research article vs research report

Research Article vs. Research Paper

What's the difference.

A research article and a research paper are both scholarly documents that present the findings of a research study. However, there are some differences between the two. A research article is typically a shorter document that is published in a peer-reviewed journal. It focuses on a specific research question and provides a concise summary of the study's methodology, results, and conclusions. On the other hand, a research paper is usually a longer document that provides a more comprehensive analysis of a research topic. It often includes a literature review, detailed methodology, extensive data analysis, and a discussion of the implications of the findings. While both types of documents contribute to the scientific knowledge base, research papers tend to be more in-depth and provide a more thorough exploration of the research topic.

Further Detail

Introduction.

Research articles and research papers are both essential components of academic and scientific discourse. They serve as vehicles for sharing knowledge, presenting findings, and contributing to the advancement of various fields of study. While the terms "research article" and "research paper" are often used interchangeably, there are subtle differences in their attributes and purposes. In this article, we will explore and compare the key characteristics of research articles and research papers.

Definition and Purpose

A research article is a concise and focused piece of scholarly writing that typically appears in academic journals. It presents original research, experiments, or studies conducted by the author(s) and aims to communicate the findings to the scientific community. Research articles often follow a specific structure, including an abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion.

On the other hand, a research paper is a broader term that encompasses various types of academic writing, including research articles. While research papers can also be published in journals, they can take other forms such as conference papers, dissertations, or theses. Research papers provide a more comprehensive exploration of a particular topic, often including a literature review, theoretical framework, and in-depth analysis of the research question.

Length and Depth

Research articles are typically shorter in length compared to research papers. They are usually limited to a specific word count, often ranging from 3000 to 8000 words, depending on the journal's guidelines. Due to their concise nature, research articles focus on presenting the core findings and their implications without delving extensively into background information or theoretical frameworks.

On the other hand, research papers tend to be longer and more comprehensive. They can range from 5000 to 20,000 words or more, depending on the scope of the research and the requirements of the academic institution or conference. Research papers provide a deeper analysis of the topic, including an extensive literature review, theoretical framework, and detailed methodology section.

Structure and Organization

Research articles follow a standardized structure to ensure clarity and consistency across different publications. They typically begin with an abstract, which provides a concise summary of the research question, methodology, results, and conclusions. The introduction section provides background information, states the research problem, and outlines the objectives of the study. The methodology section describes the research design, data collection methods, and statistical analysis techniques used. The results section presents the findings, often accompanied by tables, figures, or graphs. The discussion section interprets the results, compares them with previous studies, and discusses their implications. Finally, the conclusion summarizes the main findings and suggests future research directions.

Research papers, on the other hand, have a more flexible structure depending on the specific requirements of the academic institution or conference. While they may include similar sections as research articles, such as an abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion, research papers can also incorporate additional sections such as a literature review, theoretical framework, or appendices. The structure of a research paper is often determined by the depth and complexity of the research conducted.

Publication and Audience

Research articles are primarily published in academic journals, which serve as platforms for disseminating new knowledge within specific disciplines. These journals often have a rigorous peer-review process, where experts in the field evaluate the quality and validity of the research before publication. Research articles are targeted towards a specialized audience of researchers, scholars, and professionals in the respective field.

Research papers, on the other hand, can be published in various formats and venues. They can be presented at conferences, published as chapters in books, or submitted as dissertations or theses. While research papers can also undergo peer-review, they may have a broader audience, including researchers, students, and professionals interested in the topic. The publication of research papers allows for a wider dissemination of knowledge beyond the confines of academic journals.

In conclusion, research articles and research papers are both vital components of academic and scientific discourse. While research articles are concise and focused pieces of scholarly writing that present original research findings, research papers provide a more comprehensive exploration of a particular topic. Research articles follow a standardized structure and are primarily published in academic journals, targeting a specialized audience. On the other hand, research papers have a more flexible structure and can be published in various formats, allowing for a wider dissemination of knowledge. Understanding the attributes and purposes of research articles and research papers is crucial for researchers, scholars, and students alike, as it enables effective communication and contributes to the advancement of knowledge in various fields.

Comparisons may contain inaccurate information about people, places, or facts. Please report any issues.

• SpringerLink shop

Types of journal articles

It is helpful to familiarise yourself with the different types of articles published by journals. Although it may appear there are a large number of types of articles published due to the wide variety of names they are published under, most articles published are one of the following types; Original Research, Review Articles, Short reports or Letters, Case Studies, Methodologies.

Original Research:

This is the most common type of journal manuscript used to publish full reports of data from research. It may be called an  Original Article, Research Article, Research, or just  Article, depending on the journal. The Original Research format is suitable for many different fields and different types of studies. It includes full Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion sections.

Short reports or Letters:

These papers communicate brief reports of data from original research that editors believe will be interesting to many researchers, and that will likely stimulate further research in the field. As they are relatively short the format is useful for scientists with results that are time sensitive (for example, those in highly competitive or quickly-changing disciplines). This format often has strict length limits, so some experimental details may not be published until the authors write a full Original Research manuscript. These papers are also sometimes called Brief communications .

Review Articles:

Review Articles provide a comprehensive summary of research on a certain topic, and a perspective on the state of the field and where it is heading. They are often written by leaders in a particular discipline after invitation from the editors of a journal. Reviews are often widely read (for example, by researchers looking for a full introduction to a field) and highly cited. Reviews commonly cite approximately 100 primary research articles.

TIP: If you would like to write a Review but have not been invited by a journal, be sure to check the journal website as some journals to not consider unsolicited Reviews. If the website does not mention whether Reviews are commissioned it is wise to send a pre-submission enquiry letter to the journal editor to propose your Review manuscript before you spend time writing it.  

Case Studies:

These articles report specific instances of interesting phenomena. A goal of Case Studies is to make other researchers aware of the possibility that a specific phenomenon might occur. This type of study is often used in medicine to report the occurrence of previously unknown or emerging pathologies.

Methodologies or Methods

These articles present a new experimental method, test or procedure. The method described may either be completely new, or may offer a better version of an existing method. The article should describe a demonstrable advance on what is currently available.

Back │ Next

Different types of research articles

A guide for early career researchers.

In scholarly literature, there are many different kinds of articles published every year. Original research articles are often the first thing you think of when you hear the words ‘journal article’. In reality, research work often results in a whole mixture of different outputs and it’s not just the final research article that can be published.

Finding a home to publish supporting work in different formats can help you start publishing sooner, allowing you to build your publication record and research profile.

But before you do, it’s very important that you check the  instructions for authors  and the  aims and scope  of the journal(s) you’d like to submit to. These will tell you whether they accept the type of article you’re thinking of writing and what requirements they have around it.

Understanding the different kind of articles

There’s a huge variety of different types of articles – some unique to individual journals – so it’s important to explore your options carefully. While it would be impossible to cover every single article type here, below you’ll find a guide to the most common research articles and outputs you could consider submitting for publication.

Book review

Many academic journals publish book reviews, which aim to provide insight and opinion on recently published scholarly books. Writing book reviews is often a good way to begin academic writing. It can help you get your name known in your field and give you valuable experience of publishing before you write a full-length article.

If you’re keen to write a book review, a good place to start is looking for journals that publish or advertise the books they have available for review. Then it’s just a matter of putting yourself forward for one of them.

You can check whether a journal publishes book reviews by browsing previous issues or by seeing if a book review editor is listed on the editorial board. In addition, some journals publish other types of reviews, such as film, product, or exhibition reviews, so it’s worth bearing those in mind as options as well.

Get familiar with instructions for authors

Be prepared, speed up your submission, and make sure nothing is forgotten by understanding a journal’s individual requirements.

Publishing tips, direct to your inbox

Expert tips and guidance on getting published and maximizing the impact of your research. Register now for weekly insights direct to your inbox.

Case report

A medical case report – also sometimes called a clinical case study – is an original short report that provides details of a single patient case.

Case reports include detailed information on the symptoms, signs, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of an individual patient. They remain one of the cornerstones of medical progress and provide many new ideas in medicine.

Depending on the journal, a case report doesn’t necessarily need to describe an especially novel or unusual case as there is benefit from collecting details of many standard cases.

Take a look at  F1000Research’s guidance on case reports , to understand more about what’s required in them. And don’t forget that for all studies involving human participants, informed written consent to take part in the research must be obtained from the participants –  find out more about consent to publish.

Clinical study

In medicine, a clinical study report is a type of article that provides in-depth detail on the methods and results of a clinical trial. They’re typically similar in length and format to original research articles.

Most journals now require that you register protocols for clinical trials you’re involved with in a publicly accessible registry. A list of eligible registries can be found on the  WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) . Trials can also be registered at  clinicaltrials.gov  or the  EU Clinical Trials Register . Once registered, your trial will be assigned a clinical trial number (CTN).

Before you submit a clinical study, you’ll need to include clinical trial numbers and registration dates in the manuscript, usually in the abstract and methods sections.

Commentaries and letters to editors

Letters to editors, as well as ‘replies’ and ‘discussions’, are usually brief comments on topical issues of public and political interest (related to the research field of the journal), anecdotal material, or readers’ reactions to material published in the journal.

Commentaries are similar, though they may be slightly more in-depth, responding to articles recently published in the journal. There may be a ‘target article’ which various commentators are invited to respond to.

You’ll need to look through previous issues of any journal you’re interested in writing for and review the instructions for authors to see which types of these articles (if any) they accept.

Conference materials

Many of our medical journals  accept conference material supplements. These are open access peer-reviewed, permanent, and citable publications within the journal. Conference material supplements record research around a common thread, as presented at a workshop, congress, or conference, for the scientific record. They can include the following types of articles:

Poster extracts

Conference abstracts

Presentation extracts

Find out more about submitting conference materials.

Data notes  are a short peer-reviewed article type that concisely describe research data stored in a repository. Publishing a data note can help you to maximize the impact of your data and gain appropriate credit for your research.

Data notes promote the potential reuse of research data and include details of why and how the data were created. They do not include any analysis but they can be linked to a research article incorporating analysis of the published dataset, as well as the results and conclusions.

F1000Research  enables you to publish your data note rapidly and openly via an author-centric platform. There is also a growing range of options for publishing data notes in Taylor & Francis journals, including in  All Life  and  Big Earth Data .

Read our guide to data notes to find out more.

Letters or short reports

Letters or short reports (sometimes known as brief communications or rapid communications) are brief reports of data from original research.

Editors publish these reports where they believe the data will be interesting to many researchers and could stimulate further research in the field. There are even entire journals dedicated to publishing letters.

As they’re relatively short, the format is useful for researchers with results that are time sensitive (for example, those in highly competitive or quickly-changing disciplines). This format often has strict length limits, so some experimental details may not be published until the authors write a full original research article.

Brief reports  (previously called Research Notes) are a type of short report published by  F1000Research  – part of the Taylor & Francis Group. To find out more about the requirements for a brief report, take a look at  F1000Research’s guidance .

Method article

A method article is a medium length peer-reviewed, research-focused article type that aims to answer a specific question. It also describes an advancement or development of current methodological approaches and research procedures (akin to a research article), following the standard layout for research articles. This includes new study methods, substantive modifications to existing methods, or innovative applications of existing methods to new models or scientific questions. These should include adequate and appropriate validation to be considered, and any datasets associated with the paper must publish all experimental controls and make full datasets available.  

Posters and slides

With F1000Research, you can publish scholarly posters and slides covering basic scientific, translational, and clinical research within the life sciences and medicine. You can find out more about how to publish posters and slides  on the F1000Research website .

Registered report

A  Registered Report  consists of two different kinds of articles: a study protocol and an original research article.

This is because the review process for Registered Reports is divided into two stages. In Stage 1, reviewers assess study protocols before data is collected. In Stage 2, reviewers consider the full published study as an original research article, including results and interpretation.

Taking this approach, you can get an in-principle acceptance of your research article before you start collecting data. We’ve got  further guidance on Registered Reports here , and you can also  read F1000Research’s guidance on preparing a Registered Report .

Research article

Original research articles are the most common type of journal article. They’re detailed studies reporting new work and are classified as primary literature.

You may find them referred to as original articles, research articles, research, or even just articles, depending on the journal.

Typically, especially in STEM subjects, these articles will include Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion sections. However, you should always check the instructions for authors of your chosen journal to see whether it specifies how your article should be structured. If you’re planning to write an original research article, take a look at our guidance on  writing a journal article .

Review article

Review articles provide critical and constructive analysis of existing published literature in a field. They’re usually structured to provide a summary of existing literature, analysis, and comparison. Often, they identify specific gaps or problems and provide recommendations for future research.

Unlike original research articles, review articles are considered as secondary literature. This means that they generally don’t present new data from the author’s experimental work, but instead provide analysis or interpretation of a body of primary research on a specific topic. Secondary literature is an important part of the academic ecosystem because it can help explain new or different positions and ideas about primary research, identify gaps in research around a topic, or spot important trends that one individual research article may not.

There are 3 main types of review article

Literature review

Presents the current knowledge including substantive findings as well as theoretical and methodological contributions to a particular topic.

Systematic review

Identifies, appraises and synthesizes all the empirical evidence that meets pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a specific research question. Researchers conducting systematic reviews use explicit, systematic methods that are selected with a view aimed at minimizing bias, to produce more reliable findings to inform decision making.

Meta-analysis

A quantitative, formal, epidemiological study design used to systematically assess the results of previous research to derive conclusions about that body of research. Typically, but not necessarily, a meta-analysis study is based on randomized, controlled clinical trials.

Take a look at our guide to  writing a review article  for more guidance on what’s required.

Software tool articles

A  software tool article  – published by  F1000Research  – describes the rationale for the development of a new software tool and details of the code used for its construction.

The article should provide examples of suitable input data sets and include an example of the output that can be expected from the tool and how this output should be interpreted. Software tool articles submitted to F1000Research should be written in open access programming languages. Take a look at  their guidance  for more details on what’s required of a software tool article.

Further resources

Ready to write your article, but not sure where to start?

For more guidance on how to prepare and write an article for a journal you can download the  Writing your paper eBook .

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

Difference between Paper and Article for scientific writings

As I know, in most of situations (in scientific context) these two terms are used to point to same thing and even they are used interchangeably.

For example,

Theory of value with public goods: A survey article

A survey paper on cloud computing

Are there any major differences between them? and can we use them interchangeably in any context?

• differences

• 1 See also: article vs paper –  Martin Thoma Commented Nov 24, 2019 at 11:46

3 Answers 3

The following extract helps understand the difference between a research article and a research paper :

Research paper and research articles are pieces of writing that require critical analysis, inquiry, insight, and demonstration of some special skills from students and scientists. It is really overwhelming for students when their teachers ask them to write a research paper as a form of assignment. Students remain confused between a research paper and a research article because of their similarities. This article attempts to find out if the two terms are synonymous or there is any difference between the two.

Research Article

What do you do when you are a scientist or a scholar and have arrived at a solution to a problem or have made a discovery that you want to share with the world? Well, one of the best ways to let the world know about your piece of wisdom or knowledge is through a research article. This is a piece of writing that contains an original research idea with the relevant data and findings Research article is published in renowned scientific journals that are involved with works in the area to which the paper pertains. A research article is a paper or writing that informs people of a path breaking research or a finding with clinical data to support the finding.

Research Paper

Research is an activity that is given much importance in academics, and this is why assignments requiring research and technical writing start early in the school. Students are asked to submit a research paper as early as in High School, and they become used to the concept when they are pursuing higher studies in colleges. However, a research paper is not just these assignment papers written by students as those written by scholars and scientists and published in journals are also referred to as research papers.

• What is the difference between Research Article and Research Paper?

• There is no difference as such between a research article and a research paper and both involve original research with findings. • There is a trend to refer to term papers and academic papers written by students in colleges as research papers whereas articles submitted by scholars and scientists with their groundbreaking research are termed as research articles. • Research articles are published in renowned scientific journals whereas papers written by students do not go to journals.

(www.differencebetween.com)

There is no definitive distinction between papers and articles that can be applied to all scientific disciplines. Usage varies between disciplines. and within disciplines it can vary depending on context.

Both the examples quoted refer to ‘writings’ that are surveys (in other areas often termed reviews) — one in the field of a social science (economics) and the other in a numerical science (computing). However the term science is also (and perhaps more) associated with the experimental sciences (physics, chemistry and biology), where the types of ‘writings’ are different and where different words are used to distinguish them.

Articles and papers in the Experimental Sciences

Let me illustrate this for the Biomolecular Sciences (biochemistry, molecular biology, molecular genetics and the like). As a practitioner in this area, when I hear these terms, e.g. talking to colleagues, I understand:

Paper : A report of a piece of experimental research work in which the original data presented by the authors was central to interpretation and conclusions regarding advancement of knowledge and understanding of the field. Article : A review or commentary in which the author was discussing the previously published work of others (perhaps including his own) in attempting to provide a perspective of the field or to present a new theory/model/interpretation by integrating such work.

However, despite this professional conversational use of the terms, if I go to any specific journal — here the US heavyweight, Journal of Biological Chemistry (JBC) — I would find a somewhat different usage:

JBC publishes several types of articles but only two of those can be submitted as an unsolicited manuscript: regular papers and accelerated communications.

Thus, JBC regards all the ‘writings’ it publishes as ‘articles’, in common with other journals such as The Journal of Biophysics , and this is consistent with general non-scientific usage — “I read an article in the Financial Times yesterday…”

The way JBC uses ‘regular paper’, is consistent with my specialist conversational definition (above), and although it doesn’t actually say what types of ‘article’ are unsolicited, but if you look at a table of contents of the journal , you would conclude that for this journal it is ‘minireviews’ and historical appraisals of the work of individual scientists.

The Journal of Biophysics only uses the term ‘paper’ in describing only one of its categories of ‘article’:

Comments to the Editor | Short commentaries on a paper published earlier in BJ.

Again using ‘paper’ rather in the sense I defined above.

To conclude, in the extended sense used by peer-reviewed journals in the experimental sciences, all published ‘papers’ can be referred to as articles, but not all articles would be referred to as ‘papers’. (One wouldn’t use ‘paper’ for an editorial, a news item and generally not for a review.) This is exactly the opposite conclusion reached by @1006a from his reading of the OED.

Conflict with the OED and non-experimental sciences

How can one resolve the conflict with the OED, mentioned above? I think the OED describes more traditional usage in the non-experimental sciences and the arts. It is pertinent, in this respect, to consider the phrase “reading a paper” .

As far as my area of science goes, this is just a rather outdated term for presenting one’s results orally at a conference. The talk in itself is transitory, the abstract unreviewed, and the information conveyed will most probably be published elsewhere.

However for colleagues in computing science the talk is likely to be based on a ‘paper’ that has been submitted to the conference organisers, selected after peer-review, and will be published as conference proceedings or in a journal associated with the conference. This is more in line with traditional non-scientific academic presentations, although in this case the ‘paper’ might never have been published.

The difference would seem to derive in part from whether the field of science is one in which original work is in the form of ideas or in the form of measurements and their interpretation.

The distinction I would make is that an article is formally published, generally in some kind of periodical. The relevant definition, from Oxford Dictionaries:

A piece of writing included with others in a newspaper, magazine, or other publication.

Scholarly/scientific/research articles are thus "pieces of writing included with others in" an appropriate publication, most often an academic journal (see Wikipedia).

A paper , on the other hand, may or may not be published anywhere; and if it is published, may be in some alternate venue like conference proceedings (though it can be published in a scholarly journal). Again from Oxford:

An essay or dissertation, especially one read at an academic lecture or seminar or published in an academic journal.

