The Global Methane Pledge – launched at the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) in 2021 – commits signatories to reduce anthropogenic methane emissions by at least 30 percent from 2020 levels by 2030. To date, 159 countries have signed on, including the European Union, although major emitters, such as China, India and Russia, have not.

According to new study by researchers at the University of Delaware, the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment based at the London School of Economics, National Bank of Belgium, and Duke University, this global action to cut methane emissions would pay for itself six times over. 

The study was published in the journal Science.

The authors conclude that “achieving the Global Methane Pledge would result in more than $1 trillion in annual avoided market damages by 2050.” 

Methane reduction is widely recognized as one of the fastest and most effective ways to slow near-term global warming. Its concentration in the atmosphere is once again rising rapidly owing to emissions from fossil fuels, agriculture, and waste, as well as anthropogenic and natural emissions from wetlands.

James Rising, associate professor at the University of Delaware, said, "What makes this study so exciting is that it brings together our understanding of long-term climate change, including tipping points and mitigation, with action on short-lived greenhouse gases. By acting now on methane, we get immediate benefits and avoid centuries of damage."

Rising’s role in the study was to help lead the development of the integrated assessment model, called META, used to quantify costs and benefits in the study. The META model brings together a top scientific understanding of climate change, including the effects of tipping points, with estimates of the losses to society from greater warming.

The authors highlight that lower-income countries would benefit most from action on methane pollution, given their heightened vulnerability to climate impacts.

“Major economies also stand to gain significantly on their own, so global cooperation is not strictly necessary for substantial methane action to be in their national interest,” said Thomas Stoerk, Climate Advisor at the National Bank of Belgium. “For low- and middle-income countries, the benefits are even greater, underscoring the equity potential of this policy.”

Using an integrated assessment model, the study quantified avoided climate damages globally and nationally, including tipping points and risk. It also assessed air-quality co-benefits and methane abatement costs.

Even under conservative assumptions, the benefit-to-cost ratio of methane action is at least 3:1 – rising to more than 6:1 when health co-benefits are included.

The authors state that methane action “lowers the intensity of several key tipping points by 2050, the likelihood of Amazon rainforest dieback drops by 8% and Indian monsoon disruption by 13%.”

“The benefits of global methane action look so much larger than the costs that the economic case for action is clear,” said Simon Dietz, professor and Research Director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics. “Our analysis shows that global methane mitigation is not only feasible but also economically compelling.”