(GRE) GWP* - (NOT) REPORTING METHANE

Over 60 climate activism groups have penned an open letter urging governments not to adopt GWP*, a controversial methane reporting tool that leaves the door open for greenwashing.

A day after a New Zealand government panel paved the way for the country to weaken its livestock methane reduction efforts, climate experts from across the world have implored policymakers not to adopt this controversial approach.

The approach concerns the use of GWP*, a metric for reporting the global warming potential of greenhouse gas emissions. It’s an approach being pushed by livestock producers under terms like “no added warming”, “climate neutrality” and “temperature neutrality”.

Currently, governments and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) use GWP20 and GWP100 to measure the warming potential of total greenhouse gas emissions over a period of 20 and 100 years, respectively. GWP*, on the other hand, focuses on changes in the rate of emissions between two points in time (usually over a decadal timescale), rather than the absolute level of emissions.

Essentially, it means that GWP* only addresses new or extra methane emissions – it assigns a global warming potential of zero if companies continue to produce the same amount of methane as they have done historically.

If adopted, it would enable high-polluting countries and businesses to present even minor methane reductions as negative emissions or cooling, helping meat and dairy production appear climate-neutral and escape significant transformation.

The letter – which was co-signed by 64 organisations, including Feedback Global, Changing Markets Foundation, Greenpeace, and Mighty Earth, among others – says this could “seriously undermine international efforts to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions in line with the Paris Agreement target of 1.5°C”, reward big polluters, and unfairly penalise low-income countries in the Global South.

“The meat and dairy industry’s latest trick is to claim their production system is ‘not adding warming’, and with just small reductions, they can claim ‘neutrality’,” notes Alma Castrejon-Davila, a senior campaigner at Changing Markets Foundation. “These claims are deceptive and can have severe implications towards countries with historically low emissions as well as the climate targets under the Paris Agreement.” More of this article (green queen) - link - more like this (livestock methane) - link - more like this (New Zealand) - link