Global action on cutting methane pollution is falling short: Why this matters for agriculture

Whether it’s a German 6, an Irish 39 or an American F, the Global Methane Pledge has failed its mid-term exam. In 2020, governments agreed to cut methane pollution substantially by 2030, but so far, have failed to meaningfully deliver. Agriculture, especially meat and dairy production, is the largest pollution source, yet it remains overlooked. Helping farmers and rural communities transition away from intensive animal farming can help build a more resilient and healthy food system that also makes the grade for protecting our climate. 

Five years ago, the U.S. and the EU launched an ambitious project during the world’s annual climate summit: cut global methane pollution by 30% by the end of the decade — i.e. the Global Methane Pledge. Much of the world agreed with them, with 159 countries signing on. 

Acting on methane, both a potent greenhouse gas and major contributor to ground-level ozone, would avoid 0.2°C of global warming by mid-century and 20 million tons of annual crop losses.[1]

The world has entered the danger zone for climate harms. Global temperatures exceeded the 1.5°C temperature limit for the first time in 2024, and that boundary could be permanently breached in the next five years — so avoiding 0.2°C of additional warming really matters. The dangers of crop losses need no further explanation.

A mid-term review by the UN Environment Programme of what governments have done to fulfill this Pledge was published during COP30 in November. The TLDR version: it’s not much.

At the halfway point to the 2030 deadline, government action is falling far short of what is needed. Methane pollution continues to rise when it should be falling, with the only “improvement” being that it will increase at a slower rate than originally projected. If governments follow through on all their plans, methane pollution will start to fall but won’t even reach a third of the original target level.  

The 147-page status report goes on to assess the various technologies that could be used to cut methane pollution from its key sources: agriculture, energy, and waste. If fully implemented, these technologies would enable governments to cut pollution fast enough to meet the original Pledge, but that would require the next five years to look nothing like the previous five. 

Yet, it is only when the report’s authors take a step back and start to consider what would be needed by 2050 that a different picture starts to emerge, and the tension with how governments have approached efforts to cut methane pollution so far is revealed. The key takeaways are:

• Techno-fixes alone will not be enough. Reducing meat and dairy production as part of a shift to healthier diets is necessary to avoid the worst climate harms.
• Change takes time — so we need to begin this transition today in order to see results by 2040.

Even with this acknowledgement, there is no discussion on what governments would need to do to make that a reality. Instead, there is repeated emphasis on the need to develop more technology to cut methane pollution in agriculture.  

Technological solutions, like new feed additives or large anerobic digesters for manure lagoons, are easiest to implement in concentrated industrialized systems, like those in the U.S. and the EU. Yet, doubling down on this approach risks further entrenching a farm system that can’t be sustained — as the Global Methane Pledge’s own modelling shows — leaving farmers holding the bag on investments that may not pan out.

Changing what we eat will have a profound impact on the agri-food sector, from what we produce to who is doing the work. It will take time to build alternative markets and supply chains that will allow farmers to earn a fair living by growing more fruits, vegetables, or legumes from diversified systems.

The conversation for what would be the appropriate herd size to support the changes in diet needed to promote human health and work within the Earth’s limits has not started in the U.S. The EU will release a livestock strategy to “foster the competitiveness, resilience, and sustainability” by the mid-2026, yet the conversations to date, coupled with a weaker climate target and general rolling back of much of its sustainability policies, do not inspire confidence that the strategy will deliver what is needed.

Until those conversations begin, their report cards will continue to be marked in red. 

[1] Ozone pollution reduces growth rates and yields for various stable crops, like wheat, soybeans and potatoes.