Climate projects designed to fight carbon may also reduce methane

When people talk about cutting greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2) tends to be in the spotlight. But methane is the real sprinter: it heats the planet much more strongly in the short term, even though it doesn’t hang around as long as CO2.

That difference is what the new research leans on. The idea is simple. Rather than treating short-lived carbon removal projects as a flawed substitute for cutting CO2, use them for what they do best – balancing methane’s short, sharp burst of warming.

Methane’s unique climate impact

Methane and CO2 don’t behave the same way in the atmosphere. Methane packs a bigger punch right away.

It drives a lot of near-term warming, which matters if you care about the next few decades – heatwaves, crop stress, coral bleaching, and all the stuff that hits people living now and in the near future.

But methane also fades out over time because it breaks down in the atmosphere.

CO2 is the opposite. A ton of CO2 doesn’t spike temperatures as dramatically at first, but it lingers for an extremely long time. In climate terms, it’s basically a long-term commitment.

So if you’re trying to manage warming both now and later, you need tools that match the shape of each problem, not one-size-fits-all solutions.

The problem with “temporary” projects

Nature-based carbon removal – things like afforestation and reforestation – gets criticized a lot, and not without reason.

If a project stops being maintained, burns, gets cut down, or simply ends, the carbon that was pulled out of the air can leak right back. That’s why critics call it “temporary,” and why some people argue it’s too risky to count as real climate action.

The researchers don’t deny that. Instead, they flip it around: temporary removal is exactly the point if you’re using it to offset a temporary climate pollutant.

Trying to use short-term removals to “cancel out” CO2 can also create a moral and practical mess.

You might get a short-lived benefit now, but future generations could be stuck dealing with the permanent consequences once that stored carbon is released again. In other words, we’d be passing the problem down the line.

Aligning climate timelines

The team’s proposal is to line up the timelines properly: methane causes intense warming in the short-to-medium term, then its effect fades. So use CO2 removals that last about the same length of time to counter that warming.

The researchers argue that a well-designed removal lasting around 30 years can do a surprisingly good job of matching methane’s short-lived temperature impact.

Compared with permanent carbon removal, 30-year projects are usually cheaper, easier to verify, and don’t require anyone to promise they’ll maintain storage forever.

Permanent removals, like certain geological storage approaches, can be costly and rely on long-range economic assumptions. They also require a “forever” monitoring commitment that is difficult to guarantee in the real world.

A methane offset formula

The headline number from the study is this: they estimate that 87 temporary removals of one ton of CO2 lasting 30 years are roughly equivalent (in temperature impact) to 1 ton of methane emissions.

That’s useful because it turns a fuzzy debate – should we cut methane directly or offset it? – into something more like a decision framework.

Cutting methane can be difficult or slow in some sectors, with agriculture being the classic example. In these cases, temporary removals could serve as a bridge, reducing near-term damage while methane reductions ramp up.

Helping nature meet climate goals

The point isn’t “don’t cut methane.” It’s that climate goals require managing warming over multiple time horizons.

The researchers argue that this approach could also unlock more funding for nature-based projects, because it gives them a role that actually fits their strengths.

“Meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement requires reducing temperatures in both the short and long term,” said Ben Groom, an expert in biodiversity economics at the University of Exeter.

“Rather than seeing the temporary nature of land-based carbon removals as a weakness, we show that it can be an advantage when used to counter methane’s short-lived warming.”

“This approach could unlock new climate finance for nature-based solutions and deliver immediate relief from temperature stress.”

Temporary CO2 removals aren’t a magic eraser for carbon dioxide. But if you use them strategically, they can become a practical tool rather than a controversial loophole.

It’s basically climate accounting with better timing: match the warming you’re trying to cancel with a solution that lasts about as long as the problem does.

The study is published in the journal Nature Climate Change.

—–

Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates.

Check us out on EarthSnap, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com.

—–