THE GWP* (GWP star) metric and the Radiative Forcing metric were developed because the GWP100 metric currently being used, is incorrectly measuring the warming effect of short-term greenhouse gases like methane.

GWP100 is often referred to as CO₂ equivalent (CO₂e). GWP100 treats methane as a carbon dioxide equivalent when it is not.

GWP100 says that methane from the Australian red meat industry is driving further climate change and GWP* says it isn’t.

The rate of methane emissions of the Australian cattle industry has not risen since the mid 1970’s. In fact, they are slightly below what they were in the mid 1970’s. Because methane only stays in the atmosphere around 12 years, Australian cattle methane emissions are breaking down at the same rate that they are being released. This is why the Australian cattle industry is not increasing the amount of methane in the atmosphere.

When methane emissions are stable or falling, GWP100 overestimates the warming effect considerably. When methane emissions are rising, GWP100 underestimates the warming effect considerably.

Significantly, GWP100 does not show when radiative forcing (warming) is occurring – whether the impact is short or long-term.

Nobody is questioning GWP100 when it comes to assessing CO₂. Given that most industries predominantly produce CO₂, this explains why most industries have no problem with GWP100. However, with the red meat industry (cattle, sheep and goats), methane is by far the dominant emission. This is why, which metric is used, makes the world of difference for the red meat industry.

Sectors like finance are presently using GWP100 to formulate policy. Bank lending policy, based on GWP100, will result in producers having to make unnecessary reductions in methane, either by offsetting or drastically reducing cattle numbers. These reductions have the potential to threaten future viability.

Alternative metrics like GWP* work well at the sectoral level for national accounting, however, they urgently need to be standardised, so that they also work well at the property level. At this point, nothing is being done, both here in Australia and on the global scale, to build an accounting infrastructure that will support formal adoption by third parties. On the world stage, the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (GRSB) is a potential forum to achieve this. More on this critical issue later.

CO2 is a long-term gas and is called a “stock” gas, because it accumulates in the atmosphere. Methane is a short-gas and is called a “flow” gas, because it breaks down quickly. However, GWP100 treats methane as a stock gas when it doesn’t accumulate.

When asked recently where the Government stands on the measurement of methane emissions, Energy and Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen said he will have more to say on the matter soon.

This article will highlight the ramifications for both the broader Australian community and the global community of using GWP100 for assessing methane.

The origins of GWP100

You might ask, how did this mess with accounting for methane come to be? The answer lies in the past.

In about 1990, policy people said they wanted a way to compare the effect of different greenhouse gases, so that they could make decisions. This led to the adoption of GWP100.

What is not well known, is that policy people were warned against using GWP100.

Keith Shine was one of the scientists involved in the process that occurred back in 1990. In 2009 he published a paper explaining exactly what happened back then. I quote from his paper:

“It was about 20 years ago today when Global Warming Potentials (GWP) became established as a method for comparing the climate effects of emissions of different greenhouse gases. 

 The First Assessment Report (FAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 1990) tentatively embraced the concept — as the Convening Lead Author of the relevant chapter in that assessment, I was interested to re-read what we had written way-back-then. I believe that we had many of the necessary caveats in place but I was particularly struck by one statement (where the square brackets are my additions for clarity): 

“It must be stressed that there is no universally accepted methodology for combining all the relevant factors into a single [metric] . . . A simple approach [i.e. the GWP] has been adopted here to illustrate the difficulties inherent in the concept.” 

But it seems that the die was cast. The IPCC retained the GWP as a metric of choice. 

Did something go wrong here? How did “a simple approach” which was “adopted . . . to illustrate . . . difficulties” become established in a major piece of environmental legislation, where it had the potential to influence big investment and policy decisions? 

Has there been what might be termed an “inadvertent consensus”, so that the IPCC and policymakers have each perceived that the other was content with the concept and didn’t apply pressure to fully assess alternatives? 

Certainly, there has been no shortage of assessment and criticism of the GWP concept.”

Shine’s reference to “inadvertent consensus” fits the old saying – When everybody thinks alike, nobody is thinking very much. Unfortunately, policy people today are all still thinking alike. There is no element of curiosity.

Another reason why GWP100 is not being questioned, is that careers have been built on it and to question it, would threaten funding streams.

Link one: Scientific papers highlighting problems with GWP100

Australia is taking responsibility for warming it is not causing

Australia is overstating its contribution to climate change, which is not in the national interest.

“GWP100 paints the red meat industry as a heavy GHG polluting industry. On the other hand, the GWP* metric shows it not making any contribution to climate change (climate neutral) and is currently slightly climate positive.

Climate neutral is Net Zero Warming. Net Zero Warming is the goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement.

Proof that the red meat industry is climate neutral is documented in the report, “Red meat greenhouse gas emissions update 2021” prepared by CSIRO and published 2 May 2024. For the years 2019, 2020 and 2021, the GWP* calculation was -1.21, -31.3, -47.87. Zero represents climate neutral and negative numbers represent climate positive which is reversing climate change.