So you can generally call any scientific (research) article a paper, but not all papers are articles.

Edited to clarify the last sentence, to which I also added the parenthetical (research):

Of course, not all articles are scientific (or research ) articles; that distinction generally means that the article presents original research, and as I am using it, that it has met certain standards of whichever field it represents (usually some form of peer review) so that it can be published in a scientific/scholarly journal. A scientific (research) paper meets the first of these criteria, but not necessarily the second (it presents original research, but may or may not be published). There are other kinds of articles/papers, which would ordinarily get a different modifier, like review or meta-review (or newspaper/magazine etc. for articles), or might commonly go by other terms altogether, like essay .

By this definition, not all articles are papers, and not all papers are articles, but all scientific (research) articles are also scientific (research) papers.

• Just to mention that in my consideration of experimental sciences I present the opposite conclusion from that you draw from the OED. Please don't think I am saying you are wrong, but as I explain, that your assertions only hold for certain areas of science. –  David Commented Jul 15, 2017 at 22:27
• @David The key distinction I make is that articles are published . That would, indeed, include things like (literature) review articles, commentary, and possibly book reviews. It does not exclude original research in any field of which I am aware (which includes "experimental science"). It is certainly possible that certain disciplines or specific journals have non-standard usages, but I don't believe it breaks down along "experimental" and "non-experimental" lines. –  1006a Commented Jul 16, 2017 at 16:38
• I agree about there being a difference in relation to publication. The whole background of "reading a paper" implies it can exist without being published, and even in the experimental sciences one might say "I wrote a paper about 'whatever' and sent it to such-and-such a Journal, but they rejected it because the referees were too stupid to understand it". You might feasibly say that about an article (I once had a solicited mini-review rejected because it was thought to be in bad taste) but it would be unusual. But a very popular program for storing PDFs of publications is called... "Papers". –  David Commented Jul 16, 2017 at 16:53

Your Answer

Sign up or log in, post as a guest.

Required, but never shown

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy .

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged meaning differences science or ask your own question .

• Featured on Meta
• Introducing an accessibility dashboard and some upcoming changes to display...
• We've made changes to our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy - July 2024
• Announcing a change to the data-dump process

Hot Network Questions

• Coupon Collector vs. Geometric Distribution: Catching All 150 Pokémon
• The possibility and effects of xenon in the atmosphere
• Vilna Gaon's commentary on מחצית השקל
• Is this really a neon lamp?
• How to remove Incoming/Outgoing changes graph in VSCode?
• Regression with highly unbalanced explanatory variable
• Have astronauts returned on a different class of spacecraft?
• What purpose did the lower-right "Enter" key serve on the original Mac 128k keyboard?
• What happens if your child sells your car?
• How is clang able to evaluate loops without getting stuck in an infinite loop?
• How does one find historic prices for goods?
• What does the circuit shown in the picture do?
• Possible downsides of not dealing with the souls of the dead
• What's the meaning behind Deadpool's joke about Gambit looking like a "superhero version of Hawkeye"?
• English equivalent to the famous Hindi proverb "the marriage sweetmeat: those who eat it regret, and those who don't eat it also regret"?
• Connect electric cable with 4 wires to 3-prong 30 Amp 125-Volt/250-Volt outlet?
• How can a PC improve their AC without armour?
• What role can scrum master have/take when product owners differ from opinion?
• Utilising GPLv3 in a closed-source application via HTTP API
• Do academic researchers generally not worry about their work infringing on patents? Have there been cases where they wish they had?
• What is the most economical way to fly small planes?
• Tritone substitution in Haydn string quartet?
• Can right shift by n-bits operation be implemented using hardware multiplier just like left shift?
• Chord progression in F but with a stray B note

• Richard G. Trefry Library

Q. What's the difference between a research article (or research study) and a review article?

• Course-Specific
• Textbooks & Course Materials
• Tutoring & Classroom Help
• Writing & Citing
• 44 Articles & Journals
• 5 Artificial Intelligence
• 11 Capstone/Thesis/Dissertation Research
• 37 Databases
• 56 Information Literacy
• 9 Interlibrary Loan
• 9 Need help getting started?
• 22 Technical Help

Answered By: Priscilla Coulter Last Updated: Jul 26, 2024     Views: 233432

A research paper is a primary source ...that is, it reports the methods and results of an original study performed by the authors . The kind of study may vary (it could have been an experiment, survey, interview, etc.), but in all cases, raw data have been collected and analyzed by the authors , and conclusions drawn from the results of that analysis.

Research papers follow a particular format.  Look for:

• A brief introduction will often include a review of the existing literature on the topic studied, and explain the rationale of the author's study.  This is important because it demonstrates that the authors are aware of existing studies, and are planning to contribute to this existing body of research in a meaningful way (that is, they're not just doing what others have already done).
• A methods section, where authors describe how they collected and analyzed data.  Statistical analyses are included.  This section is quite detailed, as it's important that other researchers be able to verify and/or replicate these methods.
• A results section describes the outcomes of the data analysis.  Charts and graphs illustrating the results are typically included.
• In the discussion , authors will explain their interpretation of their results and theorize on their importance to existing and future research.
• References or works cited are always included.  These are the articles and books that the authors drew upon to plan their study and to support their discussion.

You can use the library's databases  to search for research articles:

• A research article will nearly always be published in a peer-reviewed journal; click here for instructions on limiting your searches to peer-reviewed articles .  
• If you have a particular type of study in mind, you can include keywords to describe it in your search .  For instance, if you would like to see studies that used surveys to collect data, you can add "survey" to your topic in the database's search box. See this example search in our EBSCO databases: " bullying and survey ".   
• Several of our databases have special limiting options that allow you to select specific methodologies.  See, for instance, the " Methodology " box in ProQuest's PsycARTICLES Advanced Search (scroll down a bit to see it).  It includes options like "Empirical Study" and "Qualitative Study", among many others.  

A review article is a secondary source ...it is written about other articles, and does not report original research of its own.  Review articles are very important, as they draw upon the articles that they review to suggest new research directions, to strengthen support for existing theories and/or identify patterns among exising research studies.  For student researchers, review articles provide a great overview of the existing literature on a topic.    If you find a literature review that fits your topic, take a look at its references/works cited list for leads on other relevant articles and books!

You can use the library's article databases to find literature reviews as well!  Click here for tips.

• Share on Facebook

Was this helpful? Yes 7 No 1

Related Topics

• Articles & Journals
• Information Literacy

Need personalized help? Librarians are available 365 days/nights per year!  See our schedule.

Learn more about how librarians can help you succeed.    

• Privacy Policy

Home » Review Article vs Research Article

Review Article vs Research Article

Table of Contents

Review articles and Research Articles are two different types of scholarly publications that serve distinct purposes in the academic literature.

Research Articles

A Research Article is a primary source that presents original research findings based on a specific research question or hypothesis. These articles typically follow a standard format that includes an introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion sections. Research articles often include detailed descriptions of the research design, data collection and analysis procedures, and the results of statistical tests. These articles are typically peer-reviewed to ensure that they meet rigorous scientific standards before publication.

Review Articles

A Review Article is a secondary source that summarizes and analyzes existing research on a particular topic or research question. These articles provide an overview of the current state of knowledge on a particular topic, including a critical analysis of the strengths and limitations of previous research. Review articles often include a meta-analysis of the existing literature, which involves combining and analyzing data from multiple studies to draw more general conclusions about the research question or topic. Review articles are also typically peer-reviewed to ensure that they are comprehensive, accurate, and up-to-date.

Difference Between Review Article and Research Article

Here are some key differences between review articles and research articles:

In summary, research articles and review articles serve different purposes in the academic literature. Research articles present original research findings based on a specific research question or hypothesis, while review articles summarize and analyze existing research on a particular topic or research question. Both types of articles are typically peer-reviewed to ensure that they meet high standards of scientific rigor and accuracy.

Also see Research Methods

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Research Question Vs Hypothesis

Generative Vs Evaluative Research

Descriptive vs Experimental Research

Essay Vs Research Paper

Primary Vs Secondary Research

Reliability Vs Validity

Maxwell Library | Bridgewater State University

Today's Hours: 

• Maxwell Library
• Scholarly Journals and Popular Magazines
• Differences in Research, Review, and Opinion Articles

Scholarly Journals and Popular Magazines: Differences in Research, Review, and Opinion Articles

• Where Do I Start?
• How Do I Find Peer-Reviewed Articles?
• How Do I Compare Periodical Types?
• Where Can I find More Information?

Research Articles, Reviews, and Opinion Pieces

Scholarly or research articles are written for experts in their fields. They are often peer-reviewed or reviewed by other experts in the field prior to publication. They often have terminology or jargon that is field specific. They are generally lengthy articles. Social science and science scholarly articles have similar structures as do arts and humanities scholarly articles. Not all items in a scholarly journal are peer reviewed. For example, an editorial opinion items can be published in a scholarly journal but the article itself is not scholarly. Scholarly journals may include book reviews or other content that have not been peer reviewed.

Empirical Study: (Original or Primary) based on observation, experimentation, or study. Clinical trials, clinical case studies, and most meta-analyses are empirical studies.

Review Article: (Secondary Sources) Article that summarizes the research in a particular subject, area, or topic. They often include a summary, an literature reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.

Clinical case study (Primary or Original sources): These articles provide real cases from medical or clinical practice. They often include symptoms and diagnosis.

Clinical trials ( Health Research): Th ese articles are often based on large groups of people. They often include methods and control studies. They tend to be lengthy articles.

Opinion Piece:  An opinion piece often includes personal thoughts, beliefs, or feelings or a judgement or conclusion based on facts. The goal may be to persuade or influence the reader that their position on this topic is the best.

Book review: Recent review of books in the field. They may be several pages but tend to be fairly short. 

Social Science and Science Research Articles

The majority of social science and physical science articles include

• Journal Title and Author
• Abstract 
• Introduction with a hypothesis or thesis
• Literature Review
• Methods/Methodology
• Results/Findings

Arts and Humanities Research Articles

In the Arts and Humanities, scholarly articles tend to be less formatted than in the social sciences and sciences. In the humanities, scholars are not conducting the same kinds of research experiments, but they are still using evidence to draw logical conclusions.  Common sections of these articles include:

• an Introduction
• Discussion/Conclusion
• works cited/References/Bibliography

Research versus Review Articles

• 6 Article types that journals publish: A guide for early career researchers
• INFOGRAPHIC: 5 Differences between a research paper and a review paper
• Michigan State University. Empirical vs Review Articles
• UC Merced Library. Empirical & Review Articles
• << Previous: Where Do I Start?
• Next: How Do I Find Peer-Reviewed Articles? >>
• Last Updated: Jan 24, 2024 10:48 AM
• URL: https://library.bridgew.edu/scholarly

Phone: 508.531.1392 Text: 508.425.4096 Email: [email protected]

Feedback/Comments

Privacy Policy

Website Accessibility

Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter

• Library databases
• Library website

Evaluating Resources: Research Articles

Research articles.

A research article is a journal article in which the authors report on the research they did. Research articles are always primary sources. Whether or not a research article is peer reviewed depends on the journal that publishes it.

Published research articles follow a predictable pattern and will contain most, if not all, of the sections listed below. However, the names for these sections may vary.

• Title & Author(s)
• Introduction
• Methodology

To learn about the different parts of a research article, please view this tutorial:

Short video: How to Read Scholarly Articles

Learn some tips on how to efficiently read scholarly articles.

Video: How to Read a Scholarly Article

(4 min 16 sec) Recorded August 2019 Transcript 

More information

The Academic Skills Center and the Writing Center both have helpful resources on critical and academic reading that can further help you understand and evaluate research articles.

• Academic Skills Center Guide: Developing Your Reading Skills
• Academic Skills Center Webinar Archive: Savvy Strategies for Academic Reading
• Writing Center Podcast: WriteCast Episode 5: Five Strategies for Critical Reading

If you'd like to learn how to find research articles in the Library, you can view this Quick Answer.

• Quick Answer: How do I find research articles?
• Previous Page: Primary & Secondary Sources
• Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

• Academic Residencies
• Academic Skills
• Career Planning and Development
• Customer Care Team
• Field Experience
• Military Services
• Student Success Advising
• Writing Skills

Centers and Offices

• Center for Social Change
• Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
• Office of Degree Acceleration
• Office of Research and Doctoral Services
• Office of Student Affairs

Student Resources

• Doctoral Writing Assessment
• Form & Style Review
• Quick Answers
• ScholarWorks
• SKIL Courses and Workshops
• Walden Bookstore
• Walden Catalog & Student Handbook
• Student Safety/Title IX
• Legal & Consumer Information
• Website Terms and Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Accessibility
• Accreditation
• State Authorization
• Net Price Calculator
• Contact Walden

Walden University is a member of Adtalem Global Education, Inc. www.adtalem.com Walden University is certified to operate by SCHEV © 2024 Walden University LLC. All rights reserved.

• LaChance Library

Q. What's the difference between a report and a research paper?

• 2 Academic Support
• 2 Annotated Bibliography
• 2 Borrowing
• 9 Citations
• 33 Databases
• 1 Evaluating Information
• 7 Films/Movies
• 26 Finding Information
• 2 Library Cards
• 3 Login from Home
• 21 Research Papers
• 3 Research Skills MOOC
• 8 Research Topic
• 1 Study Rooms
• 3 Textbooks
• 3 Thesis Statements

Answered By: Brooke Gilmore Last Updated: Jan 12, 2022     Views: 62946

But wait, there's more. Check out Research Starter Toolkit , a step-by-step guide to help you succeed.

• Share on Facebook

Was this helpful? Yes 230 No 22

Comments (3)

• This is a wonderful website with step-by-step information on how to write a research paper. My college English students found it very helpful, and they are actually using it! by Lori Fox on Nov 22, 2017
• This site is amazing, it helped to receive a 98 on a research paper would recommend it if you are anywhere confused about writing a research paper by Sergio Cristian Ruiz on Jul 18, 2018
• very good by zewran ihsas on Mar 18, 2021

Related Topics

• Research Papers

Ask a Librarian 

"How Do I?" @JWULibrary

Sample Question

• JWU-Providence Library

Q. What's the difference between a research article and a review article?

• 35 about the library
• 29 articles & journals
• 1 Borrowing
• 8 citing sources
• 17 company & industry
• 11 computers
• 1 copyright compliance
• 5 countries & travel
• 2 course registration
• 50 databases
• 3 education
• 2 Interlibrary loan
• 5 job search
• 6 libguides
• 9 market research
• 25 my library account
• 12 requests
• 26 research basics
• 21 research topics
• 2 study rooms
• 16 technology
• 7 textbooks
• 42 university
• 3 video tutorial
• 1 writing_help

Answered By: Sarah Naomi Campbell Last Updated: Sep 07, 2018     Views: 215783

Watch this short video to learn about types of scholarly articles, including research articles and literature reviews!

Not in the mood for a video? Read on!

What's the difference between a research article and a review article?

Research articles , sometimes referred to as empirical  or primary sources , report on original research. They will typically include sections such as an introduction, methods, results, and discussion.

Here is a more detailed explanation of research articles .

Review articles , sometimes called literature reviews  or secondary sources , synthesize or analyze research already conducted in primary sources. They generally summarize the current state of research on a given topic.

Here is a more detailed explanation of review articles .

The video above was created by the Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries .

The defintions, and the linked detailed explanations, are paraphrased from the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association , 6th ed .

The linked explanations are provided by the Mohawk Valley Community College Libraries .

Links & Files

• How do I find empirical articles in the library databases?
• Share on Facebook

Was this helpful? Yes 63 No 19

Comments (0)

Related topics.

• about the library
• articles & journals
• citing sources
• company & industry
• copyright compliance
• countries & travel
• course registration
• Interlibrary loan
• market research
• my library account
• research basics
• research topics
• study rooms
• video tutorial
• writing_help

Downcity Library:

111 Dorrance Street Providence, Rhode Island 02903

401-598-1121

Harborside Library:

321 Harborside Boulevard Providence, RI 02905

401-598-1466

• Location and Directions
• Off-Campus Access
• Staff Directory
• Student Employment
• Pay Bills and Fines
• Chat with a Librarian
• Course Reserves
• Interlibrary Loan (ILL)
• Study Rooms
• Research Appointment
• Culinary Museum

• UNC Libraries
• Course Guides
• ENGL105 - Scholarly Articles 101

Types of Scholarly Articles

Engl105 - scholarly articles 101: types of scholarly articles.

• Peer-review
• Other Types of Sources

Research Articles

Review articles, tips & practice.

• How to Read a Scholarly Article
• Extend Your Knowledge

Sometimes a professor might ask you to find original research or may ask you to not use literature reviews/systematic reviews as sources, but what do those terms mean? How can we tell if our potential source meets our professor's criteria?

In a research article, an original study is conducted by the authors. They collect and analyze data, sharing their methods and results, and then draw conclusions from their analysis. The kind of study performed can vary (surveys, interviews, experiments, etc.), but in all cases, data is analyzed and a new argument is put forth. Research articles are considered primary sources.

• Note: research articles will often contain a section titled "literature review" - this is a section that looks at other existing research as a foundation for their new idea. Simply seeing the words "literature review" does not automatically mean an article is a review article- it is important to look closer

Below is a screenshot of the abstract of the article Effectiveness of Health Coaching in Diabetes Control and Lifestyle Improvement: A Randomized-Controlled Trial , with some words underlined that let us know that a study was conducted and that this is a research article.

A review article gathers multiple research articles on a certain topic, summarizing and analyzing the arguments made in those articles. A review article might highlight patterns or gaps in the research, might show support for existing theories, or suggest new directions for research, but does not conduct original research on a subject. Review articles can be a great place to get an overview of the existing research on a subject. A review article is a secondary source.

• Looking in the reference section of a literature or systematic review can be a good place to find original research studies.

Below is a screenshot of the abstract of the article The Effect of Dietary Glycaemic Index on Glycaemia in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials , with words underlined that clue us in that this is a review article.

Tips for identifying article type

Start by looking at the abstract to determine if a source might be a research article or a review article. If you're not sure after looking at the abstract, find the methods section for the source - what methods did the authors use? If they mention searching databases, it's most likely a review and if they mention conducting an experiment, survey, interview, etc., it's most likely a research article. If you're still unsure, feel free to reach out to a librarian and ask ! 

Let's Practice

Below are two different scholarly articles. Look at the abstract and the methods section- Which one is an original research study? Which one is a literature review?

• Article 1- Research or Review?
• Article 2- Research or Review?

Research & Instruction Associate

• << Previous: Anatomy of a Scholarly Article
• Next: How to Read a Scholarly Article >>
• Last Updated: Aug 7, 2024 2:00 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.unc.edu/scholarly-articles-101

• SUNY Oswego, Penfield Library
• Resource Guides

Biological Sciences Research Guide

Primary research vs review article.

• Research Starters
• Citing Sources
• Open Educational Resources
• Peer Review
• How to Read a Scientific Article
• Conducting a Literature Review
• Interlibrary Loan

Quick Links

• Penfield Library
• Research Guides
• A-Z List of Databases & Indexes

Characteristics of a Primary Research Article

• Goal is to present the result of original research that makes a new contribution to the body of knowledge
• Sometimes referred to as an empirical research article
• Typically organized into sections that include:  Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion/Conclusion, and References.

