ChatGPT provided the information below when I asked for a reasonable trajectory for global methane (CH₄) emissions. I also looked at the AR6 data for the change of CH4 emissions from 2025 to 2050 and 2100 (see graphs below).
When discussing the expected temperature increase for 2050 (and the need for SRM) we might say something like:
Anthropogenic methane emissions in 2050 are likely to produce a global temperature effect within approximately −0.2°C to +0.2°C relative to today’s contribution. While reasonable steps should be taken to reduce methane emissions, for planning purposes it is prudent to assume that methane’s net contribution to global temperature will not change dramatically over the next 25 years.
Cheers!
Bruce Parker
|
|
|
|
===================================================================================================================
(from ChatGPT)
Sector |
|
| Mt CH₄ / yr | Share |
Agriculture | Enteric fermentation (livestock digestion) | 115 |
|
|
Agriculture | Manure management: | 35 |
|
|
Agriculture | Rice cultivation | 30 |
|
|
Agriculture | Total |
| ~155 | ~40% |
Fossil fuels | Oil & natural gas systems | 80 |
|
|
Fossil fuels | Coal mining | 40 |
|
|
Fossil fuels | Other fossil extraction & processing | 10-15 |
|
|
Fossil fuels | Total |
| ~135 | ~35% |
Waste | Landfills | 40–50 |
|
|
Waste | Wastewater | ~30 |
|
|
Waste | Total |
| ~75 | ~20% |
Biomass & other |
|
| ~15 | ~5% |
Total anthropogenic |
|
| ~380 | 100% |
===================================================================================================================
Here is a reasonable trajectory for global methane (CH₄) emissions based on current policy trends, technology potential, and climate scenarios.
I’ll show three realistic pathways:
🌍 Where We Are Now (2023–2025)
Emissions have been rising since ~2007, with faster growth after 2014.
📈 Scenario 1 — Current Policies / Weak Control (Most Likely Without Major Action)
Trajectory:
Drivers:
Climate impact:
This is broadly consistent with today’s trajectory absent strong enforcement.
📉 Scenario 2 — Moderate Policy Success (Global Methane Pledge Achieved)
(Global Methane Pledge target: −30% by 2030 relative to 2020)
Trajectory:
How:
Climate impact:
This is technically feasible with existing technology.
📉 Scenario 3 — Aggressive Mitigation / Rapid Decline
Trajectory:
Requires:
Climate impact:
This pathway produces rapid cooling leverage compared to CO₂ reductions alone.
📊 Visual Summary (Anthropogenic Methane)
Year | Weak Policy | Moderate | Aggressive |
2025 | 380 Mt | 380 Mt | 380 Mt |
2030 | 400 Mt | 265 Mt | 250 Mt |
2040 | 410 Mt | 240 Mt | 180 Mt |
2050 | 420+ Mt | 220–240 Mt | 150 Mt |
🔬 What Is “Reasonable”?
A reasonable, evidence-based trajectory given political reality is:
That would mean:
Anthropogenic methane falling to ~250–300 Mt by 2040
This is plausible without radical societal restructuring.
🌡️ Why Methane Matters for Near-Term Warming
Because methane is short-lived:
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/00dc01dcaa64%24e3c4f6a0%24ab4ee3e0%24%40chesdata.com.
Hi Bruce
Is that a little bit negative? I'd agree that it's unlikely that there'll be much reduction in methane emissions from O&G and agri sectors, but there might be considerable scope with EAMO in one form or another. That could deliver quite a rapid effect if scaled quickly.
Robert
--