Issuu

THE CLIMATE LEVER HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT

For more than a decade, the global climate conversation has been dominated by carbon dioxide. It has shaped policy frameworks, corporate disclosures and investment strategies, becoming the default shorthand for decarbonisation. Yet while attention has been fixed on long-term carbon pathways, one of the most powerful levers for near-term climate impact has remained consistently underutilised. Methane is responsible for a disproportionate amount

of warming, representing both the fastest opportunity for progress and one of the clearest examples of where ambition continues to outpace action.

Few voices articulate this contradiction with greater authority than Yvette Manolas. With almost 25 years spent at the executive level within the oil and gas sector, she understands the operational realities that shape corporate decisionmaking. Today, as a global climate expert

YVETTE MANOLAS

CLIMATE CHANGE YVETTE MANOLAS

and strategic advisor working with international organisations, governments, advocacy groups and energy companies, she operates at the intersection where climate science, commercial pressure and political ambition collide.

“I worked in oil and gas for almost 25 years as an executive leading a very large asset that made around three billion dollars a year in revenue,” she says. “I’ve brought all of those skills together for my current work.”

That background matters. The energy transition is often framed as a battle between industry and climate advocates, but Manolas’s career undermines that narrative. She has managed assets with hundreds of direct reports, overseen operating budgets in the hundreds of millions and balanced the constant tension between safety, reliability, cost and production. Her perspective on decarbonisation is shaped by execution, not idealism.

“What we’re seeing is a clear gap between ambition and action... A large number of companies have made pledges, which is absolutely fantastic, but progress is not keeping up with those pledges.”

Yvette Manolas

What ultimately drove her into external consultancy was not a lack of activity across the climate landscape, but a lack of cohesion. Governments were setting ambitious targets. Corporates were signing pledges. Advocacy groups were escalating pressure. Scientists were producing increasingly granular data. Yet progress on emissions, particularly methane, was failing to match the scale of intent.

“There’s no shortage of initiatives,” Manolas explains. “But what I noticed was there was a different language being spoken between corporates, science organisations and advocacy groups.”

That disconnect has consequences. Climate action does not fail because of insufficient frameworks or voluntary commitments. It fails when strategies are not operationalised, when budgets are not allocated and when responsibility becomes diffuse inside complex organisations. In many companies, methane reduction exists as a concept rather than a system.

Recent global data reinforces the urgency of that gap. Despite years of pledges and reporting improvements, methane emissions continue to rise. The planet has already exceeded the 1.5-degree warming threshold, with projections now stretching uncomfortably towards two degrees and beyond. For Manolas, this is not an abstract policy failure, but a practical one.

“What we’re seeing is a clear gap between ambition and action,” she says. “A large number of companies have made pledges, which is absolutely fantastic, but progress is not keeping up with those pledges.”

When she engages with organisations at the outset of their climate journey, certain patterns repeat with striking consistency. There is often no clearly articulated methane reduction implementation strategy. Budgets are either absent or assumed to be absorbed into existing operational spend. Organisational wide decision-making criteria are unclear,

leaving individuals unsure how to prioritise emissions reductions alongside safety, production uptime and cost control. In such environments, even motivated teams struggle to act.

Methane’s role in this dynamic is particularly revealing. While carbon dioxide is treated as the primary metric of climate performance, methane’s nearterm impact is frequently misunderstood or undervalued. Yet scientifically, its significance is undeniable.

“Methane has 84 times the global warming impact of carbon dioxide over a 20-year period,” Manolas says. “That gives us the biggest opportunity to reduce emissions in the near term.”

That multiplier fundamentally alters the economics of climate action. Reducing a single tonne of methane has the same near-term effect as eliminating more than 80 tonnes of carbon dioxide. Yet many companies still assess methane using 100-year global warming potential factors (which assumes only 28 times the global warming impact). Given that the next 25 years are the most critical to limit global temperature rise, using the lower 100-year global warming potential dramatically dilutes methane’s perceived impact and weakens the business case for investment. The result is a systematic under-prioritisation of one of the most effective climate interventions available in the near term.

