{"id":667628,"date":"2026-09-01T22:11:16","date_gmt":"2026-09-01T22:11:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/667628\/"},"modified":"2026-09-01T22:11:16","modified_gmt":"2026-09-01T22:11:16","slug":"guest-post-why-tough-methane-cuts-are-crucial-for-keeping-warming-well-below-2c","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/667628\/","title":{"rendered":"Guest post: Why tough methane cuts are crucial for keeping warming \u2018well-below\u2019 2C"},"content":{"rendered":"

Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas and the second-largest contributor<\/a> to global warming after carbon dioxide (CO2).<\/p>\n

Methane traps heat in the atmosphere more efficiently than CO2, but has a significantly shorter lifespan, fading after just a few decades.<\/p>\n

Therefore, reducing emissions of methane \u2013 a gas primarily produced by agriculture, fossil fuels<\/a> and waste management \u2013 is a powerful option for limiting global warming in the near-term.<\/p>\n

Yet climate strategies and models often only focus on CO2, or combine all greenhouse gases into one metric known as \u201cCO2 equivalent\u201d.<\/p>\n

The latter approach makes reducing methane emissions dependent on modelling choices and assumptions about the \u201cequivalence\u201d of methane and CO2.<\/p>\n

It hides the opportunities and challenges linked to methane\u2019s high warming and short lifetime.<\/p>\n

In a new study, published in Communications Earth & Environment<\/a>, we offer a different perspective that \u201cdecouples\u201d CO2 and methane reduction and takes global warming limits as a starting point for determining the required level of methane cuts.\u00a0<\/p>\n

We show that, even under the most ambitious existing national net-zero targets<\/a>, an absence of methane reduction leads to peak warming that exceeds 1.85C above pre-industrial levels.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The study highlights that, to limit peak warming to well-below 2C, net-zero CO2 targets must be complemented by stringent methane emissions cuts.<\/p>\n

CO2 equivalent\u00a0<\/p>\n

How much methane corresponds to one tonne of CO2?<\/p>\n

The question is as difficult to answer as: \u2018how much spaghetti equals a chicken?\u2019 You could compare the two meals according to their calories, protein content or cost. Each metric can be convenient, but is only valid for that specific comparison \u2013 no amount of spaghetti is the same as a chicken.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The same is true for the conversion of emissions of methane and other gases to CO2-equivalent emissions. It can be convenient, as it allows different gases to be compared or combined into a single number. This is why the metric is used in climate targets or evaluating the effectiveness of different mitigation options.\u00a0<\/p>\n

But, because methane and CO2 have different atmospheric lifetimes and warming properties, any conversion is only valid for a chosen time horizon and a chosen baseline.<\/p>\n

Depending on the assumptions baked into calculations, methane mitigation can either appear as an immediate priority<\/a> or framed as almost unnecessary<\/a>.<\/p>\n

There are a number of metrics that scientists use to convert greenhouse gases \u2013 whether methane, hydrofluorocarbons or nitrous oxide \u2013 into CO2-equivalent emissions:<\/p>\n