But above it, invisible to workers on the ground, a plume of methane stretches into the atmosphere, thick and persistent, carrying with it a climate cost equivalent to a coal plant running at full capacity.It is one of dozens.

A recent analysis of satellite data has identified a series of “mega-leaks” massive emissions of methane from oil and gas infrastructure across multiple regions of the world. Each leak, researchers say, represents not just environmental damage but a failure of governance, oversight and basic maintenance.

Methane is a paradox in climate politics. It is significantly more potent than carbon dioxide in the short term, trapping more than 80 times as much heat over a 20-year period. Yet it is also one of the easiest emissions to reduce.“This is the low-hanging fruit,” said one climate analyst involved in methane tracking.“We’re not talking about inventing new technology.

We’re talking about fixing what’s already broken.”For decades, methane emissions were difficult to measure accurately. Ground-based monitoring was patchy, and self-reporting by companies often underestimated the scale of the problem.

That has changed with the rise of satellite surveillance.New-generation satellites can now detect methane plumes with striking precision, identifying individual facilities responsible for large emissions. In some cases, leaks have been traced back to specific pipelines, compressor stations or storage units.The findings have been sobering.

Major leaks have been detected in some of the world’s largest oil and gas producers, including regions in Central Asia, the Middle East and North America. In many cases, the same sites have been observed releasing methane repeatedly over time.

“This isn’t accidental,” said an environmental researcher. “This is systemic.”

Why leaks persist?

The causes are rarely mysterious. Industry experts point to aging infrastructure, poor maintenance and a lack of regulatory enforcement.Leaking valves, faulty seals and outdated equipment are among the most common sources.

In theory, these issues are relatively inexpensive to fix. In practice, they often go unaddressed.Part of the problem lies in incentives.

Methane leaks represent lost product, but in many cases, the financial cost of fixing infrastructure is seen as higher than the value of the gas recovered particularly in regions where gas prices are low or markets are underdeveloped.

There is also the issue of oversight. In countries with weak regulatory systems, companies face little pressure to detect or repair leaks. Even in more developed economies, enforcement can be inconsistent.

In recent years, methane has moved up the international climate agenda. More than 100 countries have joined efforts to cut methane emissions by 30% by 2030, a target seen as critical to limiting near-term warming.

But progress has been uneven.Some countries have introduced stricter regulations, including mandatory leak detection and repair programmes. Others have lagged behind, citing financial constraints or competing priorities such as energy security.

The gap between commitment and action remains a central concern.“There’s a tendency to celebrate pledges,” said a policy expert. “But what matters is implementation and that’s where we’re falling short.”

Scientists warn that cutting methane emissions could have a rapid impact on global temperatures, slowing the pace of warming in the coming decades. This makes it one of the most effective short-term climate strategies available.

Yet time is limited.Without decisive action, methane emissions are expected to continue rising, driven by expanding fossil fuel production and inadequate controls.

The consequences are likely to be felt in the form of more intense heatwaves, extreme weather events and accelerating environmental change.

The growing availability of satellite data is changing the dynamics of accountability. Governments and companies can no longer rely on opacity.Publicly available datasets now allow researchers, journalists and civil society groups to track emissions in near real time.

This has led to increased scrutiny —l and, in some cases, pressure for reform.Still, transparency alone does not guarantee change.

Methane leaks occupy a unique space in the climate debate: a problem that is both urgent and solvable.The technology exists. The costs are manageable. The benefits are immediate.

What remains uncertain is whether the political will can match the scientific urgency.For now, the plumes continue to rise unseen, but not unnoticed.

The supply disruption has pushed authorities to intervene through subsidies, reserve releases and regulatory measures aimed at stabilising fuel availability and protecting consumers from rising prices.

In India, authorities invoked emergency powers last week and directed refiners to maximise production of liquefied petroleum gas to prevent shortages of the cooking fuel widely used by households. The government also cut LPG sales to industry to ensure adequate supply for roughly 333 million homes connected to the system.

Officials have also urged consumers to avoid panic buying of cylinders and encouraged a shift to piped natural gas where available to ease pressure on LPG distribution.

Elsewhere in Asia, South Korea said it is considering additional energy vouchers for vulnerable households while preparing to increase electricity output from nuclear and coal-fired plants.

China announced it would release fertilisers from national commercial reserves ahead of the spring planting season, citing supply disruptions tied to the energy crisis.

Malaysia said it will increase spending on petrol subsidies to 2 billion ringgit ($510 million) from 700 million ringgit to maintain fixed retail fuel prices, according to government statements.

In Philippines, authorities said they plan to curb rising electricity bills linked to higher liquefied natural gas prices by increasing coal-fired power generation and regulating electricity tariffs.

