When most people think about climate change, carbon dioxide (CO2) comes to mind first. And for good reason: carbon dioxide is the most abundant greenhouse gas, and it stays in our atmosphere for centuries, steadily building up and driving long-term warming. But it’s not the only player. A group of greenhouse gases known as short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) are among the most potent contributors to warming in the near term, including methane, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and black carbon.
Here’s why it matters: Methane, for example, traps more than 80 times as much heat as CO2 over a 20-year period, even though it dissipates much more quickly. Reducing short-lived climate pollutants can deliver immediate climate benefits, slow near-term warming, minimize risks of crossing dangerous tipping points, and improve air quality and health outcomes. The good news is that many short-lived climate pollutants reductions are achievable with existing technologies like repairing oil and gas leaks, capturing landfill gas, or phasing out HFCs.
But, there’s a catch. What happens when short-lived climate pollutant cuts are treated as interchangeable with CO2 reductions or removals?
It’s necessary to keep these different greenhouse gases and their impacts separate. Carbon removal is limited to CO2, the long-lived gas that primarily determines how much the planet warms. If companies or governments claim net zero by compensating for CO2 emissions with short-lived fixes, we risk creating a climate future that looks balanced on paper while CO2 keeps climbing in the atmosphere. That risks undermining transparency, weakening accountability, and could delay the structural decarbonization and carbon removal we urgently need.
This isn’t a hypothetical concern; it’s happening right now. Methane abatement credits and HFC destruction projects are entering carbon markets. Corporations are weighing them as part of their climate portfolios. Without clear guidance, these credits could be treated as substitutes rather than complements, obscuring their distinct role and potentially weakening support for the durable CO₂ removal and reductions that net zero requires.
It’s critical to name and discourage this conflation today, before practices become locked into standards and markets. We need principles to ensure short-lived climate pollutant action complements, rather than replaces, long-term decarbonization.
The bottom line: short-lived climate pollutant reduction and removal matters. Carbon dioxide mitigation and removal matters. But they are not interchangeable. If we get the rules right now, we can harness the strengths of both – fast wins against near-term warming and lasting progress toward a stable, livable climate.
For a deeper exploration of SLCP accounting, read our full white paper here: Principles for Responsible Use of Short-Lived Climate Pollutant (SLCP) Mitigation for CO2 Compensation.
Edited by Tracy Yu. Image by Deva Darshan.