Op-ed published in BusinessGreen, written by Nusa Urbanic CEO, Changing Markets Foundation and François Mosnier Head of Nature, Planet Tracker.

Amidst the flow of alarming developments in climate breakdown, there is progress to celebrate. Although total global sustainable fund assets declined by 6.5% in 2025, sustainable funds’ assets under management did reach a new global high of $4.13 trillion, underlining promising momentum.

Perhaps unsurprisingly for some, untapped opportunities remain. One of the most significant blind spots in climate investment frameworks is agricultural methane exposure. The material and regulatory de-risking opportunities associated with methane mitigation are profound. As a super-pollutant, methane holds 80 times more warming potential than CO2 over a 20-year period – posing an elevated material, climate, and financial risk across industries. Methane cuts also represent a significant opportunity to slow warming, which means that methane mitigation is often referred to as our climate emergency brake.

According to the UN Environment Programme’s 2025 , which analysed submitted Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), we are on track to 8% methane reductions by 2030. If methane action was ramped up via the implementation of technically feasible reductions, we could still achieve 32% reductions, which could also prevent over 180,000 premature deaths and 19 million tonnes of crop losses each year by 2030.

Although it is responsible for more than a third of global heating, methane received only around 2% of global climate finance, according to the Climate Policy Initiative, which estimates that a ten-fold increase in annual public and private investment is needed. Why are investors not acting on this opportunity?

A risky blind spot

Agriculture is the largest source of human-caused methane, responsible for around 42% of emissions. Livestock accounts for the majority (32% of total methane emissions), followed by rice cultivation (9%). The sector is uniquely dependent on the stable climate, and the world is already feeling the effects of climate disruption on food security as droughts, floods, and wildfires become more frequent and more severe.

However, agricultural methane remains a blind spot with only 4% of NDCs including targets, and with methane policies in agriculture being identified as less rigorous than those in other sectors.

Despite these opportunities, a joint report by the Changing Markets Foundation and Planet Tracker, ‘Materially Neglected: Agricultural Methane and Investor Risk’, suggests that many investors do not treat agricultural methane as a material climate and financial risk. Investor practice was assessed across two key areas: integration of methane into investment and risk frameworks, and engagement with high-methane sectors. According to the report, 80% of the 25 major global investors assessed (including Vanguard, BlackRock, Capital Group, Fidelity, UBS and T. Rowe Price) scored less than 10% of available points for methane reduction – with an outsized gap in agricultural methane.

Only three investors offered to discuss the topic: Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM), JP Morgan, and Capital Group. For its part, NBIM – one of the largest shareholders in the sector, including in Tesco and Nestlé – has included agricultural methane in its climate policy, while JP Morgan Asset Management and State Street Investment Management have methane policies focused on the oil and gas sector.

Though engagement with the report signals potential for improving investor pressure on dirty industry, the majority of investors analysed do not align their policies with the Global Methane Pledge (GMP) – an international initiative aiming to reduce global methane emissions by at least 30% by 2030. NBIM is the only investor of those assessed to explicitly reference the GMP – embedding methane expectations into its climate action plan and encouraging companies in methane-intensive sectors to set standalone methane targets.

Evidently, policy needs to be broader than oil and gas – and encompass the full gamut of agricultural damage.

Demonstrating climate leadership

While engagement with food companies focuses on deforestation, biodiversity or supply chain issues, there are little to no expectation for methane disclosure, target-setting or mitigation. Investment in solutions – including alternative proteins, feed additives, low-methane livestock systems or methane-reducing rice practices – remains small and lacks an overarching strategy.

This represents a missed opportunity for leadership in the transition to a low-methane food system. As Changing Markets’ Methane Action Tracker shows, the companies, especially in the dairy sector are acting, setting methane targets, adopting action plans and disclosing their emissions. One of the frontrunners – Danone – reported achieved its 30% methane reduction target five years ahead of the 2030 deadline. With investor engagement, such actions by the front-runners could be amplified across the agricultural sector.

Emerging methane-reducing technologies also offer pathways to both risk mitigation and value creation. It is time for investors to publicly recognise methane as a significant climate driver – and leverage their influence to make the most of this major opportunity to slow global warming.

In the short to medium-term, investors can integrate methane considerations into all net-zero strategies, especially in high-emitting sectors such as agriculture, energy and waste. They can adopt dedicated methane policies, with expectations for disclosure, target-setting and mitigation across scopes one, two and three. Agriculture-specific, science-backed methane reduction targets can also be set, which span across the livestock value chain – incentivising real-world methane reductions.

At the macro level, investors must align portfolio commitments with the GMP – to collectively cut global methane emissions by at least 30% by 2030 from 2020 levels. Lastly, they can shift more capital toward sustainable, more plant-based proteins and resilient food systems, while divesting from high-emitting agriculture lacking a credible reduction plan.