Gaslighting: why methane remains a blind spot in emissions disclosures

It is unfortunate that the TCFD has “C” for carbon rather than “G” for GHGs in its name. Excessive focus on carbon leads to mischaracterisation and misrepresentation of other GHGs like methane (CH4), which is the principal by-product of burning natural gas and agricultural production (especially cattle). Methane’s global warming potential is around 28x[1] that of CO2 based on its ability to absorb heat and how long it stays in the atmosphere[2]. Methane can’t be offset through natural capital: trees don’t absorb methane like they do CO2. Nonetheless, many oil and gas producers portray natural gas (including LNG) as a “low carbon” solution. While technically correct, the methane that replaces carbon is arguably an even worse driver of global warming.

In June 2025, a landmark court case opened in Paris, supported by Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Client Earth and other environmental charities. They accuse the French oil major TotalEnergies (Total) of greenwashing and deliberately misleading about its net zero intentions, while continuing to pursue its traditional business of drilling for oil and gas. The environmental groups claim Total uses advertising to push a narrative that gas is a cleaner, lower emission fuel. While true compared to burning coal, this portrayal misleads consumers about the true impact of gas across its lifecycle (e.g., Scope 3). It is not difficult to see how these environmental groups have built their case: Total makes it very easy in its annual report along with its so-called Sustainability & Climate 2025 Progress Report and its companion document called “More energy, less emissions”, all of which are available on the company website[3].

• A quote in large letters from Total’s Chairman & CEO, Patrick Pouyanné states: “The first challenge we face is to continue to produce the energy the world needs today, while reducing our industrial emissions, and in particular moving towards zero methane by 2030”. While correct about the need to reduce methane emissions, the words “our industrial” signal that he can only be talking about Total’s own operated facilities (Scope 1 & 2) and under the operated perimeter method that excludes JVs, as discussed in the previous article. For the CEO of a company whose business is selling oil and gas to customers to exclude Scope 3 (the lion’s share of emissions) from such a high profile statement of ambition regarding the methane challenge is absurd or unconscionable….or both.
• Total projects its sales to shift dramatically away from oil towards gas and LNG. Rising LNG sales volumes will increase total Scope 3 emissions, not decrease them[4]. So, to talk about “zero methane by 2030” is gaslighting from the very top of the company. It is an attempt to contradict what Total’s own LNG-driven growth projections and related Scope 3 emissions estimates readily acknowledge.
• Total goes on to emphasise the importance of building the “low carbon energy system of tomorrow” to decarbonise electricity generation through integrated power networks. Again, this is hard to disagree with until one realises that methane-emitting natural gas lies at the heart of the low carbon integrated power network envisioned. Total’s corporate growth strategy includes a rising share of electricity production, with 70% coming from renewables and 30% from “flexible” solutions which means combined cycle gas turbines (CCGTs) and some battery storage (BESS). Unsurprisingly, the world’s #3 supplier of natural gas is focused on growing the market for its gas alongside renewable generation.
• In Total’s integrated power networks, the role of BESS is small but may grow. In 2024 Total purchased Kyon Energy, Germany’s leading BESS developer, yet it sold stakes in US-based BESS assets. Trading BESS assets while continuing to invest in new gas operations indicates that gas-fired turbines are to remain the principal remedy for renewables intermittency in Total’s integrated power networks.
• Shifting the goalposts from absolute emissions to emissions intensity is another way to divert from the need to reduce hydrocarbon consumption, hence sales. Instead, Total’s 2030 goals include more energy production, albeit with lower emissions intensity. Shell, a competitor of Total, similarly cites reducing the methane intensity of oil and gas assets it operates chiefly by eliminating routine flaring. Reducing intensity of emissions is not a substitute for reducing absolute levels of emissions. Without cutting demand for, and sales of gas [and oil], emissions levels will continue to rise, undermining efforts to curb global warming. Reduced intensity of emissions is just a distraction or a way to re-frame growing emissions more positively.
• Even worse gaslighting is the systematic use of “low Carbon” as an adjective to describe natural gas and LNG simply because they are a lower carbon fuel than coal for power generation. While not alone in adding “low carbon” before LNG or natural gas, Total is among the most egregious. The repetition of “low carbon” or “very low carbon” and LNG reinforces a misperception that natural gas is a low carbon alternative fuel on par with other renewable sources, hence a core part of the net zero energy transition. This false linkage goes to the heart of the Paris court case.
  • Total describes its “very low carbon LNG plant” currently being built in Oman. Co-located with a solar farm, substantially all the plant’s power needs for liquifying natural gas will come from solar energy. “Very low carbon” will only describe the plant’s Scope 2 emissions, not the product (LNG) itself.
  • Total defines its “Low Carbon Hydrogen” as being produced from non-renewable resources but with GHG emissions below a maximum threshold that is specified in European Directive 2018/2001. Total goes on to say: “In common language, low-carbon hydrogen is often considered to include renewable hydrogen.” That is incorrect. Outside Total’s own glossary of terms, hydrogen produced using natural gas or other hydrocarbons (sometimes combined with carbon capture and storage) is called “blue hydrogen” as distinct from “green hydrogen” that is produced with energy from renewable sources. Even competitors of Total like Shell distinguish between green and blue hydrogen.
  • Total is not alone in making misleading presentations. In an advert on page 1 of the Financial Times (18 June 2025), Norwegian energy company Equinor writes in large, red letters, “Our aim is to power millions of UK homes with wind energy.” Below, in smaller black text it states, “when the wind drops, we’ll still need gas power stations to take up the slack.” A footnote discloses that 99.6% of Equinor’s energy output is currently oil and gas, but the company has recently increased its gross capex into renewables and low carbon solutions. Equinor also appears to link “low carbon” with gas, hence gaslighting us similar to Total.
    

In short, investors, the media and consumers are being gaslit by some energy companies about the nature of natural gas. Over time, we must strive to wean ourselves away from fossil fuels including natural gas/LNG to the maximum extent possible. If instead we allow ourselves to substitute natural gas for other fossil fuels and persuade ourselves that this is consistent with decarbonisation pathways, then “net zero” will simply summarise all we have accomplished of our ambition to reduce GHG emissions. After all, it is the cocktail of GHGs, including carbon, methane and others, which is driving the warming of the planet and represents an existential risk to us all.

[1] Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator | US EPA

[2] CO2 vs. CO2e: What is the difference and why does it matter? | TechTarget

[3] Investor presentations | TotalEnergies.com

[4] See page 10 of Total Energie’s Sustainability and Climate 2025 Progress Report totalenergies_sustainability-climate-2025-progress-report-presentation_2025_en.pdf

More on this:

Selective accounting of emissions paints an inconsistent picture