Example of a Primary Research Article:

Flockhart, D.T.T., Fitz-gerald, B., Brower, L.P., Derbyshire, R., Altizer, S., Hobson, K.A., … Norris, D.R., (2017). Migration distance as a selective episode for wing morphology in a migratory insect. Movement Ecology , 5(1), 1-9. doi: doi.org/10.1186/s40462-017-0098-9

Characteristics of a Review Article

• Goal is to summarize important research on a particular topic and to represent the current body of knowledge about that topic.
• Not intended to provide original research but to help draw connections between research studies that have previously been published.  
• Help the reader understand how current understanding of a topic has developed over time and identify gaps or inconsistencies that need further exploration.

Example of a Review Article:

https://www-sciencedirect-com.ezproxy.oswego.edu/science/article/pii/S0960982218302537

• << Previous: Plagiarism
• Next: Peer Review >>

Difference between Research Paper and Research Article

Research paper and research articles are bits of composing that require inquiry, critical analysis, demonstration and insight of few special abilities from understudies and researchers. This article endeavors to see whether the two terms are synonymous or there is any contrast between the two.

Research paper

Research can be said as activity which is specified much significance in scholastics. Be that as it may, research papers are not only these task papers composed by understudies as those composed by scholars and researchers and also published in different journals are additionally alluded to as research papers.

Research Article

Research article is a bit of composing that have original research thought with the pertinent data and discoveries. A research article is a composing or paper that advises individuals of a way breaking a finding or research with data to bolster the finding.

Research Paper VS Research Article

 There is a pattern to allude to academic papers and term papers composed by understudies in schools as a research paper

The articles presented by researchers and scholars with their noteworthy examination are known as research articles.

Research papers composed by the students mostly not take in journals.

Research articles composed by researchers or scholars mostly published in prestigious scientific journals.

A research paper depends on the original research. The sort of research may fluctuate, contingent upon your field or topics that include survey, experiments, questionnaire, interview and so on; yet authors require gathering and investigating raw data and make an original and real study. The research paper will be founded on the investigation and understanding of this raw data.

A research article depends on other different published articles. It is usually not depend on original study. Research articles for the most part condense the current writing on a point trying to clarify the present condition of comprehension on topic.

A research paper can be said as the primary source that means, it studies the techniques and consequences of original study performed by the writers.

A research article can be said as secondary source that means it is composed about different articles, and does not studies actual research of its own.

• Importance:

In research paper, every part of this has its own importance. A concise is important in light of the fact that it shows that the writers know about existing literature, and want to add to this presented research definitively. A methods part is usually detailed and it is important in a way that different analysts have the capacity to check and/or duplicate these strategies. A result segment depicts the results of the analysis.

Research articles can be considered very important because they describe upon different articles that they analyze to propose new research bearings, to give powerful support for presented theories or distinguish designs among presented research studies. For understudy analysts, these research articles give an excellent review of presented literature on that topic. In the event that you discover a literature review that can be fit in study, investigate its references/works referred to list for guide on other articles.

From the above article we can conclude that research paper is the primary source whereas research articles are secondary.

Share this:

• Share on Tumblr

17 Comments Already

good article but which of them is more useful when we conduct a research

both. but research paper is more useful.

Nice explanation

There is a little difference but both are different.

Nice but i have a confusion that can a guys of Bachelors level can write Research Papers?

YEs they can if they do research project instead of development project and do something new in their project.

Thank you 😊

do you have something in your mind then please share with us. We will appreciate that.

Though it may be fairly easy to learn to speak English well enough to be understood, learning to write English correctly is very difficult, as this article so clearly illustrates. Though I greatly admire all those who are making an effort to learn another language, like English, as a non-native speaker, it is wrong for these same individuals to assume they can write English well enough to publish articles.

This article is so poorly written that I cannot understand most of it. For instance, the following phrases are utter nonsense: “A research paper can be said as the primary source that means,” — “A concise is important in light of the fact that it shows that . . .” — “A methods part is usually detailed” — “A result segment depicts the results . . .” — “they describe upon different articles that they analyze to propose new research bearings . . . or distinguish designs among presented . .. studies” — “to clarify the present condition of comprehension” — “Research papers and . . . articles require inquiry, critical analysis, demonstration and insight of few special abilities from . . .”

This article also states that “[a] research article . . . is usually not depend (sic) on original study,” then contradicts that in the next sentence with “[r]esearch articles . . . condense the current writing on a point . . .” Most studies these days are current. But, even if a study was conducted 50 years ago, it’s a cardinal rule that one should always use the original source of information rather than relying on the articles of other authors who may have misquoted something from the original study.

Articles like this one do a grave disservice to the viewing and researching public. To present this article as informative is disingenuous. To ask people who are seeking useful information to struggle with reading and trying to make sense of this poor English is so unkind and inconsiderate that I feel compelled to bring it to the author’s and publisher’s attention.

I would be honored to help anyone with their efforts to write English, but, please, be honest with yourselves about your lack of knowledge, so you will cease and desist the writing of anything online until your English skills have improved significantly. Thank you.

Thanks for such a detail input. Best wishes.

Yes you are saying right. So if you have the skills to deliver the answer in an efficient manner so kindly type it for me. Because I really want to know the difference between research paper and research article

Yes I agree with Martha. I myself found difficulty in going through the article. Although the topic is very important to be discussed because being the student of graduate, I must know the difference. But the way of delivering has dispirited me that now what other website should I visit to get accurate answer.

we need Published example of a scientific research article and another for a scientific research

how can I cite this?

“Difference between Research Paper and Research Article”, Reserachpedia.info, https://researchpedia.info/difference-between-research-paper-and-research-article/ , [27 December 2021].

I don’t understand anything. I am confused more than i came. Otehrwise, thank you for a trial. Simplify this communication.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

International Journal of Research (IJR)

IJR Journal is Multidisciplinary, high impact and indexed journal for research publication. IJR is a monthly journal for research publication.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RESEARCH PAPER AND JOURNAL ARTICLE

Difference between research paper and journal article.

Research Paper

Argumentative Research Paper

Analytical research paper, journal article, the differences, research paper:, journal article:.

• Share on Tumblr

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

• Privacy Policy

Difference Between Research Paper and Research Report

Research Paper Definition

The research paper is, in fact, the complete & careful exploration of some specific topic or issue and reaching the results by interpreting the facts. In the research paper , the author writes about all the realistic implications of the research and its uses in the real scenario.

Research Report Definition

The research report is, in fact, a totally different piece of document that encloses the information regarding your research that what kind of investigation has been conducted in your research paper and for what purpose & in which circumstances you have conducted that research.

Research Paper and Research Report Comparison

Major Differences Between the Research Paper and Research Report

• By reading the definition only, it is easily recognized able fact that research paper represents the whole research process; on the other hand research report actually represents the concise overview and description about the complete research paper .
• Besides the definition of both, the main difference between a research paper and research report can be easily recognized only by having an overview of its complete format . Research paper encloses more chapters than the research report as a complete document. A fine research paper starts with a general introduction of the topic, and then includes a literature review of the other researchers regarding the same topic, a methodology that how you are going to do that research, results, and interpretation of the figures presented in the results. Most effective and thorough researches also narrate the importance of the research, implications and also the shortfalls of your research as well. Contrary to it, the research report cannot explain too much data about the research. Its main purpose is to enclose the course of action, results, and significance of the specific research papers which is to be discussed.
• From the above point discussed, it becomes obvious that research paper is a lengthy document because it encloses more chapters than that of the research report. Contrary to it the research report is the summarised overview of the important points of a specific research paper.
• Research paper in its literature section reviews the ideas and analysis of other researchers who already have done work on the same topic but may be in the different scenario. On the other hand, research report cannot discuss the research or investigations of other researchers but it only explains the procedure, conclusion, and importance of a specific research paper.
• The research paper can present the citations and quotations from other author’s papers along with their references or it can also narrate the ideas presented in books or movies about that topic or research in order to support your own research. However, the research report cannot narrate any kind of supportive material but only about the specifications and findings of your research work.
• Research paper and research report both are different from each other because the main purpose of both documents varies from each other. The main purpose of the research paper is to convince the readers that variables discussed in the specific research have some sort of relationship with each other and to persuade effectively writer have to quote previous researches with the same kind of experimentation or research done. On the other hand, the purpose of the research report is to provide information only. The research report provides the summarise information about the research being done; it can never be used to convince about any argument.
• Another distinction between both of them is that research paper will be based on a question or a query. Main focus of the author of the research paper will be to address the query which is stated as question or ambiguity in the start of the research paper. All efforts of the author will be inclined to provide the logic to the given or anticipated relation between two or more variables. On the other hand, the research report can never address any question or query. It is developed just to recap the important details of the targeted research paper.
• Moreover, the research report is focused to scrutinize and infer from given information. It involves arguments & logics along with gathering data. In contrast to it, the research report doesn’t need to involve any argument, analysis or interpretation of the results.
• Last but not the least research paper is a document that will be helpful in bringing distinctive and unique knowledge at the end of the research. Because research done in it is necessary to be conducted in different scenario or experimentation with a new combination of variables but research report is never inclined to do the same, It can never bring any new idea or knowledge in any case.

Also Study: 800+ Research Paper Examples

Characteristics of a Good Research Paper and Research Report

It has become very clear from all the above discussion that research paper and research report, both are a very different document from each other. But another fact is that there are some qualities and characteristics that may be common in both and all these qualities must be there in both documents to make them meaningful and worthy for reading.

• All the information given in the script should be based on facts only. No information should be imaginary or doubtful in any manner. Moreover, the information provided quotations or any research done by other researchers being quoted in the research paper should be provided with proofs and proper references.
• Language used for writing both types of documents must be clear and easy to understand. Use of jargons is strictly prohibited. Moreover, technical words must be used if necessary because more use of technical words will make it difficult for the reader to maintain attention in reading the whole paper. Easy and clear wording will make it more reader-friendly and understandable.
• It is also very necessary that document developed must be free of errors and there must be no duplication of any information in a single document. Duplication of information will directly lead to the decline in the interest of the reader & he will stop reading that document. Moreover, errors and doubtful information will decline the worth of the paper as well as the writer.
• The format of the research should be well prepared and its structure must be according to requirements. Otherwise, the document will lose its authenticity in the real sense.
• The manuscript developed, whether the research paper or research report must be oriented towards the result. Procedure, survey, and methodology every step should be inclined towards factual and clear results. If the results are ambiguous until the end, the whole effort of writing the document will be devastated. Moreover, each and every line is written should maintain an ethical reporting style in itself.

These qualities must be there in both documents in order to maintain the quality of the work and enhance the understanding of the manuscript for the readers. Any document, whether Research paper or research report must have these qualities, to attract the attention of the reader and make them read & understand the complete manuscript till the end.

Importance of understanding the differences between the research paper and Research Report

It is really necessary to understand the differences between the research paper and research report both. Because commonly these terms may be confused if asked generally but both types of documents have very different formats and designed to serve very different purposes. As research paper is a complete document in which each and every step of exploring a specific issue is documented along with guidance & support from the previous researches which are properly cited and referenced. On the other hand, the research report doesn’t have any concern with other researches, but it is restricted to give a concise summary of a specific research only. No other previous research is being discussed in the research report. So understanding and learning about the differences and characteristics of a good research paper and a research report will really contribute to add in the worth of the research.

Related Posts

Research paper example, how to write a motivational statement, how to write a good psychology research proposal, how to write a mechanical engineering research paper, apa research paper parts and sections, how to research a topic, how to write a personal essay, research project outline example, research paper format, what is a dissertation paper, leave a comment cancel reply.

Please enter an answer in digits:

• KCES's Institute of Management & Research, Jalgaon

What is the difference between Research Paper, Research Article, Review Paper & Review Article?

Most recent answer.

Popular answers (1)

Top contributors to discussions in this field

• National Polytechnic School of Algiers

• Shenzhen University

• Technical College Požarevac

• SEAMEO RECSAM

• Dav Institute of Engineering and Technology

Get help with your research

Join ResearchGate to ask questions, get input, and advance your work.

All Answers (80)

• A research paper is based on original research.
• The kind of research may vary, depending on your field or the topic, (experiments, survey, interview, questionnaire, etc.), but authors need to collect and analyze raw data and conduct an original study.
• The research paper will be based on the analysis and interpretation of this data.
• Research articles will usually contain:
• a summary or “abstract”
• a description of the research
• the results they got
• the significance of the results.
• A narrative review explains the existing knowledge on a topic based on all the published research available on the topic.
• A systematic review searches for the answer to a particular question in the existing scientific literature on a topic.
• A meta-analysis compares and combines the findings of previously published studies, usually to assess the effectiveness of an intervention or mode of treatment.
• http://www.editage.com/insights/what-is-the-difference-between-a-research-paper-and-a-review-paper

• https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=919157084787290&id=906562632713402

Similar questions and discussions

• Asked 9 January 2019

• Asked 30 October 2013

• Asked 4 February 2022

• Asked 7 November 2019

• Asked 5 October 2017

• Asked 20 September 2023

• Asked 27 August 2023

• Asked 8 July 2023

• Asked 4 July 2023

Related Publications

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

What are the differences between these kinds of articles: original, review, letter, and short communication?

I am interested in knowing, what are the differences between Original Paper, Review Paper, Letter and Short/ Rapid/ Brief Communication paper?

Thanks to everyone for reading and taking the time for the great responses.

• publications
• terminology
• review-articles

• 2 Bear in mind that this will vary heavily between specific journals. –  Andrew is gone Commented Nov 29, 2015 at 13:20
• 2 Most respected journals have specific authors instructions which guide you in defining these types of manuscripts. In clinical medicine there are also explicit reporting guidelines: equator-network.org –  Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai Commented Feb 2, 2017 at 13:35

5 Answers 5

This will vary pretty heavily depending on the journal in question. But generally speaking, in broad strokes:

• "Original Paper" - This is a generic term for a full-length, original research finding paper that doesn't fall into another specialized category.
• "Review Paper" - This is a paper summarizing the state of research on a topic. These can often be somewhat long, are often but not always by invitation only, and this category can include meta-analysis, but doesn't have to. This may also be the umbrella that commentaries fall under, but again, not always.
• "Short/Rapid/Brief Communication" - A shorter version of "Original Paper", whose methods, findings, etc. don't justify a full length paper. They still contain original findings, but are general much more straightforward.
• Letters - Possibly even shorter original findings, field reports, single observations, etc. This can also include arguments about previously published papers, which involve either opinion pieces or snippets of contradictory or supporting research.

• 1 Note that for Nature, a Brief Communication Arising is not a research paper but usually critical comments on a Nature paper, typically accompanied by a response from the authors of the criticized paper. This is in contrast to a Letter , which is simply a short research paper. –  Bitwise Commented Feb 2, 2017 at 14:15

"Original paper" is any research paper not falling into below categories. "Review paper" is that reporting a critical overview of recent articles in the field, can be very long, say, 30-40 journal pages. "Letter" is a short research paper, ca. 4 journal pages. "Communication" is essentially the same as "Letter", sporadically can contain comments (there is a specific genre called "Comments" as well) on some recently published paper in this journal.

Original research articles are detailed studies reporting original research conducted by the author. They include hypothesis, background study, methods, results, interpretation of findings, and a discussion of possible implications.

Review articles give an overview of existing literature in a field, often identifying specific problems or issues and analysing information from available published work on the topic with a balanced perspective. Review articles can be of three types, broadly speaking: literature reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.

Short communications are usually a concise format used to report significant improvements to existing methods, a new practical application, or a new tool or resource. These need to be reported quickly as the need to communicate such findings is very high.

Letters are usually short and flexible articles that express readers' opinion on previously published articles, or provide evidence to support/oppose an existing viewpoint.

• Downvoter: why? –  Andrew Commented May 29, 2018 at 18:30

Original papers are extracted from researches that are innovative enough and have new and important achievements. All of d etails are given in these papers. They also have high scientific value.

Original artical is under good headings ,all headings that must be present in every original paper but review sometime have some heading missed like materials and methods but not always happen this ,the main difference is that study is rational , different areas result collecting together .The size of review artical is longer than original one.the short communication have not headings properly but all aspects are clear properly it is much comprehensive.

• 1 I recommend you to expand your answer and provide some references... typically authors instructions of journals provide clear guidance on this issue. –  Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai Commented Feb 2, 2017 at 13:34

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged publications terminology review-articles ..

• Featured on Meta
• Introducing an accessibility dashboard and some upcoming changes to display...
• We've made changes to our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy - July 2024
• Announcing a change to the data-dump process

Hot Network Questions

• How does one find historic prices for goods?
• Count number display: "99+" vs full number
• Is the English of India considered a separate standard variety?
• Why is “water takes the steepest path downhill” a common approximation?
• Undersupplied LM2576 buck-boost converter: Prevention, and where is all the power going?
• Reference for the proof that Möbius transformations extend to isometries of hyperbolic 3-space
• What's the difference between "Model detail" and "Texture detail" in Portal 1?
• Can it be proven from pure logic that at least one thing exists?
• What location is depicted on the map in the picture frame in Stranger Things?
• Word/phrase for avoiding a task because it has a lot of unknowns
• Jonathan Edwards on James 2:19
• Vilna Gaon's commentary on מחצית השקל
• A simple reusable class for rational numbers
• What does `OP_CHECKSEPARATESIG` refer to?
• How do we know that only symmetrical and antisymmetrical states occur in nature?
• If my character has the same name as a character from another story, will the publisher tell me to change it?
• What role can scrum master have/take when product owners differ from opinion?
• Groups killed by centralizing one element
• Who is sitting at the banker's left?
• Does the volume of air in an air tight container affect food shelf life?
• Old story about the shape of a robot and its ability to not break down
• Make a GCSE student's error work
• Does space dust fall on the roof of my house and if so can I detect it with a cheap home microscope?
• What would "doctor shoes" have looked like in "Man on the Moon"

Character.AI CEO Noam Shazeer returns to Google

In a big move, Character.AI co-founder and CEO Noam Shazeer is returning to Google after leaving the company in October 2021 to found the a16z-backed chatbot startup. In his previous stint, Shazeer spearheaded the team of researchers that built  LaMDA  (Language Model for Dialogue Applications), a language model that was used for conversational AI tools .

Character.AI co-founder Daniel De Freitas is also joining Google with some other employees from the startup. Dominic Perella, Character.AI’s general counsel, is becoming an interim CEO at the startup. The company noted that most of the staff is staying at Character.AI.

Google is also signing a non-exclusive agreement with Character.AI to use its tech.

“I am super excited to return to Google and work as part of the Google DeepMind team. I am so proud of everything we built at Character.AI over the last 3 years. I am confident that the funds from the non-exclusive Google licensing agreement, together with the incredible Character.AI team, positions Character.AI for continued success in the future,” Shazeer said in a statement given to TechCrunch.

Google said that Shazeer is joining the DeepMind research team but didn’t specify his or De Freitas’s exact roles.

“We’re particularly thrilled to welcome back Noam, a preeminent researcher in machine learning, who is joining Google DeepMind’s research team, along with a small number of his colleagues,” Google said in a statement. “This agreement will provide increased funding for Character.AI to continue growing and to focus on building personalized AI products for users around the world,” a Google spokesperson said.

Character.AI has raised over $150 million in funding, largely from a16z.

“When Noam and Daniel started  Character.AI , our goal of personalized superintelligence required a full stack approach. We had to pre-train models, post-train them to power the experiences that make  Character.AI  special, and build a product platform with the ability to reach users globally,” Character AI mentioned in its blog announcing the move.

