Generated Summary
This report investigates the Global Warming Potential (GWP*) metric, a new method for measuring methane emissions promoted by the animal farming industry. The study examines how GWP* could undermine efforts to reduce methane emissions and its implications for climate policies and equity within the food system. The research employs calculations and comparisons between GWP100 and GWP* to assess their impact on emissions reductions for meat and dairy companies and countries. The report seeks to clarify the ongoing debate surrounding methane emissions, especially from animal agriculture, and the role of GWP* in this context. The report highlights the industry’s attempts to manipulate emission accounting to appear climate-neutral and escape accountability.
Key Findings & Statistics
- Methane’s impact is 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide (CO2) over 20 years.
- Human-caused methane emissions are responsible for 0.5°C of the approximately 1.1°C of global warming since industrialization (2010-2019 relative to 1850-1900).
- Agriculture contributes to about 40% of human-caused methane emissions, with around 80% of that from the animal farming industry.
- Under GWP100, Tyson would be responsible for approximately 58.5 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent with a 30% emissions reduction by 2030.
- Using GWP*, Tyson could claim negative emissions of roughly minus 82.6 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent for the same reduction.
- For Fonterra, a 30% reduction between 2020 and 2030 would enable the company to claim to be taking around 19 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent from the atmosphere with GWP*.
- According to GWP100 calculations, Fonterra would still be responsible for roughly 21.6 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent.
- With a 10% reduction in methane emissions, New Zealand could report negative methane emissions using GWP* by 2038.
- The Global Methane Pledge aims to reduce methane emissions by 30% by 2030.
- The global methane budget for 2017 indicates that total emissions were 596 teragrams of methane per year, with 227 teragrams from agriculture and waste.
- In 2021, methane emissions were 262% above pre-industrial levels.
- Massive increases in livestock numbers have led to a 332% increase in methane emissions from farmed animals from 1890 to 2014.
- From 2000-2017, cattle were one of the main causes of the observed increase in biogenic methane emissions.
- In the SSP4-6.0 scenario, annual emissions decrease by 2050.
- Using GWP*, Tyson could claim no net warming with a mere 1.4% annual emissions reductions.
- Under GWP100, New Zealand would still be responsible for around 30 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent methane emissions in 2050.
- Under the 19% reduction scenario, New Zealand’s emissions would be negative 1 million tonnes and negative 10 million tonnes, respectively.
Other Important Findings
- GWP* focuses on changes in emissions rather than absolute emissions, which can lead to misleading representations of climate impact.
- The study highlights the industry’s use of GWP* to portray minor methane reductions as ‘climate neutral’ or even ‘cooling.’
- The report emphasizes that reducing methane emissions is essential to limit the impacts of the climate crisis.
- The study reveals attempts by farming lobby groups to promote GWP* to avoid robust climate policies.
- GWP* can be used to manipulate overall greenhouse gas emissions accounting and escape accountability.
- The report unveils the implications of the GWP* methodology on climate policies, equity, and the transformation of the food system.
- The Global Methane Pledge has weaker language for agricultural emissions compared to other sectors.
- GWP20, calculated over a 20-year timeline, closely matches the actual warming effect of a pulse emission of methane.
- The California dairy sector claims it can become climate neutral by 2027 by using minor changes in feed and biogas schemes, based on UC Davis professor Frank Mitloehner’s research applying the GWP* metric.
Limitations Noted in the Document
- The study acknowledges that GWP accounting can be somewhat misleading when developing emissions trajectories and does not fully capture the contrasting impacts of short and long-lived climate pollutants.
- The study relies on estimates from Changing Markets Foundation and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) due to limited reporting of full supply chain emissions by meat and dairy companies.
- The IPCC has noted that all GHG emission metrics have limitations and uncertainties given that they simplify the complexity of the physical climate system.
- The study points out the limitations in the GWP* accounting tool as it relies on calculations with preindustrial times (1750) as a starting point, which may result in irrelevant numbers.
- Feed additives and methane digesters, which are proposed as solutions, have associated uncertainties and risks that are not fully addressed.
Conclusion
The report underscores the critical need to reduce methane emissions to mitigate climate change, emphasizing that the animal agriculture industry is strategically promoting the GWP* metric. This alternative approach, the study suggests, aims to avoid accountability and maintain the industry’s privileged position. It contends that GWP100, while not perfect, provides a more accurate assessment of methane’s impact. GWP*, on the other hand, primarily focuses on changes in methane emissions, obscuring the magnitude of the baseline emissions. The report warns that GWP* enables major methane polluters to greenwash their actions by downplaying reductions and presenting them as climate-neutral or cooling. The use of GWP* undermines the fundamental principle that those responsible for pollution should be held accountable and that it may lead to inequitable outcomes, rewarding high-emitting countries and companies. The study concludes that the scientific consensus supports transforming the food system to reduce reliance on animal agriculture and shift towards plant-based diets. It urges caution against industry attempts to delay action through misleading metrics and emphasizes the importance of adopting approaches that ensure accountability and facilitate meaningful progress towards climate goals. The report concludes by urging policymakers to resist the industry’s lobbying efforts and avoid adopting the GWP* metric, instead supporting metrics like GWP20, which better reflects the short-term warming impact of methane.