Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
National temperature neutrality, agricultural methane and climate policy: reinforcing inequality in the global food system
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
National temperature neutrality, agricultural methane and climate policy: reinforcing inequality in the global food system
Do you wish to request the book?
National temperature neutrality, agricultural methane and climate policy: reinforcing inequality in the global food system
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
National temperature neutrality, agricultural methane and climate policy: reinforcing inequality in the global food system
2025
Overview
This study critically examines the use of ‘no additional warming’ approaches, such as temperature neutrality (TN), to determine national climate policy on agricultural methane (CH4). The reduced-complexity climate model MAGICC was used to quantify future national warming contributions for Ireland (a country with high per-capita CH4 emissions driven by large-scale dairy and beef production) under a business-as-usual pathway and three alternative scenarios: (1) TN, (2) a split-gas emission target, or (3) net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. TN implicitly ‘grandfathers’ CH4 emissions, ‘rewarding’ modest emission reductions even when per capita warming remains high, thereby shifting the mitigation burden and constraining the developmental space for low-income, food-insecure countries. Weaker CH4 emission reduction ambition, i.e. use of TN at the national level, is often justified on the basis of protecting global food security, because it can avoid ‘emission leakage’ from countries that export livestock products with below-average GHG intensities. However, this study demonstrates such justifications have little merit given that global trade in animal-sourced foods largely benefits wealthy markets, and often relies on imported feed, contributing to indirect land use change. The study concludes that the TN approach is not a robust basis for fair and effective national climate policy, and risks a potentially costly underestimation of both long-term CH4 mitigation and carbon dioxide removal in the context of national planning for an equitable, sustainable, food secure future.