“Over the past two years, however, the landscape has shifted; many more pre-trained models are now available. Given these changes, we see an advantage in making greater use of third-party LLMs alongside our own. This allows us to devote even more resources to post-training and creating new product experiences for our growing user base.”

There is a possibility that different regulatory bodies, such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Department of Justice (DoJ) in the U.S. and the EU will scrutinize these reverse acqui-hires closely. Last month. the U.K’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) issued a notice saying that it is looking into Microsoft hiring key people from Inflection AI to understand if the tech giant is trying to avoid regulatory oversight. The FTC opened a similar investigation in June to look into Microsoft’s $650 million deal.

You can reach out to this reporter at [email protected] by email and on signal at ivan.42 .

More TechCrunch

Get the industry’s biggest tech news, techcrunch daily news.

Every weekday and Sunday, you can get the best of TechCrunch’s coverage.

Startups Weekly

Startups are the core of TechCrunch, so get our best coverage delivered weekly.

TechCrunch Fintech

The latest Fintech news and analysis, delivered every Tuesday.

TechCrunch Mobility

TechCrunch Mobility is your destination for transportation news and insight.

Elon Musk’s X agrees to pause EU data processing for training Grok

Earlier this week it emerged that the DPC had instigated court proceedings seeking an injunction against X over the data processing without consent.

Google DeepMind develops a ‘solidly amateur’ table tennis robot

During testing, Google DeepMind’s table tennis bot was able to beat all of the beginner-level players it faced.

As X sues advertisers over boycott, the app ditches all ads from its top subscription tier

The X account announced that its Premium+ subscription would now be “fully” ad-free, leading some to question how this change would affect creator earnings.

Apple revises DMA compliance for App Store link-outs, applying fewer restrictions and a new fee structure

Apple has further revised its compliance plan for the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) rulebook which, since March, has forced it to give iOS developers more freedom over how…

Chime and Dave execs are coming to TechCrunch Disrupt 2024

The rise of neobanks has been fascinating to witness, as a number of companies in recent years have grown from merely challenging traditional banks to being massive players in and…

How to enable Wikipedia’s dark mode

If you visited the Wikipedia website on mobile this week, you might have seen a pop-up indicating that dark mode is ready for prime time.

Home security giant ADT says it was hacked

The home security company says attackers accessed databases containing customer home addresses, email addresses, and phone numbers.

Looking Glass’ new lineup includes a $300 phone-sized holographic display

The Looking Glass Pro has a 6-inch display and a foldable base. It shows spatial images like those created with the Apple Vision Pro and iPhone 15 Pro.

TikTok partners with Warner Bros. to become a discovery engine for TV and movies

TikTok’s latest offering is capitalizing on the app’s ability to serve as a discovery engine for other media — something its users already take advantage of by sharing short clips…

Cocoon is transforming steel production runoff into a greener cement alternative

Cocoon is a new startup built on the belief that greener steel production and the creation of concrete slag doesn’t have to be an either-or proposition.

SoundHound acquires Amelia AI for $80M after it raised $189M+

SoundHound, an AI company that makes voice interface tech used by car companies, restaurants and tech firms, is doubling down on enterprise services by playing consolidator in a crowded market.…

Feeling Great’s new therapy app translates its psychologist co-founder’s experience into AI

Seeking mental health support is a complex process, but some founders believe that using AI to formalize techniques like Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) can help folks who might not have…

UK launches formal probe into Amazon’s ties with AI startup Anthropic

The U.K.’s antitrust regulator has confirmed that it’s carrying out a formal antitrust investigation into Amazon’s ties with Anthropic, after Amazon recently completed a $4 billion investment into the AI startup.…

AI business agent startup Bardeen pulls in strategic investment from Dropbox and HubSpot

Bardeen has raised $3M to build its platform that uses a natural language interface to automate repetitive knowledge work.

Bilingual dictation assistant Silvia understands ‘Spanglish’ and other language mixtures

Natural language AI assistants tend to be excellent English speakers, and passable in other tongues — but if you are one of the millions who fluidly switch between two languages…

Indian conglomerate Reliance slashed over 42,000 jobs last financial year

Reliance, India’s largest conglomerate, reduced its workforce by 11%, or more than 42,000 people, in the financial year ended March 2024. 

Anduril raises $1.5B at a $14B valuation

The Palmer Luckey-founded defense startup wants to become a serious rival to longstanding kingpins, and has been clocking some big wins.

UK satellite startup Blue Skies Space wants to sell astronomy data ‘as a service’

The satellite is designed to complement data provided by existing astronomical efforts such as that of the famed Hubble Telescope.

YouTube is testing a feature that lets creators use Google Gemini to brainstorm video ideas

YouTube is testing an integration with Google Gemini to help creators brainstorm video ideas, titles and thumbnails. The Google-owned company announced the launch of the new Brainstorm with Gemini feature…

From Skims to Stripe, here are the startups that are likely — or definitely — not having IPOs this year

Last year’s investor dreams of a strong 2024 IPO pipeline have faded, if not fully disappeared, as we settle in to the second half of the year. This year delivered…

Techstars is laying off 17%, ending its J.P. Morgan-backed programs

Techstars is cutting 17% of its staff and will end its $80 million J.P. Morgan-backed AdvancingCities program once the fund is completely deployed.

Made by Google 2024: How to watch Google unveil the Pixel 9, a new foldable and more

Made by Google 2024 kicks off at 10 a.m. PT on August 13. Get ready for a slew of new hardware, including the Pixel 9 and a new foldable.

Newly launched social network Maven loses its co-founders

Just three months after Maven’s public launch, Kenneth Stanley — the former OpenAI researcher who co-founded the social media platform designed to facilitate serendipitous interactions — is stepping down.  Stanley…

ChatGPT’s mobile app just had its biggest month yet

With the arrival of ChatGPT’s new Advanced Voice Mode, which offers nearly real-time, realistic interactions, Appfigures expects growth to continue in the months to come.

UK’s internet regulator warns social media platforms over risks of inciting violence

The U.K.’s internet regulator Ofcom has published an open letter to social media platforms raising concerns about the use of their tools being used to incite violence.

Keychron’s K2 HE turns magnets and wood into an affordable mechanical keyboard

The $79 K2 has long been one of Keychron’s bestselling mechanical keyboards. As with all of the company’s K-line boards, it offers a relatively no-frills experience but provides all of…

Facebook creators have a new way to avoid ‘jail’

Facebook creators are being given a new option that will help them avoid jail — “Facebook jail,” that is — upon their first violation, and at various times after. In…

Featured Article

A comprehensive list of 2024 tech layoffs

The tech layoff wave is still going strong in 2024. Following significant workforce reductions in 2022 and 2023, this year has already seen 60,000 job cuts across 254 companies, according to independent layoffs tracker Layoffs.fyi. Companies like Tesla, Amazon, Google, TikTok, Snap and Microsoft have conducted sizable layoffs in the…

This Week in AI: OpenAI’s talent retention woes

Hiya, folks, welcome to TechCrunch’s regular AI newsletter. This week in AI, OpenAI lost another co-founder. John Schulman, who played a pivotal role in the development of ChatGPT, OpenAI’s AI-powered…

Nothing’s $399 Phone 2a Plus hits the US through a beta program

As has been the case with Nothing’s other handsets, there are a few hoops required to purchase the device in the U.S.

AI is poised to drive 160% increase in data center power demand

On average, a ChatGPT query needs nearly 10 times as much electricity to process as a Google search. In that difference lies a coming sea change in how the US, Europe, and the world at large will consume power — and how much that will cost. 

For years, data centers displayed a remarkably stable appetite for power, even as their workloads mounted. Now, as the pace of efficiency gains in electricity use slows and the  AI revolution  gathers steam, Goldman Sachs Research estimates that data center power demand will grow 160% by 2030.

At present, data centers worldwide consume 1-2% of overall power, but this percentage will likely rise to 3-4% by the end of the decade. In the US and Europe, this increased demand will help drive the kind of electricity growth that hasn’t been seen in a generation. Along the way, the carbon dioxide emissions of data centers may more than double between 2022 and 2030.

How much power do data centers consume?

In a series of three reports, Goldman Sachs Research analysts lay out the  US ,  European , and  global  implications of this spike in electricity demand. It isn’t that our demand for data has been meager in the recent past. In fact, data center workloads nearly tripled between 2015 and 2019. Through that period, though, data centers’ demand for power remained flattish, at about 200 terawatt-hours per year. In part, this was because data centers kept growing more efficient in how they used the power they drew, according to the Goldman Sachs Research reports, led by Carly Davenport, Alberto Gandolfi, and Brian Singer.

But since 2020, the efficiency gains appear to have dwindled, and the power consumed by data centers has risen. Some AI innovations will boost computing speed faster than they ramp up their electricity use, but the widening use of AI will still imply an increase in the technology’s consumption of power. A single ChatGPT query requires 2.9 watt-hours of electricity, compared with 0.3 watt-hours for a Google search, according to the International Energy Agency. Goldman Sachs Research estimates the overall increase in data center power consumption from AI to be on the order of 200 terawatt-hours per year between 2023 and 2030. By 2028, our analysts expect AI to represent about 19% of data center power demand.

In tandem, the expected rise of data center carbon dioxide emissions will represent a “social cost” of $125-140 billion (at present value), our analysts believe. “Conversations with technology companies indicate continued confidence in driving down energy intensity but less confidence in meeting absolute emissions forecasts on account of rising demand,” they write. They expect substantial investments by tech firms to underwrite new renewables and commercialize emerging nuclear generation capabilities. And AI may also provide benefits by accelerating innovation — for example, in health care, agriculture, education, or in emissions-reducing energy efficiencies.

US electricity demand is set to surge

Over the last decade, US power demand growth has been roughly zero, even though the population and its economic activity have increased. Efficiencies have helped; one example is the LED light, which drives lower power use. But that is set to change. Between 2022 and 2030, the demand for power will rise roughly 2.4%, Goldman Sachs Research estimates — and around 0.9 percent points of that figure will be tied to data centers.

That kind of spike in power demand hasn’t been seen in the US since the early years of this century. It will be stoked partly by electrification and industrial reshoring,  but also by AI . Data centers will use 8% of US power by 2030, compared with 3% in 2022.

US utilities will need to invest around $50 billion in new generation capacity just to support data centers alone. In addition, our analysts expect incremental data center power consumption in the US will drive around 3.3 billion cubic feet per day of new natural gas demand by 2030, which will require new pipeline capacity to be built.

Europe needs $1 trillion-plus to prepare its power grid for AI

Over the past 15 years, Europe’s power demand has been severely hit by a sequence of shocks: the global financial crisis, the covid pandemic, and the energy crisis triggered by the war in Ukraine. But it has also suffered due to a slower-than-expected pick up in electrification and the ongoing de-industrialization of the European economy. As a result, since a 2008 peak, electricity demand has cumulatively declined by nearly 10%.

Going forward, between 2023 and 2033, thanks to both the expansion of data centers and an acceleration of electrification, Europe’s power demand could grow by 40% and perhaps even 50%, according to Goldman Sachs Research. At the moment, around 15% of the world’s data centers are located in Europe. By 2030, the power needs of these data centers will match the current total consumption of Portugal, Greece, and the Netherlands combined.

Data center power demand will rise in two kinds of European countries, our analysts write. The first sort is those with cheap and abundant power from nuclear, hydro, wind, or solar sources, such as the Nordic nations, Spain and France. The second kind will include countries with large financial services and tech companies, which offer tax breaks or other incentives to attract data centers. The latter category includes Germany, the UK, and Ireland.

Europe has the oldest power grid in the world, so keeping new data centers electrified will require more investment. Our analysts expect nearly €800 billion ($861 billion) in spending on transmission and distribution over the coming decade, as well as nearly €850 billion in investment on solar, onshore wind, and offshore wind energy. 

This article is being provided for educational purposes only. The information contained in this article does not constitute a recommendation from any Goldman Sachs entity to the recipient, and Goldman Sachs is not providing any financial, economic, legal, investment, accounting, or tax advice through this article or to its recipient. Neither Goldman Sachs nor any of its affiliates makes any representation or warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy or completeness of the statements or any information contained in this article and any liability therefore (including in respect of direct, indirect, or consequential loss or damage) is expressly disclaimed.

Our weekly newsletter with insights and intelligence from across the firm

By submitting this information, you agree to receive marketing emails from Goldman Sachs and accept our  privacy policy . You can opt-out at any time.

• Frontiers in Science
• Article hubs
• Imperatives for reducing methane emissions

The methane imperative

Lead article, explore article hub, read article explainer.

• 1 Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States
• 2 The Porter School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Israel
• 3 SRON Netherlands Institute for Space Research, Leiden, Netherlands
• 4 World Energy Outlook Team, International Energy Agency (IEA), Paris, France
• 5 Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development (IGSD), Washington, DC, United States
• 6 Department of Physics, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, United States
• 7 International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria
• 8 Earth Sciences Division, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, United States
• 9 Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement, LSCE-IPSL (CEA-CNRS-UVSQ), Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
• 10 NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY, United States
• 11 Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement, UMR 8212 CEA-CNRS-UVSQ, Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace, Université de Saclay, Saclay, France
• 12 Global Science, The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA, United States
• 13 Department of Marine, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, United States
• 14 Center for Climate Systems Research, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States

Anthropogenic methane (CH 4 ) emissions increases from the period 1850–1900 until 2019 are responsible for around 65% as much warming as carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) has caused to date, and large reductions in methane emissions are required to limit global warming to 1.5°C or 2°C. However, methane emissions have been increasing rapidly since ~2006. This study shows that emissions are expected to continue to increase over the remainder of the 2020s if no greater action is taken and that increases in atmospheric methane are thus far outpacing projected growth rates. This increase has important implications for reaching net zero CO 2 targets: every 50 Mt CH 4 of the sustained large cuts envisioned under low-warming scenarios that are not realized would eliminate about 150 Gt of the remaining CO 2 budget. Targeted methane reductions are therefore a critical component alongside decarbonization to minimize global warming. We describe additional linkages between methane mitigation options and CO 2 , especially via land use, as well as their respective climate impacts and associated metrics. We explain why a net zero target specifically for methane is neither necessary nor plausible. Analyses show where reductions are most feasible at the national and sectoral levels given limited resources, for example, to meet the Global Methane Pledge target, but they also reveal large uncertainties. Despite these uncertainties, many mitigation costs are clearly low relative to real-world financial instruments and very low compared with methane damage estimates, but legally binding regulations and methane pricing are needed to meet climate goals.

• The atmospheric methane growth rates of the 2020s far exceed the latest baseline projections; methane emissions need to drop rapidly (as do CO 2 emissions) to limit global warming to 1.5°C or 2°C.
• The abrupt and rapid increase in methane growth rates in the early 2020s is likely attributable largely to the response of wetlands to warming with additional contributions from fossil fuel use, in both cases implying that anthropogenic emissions must decrease more than expected to reach a given warming goal.
• Rapid reductions in methane emissions this decade are essential to slowing warming in the near future, limiting overshoot by the middle of the century and keeping low-warming carbon budgets within reach.
• Methane and CO 2 mitigation are linked, as land area requirements to reach net zero CO 2 are about 50–100 million ha per GtCO 2 removal via bioenergy with carbon capture and storage or afforestation; reduced pasture is the most common source of land in low-warming scenarios.
• Strong, rapid, and sustained methane emission reduction is part of the broader climate mitigation agenda and complementary to targets for CO 2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases, but a net zero target specifically for methane is neither necessary nor plausible.
• Many mitigation costs are low relative to real-world financial instruments and very low compared with methane damage estimates, but legally binding regulations and widespread pricing are needed to encourage the uptake of even negative cost options.

Introduction

Worldwide efforts to limit climate change are rightly focused on carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), the primary driver ( 1 ). However, since humanity has failed to adequately address climate change for several decades, keeping warming below agreed goals now requires that we address all major climate pollutants. Methane is the second most important greenhouse gas driving climate change. Out of a total observed warming of 1.07°C during the period 2010 to 2019, the Working Group I (WGI) 2021 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) attributed 0.5°C to methane emissions ( 1 ). However, in many respects, methane mitigation has been neglected relative to CO 2 . For example, only ~2% of global climate finance is estimated to go towards methane abatement ( 2 ). Similarly, only about 13% of global methane emissions are covered by current policy mechanisms ( 3 ). With dramatic climate changes already occurring and methane providing substantial leverage to slow warming in the near future and reduce surface ozone pollution, political will to mitigate methane has recently increased, especially following the Global Methane Assessment (GMA) published by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC) in May 2021 ( 4 ). The Assessment showed that reducing methane was an extremely cost-effective way to rapidly slow warming and contribute to climate stabilization while also providing large benefits to human health, crop yield, and labor productivity. The GMA also demonstrated that various technical and behavioral options were currently available to achieve such emission cuts. Drawing upon that Assessment and related analysis ( 5 ), the United States and European Union launched the Global Methane Pledge (GMP) in November 2021 at the 26th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP26), under which countries set a collective goal of reducing anthropogenic methane emissions by at least 30% (relative to 2020 levels) by 2030. By COP28 in November 2023, participation in the GMP had increased to 155 countries that collectively account for more than half of global anthropogenic methane emissions.

However, far more needs to be done if the world is to change the current methane trajectory and meet the goals of the GMP and other national pledges. This article presents three imperatives supported by a series of analyses (detailed further in Methods):

● Imperative 1—to change course and reverse methane emissions growth—describes changes in methane observed during the recent past and projected for the near future and compares these with low-warming scenarios (Analysis A).

● Imperative 2—to align methane and CO 2 mitigation — discusses methane targets and metrics (Analysis B), investigates the connections between methane emissions and CO 2 mitigation efforts (Analysis C), and assesses their impacts (Analyses D–F).

● Imperative 3—to optimize methane abatement options and policies—presents analyses of the mitigation potential of national-level abatement options (Analysis G) and evaluates their cost-effectiveness (Analysis H) across the 50 countries with greatest mitigation potential by subsector (i.e., landfill, coal, oil, and gas) using a novel tool. We also compare profit versus pricing from controlling methane emissions from oil production (Analysis I) and describe ongoing efforts to support national and regional decision-making.

Finally, we outline paths forward for improving scientific understanding of methane emissions, abatement opportunities, and physical processes that will affect future methane levels in the atmosphere.

Imperative 1—to change course and reverse methane emissions growth

Atmospheric methane concentrations are rising faster than projections.

Scenarios consistent with temperature goals to limit warming to 1.5°C, or well below 2°C, with no or limited overshoot include large and rapid reductions in methane ( 4 , 6 ). In the real world, however, atmospheric methane has been rising rapidly since 2006 and by the end of the 2010s reached 5-year average growth rates not seen since the 1980s ( 4 , 7 , 8 ). Methane concentration increases in 2021 are the largest recorded, with high values throughout the period 2020 to 2023 (Analysis A; Figure 1A ). The uncertainty ranges from the ground-based and satellite datasets typically overlap, leading to high confidence in the growth rate values. Using a mass balance approach assuming that the methane loss rate is proportional to the atmospheric methane loading (i.e., a constant methane atmospheric lifetime of 9.1 yr) ( 12 ), emissions appear to have risen substantially from 2020 to 2023 ( Figure 1B ).