Australia said it will release petrol and diesel from domestic reserves to address shortages affecting rural supply chains as well as the mining and agricultural sectors.

Meanwhile, the European Commission said it will advise member governments to exercise flexibility in enforcing European Union rules on gas imports, amid concerns that strict compliance could slow the delivery of liquefied natural gas shipments needed to stabilise supply.

The proposed development would involve large solar and wind installations across remote desert landscapes near Namibia’s southwestern coast. Supporters say the project could transform the country into a leading exporter of green hydrogen an energy source viewed as crucial for reducing global carbon emissions.

However, environmental groups argue that the development could threaten rare plant species and wildlife, including the endangered African penguin.The initiative forms part of Namibia’s national strategy to become a global hub for green hydrogen production. Hydrogen itself is a highly flammable gas that, when burned, produces heat and water rather than carbon dioxide.

This makes it an attractive alternative fuel for industries seeking to lower emissions.Hydrogen is already widely used in sectors such as petroleum refining, chemical manufacturing and fertiliser production.

However, the majority of hydrogen currently produced around the world relies on fossil fuels. When hydrogen is generated using renewable energy sources like wind or solar power, it is known as “green hydrogen” because of its lower environmental footprint.

The massive project in Namibia is being led by Enertrag through a joint venture known as Hyphen Hydrogen Energy. The company believes Namibia possesses some of the best natural conditions on Earth for producing green hydrogen at scale.

According to project developers, the region benefits from intense sunlight and powerful coastal winds, creating ideal conditions for renewable electricity generation. By combining these natural advantages with large-scale electrolysis facilities, the project aims to produce hydrogen fuel for export to international markets, particularly in Europe.

Yet the chosen location for the project has sparked intense debate. The development is planned within Tsau ǁKhaeb National Park, a vast protected area covering approximately 26,000 square kilometres along Namibia’s southern coastline.

The park’s name means “Soft Sands” in the Nama language and reflects the unique desert terrain that defines the region. Established in 2004, the park occupies land once known as the “Sperrgebiet,” a German term meaning “Restricted Area.”

During the early 20th century, German colonial authorities sealed off this region after diamonds were discovered there. Strict controls prevented most human activity for decades in order to protect mining interests.When the diamond rush eventually subsided, the long period of isolation allowed an extraordinary variety of plant and animal life to flourish.

Today the region is considered one of the most biologically unique desert environments in the world.Environmental organisations say this fragile ecosystem could be severely disrupted by the introduction of large industrial facilities.The Namibian Chamber of the Environment has warned that construction of solar panels, wind turbines and supporting infrastructure may damage habitats that support rare desert species.

In particular, scientists are concerned about unusual succulent plants that have evolved remarkable survival strategies to endure the harsh environment.These plants often store water in their tissues or reflect sunlight to reduce heat absorption adaptations that allow them to thrive in one of the planet’s most unforgiving climates.

Conservationists fear that large-scale development could push many of these species closer to extinction.Chris Brown, head of the Namibian Chamber of the Environment, has argued that the project should not be described as “green hydrogen” at all. Instead, he suggests it could become “red hydrogen,” referring to the risk that the development could push vulnerable species onto the biodiversity “red list.”

Brown also accuses wealthier countries supporting the project of applying double standards.According to him, nations such as Germany would be unlikely to permit similar industrial developments inside their own most protected natural areas. Yet they appear willing to support such projects abroad in countries seeking economic investment.“The Germans would never allow their premier national parks to become industrial zones,” Brown said.

“But they seem comfortable exporting the environmental risks to Namibia.”The environmental concerns extend beyond land ecosystems. Namibia’s southern coastline forms part of the Namibian Islands Marine Protected Area, one of the largest marine conservation zones in Africa.

This coastal stretch extends roughly 400 kilometres along the South Atlantic and supports an extraordinary variety of marine life. Among its most notable inhabitants are the critically endangered African penguins, whose populations have declined sharply in recent decades.The Namibian Foundation for the Conservation of Seabirds has raised alarms about the potential impact of the hydrogen project on marine ecosystems.

The organisation operates from the small port town of Lüderitz, historically known for its fishing industry. If the hydrogen project proceeds, the town could undergo dramatic expansion to support new shipping and industrial infrastructure.Neil Shaw, a representative from the seabird conservation group, warns that proposed port expansions could damage especially sensitive marine habitats.

He notes that the planned development areas include regions where penguins and other coastal birds depend on rich marine ecosystems for food.From his office overlooking a lagoon where flamingos gather, Shaw says even relatively small disruptions could have significant consequences for wildlife populations.“If development occurs in these highly sensitive zones, the impacts on marine ecosystems could be severe,” he said.