Delays in data mean that years after 2021 have not been calculated.

Carbon neutral is a misleading term because it refers to Net Zero Emissions. That’s right, there has to be zero methane emissions from the red meat industry, although the current emissions are not changing the climate.

Using the GWP100 metric, the Australian Government is reporting that 24 percent of Australia’s emissions are methane, and 44% of these emissions are from the red meat industry. So, 10.56% of Australia’s reported emissions are allocated to methane from the red meat industry, when we know these emissions are not changing the climate.

Government reporting using GWP100 will see export income reduce

The CN30 (Carbon neutral by 2030) commitment by MLA, using GWP100, caused an uproar in the cattle industry, because it is a commitment to Net Zero Emissions by 2030. In other words, all GHGs, including methane, have be reduced to nil or offset by 2030. The beef industry would be a cottage industry, if the commitment was met.

Likewise, if the Government continues to use GWP100 for policy settings, then the size of the beef industry will be reduced to a size consistent with how much methane can be offset in the landscape. This reduction in numbers would make cattle producers unviable, and secondly, Australians would consume this level of production and leave none for export.

Reduce exports and you reduce the living standard of the average Australian.

The goal of the Paris agreement is no more warming, not ending food production, job creation, and economic activity, and not impacting export income critical for the economy.

Government policy will stop the availability of carbon credits to the non-rural economy

The carbon credits Government is hoping to see generated in the grazing industry to offset CO₂ in other parts of the economy, will now be quarantined in the grazing industry. They will now be needed to offset inflated methane warming calculated under GWP100.

The Government is going to have to use taxpayers’ money or rely on big business to invest more in non-fossil generation earlier, to meet global commitments.

There is an urgency to make alternative metrics like GWP* workable for big business

It is not just Government policy that poses a threat to the red meat industry. The banking industry also poses a major risk with the policies they are putting in place.

In Australia, all major financial institutions servicing the agribusiness sector are members of the UN-convened Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA). This involves a commitment to transitioning the economy to net zero GHG emissions through “management of lending” and “investment portfolios”. The methodologies are based on the GWP100 climate metric, not recognising the emission characteristics of the red meat sector, which are predominantly biogenic methane. The red meat industry potentially faces constraints to operations that have the potential to threaten future viability.

It is not out of the question that banks could rebalance their lending and investment portfolios away from red meat producers, making refinancing or the purchase of sheep and cattle properties difficult without large scale interventions to mitigate or offset emissions through the sequestration of carbon in soils and vegetation. This would undoubtedly have implications for productivity, profitability, and the value of assets.

Furthermore, in line with their NZBA commitments, banks are reporting annually on their financed emissions, whereby GHG emissions are attributed to the bank in proportion to their involvement in providing capital or financing. For example, in the financial year 2022, CBA reported financed emissions of 22.3 Mt CO2e, of which 3.0 Mt CO2e was related to business lending to Australian agriculture.

GWP* works well when it is applied at the sectoral scale to report on the red meat industry, where a steady timeseries of emissions can be readily established. A good example being the report, “Red meat greenhouse gas emissions update 2021”.

However, for GWP* to work well at a property level, standardization of accounting procedures must be developed. So far, nothing is being done by the red meat industry, both here in Australia and on the global scale, to build an accounting infrastructure that will support formal adoption.

If the red meat industry approaches big business and asks them to consider using GWP*, because it is based on good science unlike GWP100, we can’t have them saying – how is GWP* going to work in the real world, when we have to aggregate the emissions of individual businesses as part of our reporting?

GWP* requires an assessment of “the rate of change” of methane emissions, which occurs over a period of 20 years. This requirement to determine the rate of change of methane emissions creates challenges at the enterprise level (e.g., farm) or product scales, due to absence of sufficient timeseries data.

To make GWP* practical for reporting to banks, methane emissions would have to linked to property titles and not a trading entity. This is because GWP* uses a 20-year period to measure the rate of change in emissions. Over the 20-year period, a property might be sold to somebody else, hence the need to link emissions reporting to the title to give banks continuity.

Think of standardization of accounting as simply an audit to discover where the hiccups might reside. The above case is just one example.

There are two separate issues:

• production of a standard or reference document for consistent application of alternative metrics. This document would provide credibility and authority for use of these alternative metrics.
• Solutions for applying the methodology at different scales.

As such, the standardisation process could involve more than one document. Firstly, tackling the issue of consistent application of alternative metrics generally (e.g. sectoral or national scale) and secondary methods to be applied at smaller scales.

There is a lot to be done. And the industry is so very far behind and running out of time. The accounting infrastructure needs to be built immediately.

The Radiative Forcing metric is another alternative metric that should be considered.

Link two: Standardization of accounting is also necessary for retailers and supply chains

Thinking longer term, it is counterproductive to use methane as a quick fix

In his presentation to Farmers for Climate Action, Professor Mark Howden said, “One of the reasons there was so much focus on reducing methane emissions in policy discussion, was because reductions in methane provide relatively “quick wins”.