Figure 1 Accelerating methane growth rates and emissions over recent decades. (A) Observed methane annual growth rates (ppb yr −1 ) through 2022 or 2023 from the ground-based networks of the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) ( 9 ) and the World Meteorological Organization ( 10 ) and from satellite data from the Copernicus Atmospheric Monitoring Service (CAMS) ( 11 ) total column datasets. (B) Estimated emissions and sinks through 2023 based on the NOAA abundance observations. Emissions and sinks estimates are based on a simple box model assuming sinks are proportional to the atmospheric abundance of methane. Uncertainties in the ground-based and satellite data are around 0.5 ppb yr −1 , and 3 ppb yr −1 , respectively. See Methods (Analysis A) for further details. Data for this and other figures are available in Supplementary Table 1 .

We compare the observed atmospheric methane growth rates with values under recent baseline scenarios developed with integrated assessment models (IAMs) in the early 2020s and “bottom-up” engineering approach models. All include data on actual developments through the period ~2018 to 2020 ( 13 ). The observed growth rates are roughly 1.5- to 2.5-fold higher than the multi-model mean baseline or bottom-up projections from 2020 to 2022 ( Figure 2 ). The observed growth rates also exceed any individual model’s baseline projections during that period. Observed 2023 growth rates show the highest values of any individual model, well above multi-model means or bottom-up analyses. Baseline scenarios are used to analyze how additional technical, behavioral, and policy options can mitigate climate change. That real-world methane growth rates exceed baseline projections therefore indicates that policies may have to be even stronger than those in existing analyses to reach the Paris Agreement’s goals. Indeed, comparisons of observed atmospheric growth rates with those in 1.5°C-consistent scenarios (using the 2018 IPCC scenarios that did not include observations past 2017) show enormous differences ( Figure 2 ), emphasizing how much stronger policies need to be to reach low-warming goals.

Figure 2 Projected and observed methane growth rates. Methane abundance growth rates during the 2020s from baseline scenarios from the ADVANCE ( https://www.fp7-advance.eu/ ), NAVIGATE ( https://www.navigate-h2020.eu/ ) ( 14 ), and ENGAGE ( https://www.engage-climate.org/ ) projects using integrated assessment models (IAMs; data show multi-model means) and from the “bottom-up” analyses of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) ( 15 ) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ( 16 ) (solid lines). Modeled baseline values are averages for the 2020–2025 and 2025–2030 periods as data were produced at 5-year intervals. The shaded area shows the full range across the four to six IAMs for each scenario. Scenario concentration changes are derived from scenario emissions using a simple box model and assumed constant natural emissions of around 200 million tonnes (Mt) yr −1 . Growth rates under 1.5°C-consistent scenarios with policies beginning in 2015 ( 17 ) are also shown for comparison along with their full ranges. Projected rates are compared with observations (circles) from the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) observation network with 1 standard deviation uncertainties. See Methods (Analysis A) for further details.

Causes of increased methane growth rates and discrepancies with baseline scenarios

Multiple assessments have concluded that the growth in methane concentrations over the 2007–2019 period is largely attributable to increased emissions from fossil fuels and livestock ( 18 – 21 ). However, some studies attribute much of this increase to wetlands (particularly in the tropics)—an attribution potentially supported by isotopic data indicating increased biogenic methane ( 22 – 25 ). In general, longer-term increases in wetland methane emissions (resulting from a human-caused warming climate) are expected to be small over these years as the climate feedback is weak according to models, modern observations, and paleoclimate data ( 19 , 25 – 30 ). Methane emissions associated with thawing permafrost and glacial retreat are also expected to increase as the climate warms, though the magnitude is thought to be small and quite uncertain ( 19 , 31 , 32 ). A small portion of this longer-term increase in the growth rate may be due to growing areas of rice cultivation in Africa ( 33 ). Over the longer 2007–2019 period, there thus remains ambiguity in the cause of observed emission trends given geographical and sectorial methane source diversity.

Investigations into the cause of the large increase in the growth rate in the 2020–2023 period relative to the prior years are just beginning. Some atmospheric-chemistry transport modeling studies have attributed more than half of the increased growth in 2020 relative to 2019 to changes in methane removal owing to a decline in the hydroxyl radical OH driven by COVID-19-related changes in emissions, primarily decreases in nitrogen oxides ( 34 – 36 ). However, other changes that constrain methane removal rates using methane observations attribute just 14–34% of the increased 2020 growth rate to changes in the sink ( 37 , 38 ). The persistence of the very high growth rates in 2021 and 2022 also supports evidence of the role of reductions in OH and methane loss rates driven by COVID-19-related emissions changes. This is consistent with Feng et al. ( 38 ), who found the role of sink changes decreased from ~34% in 2020 to just 10% in 2021. Thus, changes in methane removal appear unlikely to play a dominant role in driving the higher 2020–2023 growth rates.

Sink changes playing a minor role implies that the jump in the growth rate from 7 to 10 ppb yr −1 during the 2015–2019 period to ~12–18 ppb yr −1 during the 2020–2023 period is attributable to increased emissions, which can be examined using “bottom-up” analyses. Emission increases are unlikely to be attributable to the waste or agriculture sectors, which vary minimally from year to year. For example, global cattle numbers grew at an average rate of 1.1% yr −1 over the 2020–2022 period; this was only modestly larger than the 0.9% yr −1 average over the 2015–2019 period ( 39 ). This translates to an increase of <1 Tg yr −1 assuming constant methane emissions per animal, a small fraction of the implied emissions increase ( Figure 1B ) (and in contrast to the longer-term growth in cattle numbers which leads to an increase of ~10 Tg yr −1 over the 2007–2019 period). The more rapid growth of atmospheric methane over the 2020–2023 period therefore appears to be primarily linked to increased emissions from fossil fuels and wetlands, which together may account for the underestimated growth rates in the IAMs ( Figure 2 ).

For fossil fuels, there is evidence that investments in midstream capacity have been inadequate to keep up with the volume of extracted gas as firms ramp up production. For instance, the state-owned oil company in Mexico flared ~63 billion cubic feet of gas from a single field (Ixachi) over the 2020–2022 period, representing more than 30% of the field’s total production and being in violation of Mexican law ( 40 ). Flaring to mitigate methane release is imperfect in the field: aerial measurements over multiple United States oil and gas regions indicate an efficiency of around 91% owing to both incomplete combustion and unlit flares, which, combined with large volumes of flared gas due to midstream capacity shortages, results in large methane emissions ( 41 , 42 ). Studies report inefficient or inactive flares in other regions, such as Turkmenistan ( 43 ).

Additionally, some projections incorporate current emissions from national reporting, whereas studies using atmospheric inversions from satellite data suggest that oil- and gas-extracting countries in central Asia and the Persian Gulf region typically systematically underreport their emissions ( 44 ). This is similar to findings for the United States and Canada ( 45 , 46 ). National reporting also generally omits so-called super-emitters ( 47 – 49 ), which are discussed further below. Large underestimates in initial methane emissions could lead to underestimated emission growth. Discrete events may have also played a role, with the COVID-19 pandemic being linked to increased methane emissions from the energy sector in early 2020 ( 50 ) and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine causing increased efforts to expand supplies of gas and coal ( 51 ). There are thus several reasons fossil fuel emissions might be growing faster than in baseline scenarios.

However, increased methane emissions from wetlands appear likely to have driven a larger portion of the higher 2020–2022 growth rates based on the latitudinal gradients of growth rates and a trend toward lighter (biogenic) isotopes of atmospheric methane ( 52 ). The cause may be in part a persistent La Niña pattern that likely enhanced tropical wetland methane emissions during the 2020–2022 period. The wetland methane increase has been estimated at ~4–12 million tonnes (Mt) yr −1 based on empirical analyses of prior events ( 25 , 53 , 54 ), though another study found a weaker La Niña impact on methane ( 55 ). A recent modeling study shows a rise of ~5 Mt yr −1 in the wetland methane flux for the 2020–2021 period relative to the prior 3 years ( 25 ), predominantly from tropical ecosystems and consistent with satellite studies ( 38 ). Wetlands were also implicated in earlier analyses of the 2020 growth rate increase relative to 2019 ( 35 ), with an especially large increase in emissions from Africa ( 37 ). A rise of ~5 Mt yr −1 would be a relatively modest contribution to the overall jump in emissions estimated at ~30 Mt yr −1 for the 2020–2022 period relative to the prior 5 years ( Figure 1A ). There are, however, substantial uncertainties in terms of tropical wetland methane emissions ( 56 ), and modeled wetland methane emissions may be biased substantially low, especially over Africa ( 57 , 58 ), so the increase shown in the models may be an underestimate. The La Niña is superimposed on anthropogenic warming and changes in climate extremes that could also lead to higher wetland methane fluxes than in previous La Niña events.

A switch from La Niña to El Niño during 2023 appears to have reduced the observed growth rate ( Figure 2 ), supporting a large role for wetland responses to La Niña in the very high 2020–2022 growth rates. However, emissions appear to have remained substantially higher in 2023 relative to pre-2020 values ( Figure 1B ), suggesting longer-term contributions from increasing anthropogenic sources along with a forced trend in natural sources. Recent work also suggests a potentially permanent shift to an altered state of enhanced wetland methane emissions ( 8 ). The next 5–10 years of monitoring will, therefore, be critical in understanding both short- and long-term feedback and drivers of accelerated growth rates. While current estimates suggest increases in fossil fuel emissions, especially wetland methane, likely dominated the growth rate jump after 2019, reconciliation of observed growth rates with emissions inventories remains elusive. Regardless of the relative contribution of the two most probable major sources of the longer-term 2007–2023 increase in growth rates—i.e., wetland feedback from human-driven warming and human-driven emissions—the implications are identical: anthropogenic emissions must decrease more than previously expected to reach a given climate goal.

Imperative 2—to align methane and carbon dioxide mitigation

Methane and co 2 emissions targets.

As methane targets are currently being set in many countries, it is important to understand how these fit within the broader climate change mitigation agenda and the push for “net zero CO 2 ”. Least-cost 1.5°C- and 2°C-consistent scenarios require major and rapid reductions in methane alongside CO 2 ( 4 , 6 , 17 ). For example, AR6 1.5°C scenarios with limited or no overshoot achieve net zero CO 2 emissions around the middle of the century while methane emissions decrease by a mean of 35% (standard deviation: ±10%) in 2030, 46% (±8%) in 2040, and 53% (±8%) in 2050 relative to 2020 levels (Analysis B; Figure 3 ) ( 59 ). Global emissions targets well within these ranges, as in the Global Methane Pledge, are thus aligned with the Paris Climate Agreement. Delaying methane reductions past the timescales in 1.5°C-consistent scenarios risks higher overshoot, peak temperatures, and costs.

Figure 3 Decrease in total methane emissions and increase in agricultural share of the remainder in 1.5°C-consistent scenarios. Mean decrease in anthropogenic methane emissions relative to 2020 under least-cost 1.5°C consistent scenarios with policies beginning around 2020, including the standard deviation across the 53 scenarios analyzed and the maximum and minimum values across the scenarios. Also shown is the mean share of anthropogenic emissions from the agriculture sector in the same scenarios. All scenarios for which agricultural as well as total emissions were available were included ( 59 ). Note that the median scenario is virtually identical to the mean shown here. See Methods (Analysis B) for further details.

Net zero CO 2 emissions is a relevant concept because options are available currently to drastically reduce CO 2 in almost all emitting sectors, and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) options, including afforestation, exist for the remainder. Removal options are in the early research stages and are not currently available for methane or nitrous oxide (N 2 O). For those gases, we therefore discuss “zero anthropogenic emissions” (i.e., without the “net”).

The vastly different lifetimes of methane and CO 2 lead to markedly different requirements for zero-emission targets. CO 2 , as well as other long-lived greenhouse gases (LLGHGs) such as N 2 O and many fluorinated gases, accumulates in the atmosphere; emissions must thus reach net zero to achieve long-term climate stabilization ( 17 ). In contrast, methane and other short-lived pollutants do not accumulate, and hence long-term climate stabilization requires only constant emissions rather than zero, with weakly decreasing emissions yielding shorter-term stabilization. Consistent with this and owing to the difficulty in reaching zero emissions in some sectors such as agriculture, none of the least-cost 1.5°C-consistent scenarios achieve zero methane ( Figure 3 ).

Discussion of net zero GHG targets could easily be misinterpreted to imply that we can wait to reduce non-CO 2 emissions since those scenarios that do achieve net zero GHGs reach net zero CO 2 first. For long-term climate stabilization, the temperature depends upon the total LLGHGs emitted before reaching net zero along with the continuing short-lived pollutant emissions rate at that time, and there exists a similar relationship for peak temperatures under a peak-and-decline scenario. Article 4.1 of the Paris Climate Agreement calls for “balancing sources and removals of GHGs”, but this applies to all GHGs collectively. Achieving such a balance for methane is neither required under Article 4.1 nor for meeting the temperature goals established in Article 2 of the Agreement. In practice, methane emission projections in 1.5°C-consistent scenarios are substantial through 2100 ( Figure 3 ). Thus, scenarios that achieve net zero GHGs accomplish this not by lowering non-CO 2 emissions to zero but by aggressive deployment of CDR that offsets residual methane and N 2 O. This leads to gradually decreasing warming, a requirement during overshoot scenarios. Reducing warming after reaching net zero CO 2 thus requires CDR, reductions of methane and/or N 2 O, or a combination of these. Such reductions often lead to net zero GHGs by 2100 but not always ( 6 ). This suggests that while net zero GHGs may be a laudable post-net zero CO 2 goal, it might be more useful to focus separately on net LLGHG and methane targets than on net zero GHGs, which combine long- and short-lived pollutants in a metric-dependent way that obscures policy-relevant information ( 60 ) and may not be required or may be insufficient to achieve a given temperature target depending upon prior emissions.

Additionally, residual methane emissions in 1.5°C-consistent scenarios are dominated by the agricultural sector ( Figure 3 ). A net zero GHG target that was interpreted as requiring zero methane could thus lead to conflicts between the pressure to reduce emissions from agriculture and the need to feed the world’s population. Though reducing agricultural emissions of both LLGHGs and methane is necessary and feasible ( 4 , 61 , 62 ), planning for net zero GHGs may lead to unrealistic expectations that could hinder progress in some countries and sectors. We, therefore, recommend that targets be formulated using net LLGHG emissions but total emission levels for short-lived pollutants.

There is an interplay between these two factors, as the higher the level at which emissions of short-lived warming pollutants remain the less total LLGHG emissions are permitted until reaching net zero to achieve a given warming level. This can be quantified using the remaining carbon budget for a particular temperature goal. To have a two-thirds chance of staying below 2°C, the remaining CO 2 budget from 2020 is ~1150 GtCO 2 ( 19 ), assuming roughly 35% reductions in methane by 2050. Every 100 Mt yr −1 of methane not permanently cut would take away about 300 GtCO 2 from the CO 2 budget over the next 50–100 years ( 63 ). This highlights the critical role of methane reductions in facilitating a plausible CO 2 reduction trajectory consistent with the Paris Agreement: the remaining carbon budget would otherwise become too small to make achieving those goals feasible ( 64 , 65 ).

Similarly, the more methane has been reduced upon reaching net zero CO 2 emissions the less CDR would be required. For example, every additional 50 Mt yr −1 of methane permanently reduced would offset the need for ~150 Gt GtCO 2 CDR over the following few decades [and >200 Gt GtCO 2 over the longer term ( 66 )]. Given the many challenges and potential negative impacts of CDR ( 19 , 67 , 68 ), this continues to motivate us to pursue the greatest possible methane reductions.

Measuring progress: methane and CO 2 metrics

In addition to setting sound targets, it is important to use appropriate metrics to measure progress. Evaluations typically use so-called “CO 2 -equivalence” (CO 2 e), which combines all gases using the global warming potential (GWP) at a fixed time horizon, generally 100 years [e.g., ( 66 )]. Using any single timescale to compare short-lived pollutants and LLGHGs provides an incomplete picture [e.g., ( 69 )]. More complete climate information is gained by using multiple timescales ( 70 , 71 ), among other means.

A new metric, GWP*, represents the differing effects of changes in short- and long-lived emissions on future global mean temperatures better than GWP ( 72 ). As such, the GWP* metric captures the 50–100-year relationship between continued methane emissions and the carbon budget. Hence, GWP* can be useful when examining decadal-century scale temperature changes, though multiple metrics better reflect the multiple timescales of potential interest. GWP* is applied to sustained changes in emissions, requiring careful consideration of the fact that every tonne of methane emission that persists decreases the remaining carbon budget.

One could evaluate the contribution of emissions relative to preindustrial levels using GWP*, which would show the large warming impact of present-day methane emissions ( 60 ). However, some countries and companies have used GWP* to suggest that since keeping current methane emissions constant does not add additional future warming, continued constant high levels of methane emissions are therefore not problematic and a reduction of their methane emissions is equivalent to CO 2 removal [e.g., ( 73 – 75 )]. This use of GWP* to justify the continuance of current emission levels essentially ignores emissions responsible for roughly half the warming to date and appears to exempt current high methane emitters from mitigation. This is neither equitable nor consistent with keeping carbon budgets within reach. Many current high emitters are wealthy groups, and the use of GWP* to evaluate changes relative to current levels implies the wealthy consuming or profiting from a large amount of methane-emitting products (such as gas, oil, or cattle-based foods) has no impact, whereas the poor, who currently consume little, would be penalized for consuming more ( 76 ). Policymakers should also consider impacts beyond climate when choosing policies affecting methane ( 4 , 77 – 79 ).

Connections between methane and CO 2 mitigation options

Though the different lifetimes of methane and CO 2 have profound implications for target setting and metrics, the separation between short- and long-lived pollutants is not complete. Much like other short-lived pollutants, methane induces climate changes that affect the carbon cycle—thereby exerting a long-term impact ( 80 , 81 ). This carbon-cycle response to warming adds ~5% to the forcing attributable to methane emissions. Additionally, methane emissions lead to increased surface ozone, which is harmful to many plants and reduces terrestrial carbon uptake. Climate impacts of methane emissions could be increased by up to 10% considering ozone–vegetation interactions ( 12 ).

In addition to these Earth system interactions, mitigation options also link methane and CO 2 . Decarbonization policies phasing out fossil fuels would clearly reduce fossil sector methane emissions. However, those reductions would produce only about one-third of the methane reductions in 1.5°C scenarios by 2030 ( 4 , 82 ). The use of non-fossil methane sources for energy production also modestly reduces CO 2 emissions by displacing demand for fossil fuels, adding ~10% to the long-term and ~3% to the near-term climate effect of methane capture. Other estimates suggest that using non-fossil methane for power generation could increase the monetized environmental benefits of methane capture even further—by 14% and 25% for discount rates of 4% and 10%, respectively. These larger values reflect the inclusion of both climate and air pollution damages and stem primarily from reduced air pollutants associated with coal burning ( 78 ).

Another intersection between decarbonization and methane could occur in a hydrogen economy. Fugitive methane emission rates above ~2% would cancel the near-term climate benefits of “blue hydrogen” with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) compared to burning natural gas ( 83 ). Furthermore, hydrogen leakage would extend methane’s lifetime by lowering the atmospheric oxidative capacity [e.g., ( 84 , 85 )].

Land use also links mitigation options for methane and CO 2 . There are large land area requirements for either bioenergy with CCS (BECCS) or afforestation, two sources of CDR that most low-warming scenarios require to compensate for slow decarbonization and/or continued emissions from the sectors most difficult to decarbonize ( 17 ). Given the demands on arable land to feed a growing population and the urgent need to restore and conserve biodiversity, a plausible source of additional land is reduced numbers of pasture-raised livestock, which could also reduce methane emissions.

