Industry-Backed Emissions Metric Could ‘Completely Derail’ Climate Action, Campaigners Warn

Governments have been cautioned against adopting a new methane metric that would “seriously undermine” climate action and which “penalises” low-income countries.

A statement issued by more than 60 civil society groups on Thursday (December 5) argued that a new standard known as Global Warming Potential Star (GWP*) to measure methane from livestock could “severely damage” efforts to reduce emissions in line with global climate commitments.

The warnings come as New Zealand’s government this week moved one step closer to adopting GWP* – setting what campaigners describe as a dangerous precedent in a critical year for climate action.

GWP* has already won considerable support from certain livestock lobbyists, who see it as an opportunity to meet climate goals without reducing herd sizes. A number of climate scientists, however, have said GWP*’s application by industry is often misleading and full of loopholes, and advised caution in its use.

The metric – devised by researchers at Oxford University in the late 2010s – aims to reflect the fact that methane breaks down in the atmosphere more quickly than CO2. While it is more potent than carbon dioxide, its warming impacts are more short-lived. 

However, the civil society groups behind the letter say GWP* is “open to significant abuse”, and that adoption of the metric by governments could derail efforts to address livestock emissions in national and international climate regulations. 

They also argue that the tool would unjustly reward historically high methane emitters at country and company level, while heavily penalizing countries in the Global South for comparatively low methane emissions.

Scientists say action to reduce harmful gases from agriculture – currently responsible for a quarter to a third of global emissions – is critical if the world is to meet its climate targets. Agriculture is the largest emitter of the potent greenhouse gas methane, which scientists say needs to be cut by 40-45 percent by the end of the decade.

In 2021, more than 100 governments signed a pledge to reduce emissions by 2030. However, scientists this September reported that methane emissions are continuing to rise in the atmosphere with “no hint of decline”.

Martin Bowman, a campaigner with the environmental group Feedback who coordinated the letter, said the new metric “allows livestock companies to misleadingly greenwash themselves as ‘climate neutral’ whilst continuing to drive global heating”. 

“It goes against all principles of climate justice, unfairly penalizing low-income countries for small increases in methane from a low baseline,” he added. “This dodgy climate maths would let livestock methane off the hook, and should be roundly rejected by New Zealand and the world.”

‘Spells Disaster’

The civil society statement, signed by environmental and animal welfare groups from across the world, comes as New Zealand moved one step closer to enshrining the GWP* metric into regulation.

A panel set up by the New Zealand government in June 2024 announced on Thursday that by using a “no additional warming” approach associated with GWP*, the country would only need to reduce methane from agriculture by 14-24 percent by 2050.

The targets proposed by the panel are a significant departure from targets of 24-47 percent reductions in agricultural methane by 2050, which New Zealand currently has in place, and which are based on the recommendations of the country’s statutory body, the Independent Climate Change Commission.

The Global Methane Assessment, the world’s largest study into methane mitigation efforts, released in 2021, recommended reductions from methane across all sectors by 40-54 percent by the end of the decade to meet international climate commitments.

A 2024 survey of more than 200 climate experts – 60 percent of whom had authored reports for the world’s leading climate science body, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – said that livestock emissions must be reduced by 61 percent by 2036 globally in order to the targets set by the 2015 Paris Agreement.

Paul Behrens, a professor at Oxford University, said the weakened targets defied New Zealand’s international agreements on climate change.

He added: “The result of such a lack of ambition is an increasingly hostile world with more climate disasters for our families, our children, and future generations. It also spells disaster for the livestock industry because agriculture is incredibly exposed to climate disasters like heatwaves and flooding.”

In an emailed statement, New Zealand’s Minister of Climate Change, Simon Watts, described agriculture as the “backbone” of the national economy.

“It is important that our methane target is scientifically based and practical,” he said. “That’s why we tasked a panel of highly regarded and independently appointed scientists to provide evidence-based advice on what New Zealand’s biogenic methane target should be to ensure no additional warming.

“The government will carefully consider the panel’s findings alongside advice from the Climate Change Commission to confirm a target next year.”

Industry Pressure

If New Zealand accepts the panel’s recommendations – as campaigners fear it may do in the coming months – it would become the first country to enshrine policies based on GWP* into national policy. 

However, it is not the only country to consider applying GWP*. Paraguay and Ireland, both of which are also large producers of livestock, have also recently looked into using GWP* in their national targets, internal documents have shown.

Martin Bowman, who coordinated the civil society statement, accused New Zealand’s right-wing government of “bowing to industry pressure”.

Agriculture is responsible for almost half of New Zealand’s emissions, most of which is driven by intensive dairy production, and the industry is economically powerful. According to the trade group Dairy New Zealand, the sector generates $25.7 billion (NZD) in exports, equivalent to 25 percent of the country’s export revenue. 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is clear that – while methane does not build up in the atmosphere at the rates CO2 does – large increases in industrial livestock production over recent decades have helped drive methane to record highs. 

New Zealand’s new administration, which came into power last October, has used its mandate to enforce a range of policies friendly to the agriculture industry. This has included revoking a tax on agricultural emissions – informally known as the burp tax.

Bowman said the government had ignored the advice of its independent regulator and turned to industry instead.

The trade group Beef + Lamb New Zealand is one of the groups to have called for the adoption of GWP*. A former director of dairy giant Fonterra, the world’s largest milk exporter, chaired the panel set up by the government to consider the adoption of GWP* metrics. 

Trade groups from New Zealand, Australia, the U.S., Europe and Ireland have also been involved in the global push for its adoption.

Shefali Sharma, Greenpeace Germany’s global campaign lead on agriculture, said: “The livestock industry has made a bold opening move through New Zealand’s government to trash any efforts to regulate their methane.

“If other governments follow suit, the global meat and dairy companies everywhere will be awarded a get-out-of-jail-free card for hurtling us ever faster towards unbearable temperatures.”

Misleading

Under the new metric, companies and countries can claim they are climate neutral through small emissions reductions of around 0.3 percent per year – far below what scientific assessments recommend.

This is because GWP* focuses more on whether methane emissions are increasing or decreasing than overall methane output.

Climate scientists have said the metric should only be applied at the global level. Otherwise, they argue, it can lead to unfair outcomes whereby large producers such as New Zealand could claim to be climate positive through marginal emissions reductions, whereas smaller producers could be penalised for increasing methane emissions only slightly.

Despite lobbying by industry groups, GWP* is not recommended for use by the IPCC, though the body acknowledges the new methane metric in its most recent report.

The metric’s original developer, Myles Allen has previously told DeSmog that GWP* should be used as a “supplement” and “additional information” to GWP100, the metric that the IPCC applies, and not on its own.

Even some in industry have echoed the concerns of scientists about applying GWP* to national targets. For example, a briefing by the lobby group Global Dairy Platform (GDP) found it was “not appropriate” to use GWP* for “target-setting” or “benchmarking” below the global level.

“Governments should be doing everything in their power to reduce methane emissions from the livestock sector,” said Alma Castrejon-Davila from the advocacy group the Changing Markets Foundation. “They should not fall into the sector’s tricks that would only delay important climate action.”

This story was originally published by DeSmog.