Methane is a potent greenhouse gas that is 80 times more efficient than CO2 over a 20-year period. Urgent action to reduce methane emissions is essential as "emergency brake" global warming. Nevertheless, voices and organizations are emerging that spread Inaccurate or misleading claims about methane emissions, or how they are measured, to cause confusion or delay needed action. These false narratives often prevent the adoption of effective policies and measures to reduce this critical greenhouse gas.

The Real State of Methane Emissions

Some organizations and government officials argue that certain countries do not need to take ambitious measures on methane because they are already considered leaders with relatively low emissions, especially from fossil fuel extraction. However, these claims are often based on shaky foundations. Official statistics on methane emissions from fossil fuel extraction, such as oil and gas platforms, are primarily based on self-reported data by the companies themselves or on models. Independent measurements always reveal more methane than expected, and in some cases the actual volume of emissions may be up to 70 times higher as government statistics indicate.

In the waste sector, some countries have shown that they can be leaders in reducing methane emissions. They do this by taxing landfill waste to divert some of the biodegradable waste and by supporting the capture of the methane that is produced. Such successful approaches show that targeted policies can make a significant contribution to mitigating emissions. In agriculture, which is a major global source of methane, emissions have stabilised or stagnated in many regions. This sector is one of the largest contributors to methane emissions globally. For countries that are committed to Global Methane Pledge and co-chair important coalitions like the Climate and Clean Air Coalition, it is a responsibility to lead by example in methane mitigation.

Why Methane Requires Special Attention

Governments are often wary of treating methane differently from other greenhouse gases, with methane currently typically grouped under the “CO2 equivalent” category. While this can be useful for comparison purposes, there are strong reasons for treating methane differently. Due to its efficiency and short lifespan, it is methane reduction the world's best "emergency brake" against global warming. Reducing methane this decade will help stabilize rising temperatures and avoid dangerous climate tipping points. But this “emergency brake” will only work if it is activated immediately, by 2030, otherwise the opportunity to slow the rise in global temperatures will be wasted. Including methane in carbon budgets by 2050 risks underestimating the urgency of methane action and missing a huge opportunity for rapid progress, which is precisely why the Global Methane Pledge was created.

Agriculture and Food: Controversies and Facts

Governments have repeatedly avoided interfering with personal eating habits. This stance is often used as an excuse for inaction on mitigating methane emissions associated with meat and dairy consumption. However, the shift to a plant-based diet is beneficial for health, the environment and the economy. Supportive policies can focus on offering more choice and promoting public interest in healthier eating habits. Consumer decisions are often influenced by marketing, availability, subsidies and pricing strategies, often referred to as the “food environment”. While some campaigns promote the consumption of animal products, excessive consumption of meat and dairy products is linked to thousands of deaths.

Some argue that “biogenic” methane, such as from livestock farming, is not a problem because it is part of the natural biogenic cycle. This argument suggests that since biogenic methane is formed from carbon absorbed by the grass that cows eat and is absorbed by plants as it breaks down back into CO2, it has no impact on global warming. However, this is incorrectly, since methane warms the planet much faster than CO2 while it is in the atmosphere. The argument ignores the fact that these methane emissions keep global temperatures higher than they would otherwise be. The concentration of methane emissions in 2024 was 265 percent above pre-industrial levelsReducing these emissions would significantly slow global warming.

Controversy surrounding the GWP metric*

Some industry groups, particularly in agriculture, are lobbying for a new way to compare methane to CO2: GWP* (Global Warming Potential*). This comprehensive model assesses methane’s contribution to warming by looking at the rate of emissions over time, seeking to overcome the limitations of standard global warming potentials (GWP20 or GWP100) that are used to model the impact of a single emission pulse. GWP100 can sometimes underestimate the impact of short-term reductions in short-lived greenhouse gases like methane. Some governments with high methane emissions, such as New Zealand and Ireland, have considered using GWP*, thinking it could ease their path to net zero emissions.

However GWP excludes past emissions from calculations* by focusing only on the change in emissions from a chosen baseline, effectively ignoring previous years of pollution before the base year. This can allow high-polluting countries to claim “no additional warming” and show significant greenhouse gas savings with only small actual emissions reductions. This ignores the ongoing impact of recent and historical emissions on global warming and could lead to targets being set that are inconsistent with Paris Agreement commitments. If GWP* is applied at the company or country level, the largest emitters would benefit the most, while being able to claim “cooling” effects from only marginal reductions in methane emissions. Conversely, countries or companies with lower emissions could be penalized for small increases, even though their absolute warming impact would be substantially smaller.

Although GWP* can provide useful nuances for climatologists studying the impact of methane on a global scale, it is not a useful metric at the country or company level because of its sensitivity to baseline selection. Arguments around metrics risk distracting from the urgent need to reduce methane emissions as quickly as possible across all sectors. It is crucial to reduce emissions quickly, whether the methane comes from livestock farms, poorly managed landfills, or oil wells.

The Way Forward: Methane Action Plan

The best way to address this challenge is to set specific methane reduction targets across the energy, waste and agricultural sectors, avoiding the need to use complex emissions accounting metrics. Methane action plans should include ambitious plans to reduce methane by more than 30 percent by 2030 compared to 2020 levels. These plans should be presented at COP30 to encourage other countries to join the Global Methane Pledge and publicly increase their ambitions.

At the national level, inter-ministerial teams should be established to urgently reduce methane emissions according to national plans. This would set a global example. Action plans should set specific methane reduction targets across all sectors, separate from carbon budgets, to avoid unnecessary disputes over the choice of metrics in emissions accounting. JRi

More on euagenda.eu