To probe this connection, we examined 145 least-cost 1.5°C scenarios for which trends in pasture area and BECCS deployment were available (Analysis C) ( 86 ). The deployment of BECCS closely mirrors a decline in pasture area in these scenarios ( Figure 4A ), a relationship noted but not quantified in AR6 ( 59 ). Examining the multi-model mean decadal changes from the 2040s onwards, when deployment of BECCS is large enough to show clear trends, we find highly correlated changes, with every 10 exajoule (EJ) of BECCS associated with ~38 million ha pasture area decrease ( Figure 4B ) and ~0.5 Gt yr −1 CO 2 removal. Adding in the 2030s increases the slope to 42 million ha per 10 EJ, whereas examining each individual scenario’s changes, rather than the multi-model mean, shows the slope is 28 million ha per 10 EJ. These comparisons give a sense of the robustness associated with this relationship.

Figure 4 Trade-offs between land use for pasture and for carbon uptake. (A) Multi-model mean trends in bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) deployment and in pasture area in the 145 available least-cost 1.5°C scenarios. (B) Correlation between decadal changes in the multi-model means of these two quantities from the 2040s to 2090s. Data are from seven integrated assessment models (IAMs) from the 2022 AR6 scenario database ( 86 ). Also shown are land use changes from simulations covering 22–106 <2°C scenarios per model in individual IAMs for 2020–2050 (C) and 2050–2100 (D) , including linear trend estimates across the scenarios. See Methods (Analysis C) for further details.

For reforestation and afforestation, meeting goals in national climate pledges is projected to require almost 1.2 billion ha of land ( 87 ). For context, the current crop area is about 1.2 billion ha (including animal fodder), so changes in land used for crops for humans would be too small to provide the land needed while maintaining food security. While some land needs might be met via restoration of degraded lands, more than half was estimated to require conversion of pasture or land currently used for animal fodder.

To evaluate the relationship between afforestation plus biofuel land use and pasture, we examined a larger AR6 set of scenarios that keep warming below 2°C, finding 266 scenarios (Analysis C). Averaged across the models, pasture area decreases by 1.1 ha per 1 ha land used for carbon uptake from 2020–2050 and by 0.6 ha from 2050–2100. Assuming carbon uptake per ha biofuel crops is similar to afforestation, this corresponds to ~94 million and 54 million ha of pasture required per GtCO 2 removal, with a range of 28–251 million ha across the models. This range encompasses the results based on BECCS alone in the 1.5°C scenarios. Together, these analyses show robust evidence of a tradeoff between land used for CDR and pasture with a value that is highly model-dependent. In the four models including afforestation, changes in land deployed for carbon uptake are highly correlated with pasture decreases across the scenarios, with R 2 >0.6 and 0.4 for 2020–2050 and 2050–2100, respectively ( Figures 4C, D ). Within the IAMs, MESSAGE and REMIND show fairly linear relationships whereas the land use tradeoff is more dependent on the scenario in WITCH and IMAGE ( Figures 4C, D ). Land for CDR is used primarily for BECCS in MESSAGE and WITCH, primarily for afforestation in IMAGE, and comparably for those options in REMIND, highlighting that the tradeoff with pasture holds for all uptake options deployed in the models. Inter-model differences presumably stem from varying assumptions about the availability of non-agricultural land for afforestation, changes in non-energy crop area, and the intensity of carbon uptake via afforestation or energy crops.

The results show that shifting livestock practices, especially healthier dietary choices that in many places lead to reduced consumption of cattle-based foods and hence decreased livestock numbers, not only affect methane emissions but are also tightly coupled with CDR strategies ( 88 ). Both current pledges for biological carbon removal and BECCS deployment at the scales envisioned in many scenarios likely require large reductions in pasture area, and dietary changes could free up pasture without risking food security. We note that both biological carbon removal and BECCS come with substantial challenges and side effects that affect the likelihood that they will ever be societally acceptable at scale ( 19 , 87 ).

In summary, reductions in methane emissions are not just complementary to CO 2 reductions but can directly contribute to reduced atmospheric CO 2 via carbon cycle interactions and fossil fuel displacement. They can also potentially play an important role in facilitating the deployment of, as well as reducing the need for, CDR; this could reduce additional feedback, including increased volatile biogenic compound emissions following afforestation that might increase methane’s lifetime ( 89 ).

Impacts of methane and carbon dioxide mitigation

As noted, methane emissions are estimated to account for 0.5°C of the total observed warming of 1.07°C through the 2010–2019 period ( 1 ). As the climate is affected by both warming and cooling pollutants, the attribution of the fraction of observed warming to a specific component depends on which drivers are included in the comparison. Compared with the total observed warming, methane emissions are responsible for ~47% of that value; in comparison with the warming attributable to all well-mixed GHGs, methane emissions are responsible for ~34%; and in comparison with the temperature increase due to all warming agents, methane emissions contribute ~28%. As the overlap between methane sources and other climate drivers is relatively limited, methane could potentially be reduced with only modest effects on other emissions. Comparison with observed net warming may therefore be most useful, but each of these comparisons is useful for specific purposes. To prevent public confusion, presentations that imply methane’s contribution is being evaluated against observed warming when it is not and that do not state if they are referring to emissions or concentrations, such as the common statement that methane is responsible for around 30% of global warming since pre-industrial times [e.g., ( 90 , 91 )], should be avoided. Note also that the share of warming attributable to a given driver varies depending upon the baseline period (1850–1900 in AR6).

Emission reduction policies that target methane and CO 2 have complementary and additive benefits for the climate. We analyzed the response of global mean annual average surface air temperatures to emissions under various scenarios to isolate the effects of decarbonization and targeted methane emission controls (Analysis D). Contemporaneous reductions in cooling aerosols associated with decarbonization lead to modest net warming over the first few decades [e.g., ( 13 , 92 – 95 )]. Given the smaller role of other non-CO 2 climate pollutants, methane emission cuts therefore provide the strongest leverage for near-term warming reduction ( Figure 5 ) ( 13 , 95 ). Achievement of methane reductions consistent with the average in 1.5°C scenarios could reduce warming by ~0.3°C by 2050 in comparison with baseline increases ( 4 ). A hypothetical complete elimination of anthropogenic methane emissions could avert up to 1°C of warming by 2050 relative to the high emissions Shared Socioeconomic Pathway [SSP; ( 96 )] SSP3–7.0 scenario ( 97 ). This large near-term impact partly reflects methane’s short lifetime; >90% of increased atmospheric methane would be removed within 30 years of an abrupt cessation of anthropogenic emissions compared with only ~25% of increased CO 2 following CO 2 emission cessation ( 98 ). Encouragingly, were humanity to abruptly cease emissions, the present combined anthropogenic CO 2 and methane concentration increases versus preindustrial [weighted by their warming contributions, including the ozone response to methane ( 12 )] levels would be halved within 30 years. Hence the near-term “Zero Emissions Commitment” of warming already “in the pipeline” ( 19 , 99 ) is much smaller considering both methane and CO 2 rather than CO 2 alone.

Figure 5 Climate impacts of decarbonization and methane reductions. The climate response (measured by change in global mean surface temperature relative to 2020 values) to reductions of all pollutants (including methane) under a decarbonization scenario; methane alone under a decarbonization scenario that substantially reduces energy sector emissions and under a 1.5°C scenario; and decarbonization and methane reductions consistent with 1.5°C—all relative to constant 2020 emissions. Values are averages across Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) 1, 2, and 5 (1.5°C was infeasible under SSP3 in four of four models and under SSP4 in two of three models). See Methods (Analysis D) for further details.

Policies leading to rapid and deep cuts in both CO 2 and methane provide the strongest benefits across the century ( Figures 5 ; 6A ). To further characterize the relative contributions, we analyzed temperature responses, and their effects on premature mortality, applied to various mitigation options under the “middle-of-the-road” SSP2 (Analysis E). Importantly, future CO 2 emissions exert the strongest leverage on long-term climate change, and successfully targeted methane reduction without simultaneous CO 2 reductions over the next 10–30 years would therefore merely delay long-term warming ( Figure 6A ). Conversely, successful reduction of CO 2 (and co-emissions) without simultaneous additional targeted methane reduction over this period would weakly affect long-term temperatures if methane reductions were achieved later ( Figure 6A ) but would lead to higher warming and substantially increased risk of overshooting warming thresholds over the next few decades. In addition to the impacts on warming, a 20-year delay in methane reductions from 2020 to 2040 would also lead to 4.2 (1.3–6.8; 95% confidence) million additional premature deaths due to ozone exposure by 2050 that could have been avoided with rapid methane reductions based on our standard epidemiological estimates ( Figure 6B ). That value becomes ~8.8 (5.5–11.1) million additional deaths using alternative cardiovascular and additional child-mortality relationships (Analysis E).

Figure 6 Temperature and health impacts of methane abatement under various scenarios. (A) Climate response (measured by change in global mean surface temperature relative to 1850–1900 values) to all pollutants under the baseline Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) 2 scenario; the SSP2 baseline plus methane abatement consistent with a 1.5°C scenario; the SSP2 1.5°C scenario (SSP2–1.9); the SSP2 1.5°C scenario without any additional methane abatement beyond that occurring due to the phase-out of fossil fuels; and the SSP2 1.5°C scenario with additional methane abatement beyond that occurring due to the phase-out of fossil fuels beginning in 2040 rather than 2020. (B) Avoided premature deaths resulting from methane reductions relative to those under the SSP2 baseline (note that SSP2 baseline plus methane abatement consistent with a 1.5°C scenario is identical to the SSP2 1.5°C scenario for this impact and so is not shown). See Methods (Analysis E) for further details.

In addition to reducing early deaths, cutting methane emissions will reduce near-term warming impacts on labor, which grow non-linearly with warming ( 100 ). We used our climate Analysis E as the basis to estimate corresponding labor effects of changing heat exposure (Analysis F). Assuming outdoor workers are in the shade, achieving 1.5°C-consistent methane abatement under SSP2 avoids roughly US$250 billion in worldwide potential heavy outdoor labor losses by 2050 (range US$190–US$390 over impact functions; values in 2017 US$ purchasing power parity). However, for outdoor workers in the sun, benefits would be roughly US$315 billion (range US$211–US$475). These values, for heavy outdoor labor only, are not comparable to impacts covering medium and light labor (for which the evidence base is weaker).

Imperative 3—to optimize methane abatement options and policies

Global context.

Despite substantial uncertainties in emissions from specific subsectors, global-scale anthropogenic methane emissions are reasonably well-constrained. Agriculture and fossil fuel emissions have comparable magnitudes (each ~130–150 Mt yr −1 ) roughly twice that of the waste sector (~70–75 Mt yr −1 ) ( 4 , 101 ). Abatement technologies are available in each sector ( 102 ) and, with modest projected improvements over time, could provide reductions of 29–62 Mt yr −1 in the oil and gas subsectors together, 12–25 Mt yr −1 in the coal subsector, 29–36 Mt yr −1 in the waste sector, and 6–9 Mt yr −1 from rice cultivation in 2030 ( 4 , 90 ). Estimated abatement for livestock ranges from 4–42 Mt yr −1 , depending upon factors such as the assumed potential to adopt higher productivity breeds and/or reduce total animal numbers. Technical abatement could be enhanced with nascent technologies such as methane inhibitors for ruminants, cultured and alternative proteins, and, in the waste sector, biocovers, black soldier flies, and waste-to-plastic substitute systems.

Many technological abatement options capture concentrated flows of methane, allowing it to be used as natural gas, generating revenue that lowers net costs. Defining low-cost as <US$600 per tonne of methane (in 2018 US$), low-cost abatement potentials represent 60–98% of the total for oil/gas, 55–98% for coal, and ~30–60% for waste ( 4 , 89 ). Technical options with net negative costs could reduce total emissions by ~40 Mt yr −1 , with the greatest potential being in the oil/gas and waste sectors ( 4 ).

Systemic and behavioral choices, such as fuel switching and demand management, also affect methane emissions and are particularly important in the food sector. Cattle account for about 70% of livestock emissions, with ~25% from regions with high reliance on intensive systems (primarily Europe and North America) most suitable for technical solutions ( 15 ). In other areas, extensive grazing systems are common, limiting technical solutions ( 61 ). For sizeable reductions in livestock emissions, cuts in animal stocks will therefore be necessary. Shifts to more plant-based diets could bring health benefits in regions with high intake of animal protein ( 103 , 104 ), and, as discussed above, this is important for providing areas for CDR deployment. Such shifts could reduce methane emissions by ~15–30 Mt yr −1 over the coming ~10–25 years ( 4 ). In regions with low protein intake but large cattle herds, productivity should be increased in conjunction with enhancement of the economic resilience of pastoralist communities ( 105 ). The latter requires improved access to affordable healthcare, education, and credit markets to enable management of financial risks without reliance on large livestock herds.

Achieving ~40–50% reductions in food loss and waste could reduce ~20 Mt yr −1 of methane emissions ( 4 ). Systemic and behavioral changes, such as dietary shifts and reduced food loss/waste (DFLW), are often difficult to implement but are benefiting from growing attention. Together, these could substantially augment the 120 Mt yr −1 achievable through targeted technical controls ( 13 , 62 , 106 ). Similarly, the IPCC assessment indicates a mitigation potential from DFLW for all GHGs of about 7 (3–15; full range) GtCO 2 e yr −1 by 2050, of which 1.9 GtCO 2 e yr −1 comes from direct emissions [largely non-CO 2 ( 6 )]. The latter would correspond to ~70 Mt yr −1 methane were it all methane, highlighting the large mitigation potential from DFLW both via methane and via associated land use changes.

National mitigation options: abatement potential and cost-effectiveness by country

The GMP has raised ambition worldwide but achieving its goal requires optimizing efforts, as political and financial capital is limited and time is short. We have therefore undertaken national-level analyses (Analyses G–H) of technical mitigation options for countries seeking to implement the Pledge or non-signatories that may want to reduce their emissions (e.g., China published a National Methane Emissions Control Action Plan in 2023). These analyses may also help optimize international financing. They are based on data from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ( 16 ) and the International Energy Agency (IEA) ( 90 ).

Mitigation options with greatest abatement potential by country

Analyses of technological mitigation potential highlight the need to address all subsectors given that each is the largest in at least some countries (Analysis G; Figure 7 ). In some fossil-fuel-producing countries, the greatest opportunities for methane mitigation are in gas and oil whereas coal predominates in other countries. Despite substantial fossil fuel industries, several countries in the Middle East, Southern Africa, and South America are estimated to have their largest mitigation potential in landfills. With few fossil fuels produced outside Eastern Europe and limited technical mitigation potential for livestock, the largest potential for mitigation in Europe is also often in landfills. There are notable exceptions, however. In France, Germany, and the Nordic countries, for example, policies have greatly mitigated waste sector emission, and the livestock subsector now has the largest remaining mitigation potential. This illustrates how national-level data reveal substantial variations even within relatively small geographic regions.

Figure 7 The subsector with the largest technical mitigation potential in every country. The map shows the subsector with the greatest mitigation potential regardless of the cost in each country based on United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data ( 16 ). See Methods (Analysis G) for further details.

This analysis is based on bottom-up emission estimates relying on activity data combined with emission factors. This is the most detailed emission information available by subsector for all countries. However, this approach has uncertainties and limitations. Recent developments in satellite remote sensing have shown the existence of so-called “super-emitters” ( 48 , 49 , 107 ). These are facilities emitting enormous amounts of methane, often related to abnormal operating conditions such as gas well blowouts ( 108 ) or non-burning flares. Hundreds of super-emitters are detectable globally, with even more at local scales [e.g., ( 47 )]. Many super-emitters can be considered “low-hanging fruit” since they are especially cost-effective to mitigate and have high reduction potential per individual source, making them a high-priority category to address. However, they are often not well represented in bottom-up inventories and do not necessarily follow the prioritization per country suggested by the bottom-up analysis ( Figure 7 ). For example, satellite-based studies show emissions from super-emitters from the oil and gas industry in Algeria of ~100 kt CH 4 yr −1 ( 48 , 49 ), a substantial fraction of the estimated mitigation potential not including super-emitters ( Figure 8A ). Super-emitters have also been reported in the coal subsector in Australia, China, and the United States ( 108 – 110 ). Urban areas are also important emission sources that can be difficult to capture in inventories with >13 urban methane hotspots detected in India ( 49 ) and evidence of worldwide urban wastewater emissions hotspots ( 111 ). Based on high-resolution satellite observations, individual landfills in New Delhi and Mumbai were estimated to emit 23 (14–33) and 86 (53–228) kt CH 4 yr −1 ( 112 ), a large fraction of total emissions from their respective urban areas.

Figure 8 Favorable countries for mitigation of methane from the oil and gas subsector. Estimated methane mitigation potential and costs within the oil and gas subsector for the 15 countries with the greatest mitigation potential in this subsector regardless of costs. Analyses based on data from (A) the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for 2030 ( 16 ) and (B) the International Energy Agency (IEA) for 2022 ( 90 ). See Methods (Analysis H) for further details.

Mitigation potential and cost-effectiveness by sector and country

To explore cost-effectiveness, we focus on the 50 countries with the largest subsector mitigation potential in the next decade and then rank those by abatement costs (Analysis H). This excludes the agricultural sector due to the limited potential for technical solutions to achieve sizable reductions in the short term. Although this analysis highlights the nations with the largest mitigation potentials at the least average cost, costs vary within each subsector. We therefore created an online tool to explore such details ( https://github.com/psadavarte/Methane_mitigation_webtool ). Mitigation options are grouped into functionally similar categories to facilitate readability and allow comparison across estimates ( Table 1 ).

Table 1 Technical mitigation options included in each category.

For landfills, the 15 most cost-effective large reductions total >6 Mt yr −1 , and all have net negative costs ( Figure 9 ). These savings result from revenues provided by methane recovery for use offsite or energy generation. Within these two categories, net mitigation costs range from −US$800 to −US$4400 per tonne. The mitigation potential is always the largest in the energy generation category, hence savings outweigh expenses from flaring and oxidation (~US$120–US$330 per tonne in these countries) and waste treatment and recycling (US$400–US$1700 per tonne). Mitigation potentials are large for some countries with very large populations, such as India, Brazil, and Mexico, but also for several countries with smaller populations including Azerbaijan, Poland, Peru, and the United Arab Emirates. Note that the most cost-effective options do not always have the greatest mitigation potential (e.g., energy generation versus organics diversion).

Figure 9 Favorable countries for mitigation of methane from landfills. Estimated 2030 methane mitigation potential and costs within the landfill subsector for the 15 countries with the least expensive average costs that are also among the top 50 countries for mitigation potential in this sector. Analysis based on data from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ( 16 ). See Methods (Analysis H) for further details.

Estimating landfill mitigation potentials requires assumptions about waste diversion potentials that are difficult to constrain. For example, analyses by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) ( 15 ) for India and China find mitigation potentials ~3.5 times larger than EPA values ( Table 2 ). In contrast, the IIASA mitigation potential for the former Soviet Union countries is smaller. Differences are related to IIASA using both population and economic growth as drivers for waste generation (EPA uses population growth only) and IIASA finding a larger mitigation potential from diversion of organic waste through recycling and energy recovery than in the EPA analysis. National-level analyses have substantially larger ranges in estimated mitigation potentials than the global totals—which are similar to the EPA and IIASA analyses. Cost differences between these analyses are even more striking ( Table 2 ) and reflect differences in the assumed value of recycled products recovered from municipal waste and discount rates (5% for EPA, 4% for IIASA). A small number of very expensive controls in the EPA analysis also have an outsized impact. For example, screening out options costing >US$600 tCH 4 −1 reduces the cost averaged over the remaining measures to −US$2700 tCH 4 −1 for India, closer to the IIASA results.

