Ahead of the World Meat Congress, a coalition of farmer groups has written to UN Framework Coalition on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Parties urging them to adopt a “split gas” approach that reports and targets long-lived gases (CO₂, N₂O) separately from short-lived gases like methane. They argue that the gasses behave differently in the atmosphere and should be managed accordingly. Citing Uruguay as an example, the letter says net zero should apply to long-lived gases, while methane should be stabilised, with dual reporting that pairs warming-based metrics alongside GWP100 to better reflect real-world warming impacts.

The authors argue the current single-basket method using GWP100 can mislead policy. They contend that by expressing methane as a Co2 equivalent overstates its effect by 3–4×, while the effect of a new methane source could be understated by 4–5× over the first 20 years. They warn this can push disproportionate global methane cuts that fall heavily on agriculture, and call for balancing methane management with food security.

For UK beef and sheep processors, adoption of split-gas accounting could mean separate methane targets and inventories, more transparent product lifecycle assessments, and potentially more proportionate expectations on ruminant supply chains. The coalition asks governments to communicate nationally determined contributions, national inventories, budgets and policy using a split-gas approach, noting countries like New Zealand are already developing such dual pathways for emissions reporting. The letter concludes: “Establishing a separate pathway for short-lived emissions opens up a new conversation about what is a ‘fair and achievable’ emissions reduction target for global agriculture.”