This paper quantifies and compares the lifecycle carbon intensity (CI) of methanol across fossil (grey and coal-based), blue, bio-, and e-methanol pathways using EU RED II and RFNBO/RCF (Renewable Fuel of Non-Biological Origin and Recycled Carbon Fuels) well-to-wake framework. CI depends mainly on the sources of CO₂, H₂, and electricity. Grey methanol from natural gas remains high (~103 g CO₂e/MJ), while coal-based methanol is far worse (~299 g/MJ). Blue methanol, produced via natural gas with carbon capture, achieves moderate reductions (~25–66 g/MJ, 30–73 % savings) but falls short of the 70 % threshold for renewable classification. Bio-methanol from wastes and residues is very low (~10–33 g/MJ, 65–89 % savings), and manure-based routes can even achieve net-negative emissions (~ –80 g/MJ). E-methanol pathways span a wide range depending on inputs: wind + biogenic CO₂ configurations reach ~18–21 g/MJ (80–85 % savings), solar + industrial CO₂ cases ~25–30 g/MJ (68–73 %), while DAC or grid-electricity scenarios exceed 30 g/MJ and may fail thresholds. Meeting the EU's 70 % GHG-savings requirement (≤ 28.2 g/MJ) therefore hinges on renewable energy sourcing and low-carbon CO₂ supply, as defined by EU Delegated Regulations 2023/1184 and 1185. The analysis distinguishes which pathways genuinely qualify as renewable and which serve as transitional low-carbon options within emerging fuel policy frameworks.