Table 2 Comparison of national data for India and China across available analyses.

For coal, nearly all the most cost-effective large national reductions have positive average costs, though they are low at <US$600 tCH 4 −1 for the top 15 nations ( Figure 10 ; Table 2 ). Mitigation potential in coal within China provides over half the global total for the subsector in all analyses, but the EPA mitigation potential is more than double the IIASA’s, with the IEA being in between ( Table 2 ). The EPA analysis has larger baseline methane emissions from coal in China: 26 Mt yr −1 in 2020 versus 20 and 21 Mt yr −1 in the IIASA and IEA analyses, respectively (2030 values are similar). The lower values are closer to recent satellite inversion estimates of ~16–18 Mt yr −1 ( 113 ). IIASA also makes more conservative assumptions than EPA regarding the fraction of ventilation air methane (VAM) shafts with CH 4 concentration levels high enough (>0.3%) to install self-sustained VAM oxidizers. Cost estimates for China are similar between EPA and IIASA, with the IEA’s being lower. In contrast, the three estimates for coal mitigation potential in India are very similar, but cost estimates differ greatly ( Table 2 ). IIASA’s high costs for India reflect the low VAM concentration there (<0.1%), severely limiting the applicability of oxidizers. Furthermore, abatement potentials in India are similar in magnitude but represent very different percentages of the baseline emissions, with the EPA estimate being roughly one-third that of the other analyses.

Figure 10 Favorable countries for mitigation of methane from the coal subsector. Estimated methane mitigation potential and costs within the coal subsector for the 14 countries with the least expensive average costs that are also among the top 50 countries for mitigation potential in this subsector. Analysis based on data from (A) the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for 2030 ( 16 ) and (B) the International Energy Agency (IEA) for 2022 ( 90 ). Note that China is also among the top 15 countries in both analyses but has a mitigation potential of >12,000 kt yr −1 ( Table 2 ), far beyond the scales shown here. See Methods (Analysis H) for further details.

Generally, the EPA estimates lower costs than the IEA, but many countries have similar abatement potentials, including Russia, India, and the United States ( Figure 10 ). In other cases, they estimate extremely different mitigation potentials, for example, in Indonesia and Australia. Differences result from multiple factors, including limited data on base costs and emissions levels, reference years, and technical and economic assumptions. For example, the contrast for Indonesia reflects differences in estimated baseline levels of emission, with the EPA indicating a much lower volume. This may be related to differences in the reference year, with the IEA estimate being more recent and reflecting higher coal activity in Indonesia. Additionally, the EPA uses lower IPCC default emission factors and country-level reporting data to estimate coal mine methane emissions, whereas the IEA considers coal rank, mine depth, satellite measurements, and regulatory frameworks. Finally, the energy production category typically has lower costs than the subsector average, and often net negative costs, whereas the disposal category does not generate revenue and so has higher costs. The latter is typically the largest component in the EPA analysis whereas the former tends to be the largest in the IEA analysis ( Figure 10 ).

Oil and gas

Oil and gas data are available for most countries from the EPA and the IEA. We focus on the 15 countries with the largest potentials regardless of cost because these are similar sets of countries, whereas the most cost-effective within the top 50 differ greatly in these analyses. The comparison shows that 8 countries are among the top 15 by mitigation potential in both analyses, yet these differ markedly in mitigation potentials and especially in mitigation costs ( Figure 8 ). For example, both analyses show the largest abatement potentials in the United States, followed by Russia. However, the potentials estimated by IEA are 40–50% larger than the EPA estimates, while the costs are four-fold lower for the United States and 40-fold lower for Russia. Mitigation potentials diverge even more in other countries. For instance, for Turkmenistan, the IEA finds the potential to mitigate 77% of 4700 kt yr −1 whereas the EPA finds a mitigation potential that is 37% of 1800 kt yr −1 . The IEA analysis, incorporating satellite-based emissions estimates, typically estimates higher current emissions than the EPA which relies upon national reporting, accounting for the larger IEA values in several countries. However, for Uzbekistan and Russia, the IEA base emissions are much lower, at 670 and 13,600 kt yr −1 , respectively, versus 3000 and 24,800 kt yr −1 in the EPA analysis (Russian official reporting was revised downward since the EPA analysis).

Differences between cost estimates are more systematic across countries, with the IEA consistently much lower than EPA. Differences are linked to several factors, including the inclusion of “super-emitters” by the IEA, a scarcity of data on required capital and operational expenditures, and varying revenue assumptions and typical lifetimes for abatement measures (the EPA uses a 5% discount rate and the IEA 10%, which would generally lead to relatively lower costs for the EPA). For example, the EPA estimates incorporate uniform natural gas prices across segments, whereas the IEA has different prices for upstream and downstream segments. Mitigation measures also vary, with each having specific costs, revenue, and lifetime in both analyses.

For both gas and oil, IIASA analyses show much smaller mitigation potential for India than either the EPA or IEA analyses, whereas for China, the IIASA estimates lie between EPA and IEA values ( Table 2 ). For both countries, mitigation potentials vary by 300% to 600% across the three datasets for gas, oil, or oil plus gas—much larger than the 16% to 150% variations for coal. Turning to costs, IIASA analyses for gas and oil in India and China find large net revenues, whereas the IEA finds smaller revenues and EPA large net expenditures ( Table 2 ). IIASA’s lower costs are attributable to the lower discount rate (4%) that increases the value of future revenue from captured gas, as well as projecting increases in the value of future gas based on the IEA New Policies Scenario (whereas the IEA, for example, uses present-day prices as they examine immediate abatement).

The social cost of methane

The social cost of methane (SCM), monetizing climate change-related damages, has recently been reevaluated ( 114 ) based on results from three damage estimation models ( 115 – 117 ). Incorporating only the impacts of climate change, the SCM ranges from US$470–US$1700 tCH 4 −1 for 2020 across these models using 2.5% discounting (values in 2020 US$). The spread narrows greatly over time to US$1100–US$2300 in 2030 and US$2700–US$3700 in 2050. This indicates that the models differ greatly in their near-term climate damage while converging in their valuation of longer-term impact. The 2030 SCM is 8–15 times larger than the social cost of CO 2 in 2030 (with 2.5% discounting) using these models, a “global damage potential” much lower than metrics of 30 (GWP100) or 83 (GWP20) typically used to compare these gases. Using one of those same damage estimate models, as well as others, higher 2020 values were recently reported: US$2900 tCH 4 −1 for models using a stochastic rather than fixed discount rate by otherwise standard methods applying economic damage to current output and US$75,600 tCH 4 −1 using models applying damage to long-term economic growth which then compound over time ( 118 ). The latter not only dramatically boosts social costs but also global damage potential, which rises from 21 to 44 in their analysis.

These types of evaluations have inherent inconsistencies, however. They include the effects of methane-induced ozone changes on climate but not health. However, there is a robust evidence base for ozone-health impacts via methane photochemistry ( 4 , 77 , 78 , 119 – 121 ). Similarly, SCM estimates include the effects of climate and CO 2 exposure on ecosystems, including agriculture, but not ozone exposure ( 78 , 122 ). Several studies have evaluated the SCM accounting consistently for ozone damage. Based on adults-only health impacts with relatively weak ozone effects on cardiovascular-related deaths and incorporating climate-only valuations without compounding growth effects, they find substantially larger values of ~US$4300–US$4400 tCH 4 −1 for 2020 ( 4 , 78 ). Using both stronger cardiovascular impacts and impacts on children under 5 (Analysis E), those values rise to ~US$7000 tCH 4 −1 . Using either those values or the values incorporating economic growth impacts ( 118 ), virtually all current methane abatement options cost much less than the associated environmental damages.

Economic considerations, including profit versus abatement in oil production

Given that many low-cost controls are available, the imposition of even a modest price on methane emissions would incentivize some emission reductions and overcome implementation barriers based on marginal costs alone ( 3 ). Several examples of methane pricing exist: auctions under California’s emissions trading system in 2022 yielded prices of ~US$725 tCH 4 −1 ( 123 ), Norway has a US$1500 tCH 4 −1 fee on oil and gas operators, and the 2022 US Inflation Reduction Act sets a price on excess methane emissions from oil and gas of US$900 tCH 4 −1 in 2024, rising to US$1500 tCH 4 −1 after 2025. Under these types of pricing regimes, average abatement costs in most priority countries would become negative for coal ( Figure 10 ) and oil and gas ( Figure 8 ). Similarly, an International Monetary Fund (IMF) analysis recommends a rising price on methane reaching ~US$2100 tCH 4 −1 in 2030 to align emissions with the 2°C goal ( 124 ). A methane fee might be set to a politically practical value, the value needed to achieve a desired reduction (as in the IMF analysis), or the value of associated environmental damages (the SCM).

Economic analyses from a societal perspective, i.e., how a mitigation measure incurs costs and benefits for both public and private stakeholders (including long-term impacts on future generations), can help policymakers define emission reduction targets that aim to optimize welfare ( 125 ). Private-sector decision-makers have a different perspective, with higher discount rates and shorter return times on investments; mitigation measures generating net profits may sometimes be outcompeted by production activities generating even higher profits since capital is limited. The profit-maximizing investor will weigh the relative profits of possible investments and choose the one with the highest return, leaving investment opportunities with lower profits unfunded. Even mitigation costs without consideration of environmental impacts, as discussed here, can be misleading about private sector decision-making. For example, despite recent increases in gas prices resulting in increased profits from gas recovery during oil production, industry incentives to invest in this have weakened because the profit margin from oil production has increased more rapidly than that from extended gas recovery owing to an increasing spread between oil and gas prices.

To illustrate this, we compare returns from methane controls during oil production, such as the recovery of associated gas for reinjection or utilization and leak detection and repair programs, for two cases denoted “Jan 2020” and “July 2022” (Analysis I). These correspond approximately to global oil and gas markets in those months with historic lows and highs, respectively ( Table 3 ). When oil and gas prices are low, the two profit margins can overlap without a methane fee ( Figure 11 ). Under such conditions, methane recovery investments can be as or more profitable than investments in increased oil production. We then expect some voluntary investments into methane control without the introduction of legally binding regulations. As oil and gas prices climb to the July 2022 levels, the profit margin of increasing oil production quickly outpaces that of methane control without a fee. In an illustrative example of a US$1500 tonne −1 fee on methane, as in the US and Norway, methane abatement becomes generally more profitable than oil production with low prices, though this fee is sufficient to make only some abatement as profitable as production with high prices ( Figure 11 ).

Table 3 Assumptions for the two fictive, illustrative cases “Jan 2020” and “July 2022”.

Figure 11 Variation in profit margins for oil production and methane abatement as fossil fuel prices change. Ranges for profit margins of oil production and methane abatement are shown for two illustrative cases “Jan 2020” and “July 2022” that correspond to historically low and high oil and gas prices, respectively (see Table 3 for assumptions). Profit margins for methane abatement are shown without a fee on emissions and with a US$1500 per tonne illustrative methane fee. See Methods (Analysis I) for further details.

This analysis helps explain the behavior of real-world markets, e.g., “Methane emissions remained stubbornly high in 2022 even as soaring energy prices made actions to reduce them cheaper than ever” ( 126 ). Profit-maximizing oil companies have a greater incentive to spend capital on increased production rather than voluntarily investing in methane control when prices are high, even though profits from such actions have increased. In such cases, oil companies can only be expected to invest in methane control if forced to do so through legally binding regulations. While actions to control methane from the fossil fuel sector entail substantial costs, the industry has ample resources compared with sectors such as waste or agriculture. For example, the IEA estimates that reducing energy-related methane emissions by 75% would require spending through 2030, which is <5% of the industry’s net 2023 income ( 127 ).

To reach abatement targets through private sector investments, policymakers need to ensure regulations are strong enough to overcome any competitive disadvantage of abatement investments relative to other operational investments. That measures are cost-effective from a societal perspective is no guarantee that abatement will happen without the introduction of additional regulations and policy incentives, such as requirements to use the best available technologies or a methane fee high enough to make abatement gains comparable to those available from new-source development from a private perspective ( Figure 11 ). The imperatives to both reduce methane rapidly this decade and transition to net zero CO 2 by the middle of the century imply that societies should consider granting companies social licenses to operate only if they are on course to both very low methane intensity by 2030 (including no routine venting or flaring) and to net zero CO 2 by 2050.

Conclusions and next steps

The GMP has created enormous policy momentum. Alongside it, the Global Methane Hub ( https://globalmethanehub.org/ ) links ~20 philanthropic organizations’ supporting action, and the CCAC links development banks with mitigation implementers. As such, there is an urgent need for expanded and improved knowledge of both the benefits of and opportunities for mitigation and access to finance to support the effective implementation of mitigation policies. This information can be provided with support tools that keep pace with rapidly advancing knowledge regarding current emission sources, especially via remote sensing.

Our analyses support three imperatives for methane mitigation. We illustrate how observations show increased methane concentration growth rates, which have recently reached the greatest values on record according to both ground-based and satellite data. Observed methane growth rates are now much higher than the mean predictions across models and far above levels consistent with Paris Climate Agreement goals. Human activities are predominantly responsible for the past ~15 years of growth—with contributions from increased emissions from wetlands due to anthropogenic global warming and from direct anthropogenic emissions. The first imperative is therefore to change course and reverse methane emission growth through stronger policy-led action targeting all major drivers of methane emissions as well as to greatly reduce CO 2 emissions rapidly.

The second imperative is to align methane and CO 2 mitigation. Major and rapid reductions in methane are integral to least-cost 1.5°C- and 2°C-consistent scenarios alongside the transformations needed to reach net zero CO 2 by ~2050. However, net zero methane emissions is not the target owing to abatement challenges for some sources and its short lifetime. Nevertheless, since methane and CO 2 each contribute to warming, maximizing reductions in methane emissions is important both for its own sake to ensure that 1.5°C- or 2°C-consistent CO 2 trajectories are feasible and to reduce CDR requirements. Methane and CO 2 mitigation actions are tightly interrelated: reducing methane emissions can directly contribute to reduced atmospheric CO 2 via carbon cycle interactions. Focusing on land use, we quantify how decreased livestock numbers afforded by reduced consumption of cattle-based foods not only help reduce methane emissions but also free up land to help meet projected needs for CDR at levels required to achieve long-term climate goals. Rapid and deep cuts to CO 2 and methane provide the strongest climate benefits across the century.

The third imperative highlights the need to optimize methane abatement policies. We show that both technological abatement options and systemic and behavioral choices must be addressed to reduce methane emissions. Our national-level analysis of methane mitigation opportunities highlights the need to address all subsectors when considering abatement options. We find that although many mitigation costs are low relative to real-world financial instruments and methane damage estimates, strong, legally binding regulations need to be in place even in the case of negative-cost options. To help policymakers and project funders, we created an online tool that explores different options and their cost-effectiveness. This tool supports policymakers by, for example, displaying (i) the most cost-effective options for countries to achieve a desired methane abatement objective economy-wide by sector or by subsector and (ii) the options in each country or countries that provide the largest abatement opportunities for a given spending level. Given substantial uncertainties in both emissions and costs, these data provide guidance for funders or policymakers who can then pursue more detailed studies. Funding equivalent to mitigation costs is not necessarily required since the cost analyses could support regulatory policies, e.g., by showing that they do not impose onerous burdens. For example, mitigation in the fossil sector is both large and low in cost in China and India, as are reductions in landfill methane in India, suggesting these two non-GMP countries have the potential to achieve major methane reductions with limited financial burdens.

The tool provides abatement potentials both as tonnes and percentages. The latter facilitates use with observations, for example, the identification of emission sources by satellites with global coverage but relatively low spatial resolution that are followed up by higher resolution site-specific quantification of emission rates ( Figure 12 ). These data will soon be complemented by the satellite missions Carbon Mapper, MethaneSAT, GOSAT-GW, Sentinel-5, and Satlantis as well as datasets produced by the Integrated Global Greenhouse Gas Information System and the International Methane Emissions Observatory. Automated reporting based on satellite observations promises to provide rapid information on emissions and progress in abatement [e.g., ( 49 ), ( 107 )] though updates to mitigation potentials and costs based on new data will take considerable time and effort.

Figure 12 Example use of remote sensing to quantify methane emissions. (A) Methane observations from the TROPOMI instrument on 31 March 2019 over the region encompassing Lahore, Pakistan. (B) High-resolution measurement of methane enhancement over the northern part of the city observed by GHGSat on 31 October 2020. The emission source location matches the siting of the Lahore landfill, with Q indicating the estimated methane emission rate.

The new tool complements another showing the benefits of methane abatement ( http://shindellgroup.rc.duke.edu/apps/methane/ ). That tool allows the user to select global or regional methane mitigation options by sector and cost and then displays national-level benefits including ozone effects on human health, yields for several major staple crops, heat-related labor productivity, and the economic valuation of these.

Though methane has similar environmental impacts wherever it is emitted, co-emissions affect those living near sources with environmental justice implications [e.g., ( 128 , 129 )]. These include hazardous hydrocarbons, such as benzene, that are frequently emitted by gas and oil facilities, black carbon from flaring, and ammonia from manure ponds. Methane-producing infrastructure is often in areas with high social vulnerability [e.g., ( 130 )]. Accounting for co-emissions requires improved data on their spatial distribution and volume, especially in areas with nearby vulnerable populations.

There is also a need to improve understanding of several physical processes influencing the climate impacts of methane emissions. Methane-induced ozone increases affect the carbon cycle, amplifying the climate impact of methane, but the magnitude of this effect is highly uncertain ( 12 ). Additionally, methane affects particle formation via oxidants, producing aerosol-cloud interactions that may augment the climate impact of methane ( 131 ). Studies also report divergent results for the net cloud response to methane when the shortwave absorption of methane is accounted for ( 132 , 133 ). A better understanding of the response of natural methane emissions to climate change is also needed. Improved capabilities to monitor emissions from difficult-to-access methane-source areas (e.g., wetlands) using remote sensing should help constrain changes in natural sources over the coming decade. A research agenda for methane removal technologies, which could be deployed in the unlikely event of a surge in natural emissions, has been called for [e.g., ( 134 )] and is currently being assessed ( https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/atmospheric-methane-removal-development-of-a-research-agenda ).

Though additional observations and improved scientific understanding will be valuable, securing the benefits for climate, health, labor productivity, and crops ( 4 , 79 ) that are the rationale for the GMP requires immediate implementation to achieve the emission reductions envisioned by 2030. Not only is our understanding of methane science and mitigation options sufficient to act upon, but political support is evidenced by the GMP, and financial support is growing. It is also becoming clearer how methane fees would achieve climate goals and enhance well-being. In the face of ever-increasing climate damages, including heat waves, flooding, storms, and fires, the world has a real opportunity to reduce the rate at which these effects grow between now and 2050 via methane action, with the main impediment being the will to implement the known solutions.

