Climate campaigners and scientists are sounding the alarm over GWP*—a new greenhouse gas emissions metric that they warn could derail global efforts to combat climate change. In a joint statement supported by over 60 NGOs, including the Freedom Food Alliance, experts are urging governments and companies to reject GWP* in favor of existing metrics like GWP100.

But what’s the big deal about GWP*, and why is it so controversial?

What is GWP*?

GWP* is a proposed alternative to the widely used Global Warming Potential (GWP100) for measuring greenhouse gas emissions. It attempts to account for the differing impacts of short-lived gases like methane compared to long-lived gases like CO₂. Proponents argue that it better reflects the warming dynamics of methane, particularly from livestock.

Sounds fair, right? Not quite.

Why GWP* is Problematic

Critics highlight that GWP* is rife with opportunities for misuse. Here’s why it’s raising red flags:

  1. Greenwashing Risks: GWP* could allow major polluters in the livestock industry to brand themselves "climate neutral" or even "climate negative" without substantially reducing emissions. For example, under GWP*, the US beef and dairy sectors could claim neutrality while still emitting most of their current methane and CO₂.

  2. Unfair Global Impact: GWP* disproportionately rewards countries and corporations with historically high emissions—often in the Global North—while punishing low-emission nations in the Global South. This creates a lopsided playing field that fails to prioritize urgent methane reductions.

  3. Undermining Methane Goals: Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, responsible for about 0.5°C of global warming since the pre-industrial era. Significant reductions are critical to keeping global temperatures below the 1.5°C threshold. GWP* could weaken these efforts by exaggerating the benefits of small methane cuts.

  4. Inconsistent Reporting: GWP* is a model, not a metric. Its reliance on baseline years allows for cherry-picking scenarios where emissions appear reduced, even when they’re still causing substantial warming.

The Livestock Industry's Role

Notably, the livestock industry is one of the most vocal proponents of GWP*. By reframing methane as part of a "natural cycle," they sidestep accountability for their significant emissions footprint. However, data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change underscores that biogenic methane (from livestock) has a nearly identical warming effect to fossil methane.

Why GWP100 Still Matters

GWP100 is deeply embedded in international climate frameworks like the Paris Agreement and national emissions targets. Switching to GWP* now would not only disrupt these agreements but also risk diluting accountability at a time when bold action is needed.

Instead of adopting flawed metrics, governments and industries should double down on methane reductions—aiming for at least a 33% decrease by 2030, as recommended by leading scientists.

What’s Next?

To safeguard global climate progress, campaigners are urging policymakers to:

  • Reject GWP*: Ensure that this metric isn’t adopted at national or corporate levels.
  • Prioritize Methane Cuts: Accelerate reductions in methane emissions across the livestock and fossil fuel sectors.
  • Maintain Transparency: Stick with robust, established metrics like GWP100 while exploring complementary tools for specific contexts.

Final Thoughts

Climate action requires honesty, urgency, and ambition. GWP* represents a dangerous detour that the planet can’t afford. Now is the time for leaders to stand firm against greenwashing and commit to real solutions that keep us on track for a livable future.

Sources:

‍