Project developers insist they are aware of the environmental risks and are working to minimize them.Representatives from Hyphen Hydrogen Energy say environmental impact assessments are currently underway. According to the company, careful planning will ensure that the project avoids the most ecologically sensitive areas within the park.

Toni Beukes, the company’s head of environmental, social and governance initiatives, says the southern region of Namibia offers a rare combination of wind and solar resources that are essential for producing green hydrogen at globally competitive prices.She argues that if Namibia hopes to establish itself in the emerging hydrogen economy, it must take advantage of locations where renewable energy potential is strongest.

“The south offers an exceptional overlap of wind and solar resources,” Beukes explained. “If Namibia wants to compete with other hydrogen projects around the world, that’s where the country’s advantage lies.”The debate reflects a broader global challenge: balancing urgent efforts to transition toward cleaner energy with the need to protect fragile ecosystems.

Supporters of the project emphasize the potential economic benefits. Large-scale hydrogen production could create jobs, attract international investment and help Namibia position itself as a major player in the future energy market.

Opponents argue that renewable energy projects should not come at the cost of irreplaceable natural environments.As Namibia weighs its ambitions for a green energy future, the fate of its rare desert plants and endangered penguins may become a defining test of how the world pursues sustainability without sacrificing biodiversity.

Tomas Kaberger, chair of the Tokyo-based institute’s executive board, said the crisis had underscored Japan’s exposure to supply disruptions and rising fuel costs as tensions in the region intensify.

Japan relies on the Middle East for about 95% of its crude oil imports and roughly 11% of its liquefied natural gas supplies, according to industry estimates. Around 70% of its oil shipments and 6% of LNG imports typically pass through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global energy corridor.

The halt in tanker traffic through the strait has triggered sharp increases in fuel prices, placing additional pressure on energy-importing economies such as Japan.

“When fossil fuel imports are cut, the power plants stop and your cars stop running,” Kaberger told Reuters in an interview last week, describing the risks posed by reliance on overseas fuel supplies.

He said the current crisis involving Iran served as a reminder that fossil-fuel dependence exposes economies to geopolitical tensions and price volatility.

The renewed focus on energy security comes as Japan marks 15 years since the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, which transformed public attitudes toward nuclear power and reshaped the country’s energy policy.

Kaberger cautioned against viewing nuclear energy as a long-term solution, arguing that large centralized power plants could be vulnerable to modern military threats such as drones and precision strikes.

He pointed to damage inflicted on energy infrastructure during the Russia-Ukraine war as evidence that large facilities can be targeted during conflicts.

Instead, Kaberger said decentralized renewable systems including solar, wind and battery storage could provide stronger resilience because they distribute generation across multiple locations.

He added that advances in renewable technology have altered Japan’s long-standing perception of resource scarcity. While the country was historically considered resource-poor due to limited reserves of oil, coal, gas and uranium, falling costs of solar and wind power have shifted the landscape.

“In the 21st century, with solar, wind and battery technologies becoming the world’s cheapest forms of power generation, Japan is resource-rich,” Kaberger said.

The meeting, opened by French President Emmanuel Macron, brings together major nuclear stakeholders including the United States and China, while Russia one of the world’s largest nuclear powers is absent following its invasion of Ukraine.

The summit takes place as global energy markets remain volatile and policymakers reconsider nuclear power’s role in reducing dependence on fossil fuels and meeting climate goals.

Civilian nuclear power faced a sharp decline in public support after the Fukushima nuclear disaster, which intensified safety concerns previously raised by the Chernobyl disaster.However, interest has revived in recent years as governments emphasise energy sovereignty and the need for stable low-carbon electricity sources.

According to the World Nuclear Association, nuclear power currently accounts for roughly nine percent of global electricity production, with about 440 reactors operating across roughly 30 countries.

According to the World Nuclear Association, nuclear power currently accounts for roughly nine percent of global electricity production, with about 440 reactors operating across roughly 30 countries.

The conference is co-sponsored by the International Atomic Energy Agency and the International Energy Agency, both of which have called for greater investment in nuclear generation.

IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi said on Monday that around 40 countries had either begun building reactors or were considering doing so.

The agency has projected that global nuclear power generation could double by 2050 if governments accelerate deployment and investment.

China continues to lead new nuclear construction. The IAEA said the country is building 29 reactors in addition to the 57 already in operation.

IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said Europe in particular has an interest in strengthening energy sovereignty by expanding domestic clean energy capacity.

Birol said this strategy would include scaling up renewable sources such as solar and wind while also enabling what he described as a “strong comeback” for nuclear power in the global energy mix.