The World Bank set an ambitious goal: eliminate nearly all gas flaring by 2030. Flaring, the burning of excess natural gas during oil extraction, is a major environmental problem, releasing millions of tons of CO2e (CO2 equivalents) in the form of methane and other toxic pollutants into the atmosphere annually. The problem is, flaring only burns 91.1% of the methane, so the other 8.9% goes unburnt directly into the atmosphere. This contributes to climate change significantly because methane is 84 times more warming over a 20 year period than CO2.
In regions like the Middle East, flaring has been shown to cause more harm than previously thought, with recent studies revealing higher levels of toxic gases like benzene and sulfur dioxide (source: World Bank Global Gas Flaring Tracker, 2023). Despite the urgency, progress to end flaring has been slow. While there are many factors at play, but one of the most significant barrier is also the most overlooked: environmental NGOs themselves, specifically a small handful of the more ideologically-driven activist environmental NGOs.
These organizations, while well-intentioned, have consistently criticized and undermined almost all efforts from outside commercial organizations to collaborate with oil and gas companies to reduce flaring. In this article, we’ll examine how this tendency to label such initiatives as “greenwashing,” their failure to offer viable alternatives, and their creation of an environment of fear have disincentivized other industries from partnering with oil companies to address this critical issue.
The result? Flaring continues unabated and the environment, that these NGOs exist to be faithful stewards to, suffers.
False positives: The harmful side-effect of calling something “greenwash” that’s not
One counter-productive tendency of these NGOs has been their eagerness to label any and all collaboration with oil and gas companies as “greenwashing.” This term, which refers to superficial or misleading environmental claims, has become a catch-all critique for any effort to reduce flaring.
These environmental NGO critiques are often reactive rather than analytical. For instance, when General Electric (GE) and Baker Hughes developed technologies to capture and utilize stranded gas, environmental groups like Sierra Club and Greenpeace accused them of “enabling continued fossil fuel extraction” without acknowledging the tangible emissions reductions these technologies achieved (source: Sierra Club Statement, 2020; Greenpeace International, 2020). By focusing on ideological purity rather than measurable outcomes, these NGOs have created a chilling effect, discouraging companies from pursuing innovative solutions to flaring.
Incredibly, these criticisms have continued even when direct, measurable, and significant reduction of methane emissions has been the result. For example, when Crusoe Energy, a Bitcoin mining company, partnered with oil producers to convert flared gas into electricity, Jesse Simons, Deputy Director of Sierra Club’s Beyond Dirty Fuels Campaign, dismissed the initiative as “propping up the fossil fuel industry” (source: Sierra Club Press Release, 2022). Similarly, John Noël, Senior Climate Campaigner at Greenpeace USA, criticized ExxonMobil’s pilot project with Crusoe in the Permian Basin, calling it a “distraction from the urgent need to phase out fossil fuels entirely” (source: Greenpeace USA Statement, 2021).
Criticism Without Solutions
Another issue is the tendency of these NGOs to criticize without offering alternatives. For example, when BP partnered with Climeworks, a carbon capture company, to explore using captured methane for industrial purposesm, and when Shell worked with Enerflex, a gas processing company to reduce flaring at their oilfields, Carroll Muffett, President of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), accused both companies of using flaring reduction as a “public relations tool” (source: CIEL Press Release, 2021). Similarly, Friends of the Earth criticized waste-to-energy startup Ener-Core for “perpetuating the fossil fuel economy” without proposing a practical alternative for addressing stranded gas (source: Friends of the Earth Report, 2019).
While it is an absolutely legitimate function of an environmental NGO to help the public understand when genuine greenwash is at play, the universal tendency across NGOs to label all collaborations with oil companies to end flaring as “greenwash” suggests strongly that there is neither analysis nor discrimination at play here on the part of these environmental NGOs, rather guilty verdict by virtue of the fact one would deign to partner with an oil company. Well, if outside organizations cannot partner with oil companies to deal with methane emissions, oil companies will continue with their own solution: flaring. The environment deserves better service than that.
