> [I]t would be wrong to assume that the FAO figure is totally scientific. Not only does it rely on evidence which is acknowledged to be uncertain. It is also based on a unit, known as the "CO2 equivalent", which assumes that the emission of one tonne of methane is equivalent to the emission from 25 tonnes of CO2
> [S]ince methane degrades quickly, stable emissions of methane lead to a stable level of methane in the atmosphere and no increase in global temperature.
> There is something deeply untrustworthy about a metric which views methane as being many times more harmful than CO2, when only a small reduction in methane emissions is required to stabilise its presence in the atmosphere, whereas a massive reduction in CO2 emissions is required to achieve the same.
The fact that there's methane breaking down in the atmosphere right now does not matter at all. It's the wrong mental model.
Each kilogram of methane you emit today is as bad as 25 kilograms of carbon dioxide over the next hundred years. That's it.
The battle for global warming is going to be won or lost over the next 100 years, easily. We'll have the energy to capture our current emissions and turn back the clock by then.
We should obviously be worried about other green house gasses, but methane is a particularly bad green house gas in the short term.
>......The IPCC reports that, over a 20-year time frame, methane has a global warming potential of 86 compared to CO2, up from its previous estimate of 72. Given that we are approaching real, irreversible tipping points in the climate system, climate studies should, at the very least, include analyses that use this 20-year time horizon.
Source : https://www.thelandmagazine.org.uk/sites/default/files/Is%20...