insufficient voluntary agreements in tackling the present methane emergency?
The Kigali Amendment is part of the Montreal Protocol, a binding agreement that obliges countries to eliminate substances that are responsible for the destruction of the natural shield that protects life on Earth from ultraviolet radiation. The Montreal Protocol has already eliminated 99% of the production and consumption of nearly 100 controlled substances. By reducing potent greenhouse gases and protecting the capture capacity of our forests, we can avoid nearly 2.5°C of warming by 2100.
The Kigali Amendment applied that structure to HFCs, gases that are utilized principally for refrigeration in air-conditioners. While they don’t destroy the ozone layer, they warm the planet 1000s of times more than carbon dioxide. With obligatory targets, differential timescales, adequate finance and technical support to developing countries, the full implementation of the amendment can avoid 0.5°C of warming by the end of the century.
The principal lesson of Montreal and Kigali, is not merely a technical. It is also political and judicial: obligatory commitments, supported with financing, monitoring and cooperation, produce results that voluntary promises cannot.
The lesson from Kigali, more necessary than ever.
The lesson we learned from Kigali is becoming more and more necessary to implement today, as the planet warms and demand for refrigeration increases, as does the energy needed to produce it. In 2018, the International Energy Agency (IEA) projected that the number of aire conditioning units used globally could surpass 1.6 billion before 2050. Without greater energy efficiency and safer cooling units, we are likely to further aggravate the climate emergency placing people and planet at further risk.
Uniting governments, industry, science and civil society around agreements that can survive beyond electoral cycles, Kigali showed us that climate action can be synonymous with innovation, competitiveness, health and development.
Applying this experience to methane is one of the most effective strategic measures we can employ to tackle the current climate crisis. Methane is a super climate pollutant that represents one third of global warming and remains in the atmosphere approximately 12 years. Rapidly reducing methane emissions acts as an emergency brake to stop the climate crisis: it compliments CO₂ reductions and helps limit the intensity and the duration of the temporary 1.5°C overshoot we are experiencing
The production of energy with fossil fuels is one of the principal sources of methane emissions. In 2024 alone, more than 350 billion cubic meters of methane gas were wasted due to flaring, direct venting and leaks, according to estimates by the IEA—approximately three times the amount of natural gas blocked by the closing of the Straights of Hormuz.
Wasting this resource while millions of people struggle to obtain basic energy needs while also contributing to the increase of emissions, are unacceptable and contrary to obligations under the American Human Rights Convention. The quest for energy security must begin by ending this waste.
An International Methane Agreement
An international methane agreement, subscribed to by more than 150 countries (amongst these Brazil), targets a collective reduction of at least 30% of global emissions by 2030 (of 2020 levels). This is a voluntary initiative. According to the United Nations Environmental Program, national voluntary commitments made in 2025 would reduce only 8%, while viable and available technical solutions in the energy, waste and agricultural sectors could reduce 32% of emissions, in many cases with low or negative costs.
The distance between what we can do and what we actually do costs lives, economic impacts, and threatens the right to health, water and food. Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, recognizes that the right to a healthy climate and the Duty of States to prevent harm, cooperate and regulate the behavior of corporation. Protecting people from the impacts of the climate emergency is no longer a political choice: it is an obligation.
In order to go from the potential of reducing methane emissions to concrete results, we need a binding global methane agreement, with verifiable targets, timelines and monitoring systems. Financing from industrialized countries and technological transfers must enable compliance, with differentiated responsibilities, and without transferring the costs of the transition to the most vulnerable. At the same time, stable rules can offer predictability to investments and accelerate the adoption of the solutions that already exist.
Those that emit the most, have the most responsibility. Brazil, the fifth largest emitter of methane on the planet, can be a leader of this transformation. On the road to COP31, the country has the possibility of leveraging its diplomatic experience, its technical capacity, and its great potential to reduce emissions in the energy, waste and agricultural sectors, into a proposal that can mobilize the international community.
The reparation of the ozone layer showed that we can repair harm that seemed impossible to fix, when the science guides decisions, when the rules are obligatory, and when cooperation facilitates compliance. At the ten year mark since Kigali, we know that it works. For this reason, each incremental delay in tackling methane forces the question: who will pay for the lives that we chose to leave at risk?
*Romina Picolotti is Director of Climate Policy at the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development and founder of the Center for Human Rights and Environment. She was Secretary of Environment of Argentina and participated in negotiations on the protection of the ozone layer and mitigation of climate super pollutants.