Why are scientists worried about the new global methane rules and emission goals?

A group of 42 leading climate scientists has warned that new approaches being used in climate policymaking could weaken global efforts to reduce methane emissions and undermine progress toward international climate goals. Their concern is not with methane science itself, but with how certain climate measurement methods are increasingly being used to reshape emissions targets in ways that may reduce ambition.

The warning comes in a scientific statement signed by several prominent researchers, including authors associated with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), climate scientist Michael E. Mann, and Earth system expert Johan Rockström. The experts argue that some governments and industry groups are using alternative climate approaches to justify weaker methane reduction commitments.

At the center of the debate is a climate accounting approach called Global Warming Potential Star (GWP). Scientists clarified that GWP itself is based on valid scientific methods. However, they warned that its use in policymaking is increasingly linked to concepts such as “temperature neutrality” and “no additional warming.”

According to the scientists, these frameworks can create a situation where countries or industries with historically high methane emissions continue producing significant greenhouse gases while still being able to claim climate neutrality. Critics say this shifts the focus away from reducing total warming and instead concentrates only on slowing future changes in warming levels.

Methane emissions

The scientists argue this could unintentionally reward countries that have contributed heavily to methane emissions in the past while disadvantaging lower-emitting nations that still require development space. They warned that such approaches may weaken ambition below levels that are achievable for high-emitting countries.

Paul Behrens, British Academy Global Professor at the Oxford Martin School at the University of Oxford and co-author of the statement, criticized the concept of “temperature neutrality,” arguing that it overlooks the historical impact of methane emissions.

“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 said.

He added that such an approach “rewards those who polluted most in the past, punishes countries that have not yet fully developed, and undermines the Paris Agreement’s requirement for the highest possible ambition on methane.”

Carbon budgets

The issue has already started influencing policy discussions around the world. Ireland is expected to decide by summer 2026 whether to adopt carbon budgets based on “temperature neutrality.” Researchers estimate that adopting this approach could allow the country to emit an additional 9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent between 2031 and 2035.

New Zealand has already moved toward this model. Last year, it became the first country globally to adopt climate targets based on “no additional warming.” According to the statement, this contributed to a reduction in the country’s methane ambition. Its methane reduction target for biogenic emissions by 2050 was lowered to 14–24%, down from the previous 24–47% reduction target.

Climate change

Scientists say the debate matters because methane plays an outsized role in climate change. Methane is responsible for nearly one-third of current global warming and is considered one of the fastest areas where climate action can produce visible benefits. Unlike carbon dioxide, methane has a shorter atmospheric life, meaning emission reductions can generate faster cooling impacts.

Jonathan Foley, Executive Director of Project Drawdown, stressed that methane reduction remains one of the most immediate opportunities available to slow climate change, particularly in food and agricultural systems.

“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 said.

He added that solutions already exist, ranging from reducing food waste and dietary shifts to improved livestock practices, manure management and landfill controls. According to Foley, cutting these emissions can act as an “Emergency Brake” on climate change and help avoid severe warming in the coming decades.

Global Methane Pledge

The scientific group urged governments to reject inappropriate applications of GWP and reaffirm support for the Global Methane Pledge, which seeks a 30% reduction in methane emissions by 2030. They also called for methane reductions of 47–60% globally by 2050, in line with Paris Agreement goals.

The broader message from researchers is clear: changing climate accounting methods should not result in weaker climate action. Scientists say global rules should ensure that countries reduce actual emissions rather than create frameworks that make climate goals easier to achieve only on paper.