The urgency of reducing CO₂ emissions that lead to global warming is becoming increasingly pressing. The 197 countries plus the European Union that make up the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change have set out to transition to cleaner generation systems, which means abandoning fossil fuels, including hydrocarbons and their derivatives.

In this race against climate catastrophe, and since the signing of the Paris Agreement in 2015, countries have agreed to submit their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), which are commitments that establish how much each nation must reduce its emissions and how it plans to adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change. These targets must be updated every five years. This year marks the third round of review, and it is no minor formality, as each update requires greater commitment to define the course of each country’s climate action for the next five years.

In this context, Mexico faces the following dilemma: drastically reduce its emissions or deepen new dependencies on hydrocarbons. Insisting on fossil gas as the backbone of the energy transition means failing to achieve our international climate commitments and, in addition, assuming the future effects on our territories.

The promise and the trap of “transition” gas

The defense of fossil gas as a transition energy is based on two main arguments. The first is that it generates fewer emissions than other fossil fuels, between 40 and 50% less CO₂ than coal and around 30% less than fuel oil. The second is its flexibility, as it can be adjusted almost in real time to changes in supply and demand, serving as a backup when renewables are not producing. An example helps to understand this: at midday, solar radiation is intense and photovoltaic plants cover much of the demand, so gas plants reduce their operation. But around 8 p.m., when people get home, consumption increases and the sun is no longer shining. At that point, gas quickly steps in to fill the gap.

This narrative has gained traction, but it falls apart when looked at closely. Despite its name, so-called “natural gas” is a fossil hydrocarbon composed mainly of methane (CH₄), a greenhouse gas with a global warming potential up to 84 times greater than CO₂ over a 20-year horizon. In addition, methane leaks throughout the entire chain, from extraction to transport, erode any climate benefits attributed to gas. The massive expansion of pipelines and terminals to import liquefied natural gas (LNG) not only ensures the arrival of fuel, but also ties up contractual commitments that last for decades. Transportation agreements under schemes known as ship-or-pay require payment even if the infrastructure is not used, guaranteeing profits for companies and committing states for 20 or 30 years. In Mexico, this model is reinforced by contracts signed by the Federal Electricity Commission and export projects led by companies such as TC Energy and Sempra.

Added to this economic logic is a geopolitical factor. In Mexico’s case, around 72% of the gas consumed comes from abroad, almost entirely through cross-border pipelines from the United States. This dependence exposes Mexico to price volatility and pressure. One need only recall the trade tensions driven by the Trump administration during 2024 and so far in 2025 to gauge how fragile this gamble can be.

The push for these types of projects is not only a technical or economic issue; it also brings with it socio-environmental conflicts. In Mexico, more than 30 megaprojects related to gas pipelines, transportation, and hydrocarbon storage have been identified in different regions of the country. As in Latin America and other parts of the world, they are presented as engines of development, energy self-sufficiency, or even solutions to the climate crisis. But in the territories where they have been imposed, the effects are often very different.

The Observatory of Socio-Environmental Conflicts at the Ibero-American University (OCSA) alone has documented cases such as the Agua Prieta Gas Pipeline and the Guaymas-El Oro Gas Pipeline in the state of Sonora, which starkly illustrate the human and territorial dimensions of the problem. In both cases, there were internal divisions in the communities promoted by the companies, land dispossession, violations of sacred sites and, in the case of Agua Prieta, the murder of a person who opposed the construction. Far from guaranteeing rights or promoting a just and sustainable transition, these projects have weakened the autonomy of the peoples, caused social fractures and turned indigenous territories into scenes of energy disputes.

Decarbonization in discourse, gas in practice

This scenario is particularly contradictory considering that Mexico is about to reaffirm, once again, its commitment to decarbonize and adapt to the effects of climate change. On the one hand, the federal government has promised to promote renewable energy through an ambitious program that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and achieve a goal of 45% clean electricity generation by 2030. On the other hand, it is betting on fossil gas, which implies polluting emissions that aggravate the climate crisis, with concrete consequences such as hurricanes Otis and Jhon in Guerrero; long-lasting droughts such as those in Chihuahua, Sinaloa, and Sonora; and prolonged rains such as those in Mexico City. Another clear example is the community of El Bosque, in Tabasco, which has been internally displaced by flooding and sea level rise. More than 60 families lost their homes and were recognized as the first climate refugees in Mexico.

All of this is justified under the discursive umbrellas of energy justice and national security. However, it is worth asking: what will this energy be used for and who will it benefit? As we have seen, the fossil fuel industry does not necessarily protect communities; in many cases, it generates socio-environmental conflicts that aggravate, rather than mitigate, the impacts of climate change.

Mexico can continue to convene ministerial meetings in Latin America and the Caribbean to coordinate regional climate action, which is positive and sorely needed. But without a verifiable commitment to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, including gas, we will be repeating the same path of contradictions that has led us to the current crisis, updating goals that we are unlikely to meet. If the energy transition is to be fair, it cannot be based on a fossil fuel renamed “natural.”

A responsible shift requires clear limits; a timetable for phasing out gas by 2035; short contracts with exit clauses to avoid obsolete investments; strict methane reduction targets with independent verification; and, above all, redirecting investment to alternatives that do allow for decarbonization. Either Mexico takes the challenge of moving away from fossil fuels seriously, or it will remain trapped in the mirage of gas. The time for ambiguities is over; what is at stake is not only meeting international targets, but the possibility of a livable future for those who are already suffering the impacts of the climate crisis today.