As global efforts intensify to combat climate change, the tools and metrics used to measure greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are under scrutiny. One contentious issue is the push by the livestock industry to adopt GWP* (Global Warming Potential Star), a metric that shifts how methane emissions are calculated and reported. While GWP* offers a novel perspective on methane's impact, its use as a climate accountability tool has drawn widespread criticism for potentially derailing progress on international climate targets.
GWP*: A Flawed Framework for Climate Reporting
GWP*, unlike the established GWP100 and GWP20 metrics, calculates the rate of change in methane emissions rather than their absolute warming potential. Proponents argue this approach reflects methane's shorter atmospheric lifespan compared to long-lived gases like CO2. However, this focus on incremental changes creates a significant loophole: if methane emissions remain constant over time, GWP* assigns them a warming potential of zero. This allows industries and countries to portray ongoing methane emissions as having no climate impact, even though methane is a potent greenhouse gas with significant warming effects.
The Greenwashing Risk
The most alarming issue with GWP* is its potential to enable greenwashing. High-emitting industries, particularly in livestock and dairy, could exploit GWP* to claim "climate neutrality" or even "climate negativity" while making only marginal reductions in emissions. For example, a modest 10% reduction in methane output could be framed as achieving net cooling under GWP*, even though substantial emissions would persist. Such claims would mask the ongoing harm caused by methane, misleading consumers and policymakers alike.
Feedback Global published an open letter on a case study in New Zealand that illustrates these dangers. Agriculture accounts for half of the country’s emissions, with methane from livestock as the primary contributor. Under GWP*, the nation could claim to be climate-neutral by 2050 while still emitting 76% of its current methane levels, coupled with ongoing emissions of CO2 and nitrous oxide. This misrepresentation undermines the ambition and integrity of climate policies, particularly in countries already facing pressure to curb agricultural emissions.
Unequal Burden on the Global South
Another critical flaw in GWP* lies in its inequitable impact. The metric risks disproportionately penalizing nations in the Global South, which generally have lower historical methane emissions, while rewarding large emitters in the Global North. For instance, as developing countries expand livestock production to meet food security needs, GWP* could impose harsher penalties on their modest methane increases. Meanwhile, industrial livestock operations in wealthier nations could continue polluting at near-current levels while presenting themselves as climate leaders.
This disparity contradicts the "polluter pays" principle, which calls for greater accountability from those historically responsible for climate change. It also risks widening the global equity gap in climate negotiations, further alienating countries that are already vulnerable to the effects of global warming.
Scientific Consensus on Methane Reductions
The scientific community overwhelmingly agrees that stabilizing methane emissions is not enough to address the climate crisis. Methane is responsible for about one-fifth of global warming and is 86 times more potent than CO2 over a 20-year period. To limit global warming to 1.5°C, methane emissions must decline sharply—by at least 33% by 2030 and up to 60% by 2050. GWP*, however, encourages a "no added warming" approach that merely stabilizes emissions at current levels, falling far short of the reductions required.
Undermining Global Climate Goals
Adopting GWP* would have ripple effects on global climate efforts. Its incorporation into national or corporate emissions reporting could weaken the framework established by the Paris Agreement, which relies on GWP100 to measure and compare emissions. Allowing methane emitters to offset their impacts with minimal reductions risks delaying action on other critical greenhouse gases like CO2. Moreover, renegotiating international agreements to accommodate GWP* would consume valuable time and political capital, diverting attention from the urgent task of reducing emissions across sectors.
The Path Forward
To ensure meaningful progress on climate goals, policymakers must resist the livestock industry’s push to adopt GWP*. Instead, the global community should maintain GWP100 as the primary metric for emissions accounting, while supplementing it with detailed reporting of individual greenhouse gases to improve transparency. Efforts to reduce methane emissions must focus on transformative changes in high-emitting sectors, including shifting toward sustainable agricultural practices and reducing livestock production where feasible.
The adoption of GWP* poses a significant threat to global climate ambitions, offering a misleading narrative of progress while allowing powerful industries to avoid substantial reforms. By enabling greenwashing, exacerbating global inequalities, and undermining scientific targets for methane reductions, GWP* could derail the urgent work required to combat climate change. Policymakers must prioritize robust, equitable, and transparent metrics to hold all emitters accountable and ensure that every sector contributes its fair share to the fight against global warming.
Comments