This pattern of criticism without constructive solutions is not only unhelpful but counterproductive. Flaring is a complex problem that requires immediate action. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that oil will still account for 22% of global energy demand in 2050, even in a net-zero scenario (source: IEA Net Zero by 2050 Report, 2021). Given this reality, the choice is not between oil production and no oil production—it is between flaring/venting and utilizing the gas in a way that reduces emissions. By dismissing efforts to address flaring without offering viable alternatives, these NGOs have effectively pushed the industry toward the most environmentally harmful option: continued flaring.
How an Environment of Fear Disincentivizes Collaboration
Perhaps the most counterproductive consequence of these NGOs’ actions is the environment of fear they have created. Companies that might otherwise partner with oil and gas producers to reduce flaring are often deterred by the risk of reputational damage. For example, renewable energy developers like NextEra Energy and Ørsted have considered using stranded gas for power generation but faced backlash from groups like 350.org and Oil Change International. These organizations accused NextEra of “betraying its renewable energy mission” and Ørsted of “legitimizing the fossil fuel industry” (source: 350.org Press Release, 2021; Oil Change International Report, 2021).
This environment of fear has stifled innovation and collaboration. Waste-to-energy startups, renewable energy developers, and even technology giants like GE and Baker Hughes have been reluctant to engage with oil and gas companies, fearing the wrath of activist NGOs. The result is a missed opportunity to reduce emissions and accelerate the transition to a cleaner energy future.
Bitcoin Mining: A Pragmatic Exception
In this context, Bitcoin mining has emerged as a rare exception. Companies like Crusoe Energy and Upstream Data have been willing to partner with oil producers to convert flared gas into electricity, reducing emissions and generating economic value. These initiatives have been praised by the World Economic Forum for their tangible impact on flaring reduction, even as they face criticism from some NGOs. Crusoe’s projects in North Dakota and Wyoming have reduced flaring by over 90% at partnered sites (source: Crusoe Energy Case Studies, 2023). Similarly, Upstream Data’s operations in Canada have prevented millions of tons of CO2-equivalent emissions annually (source: Upstream Data Reports, 2022).
Bitcoin mining’s success in addressing flaring highlights the importance of focusing on outcomes over ideology. NGOs like Sierra Club and Greenpeace were highly criticized of these partnerships at their inception, but have not acknowledged the measurable emissions reductions they ended up achieving.
Analysis before ideology
For us to have any hope of working collaboratively to end flaring, it’s critical for enviromental NGOs to step up and stop crying “greenwash” without analysis, as has been their tendency, to the detriment of the environment and collaborative action. The fight against flaring is too important to be derailed by ideological purity, and there is a phrase in the environmental movement that they would do well to remember “the perfect is the enemy of the good”.
While the intentions of activist NGOs are good, good intentions divorsed from nuanced thinking can and has been counterproductive to the very environmental progress they only exist to create. Their reactive criticism, lack of viable alternatives, and creation of an environment of fear have hindered progress on this critical issue. To truly address flaring, we need a new approach—one that prioritizes measurable outcomes and encourages collaboration.
These critiques, while well-intentioned, are misguided. By discouraging collaboration with oil companies, these NGOs inadvertently push the industry to deal with methane emissions in the most environmentally harmful way: flaring or venting.
Continued inaction is simply not an option. It’s time for environmental organizations to stop criticicing every imperfect effort to move forward, and get their own house in order. In practical terms, this means:
- Properly evaluating whether collaborations are greenwash, or whether they can make a measurable difference
- Learning to work alongside commercial operations to better understand their motivations and strategies before simply criticizing them
- Taking time to do their own research, including engaging with experts in the domain (something that has been conspicuous by its absent in NGOs criticisms of Bitcoin mining and other industries)
- Take responsibility for the fact that they have the power to aid environmental progress, but equally the power to hinder progress through criticizing they may not fully understand and which may in fact be a solution, or part of the solution.
- Free themselves from the trap of overzealously declaring “greenwashing” even when it’s a false positive, and focus on what really matters: working collaboratively to reduce emissions and protecting the environment.