A coalition of 42 prominent climate scientists has issued a stark warning: new approaches to measuring methane emissions risk significantly weakening global efforts to combat climate change. These experts caution that certain accounting methods could enable countries to dilute their emission reduction targets while still claiming climate neutrality, undermining the ambition required by international agreements.
New Accounting Methods Raise Concerns
At the heart of the debate is the application of climate accounting methods such as Global Warming Potential Star (GWP*). While GWP* itself is based on sound scientific principles, scientists are concerned about its use in policy, particularly when linked to concepts like “temperature neutrality” or “no additional warming.”
These frameworks, according to the scientists, could create a loophole where nations or industries with historically high methane emissions continue to produce substantial greenhouse gases but are still able to declare themselves climate neutral. Critics argue this shifts focus away from reducing overall warming, concentrating instead on merely slowing future changes in warming levels.
Paul Behrens, British Academy Global Professor at the Oxford Martin School, criticized the concept of “temperature neutrality,” stating, “Under ‘temperature neutrality’, a country that has spent decades dumping methane into the atmosphere is treated as climate neutral if it only nudges its emissions down. That is like a factory claiming it has no impact because they are pouring slightly less sewage than previously into an already toxic river.”
Behrens further warned that such an approach could inadvertently reward past polluters, disadvantage developing nations, and undermine the Paris Agreement's call for the highest possible ambition on methane.
Policy Impact Already Evident
The influence of these new accounting methods is already being seen in policy discussions worldwide. Ireland, for instance, is expected to decide by summer 2026 whether to adopt carbon budgets based on “temperature neutrality.” Researchers estimate this could allow Ireland to emit an additional 9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent between 2031 and 2035.
New Zealand has already moved in this direction, becoming the first country last year to adopt climate targets based on “no additional warming.” This shift reportedly contributed to a reduction in its methane ambition, with its biogenic methane reduction target for 2050 lowered from 24–47% to 14–24%.
The Critical Role of Methane
Scientists emphasize the urgency of effective methane reduction because the gas is responsible for nearly one-third of current global warming. Unlike carbon dioxide, methane has a shorter atmospheric lifespan, meaning reductions can yield faster cooling benefits.
Jonathan Foley, Executive Director of Project Drawdown, highlighted methane reduction as one of the most immediate opportunities to slow climate change. “Curbing methane emissions — especially from the food and agricultural sectors — is a critical part of stopping climate change. With nearly one-third of current warming driven by methane emissions, and the food system being the largest contributor, we simply cannot ignore this any longer,” Foley stated.
Foley added that existing solutions, including reducing food waste, dietary shifts, improved livestock practices, manure management, and landfill controls, can act as an “Emergency Brake” on climate change, helping to avert severe warming in the coming decades.
A Call for Stronger Action
The scientific group urges governments to reject inappropriate applications of GWP* and to reaffirm their commitment to the Global Methane Pledge, which aims for a 30% reduction in methane emissions by 2030. They also advocate for global methane reductions of 47–60% by 2050, aligning with the goals of the Paris Agreement.
The overarching message from researchers is clear: changes in climate accounting methods must not result in weaker climate action. Global rules, they contend, should ensure that countries reduce actual emissions rather than adopt frameworks that merely make climate goals easier to achieve on paper.