Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Scenario modeling study demonstrates that paired methane and carbon dioxide reduction expands remaining carbon budgets, highlighting the necessity of rapid non-carbon greenhouse gas mitigation.
Anthropogenic methane (CH 4 ) currently contributes more than 0.6 ∘ C to global warming, and CH 4 mitigation is a powerful option to limit near-term warming. Assessments of greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation rely on Integrated Assessment Model scenarios with typically non-linear emission trajectories (due to economic optimization) and similar mitigation ambition for CO 2 and CH 4 . However, climate targets are often linear and focused primarily on CO 2 . Here, we present a complementary scenario generation approach to systematically map peak warming resulting from two political choices: the net zero emissions year for CO 2 or GHG after linear reductions, and the simultaneous change in CH 4 emissions. We show that without CH 4 mitigation, peak warming exceeds 1.7 ∘ C (50% likelihood), and the likelihood of keeping warming below 2 ∘ C drops below 50% with net zero CO 2 emissions after 2050. Irrespective of CH 4 mitigation stringency, limiting warming to 1.5 ∘ C is no longer plausible. An additional sustained linear 10% reduction in CH 4 emissions ( ~ 35 MtCH 4 /year) until 2050 increases the 2 ∘ C-compatible remaining carbon budget by ~ 165 GtCO 2 . These results emphasize the benefit of near-term CH 4 mitigation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Weber et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: