ArticlePloS one2025
CO2 removal to reach net zero warming of global methane and nitrous oxide emissions of livestock: Comparison of two metrics under different 2050 FAO scenarios.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Carbon tunnel vision and sustainable meat production in the West: A disproportionate focus on dietary greenhouse gas emissions?Food science of animal resources · 2026Review
- Development of a synergistic tripartite consortium and hybrid growth media for enhanced methane oxidation and assessment of in vitro plant growth-promoting traits.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Achieving global climate targets requires accurate quantification of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and their implied impact on temperature. However, the choice of emission metric-particularly between Global Warming Potential over 100 years (GWP100) and Global Warming Potential Star (GWP*)-can significantly influence how emissions and their contributions to global warming are represented in climate assessments. While metrics do not alter physical temperature outcomes, they affect how emissions' impacts are interpreted, which in turn influences carbon dioxide removal (CDR) estimates and mitigation strategies. Using FAO projections for global livestock emissions to 2050, we analyze how different metric choices affect estimates of the CDR required to offset methane (CH₄) emissions and achieve no additional warming condition. Our findings highlight that GWP100 can overestimate or underestimate the cumulative warming impact of CH₄ emissions under different emission trajectories, whereas GWP* provides a dynamic approach that better aligns with temperature goals. These differences have critical implications for climate policy, as they influence the perceived effectiveness of mitigation strategies and the allocation of CDR requirements. This study underscores the necessity of selecting appropriate metrics when designing climate mitigation frameworks, particularly for methane-intensive sectors like livestock, to ensure an accurate representation of their contribution to global temperature targets.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.