Let& #39;s talk about GWP100 vs GWP* for short lived climate pollutants.

I see lots of folks in the regen grazing community latching onto this metric as a get-out-of-jail-free card on CH4, the one GHG area where grazing really suffers compared to conventional beef.

I often err on the conservative side of grazing & GHGs that way there& #39;s no question of methods.

GWP* is newish (not yet codified by IPCC GHG accounting, to my knowledge), but I do think it rectifies an important problem with CH4 as a short lived climate pollutant.

CH4 is a "flow" pollutant, meaning it doesn& #39;t accumulate in the atmosphere in the same way that "stock" pollutants like CO2 do. But GWP 100 doesn& #39;t take this into account.

In short, that means constant CH4 emissions will reach an equilibrium w/ atmospheric removals.

In the case of beef, as long as herd size isn& #39;t expanding (true in the US), then cattle aren& #39;t contributing as much to warming as GWP 100 would lead us to believe

On the flip side, this also means that CH4 reductions under GWP* cause pretty rapid declines in the rate of warming

"A key point emerges which is obscured by conventional use of GWP100: to prevent further warming, it& #39;s necessary that net CO2emissions are https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="⬇️" title="Downwards arrow" aria-label="Emoji: Downwards arrow"> to 0, but this is not the case for CH4, where it& #39;s possible to have climatically sustainable ongoing emissions." https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab6d7e">https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...

So yes, I think GWP* is a better measure of warming from short lived climate pollutants, but I don& #39;t think it absolves the beef industry from trying to https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="⬇️" title="Downwards arrow" aria-label="Emoji: Downwards arrow"> CH4.

At the same time, I think we can better weight CH4 against other environmental impacts (i.e. soils) w/ this new info