“No additional warming”: it sounds like an ambitious climate target. In fact, this idea that now risks becoming the foundation of our long-term climate strategy would allow Ireland to continue emitting high levels of methane from agriculture, while misleadingly claiming climate neutrality.
The Climate Change Advisory Council (CCAC) has recommended that Ireland aims to become “temperature neutral” by 2050, its interpretation of the long-term objective of the climate law. This means stabilising our contribution to global warming by mid-century. For a country like Ireland, with exceptionally high methane emissions from ruminant livestock, this amounts to a free pass for continued high emissions.
Methane doesn’t linger in the atmosphere for centuries like carbon dioxide, but it packs a far stronger warming punch in the short term. The idea behind temperature neutrality is that if methane emissions stay stable, or decline slightly, then their contribution to warming stops increasing. But here’s the problem: the warming effect doesn’t go away. The damage continues.
To meet the Paris agreement temperature targets and safeguard the climate, rapid and deep reductions in methane emissions are needed – not just stabilising them.
READ MORE
Ireland and New Zealand, both high methane emitters because of livestock-dominated land use, are proposing temperature neutrality as a way to reconcile agricultural production and climate obligations. But scientists have described this approach as effectively “grandfathering” high methane emissions, allowing countries to claim the right to emit disproportionately, simply because they emitted more in the past.
At the heart of this debate is a shift in how we account for methane. The established method, used in national reporting and for comparing progress across countries, is GWP100: Global Warming Potential over 100 years. This measures the heating caused by the emission of one tonne of a greenhouse gas cumulatively over 100 years, relative to one tonne of carbon dioxide. On a 20-year timescale the impact of methane would be far greater – something many scientists argue should be prioritised given the immediacy of the climate crisis.
But the livestock industry is pushing hard for a new metric called GWP* (GWP-star), which reflects warming from changes in the rate of methane emissions over time, rather than absolute warming. This metric can be useful in some contexts, but if used for setting national climate targets, it risks locking in unfairness and weak ambition.
Imagine a factory pouring 100 barrels of toxic waste into a river every year. One year, it cuts back to 90. Under the GWP* metric, this factory would be counted as contributing to cleaning up the river, even as it still pollutes the river. A similar factory that had created no pollution, but begins emitting 10 barrels, would be seen as far worse under this logic, despite having a much smaller impact. Clearly unfair.
Similarly, under temperature neutrality logic, stabilising high methane emissions is seen as “neutral” – sounding benign – and falling methane emissions would be counted as “cooling” the climate, and could even be counted as offsetting ongoing emissions from fossil fuel. In reality, this is not “cooling” but polluting less than previously. Meanwhile, a country trying to expand its dairy sector would be heavily penalised heavily for increasing methane under this metric, even from a low baseline. A child could see how unfair this is.
This is not a hypothetical. Ireland exports milk powders to countries in Africa and Asia that is reconstituted into dairy products. If one of these countries wanted to expand its domestic milk production to replace imports and improve its food sovereignty, their emissions would rise. Under GWP*, or the “no additional warming” approach, their modest growth from a negligible baseline would be treated as disproportionately damaging, while Ireland’s already-high emissions would appear benign or even beneficial.
[ HVO is a climate ‘quick fix’ that could be worse than fossil fuelsOpens in new window ]
This approach doesn’t just weaken climate ambition. It entrenches global inequality and undermines the rights of countries to develop. This was a key finding in a recent study I co-authored, led by University of Galway researchers.
The Oireachtas Committee on Climate, Environment and Energy is currently holding hearings on the CCAC’s approach, and is expected to make a recommendation to Government in October. This issue might sound technical – a squabble over metrics and timelines. But it is one of the most consequential climate decisions this Government will make. It will determine the scale of change required in Irish agriculture and land use. It will shape how we invest in climate-friendly practices – rewetting, forestry, tillage, horticulture and biodiversity. And it will set a precedent for methane-heavy economies worldwide.
The CCAC’s decision to recommend temperature neutrality is deeply disappointing. The council has a legal duty to base carbon budgets on Ireland’s obligations under articles 2 and 4 of the Paris Agreement, which calls for climate pledges reflecting “highest possible ambition” and equity in efforts to curtail warming to 1.5 degrees.
Experts argue the council’s proposal has not been adequately tested against this requirement.
What should be done? Minister for Climate Darragh O’Brien should send the carbon budgets back to the council with clear instructions: reassess them against these Paris commitments, and Ireland’s stated ambition to be a climate leader, not a laggard. A separate, ambitious target for methane is the best path forward, supported by a broader set of scenarios that include diversification away from ruminant livestock, rather than growth. Diversification in land use and food systems must be part of any credible plan, but this plays a minor role in scenarios the council commissioned Teagasc to develop for its assessment.
Temperature neutrality is politically convenient, but it will not stand up under legal or moral scrutiny. Pollution that doesn’t get worse is still pollution. Let’s not pretend otherwise.
Prof Hannah Daly is professor of sustainable energy at UCC Sustainability Institute
