Opinion - Cut climate emissions by ticketing the worst offenders, like speeding drivers
This legislation, which my colleagues at Kayrros helped make possible due to our expertise in methane monitoring, will benefit the climate and should be viewed by companies as an opportunity not just to reduce their carbon footprints, but to gain a greater understanding of their operations. That in turn will help them identify inefficiencies and areas for improvement, and ultimately extend their license to operate and outcompete dirtier suppliers.
Elsewhere, however, the climate has fallen down the political agenda.
The United States is now considering abolishing methane emission rules put in place by the previous administration, which had sought to align U.S. methane regulations with European standards to facilitate trade in liquified natural gas. If those regulations are scrapped or watered down, European importers may struggle to meet the EU's stringent reporting and emissions standards. This conundrum is made all the more difficult by President Trump's recent statement that if the EU doesn't want to face crippling tariffs on trade, 'the one thing they can do quickly is buy our oil and gas.'
Methane, it's worth reminding ourselves, frequently leaks during fossil fuel production and delivery and is particularly damaging to the environment. Over 20 years, it heats the atmosphere 84 times more powerfully than carbon dioxide. On current trends, it is projected to account for half of global warming in the next two decades. If the EU, keen to avoid a trade war, rolls over on methane regulations, we'll need to change tack to bring down methane quickly.
The best way to do this is to narrow the scope of the regulations and target so-called 'super-emitters' — intermittent sources of methane and other greenhouse gases that release disproportionately large amounts of emissions compared to typical sources.
These emissions are so large that, thanks to recent scientific advances, they can easily be seen from space. Exact definitions vary, but most agree that super-emitters refer to emission events of several tons of methane per hour, and include sources like oil and gas facilities, landfills and large agricultural operations. In the oil and gas industry, large amounts of methane emissions are often the result of leaks, equipment failures or inefficient and outdated operational practices.
This makes super-emitters, as opposed to more diffuse and smaller leaks, also remarkably easy and cost-effective to fix. And because they account for a large share of overall emissions and are so hugely concentrated, the cost-benefit of tackling them is a no-brainer — the payoff in terms of overall climate benefits and avoided greenhouse gases is phenomenal.
Indeed, holding methane super-emitters to account, as opposed to scrutinizing the entire lifecycle emissions of fossil fuels, would be a much more straightforward and effective policy — and a much less burdensome one for both industry and government — than the more arcane rules that the United States is set to tear up, and that the EU aims to implement.
While the EU has set lofty and commendable climate targets, its current approach to methane regulations is overly complicated. Under the current plans, it is the EU that bears the responsibility of identifying, locating and penalizing companies responsible for imported methane emissions. That is inefficient and laborious, perhaps to the point of elusiveness.
Instead, businesses themselves should be required to make sure they do not cause any super-emitter event. If they fail to do this, then they should be subject to fines, just as individual drivers who break the speed limit are legally bound to pay a financial penalty. If for one reason or another a driver disagrees with the charge that they've broken the speed limit, then they're within their rights to contest the fine and provide evidence that no wrongdoing has occurred. Likewise, businesses fined for super-emitters should have the right to argue that they didn't break any rules and present their reasons for thinking that.
This behooves those companies eligible for the EU's methane laws to monitor their emissions closely on an ongoing basis, for fear of falling foul of the rules and being slapped with a hefty fine. The data they need to do that can be effectively, cheaply and unobtrusively gathered using Earth Observation technology, which combines satellite imagery with artificial intelligence, machine learning and geoanalytics, to provide a comprehensive view of what's happening on the ground across a business's operations — and then, ideally, interpreted by environmental intelligence professionals, who can recommend sustainable and effective changes informed by that business's baseline emissions.
The European Space Agency showed last year that the elimination only of super-emitters detected from space — something eminently practicable and cost-efficient — would be equivalent in emissions terms to the annual carbon sequestered by 11 billion tree seedlings grown for 10 years. Put differently, it would be like removing 160 million cars from the road or the equivalent of France's total carbon footprint. That's the opportunity that lies in wait.
If the EU is going to relax its rules around methane to preserve good relations with the U.S., then another effective strategy is needed to tackle harmful methane emissions. The simplest and the best is to take an approach that has worked brilliantly to improve road safety around the world: slap the negligent emitters with a fine.