The reality is that you get a short-term gain for a long-term worse outcome. When you focus on methane as the solution, it allows CO₂ to accumulate further, and the long-term problem becomes even greater. Remember, CO₂ is a very hard gas to remove from the atmosphere, so the last thing we want is policy that encourages it to increase more.

GWP100 doesn’t capture the distinction between, the “reversibility” of the warming of short-lived greenhouse gases like methane, and the essential “irreversibility” of the warming of millennial gases such as CO₂.

Scientists suggest that the focus should be on the irreversible harm first (CO₂) and then if the tipping point is approaching, the reversible harm (methane) can then be used to pull back from the tipping point. Methane only lasts in the atmosphere for about 12 years, so it can quickly be removed when the need arises, simply by reducing emissions.

Put simply, GWP100 is not suitable for use in conjunction with target temperature goals.

There is also an equity issue here. Stable methane emissions from Australian cattle are not further changing the climate, but any current releases of CO₂ change the climate now and well into the future. It sounds like a penalty for something you are not doing.

In a political sense, methane mitigation may fulfill a sense of having “done something” about climate, but the next generation won’t see it that way.

I am not arguing that methane mitigation is irrelevant. Any processes that can be put in place to reduce methane emissions from the Australian herd is important to do. It will reverse climate change. Plus, being climate positive is a good story to tell.

Link three:  Why CO2 is harder to remove from the atmosphere than most realise

 

Link four: R.T. Pierrehumbert reinforcing why using methane as a quick fix is not a good idea 

The scare campaign against GWP*

Those whose career path relies on funding based on GWP100, have a vested interest in making people wary of GWP*. For the anti-red meat movement here in Australia, the GWP* metric discredits their narrative, so they don’t want to know about it, given GWP100 supports their position.

Even MLA joined the scare campaign to take the heat off their CN30 commitment, saying “Looking locally, a GWP* measure would also be extremely unfavourable should Australian herd and flock numbers increase.”

It is true that GWP* penalises increased emissions four times higher than GWP100 does, however, there is more to the story than this.

The MLA statement that increasing sheep and cattle numbers will automatically put you at a disadvantage with GWP*, is not true. Methane emissions need to rise by 1% a year before GWP* starts to penalise producers more than GWP100 does. So, there can be a 10% increase in cattle numbers over ten years, and you won’t be worse off with GWP*. This level of increase is very unlikely.

What is being overlooked with the scare campaign against GWP*, is that Australian cattle numbers have not increased since the mid-1970s and are not likely to increase. This point was reinforced in communication from Professor Richard Eckard on October 2021, “I think globally, livestock have steadily been increasing, but as you note in Australia, the national herd and flock have decreased since the 1970s. I think realistically, given the future climate scenarios, it is unlikely that the national herd will recover back to each peak number”.

When MLA made their statement, they overlooked the fact that when you change from GWP100 to GWP*, the incorrect higher warming effect GWP100 allocates to stable emissions is removed. This is where the 1% leeway comes from. Also, there is the opportunity for cattle numbers to increase if methane abating technologies are adopted, thereby remaining climate neutral.

Equity case against GWP*

If your agenda is to stop GWP* gaining traction and you can’t dismiss the science behind GWP*, the next best option is to say it is not fair. This has started occurring in presentations to cattle producers. That said, there are those who see GWP* as scientifically correct but unfair to use.

The case put is that GWP* favours countries with established herds, and developing countries are going to be unfairly penalised if they try to build their herds. They are seen to be penalised because GWP*assesses the effect of increased methane emissions four times higher than GWP100 does.

There is a solution to the claimed equity problem.

Let countries with established herds use GWP*, given it correctly measures the warming effect of methane.

With developing countries, let them use a modified GWP*, that uses the GWP100 accounting for increased emissions. This means developing countries get the lower correct accounting for the warming of their current herds, but don’t get penalised at the GWP* higher rate for building their herds.

With this approach, developed countries are subject to a much higher rate if they wish to increase cattle numbers. Those playing the equity card couldn’t challenge the fairness of this approach.

There is a precedent for this approach. As part of the Kyoto agreement, developed countries agreed that they had to make greater cuts to CO₂ than developing countries, who carry less responsibility for the climate change that has occurred. I know that China for instance, has different obligations to the developed world.

Conclusion

The idea that it is bad for the climate to be eating Australian red meat is a complete abuse of science.

It should be a matter of urgency for the red meat industry to achieve formal recognition of climate metrics that are applicable to the industry’s standing as a predominantly non-CO₂ emitter.

We have an opportunity to refocus climate policy on warming outcomes rather than emissions inputs.

The IPCC has said that countries can use another metric when reporting, but they also have to produce a report using GWP100

Murray Watt and Chris Bowen need to be aware, that their singular use of GWP100 is reinforcing the perception that Australian sheep and cattle are destroying the planet.

 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: In 2010 Alan Lauder began publicly drawing direct attention to why stable methane emissions from cattle herds were not the climate problem that the GWP100 metric depicted. His work has been cited by the IPCC.