Compounding this issue is a persistent belief that methane emissions are inherently difficult to address. The argument is familiar: methane leaks are hard to detect, sources are complex and mitigation is costly. In practice, Manolas argues, this perception is largely outdated.

“There’s a belief that methane emissions are hard to mitigate because they’re hard to measure,” she says. “But while they can be difficult to detect, once you know where they are, they are typically very easy to mitigate.”

Advances in detection technology, from

ground-based sensors to aerial surveys and satellite data, have made methane visibility dramatically clearer. Once material sources are identified, mitigation often involves straightforward operational fixes: repairing leaks, replacing faulty or old equipment, improving maintenance practices or eliminating routine flaring. Many of these interventions are low cost, quick to implement and immediately beneficial to operational performance.

In fact, methane reduction frequently aligns with goals companies already care deeply about. Reduced leaks improve safety. Improved equipment reliability enhances uptime. Captured methane becomes a saleable product rather than lost revenue. Yet despite these advantages, methane mitigation is still too often framed internally as a compliance obligation rather than an operational opportunity.

Targets alone do little to change that framing. One of the most damaging assumptions Manolas encounters is that announcing a target will automatically catalyse action throughout an organisation.

“If I set a target, - action will follow- sounds like an obvious statement, but it’s often not true,” she observes. “Without budget, resources and clear decision-making processes, people assume someone else is dealing with it.”

This diffusion of responsibility is particularly acute in large, complex organisations. Senior leaders may publicly endorse climate commitments while middle management struggles to reconcile them with competing priorities. Without explicit governance, performance tracking and accountability mechanisms, methane reduction remains peripheral rather than embedded.

Leadership, therefore, becomes the decisive variable. Technology can identify problems, but leadership determines whether they are addressed. Manolas is unequivocal on the cultural dimension of climate performance.

YVETTE MANOLAS

CLIMATE CHANGE YVETTE MANOLAS

“Leadership is absolutely critical,” she says. “Without senior leaders genuinely believing in the aim and sharing compelling stories about why emissions reductions matter, people assume it’s a tick-box exercise.”

That belief must be reinforced structurally. Financial incentives play a pivotal role in signalling priorities. When emissions reduction targets sit alongside profitbased incentives, organisations understand that climate performance is integral to success rather than an optional add-on. When they do not, emissions goals are inevitably deprioritised.

Collaboration also emerges as a powerful accelerant. Industry initiatives such as OGMP 2.0 and independent methane certification schemes offer more than reputational credibility. They provide practical frameworks for peer learning, shared measurement campaigns, access to specialist expertise, and meeting regulatory requirements. In regions where multiple operators coexist, collaboration can reduce costs, streamline logistics and improve outcomes for all participants.

Beyond immediate operational gains, Manolas encourages companies to think strategically about methane in the context of long-term value creation. As global energy demand continues to rise, driven by population growth, electrification and the expansion of data centres and AI infrastructure, hydrocarbons will remain part of the energy mix for decades to come. The differentiator will not be whether companies produce gas, but how they produce it.

“The most advanced global companies are looking at long-term value creation,” she says. “By producing low-emissions gas that is independently verified and certified, they can differentiate their product, build a strong reputation and become a preferred supplier for the future.”

Markets are already moving in this direction. Governments and buyers in regions such as Europe and Asia are increasingly seeking verifiable, lowemissions energy supplies. Performance transparency are becoming competitive assets, enabling companies to monetise emissions reductions and protect margins in a more constrained future market.

Looking ahead, Manolas expects climate consultancy to evolve alongside shifting political landscapes and economic cycles, but she sees certain forces as irreversible. Transparency will increase. Public data will expand. Scrutiny will intensify. Organisations that act early, invest intelligently and collaborate broadly will be better positioned to navigate that environment.

Methane, in this context, functions as a litmus test. It exposes whether companies are serious about decarbonisation or merely fluent in its language. The tools, process and frameworks exist. The economics are compelling. The climate benefits are immediate. What remains in question is whether enough organisations are willing to align ambition with execution.

The energy transition will not be defined solely by distant net-zero targets. It will be judged by the decisions companies make today, particularly when the fastest wins are also the most obvious. Methane reduction is no longer a technical challenge. It is a leadership one.