Antoine Rostand is president and co-founder of global climate technology company Kayrros.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Investing in Cedar Woods Properties (ASX:CWP) three years ago would have delivered you a 108% gain
By buying an index fund, you can roughly match the market return with ease. But if you choose individual stocks with prowess, you can make superior returns. Just take a look at Cedar Woods Properties Limited (ASX:CWP), which is up 80%, over three years, soundly beating the market return of 22% (not including dividends). On the other hand, the returns haven't been quite so good recently, with shareholders up just 62%, including dividends. Let's take a look at the underlying fundamentals over the longer term, and see if they've been consistent with shareholders returns. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. While markets are a powerful pricing mechanism, share prices reflect investor sentiment, not just underlying business performance. One flawed but reasonable way to assess how sentiment around a company has changed is to compare the earnings per share (EPS) with the share price. Cedar Woods Properties was able to grow its EPS at 29% per year over three years, sending the share price higher. This EPS growth is higher than the 22% average annual increase in the share price. So one could reasonably conclude that the market has cooled on the stock. We'd venture the lowish P/E ratio of 11.71 also reflects the negative sentiment around the stock. You can see below how EPS has changed over time (discover the exact values by clicking on the image). We know that Cedar Woods Properties has improved its bottom line lately, but is it going to grow revenue? You could check out this free report showing analyst revenue forecasts. What About Dividends? When looking at investment returns, it is important to consider the difference between total shareholder return (TSR) and share price return. Whereas the share price return only reflects the change in the share price, the TSR includes the value of dividends (assuming they were reinvested) and the benefit of any discounted capital raising or spin-off. Arguably, the TSR gives a more comprehensive picture of the return generated by a stock. We note that for Cedar Woods Properties the TSR over the last 3 years was 108%, which is better than the share price return mentioned above. This is largely a result of its dividend payments! A Different Perspective We're pleased to report that Cedar Woods Properties shareholders have received a total shareholder return of 62% over one year. And that does include the dividend. Since the one-year TSR is better than the five-year TSR (the latter coming in at 13% per year), it would seem that the stock's performance has improved in recent times. In the best case scenario, this may hint at some real business momentum, implying that now could be a great time to delve deeper. While it is well worth considering the different impacts that market conditions can have on the share price, there are other factors that are even more important. Consider for instance, the ever-present spectre of investment risk. We've identified 3 warning signs with Cedar Woods Properties , and understanding them should be part of your investment process. Of course Cedar Woods Properties may not be the best stock to buy. So you may wish to see this free collection of growth stocks. Please note, the market returns quoted in this article reflect the market weighted average returns of stocks that currently trade on Australian exchanges. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data


Fox News
24 minutes ago
- Fox News
'We are bullish about the future because America is back,' says Mike Johnson
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., touts the successes of the Trump administration so far this term on 'One Nation.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Investing in Cedar Woods Properties (ASX:CWP) three years ago would have delivered you a 108% gain
By buying an index fund, you can roughly match the market return with ease. But if you choose individual stocks with prowess, you can make superior returns. Just take a look at Cedar Woods Properties Limited (ASX:CWP), which is up 80%, over three years, soundly beating the market return of 22% (not including dividends). On the other hand, the returns haven't been quite so good recently, with shareholders up just 62%, including dividends. Let's take a look at the underlying fundamentals over the longer term, and see if they've been consistent with shareholders returns. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. While markets are a powerful pricing mechanism, share prices reflect investor sentiment, not just underlying business performance. One flawed but reasonable way to assess how sentiment around a company has changed is to compare the earnings per share (EPS) with the share price. Cedar Woods Properties was able to grow its EPS at 29% per year over three years, sending the share price higher. This EPS growth is higher than the 22% average annual increase in the share price. So one could reasonably conclude that the market has cooled on the stock. We'd venture the lowish P/E ratio of 11.71 also reflects the negative sentiment around the stock. You can see below how EPS has changed over time (discover the exact values by clicking on the image). We know that Cedar Woods Properties has improved its bottom line lately, but is it going to grow revenue? You could check out this free report showing analyst revenue forecasts. What About Dividends? When looking at investment returns, it is important to consider the difference between total shareholder return (TSR) and share price return. Whereas the share price return only reflects the change in the share price, the TSR includes the value of dividends (assuming they were reinvested) and the benefit of any discounted capital raising or spin-off. Arguably, the TSR gives a more comprehensive picture of the return generated by a stock. We note that for Cedar Woods Properties the TSR over the last 3 years was 108%, which is better than the share price return mentioned above. This is largely a result of its dividend payments! A Different Perspective We're pleased to report that Cedar Woods Properties shareholders have received a total shareholder return of 62% over one year. And that does include the dividend. Since the one-year TSR is better than the five-year TSR (the latter coming in at 13% per year), it would seem that the stock's performance has improved in recent times. In the best case scenario, this may hint at some real business momentum, implying that now could be a great time to delve deeper. While it is well worth considering the different impacts that market conditions can have on the share price, there are other factors that are even more important. Consider for instance, the ever-present spectre of investment risk. We've identified 3 warning signs with Cedar Woods Properties , and understanding them should be part of your investment process. Of course Cedar Woods Properties may not be the best stock to buy. So you may wish to see this free collection of growth stocks. Please note, the market returns quoted in this article reflect the market weighted average returns of stocks that currently trade on Australian exchanges. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data