Analysis A: methane growth/emissions vs projections

Methane abundance growth rates during the 2020s are taken from “no climate policy” baseline scenarios from several recent multi-model intercomparison projects using integrated assessment models: ADVANCE ( https://www.fp7-advance.eu/ ), NAVIGATE ( https://www.navigate-h2020.eu/ ) ( 14 ), and ENGAGE ( https://www.engage-climate.org/ ). NAVIGATE and ENGAGE scenarios are the most recent and include updates to actual trends in energy demand, costs, etc., and legislation through ~2020. This dataset includes results from the following IAMs: AIM/CGE 2.0, IMAGE (versions 3.0.1, 3.0.2, and 3.2), MESSAGE-GLOBIOM 1.0, MESSAGEix-GLOBIOM 1.1, POLES, REMIND 1.7, REMIND-MAgPIE (versions 1.5, 2.0–4.1, and 2.1–4.2), WITCH 5.0, and WITCH- GLOBIOM 4.2.

Baseline projections are also included from two “bottom-up” analyses by the International Institute for IIASA ( 15 ) and the EPA ( 16 ). The IIASA analysis uses their Greenhouse gas and Air pollution Interactions and Synergies (GAINS) model in which baseline emission estimates reflect expected impacts on emissions from current legislation to control emissions. Future methane emissions in GAINS by 2050 are developed based on macroeconomic and energy sector activity drivers from the IEA World Energy Outlook 2018 New Policies Scenario ( 135 ), agricultural sector activity drivers from the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) ( 136 ), and IIASA’s own projections of solid waste and wastewater generation consistent with their relevant macroeconomic drivers. By incorporating policies projected forward by the IEA in 2018 in the energy scenario, these projections are expected to be similar to the NAVIGATE and ENGAGE baselines. The EPA’s projections are based on projected changes in underlying drivers taken from various globally available activity data sources depending on the source category. Trends in energy production and consumption are based on the United States Energy Information Administration 2017 International Energy Outlook Reference Case scenario. Growth rates in crop and livestock production are from International Food Policy Research Institute’s IMPACT model (International Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade) ( 137 ). The full methodology is discussed in the documentation accompanying the EPA’s Global non-CO 2 greenhouse gas emission projections & mitigation report ( 16 ). Neither the integrated assessment models nor the bottom-up analyses include changes in natural methane emissions.

A simple box model with a sink proportional to the atmospheric abundance of methane is used both to derive emission and sink estimates ( Figure 1 ) and to convert scenario emissions to estimated concentration changes ( Figure 2 ). The atmospheric residence time for methane is 9.1 years for 2020 methane concentrations in this model, consistent with the value reported in the IPCC AR6 ( 12 ).

Analysis B: projected methane emissions reductions under 1.5°C-consistent scenarios

This analysis utilizes the scenario dataset analyzed in the IPCC AR6 ( 59 ). We include all scenarios classified as being below 1.5°C in 2100 (>50% probability) with either no or limited overshoot and for which agricultural as well as total methane emissions were available. There are 53 scenarios from eight models that represent five separate model families: AIM/CGE 2.2 and AIM/Hub-Global 2.0; IMAGE 3.2; MESSAGE-GLOBIOM 1.1; REMIND 2.1, REMIND-MAgPIE 2.1–4.2 and 2.1–4.3; and WITCH 5.0. Data were obtained from the AR6 Scenario Database ( 86 ), release 1.1.

Analysis C: connection between land area use for BECCS and pasture

This analysis utilizes two sets of scenarios from the AR6 scenario database ( 86 ). We examine the relationship between the deployment of BECCS and the area used for pasture (area used for fodder was not available) using scenarios classified as keeping warming below 1.5°C with limited or no overshoot as well as those keeping warming below 1.5°C with high overshoot. The latter are included to obtain a larger sample of models given substantial intermodal variability in estimates of future BECCS deployment. Results are available from seven model families: AIM, GCAM, IMAGE, MESSAGE, REMIND, COFFEE, and WITCH. From these scenarios, we also analyze decadal changes in the multi-model means and individual scenarios for these two quantities from the 2040s (or 2030s) to 2090s.

A second set of scenarios is used to explore how land use trade-offs including land area used for afforestation vary across IAMs. We use an expanded set of scenarios classified as under 2°C as afforestation diagnostics were not available from as many models. Even using this larger dataset, we found only eight models that provided all the required outputs. As this analysis compares land used for carbon uptake (afforestation and bioenergy crops) with pasture area across multiple scenarios within a single model, we excluded three models that had six or fewer scenarios. One additional model, a variant of REMIND, has minimal changes in land deployed for carbon uptake so does not provide useful input for this analysis (though averages and ranges are not sensitive to the inclusion of that model). For the remaining four models (IMAGE 3.2, MESSAGEix-GLOBIOM 1.1, REMIND-MAgPIE 1.7–3.0, and WITCH 5.0), 22–106 scenarios were available (206 in total), allowing a robust characterization of the land use relationship for each of these models. In this analysis, afforestation is converted from the reported value in tCO 2 to area using 12 tCO 2 per ha ( 138 ).

Analysis D: climate impact of decarbonization and methane reduction

We analyzed the response of global mean annual average surface air temperatures to emissions under various scenarios to isolate the effects of decarbonization and targeted methane emission controls. The emissions scenarios are based upon the SSPs, using averages across 1.5°C scenarios (nominal 1.9 W m −2 forcing in 2100) under SSPs 1, 2, and 5 as 1.5°C was infeasible under SSP3 in four of four models and under SSP4 in two of three models. From those scenarios, we separate the effects of decarbonization from targeted methane abatement based on the methane abatement associated with decreasing fossil fuel use ( 4 , 82 , 95 ), which is classified as part of decarbonization, relative to all other methane reductions, which includes the remaining portion of fossil fuel-sector methane abatement and all methane abatement in the agriculture and waste sectors.

Temperature responses to those emissions relative to constant 2020 emissions were calculated using absolute global temperature potentials (AGTPs), as in prior work ( 4 , 66 , 78 ). The yearly AGTPs represent the global mean temperature change per kilogram of emission each year after those emissions based on an impulse-response function for the climate system, as is used in IPCC reports for selected example years, e.g., AGTP50 or AGTP100 ( 69 ). This analysis relies on AGTPs created using the transient climate response averaged over the last generation of climate models (CMIP5) ( 139 ), which is very similar to that reported from the latest generation ( 63 ). The response to methane is calibrated to match the global mean annual average temperature response from the full composition-climate models reported in the Global Methane Assessment’s climate simulations ( 4 ).

Analysis E: impact of methane abatement on temperature and health

This analysis presents global mean annual average temperature responses using the same methodology as Analysis D but in this case applied to scenarios based upon baseline and 1.5°C-consistent scenarios under the SSP2 pathway. SSP2 is chosen as it lies in the middle of the three for which models produced several 1.5°C consistent scenarios (SSPs 1, 2, and 5), consistent with its “middle-of-the-road” narrative description ( 96 ).

This analysis also presents health impacts based on changes in exposure to surface ozone. The GMA used five global composition-climate models to evaluate the effect of methane emissions on the maximum daily 8-hour ozone exposure averaged over the year (MDA8-annual). This was the metric most closely linked to increases in premature deaths from ozone in one of the largest epidemiological studies to date ( 140 ) as well as in a second large United States study that obtained very similar exposure-response results ( 141 ). This analysis utilizes the multi-model mean changes in this metric per unit methane emission change to derive the effect on human health due to reduced risk of both respiratory and cardiovascular premature mortality with decreasing ozone exposure.

We note that groups such as the EPA and Global Burden of Disease (GBD) do not include ozone-related cardiovascular premature deaths—the EPA’s expert panel reports that “evidence for long-term ozone exposure and cardiovascular effects is suggestive of, but insufficient to infer, a causal relationship” ( 142 ). However, a recent cohort study in China ( 143 ) reports a strong relationship and a much higher risk increment per unit exposure than that used here based on the United States studies. To characterize the range of potential methane-ozone-health impacts, we also evaluated the maximum daily 8-hour ozone exposure averaged over the 6-month period of maximum exposures (MDA8–6mon), the metric used in the Chinese epidemiological analysis. We apply the exposure–response relationship for cardiovascular disease of Niu et al. ( 143 ) using the same theoretical minimum risk exposure level (a threshold) as in the United States study [26.7 ppb ( 140 )], as this value is below any exposures in Niu et al. The results are only modestly sensitive to the use of this threshold, however, with values ~20% less without the threshold, well within uncertainty ranges. We find 1930 [1110–2510: 95% confidence interval (CI)] deaths per Mt methane emission based on the exposure-response of Niu et al. ( 143 ), a best estimate value much larger than even the high end of the 690 (210–1120: 95% CI) deaths per MtCH 4 found using the Turner et al. ( 140 ) relationship ( 4 ). Note that another large Chinese cohort study ( 144 ) reported more than double the increased risk of cardiovascular death due to increased ozone exposure relative to Niu et al. ( 143 ), suggesting that even our high-end estimate could be substantially too small.

In addition to the differing estimates of the effect of ozone on premature cardiovascular deaths, another recent analysis reports a strong relationship between ozone exposure and increased premature death in children aged under 5 years in low- and middle-income countries ( 145 ). Such an effect would be distinct from other effects analyzed here as the other studies included only populations aged 18 and older ( 143 ) or 30 and older ( 140 ). The impacts on children aged 0 to 5 were reported in response to MDA8–6mon, and we used this metric to again evaluate the effects of changing methane emissions for ozone exposures above 51 ppb, as reported in the epidemiological study. We find an additional 320 (125–485: 95% CI) premature deaths in children under 5.

Combining the 740 (460–990) adult respiratory deaths ( 4 ) with the adult cardiovascular deaths found here based on the Chinese cohort ( 143 ) and the under-5 age group deaths gives a total value of 3000 (2100–3600) per MtCH 4 . Using standard valuation methods ( 4 ), this leads to a valuation of US$5200 (3650–6250) per tCH 4 .

Human health impacts were calculated using 2015 population data from the Gridded Population of the World (GPW) version 4 ( 146 ) and 2015 baseline mortality rates from the GBD project ( 147 ) for each country of the world.

Analysis F: impact of methane abatement on heavy/outdoor labor

We assess the effects of changes in heat exposure due to mitigation of methane emissions on potential labor productivity within the heavy labor category, which primarily includes outdoor workers in agriculture, forestry and fisheries, and construction ( 100 ). The effects of methane abatement are evaluated relative to a “middle-of-the-road” SSP2 scenario, as in Analysis E. Uncertainties are characterized using multiple impact functions, namely those of Kjellstrom et al. ( 148 ), Foster et al. ( 149 ), and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Standard 7243 ( 150 ), using the approach of Bröde et al. ( 151 ). Analyses are performed for both the case of workers in the sun and in the shade.

Valuation of the avoided labor losses uses estimates from the International Labour Organization (ILO) of the fraction of the overall working-age population (ages 15–64) in each country that works in heavy labor ( 152 ), multiplied by the spatially gridded population ages 15–64 [Gridded Population of the World v4 data ( 146 )] to estimate the number of workers in a given category and their spatial distribution. We then overlay the heavy labor hours lost by these workers to obtain total hours lost. We next calculate average value added per worker in agriculture, forestry and fisheries, and construction by dividing the total value added in 2017 ( 153 ) by the total working-age employment in a given category. This is then converted to value per hour assuming a 12-hour workday and 365 days/year (a maximalist assumption, though common in the labor economics literature, so the value of hours lost reported here is conservative). We then multiply the hourly value added per worker by the heavy labor hours lost to estimate the economic costs of heat-related productivity losses. Finally, values are converted from 2017 local currency units (LCU) to 2017 PPP-adjusted international dollars (2017 PPP$) by dividing a country’s LCU by its gross domestic product 2017 PPP conversion rate (LCU/US$). We sum the losses over all countries (n=163) to obtain the estimated global output loss.

Analysis G and H: national-level methane mitigation analysis of abatement potentials and costs

National mitigation potentials and their associated costs are evaluated primarily based on the data from the EPA ( 16 ) and from the IEA ( 90 ). The EPA data cover all sectors and include projected changes in both baseline emissions and mitigation. Mitigation potentials change over time due to factors such as projected technology turnover and improvements in technology over time. Potentials are estimated through 2050 and use a discount rate of 5% in cost estimates (e.g., for the value of captured gas). The IEA analysis includes only the fossil fuel sector and analyzes present-day abatement potentials associated with targeted control measures. This analysis uses a discount rate of 10% in its cost estimates.

Limited national data are also included from an analysis by IIASA, though this analysis is primarily done at the regional level ( 15 ). As with the EPA analysis, these mitigation potentials and costs cover all sectors and include time-dependent estimates of both changes in baseline emissions and mitigation. The latter include sector-specific assumptions about technology turnover times, based on the literature, improvements in technology over time, and the achievable pace of regulations. This analysis includes discount rates of 4% and 10% in their cost evaluation and also extends to 2050. EPA and IIASA data are evaluated for 2030 whereas IEA estimates are for 2022.

As presented in the main text, abatement options have been grouped into functionally similar categories to facilitate readability and allow comparison across estimates. An online tool facilitating analysis of the national level EPA and IEA has been created that allows users to sort the available national abatement options by sector according to their costs. The user can specify either a mitigation target or a spending target and can also compare across the EPA and IEA datasets (within the fossil fuel sector) and countries. The tool is available at https://github.com/psadavarte/Methane_mitigation_webtool .

Analysis I: profit/return from controlling methane emissions versus price (oil production)

To examine the implications of price fluctuations on oil companies’ incentives to invest in methane abatement, we compared two fictive cases called “Jan 2020” and “July 2022”. These approximate the situations in the global oil and gas markets in January 2020, when the world oil and gas prices stood at a historical low at ~US$20/barrel for oil (Brent) and about ~US$10/MWh for gas (title transfer facility [TTF] spot price), and July 2022, when the same prices stood at a historic high at about US$120/barrel for oil and US$100/MWh for gas. Our analysis assumes that there are no appreciable changes in the costs of oil production or methane abatement, the impact factors (methane released per barrel) for oil-related methane emissions, or the effectiveness of methane abatement to isolate the effects of commodity price changes.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsci.2024.1349770/full#supplementary-material

Acknowledgments

We thank Katie Owens for analyses of AR6 scenarios and the Global Methane Hub for financial support.

Author contributions

DS: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Supervision, Writing – original draft. PS: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. IA: Investigation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing. TB: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. GD: Writing – original draft. LH-I: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – original draft. BP: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. MS: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. GS: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. SS: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. KR: Data curation, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing. LP: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. ZQ: Writing – review & editing. GF: Writing – review & editing, Formal Analysis. JM: Investigation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/ Supplementary Material . Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This work was funded by the Global Methane Hub through Windward Fund Grant 016011-2022-01-01 and through the European Union FOCI program. The funders had no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the paper for publication.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

The reviewer FOC declared a past co-authorship with the author SS to the handling editor.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

1. Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai AP, Connors SL, Péan C, Berger S, Caud N, et al, editors. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2021). doi: 10.1017/9781009157896

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

2. Rosane P, Naran B, Ortega Pastor A, Conolly J, Wignarajah D. The landscape of methane abatement finance . Climate policy initiative (2022). Available at: https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/publication/the-landscape-of-methane-abatement-finance/ .

Google Scholar

3. Olczak M, Piebalgs A, Balcombe P. A global review of methane policies reveals that only 13% of emissions are covered with unclear effectiveness. One Earth (2023) 6(5):519–35. doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2023.04.009

4. United Nations Environment Programme and Climate and Clean Air Coalition. Global Methane Assessment: Benefits and Costs of Mitigating Methane Emissions . Nairobi: UNEP (2021). Available at: https://www.unep.org/resources/report/global-methane-assessment-benefits-and-costs-mitigating-methane-emissions .

5. International Energy Agency. World Energy Outlook (2021) Paris: IEA. Available at: https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2021/keeping-the-door-to-15–0c-open .

6. Shukla PR, Skea J, Slade R, Al Khourdajie R, van Diemen D, McCollum M, et al, editors. Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2022). doi: 10.1017/9781009157926

7. Nisbet EG, Manning MR, Dlugokencky EJ, Fisher RE, Lowry D, Michel SE, et al. Very strong atmospheric methane growth in the 4 years 2014–2017: implications for the Paris Agreement. Global Biogeochem Cycles (2019) 33(3):318–42. doi: 10.1029/2018GB006009

8. Nisbet EG, Manning MR, Dlugokencky EJ, Michel SE, Lan X, Röckmann T, et al. Atmospheric methane: comparison between methane’s record in 2006–2022 and during glacial terminations. Global Biogeochem Cycles (2023) 37(8):e2023GB007875. doi: 10.1029/2023GB007875

9. Lan X, Thoning KW, Dlugokencky EJ. Trends in globally-averaged CH 4 , N 2 O, and SF 6 determined from NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory measurements. Version 2024–04. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Global Monitoring Laboratory (2022). doi: 10.15138/P8XG-AA10.

10. World Meteorological Organization. WMO Greenhouse Gas Bulletin No. 19 – 15 November 2023. The State of Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere Based on Global Observations through 2022 . Geneva: WMO (2023). Available at: https://library.wmo.int/idurl/4/68532 .

11. Copernicus Atmospheric Monitoring Service. Greenhouse gas concentrations (2023). Available at: https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/greenhouse-gas-concentrations .

12. Szopa S, Naik V, Adhikary B, Artaxo P, Berntsen T, Collins WD, et al. Short-lived climate forcers. In: Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P, Pirani A, Connors SL, Péan C, Berger S, et al, editors. Climate Change 2021: the Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2021) 817–922. doi: 10.1017/9781009157896.008

13. United Nations Environment Programme and Climate and Clean Air Coalition. Global Methane Assessment 2030 Baseline Report . Nairobi: UNEP (2022), Available at: https://www.unep.org/resources/report/global-methane-assessment-2030-baseline-report .

14. Harmsen M, Kriegler E, Van Vuuren DP, van der Wijst KI, Luderer G, Cui R, et al. Integrated assessment model diagnostics: key indicators and model evolution. Environ Res Lett (2021) 16(5):054046. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/abf964

15. Höglund-Isaksson L, Gómez-Sanabria A, Klimont Z, Rafaj P, Schöpp W. Technical potentials and costs for reducing global anthropogenic methane emissions in the 2050 timeframe – results from the GAINS model. Environ Res Commun (2020) 2(2):025004, Available at: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2515-7620/ab7457 . doi: 10.1088/2515-7620/ab7457

16. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Global Non-CO 2 Greenhouse Gas Emission Projections & Mitigation [EPA-430-R-19-010] . Washington, DC: U.S. EPA (2019). Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/documents/epa_non-co2_greenhouse_gases_rpt-epa430r19010.pdf .

17. Rogelj J, Shindell D, Jiang K, Fifita S, Forster P, Ginzburg V, et al. Mitigation pathways compatible with 1.5°C in the context of sustainable development. In: Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P, Pörtner HO, Roberts D, Skea J, Shukla PR, et al, editors. Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2018) 93–174. doi: 10.1017/9781009157940.004

18. Jackson RB, Saunois M, Bousquet P, Canadell JG, Poulter B, Stavert AR, et al. Increasing anthropogenic methane emissions arise equally from agricultural and fossil fuel sources. Environ Res Lett (2020) 15(7):071002. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab9ed2

19. Canadell JG, Monteiro PMS, Costa MH, Cotrim da Cunha L, Cox PM, Eliseev AV, et al. Global carbon and other biogeochemical cycles and feedbacks. In: Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P, Pirani A, Connors SL, Péan C, Berger S, et al, editors. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2021) 673–816. doi: 10.1017/9781009157896.007

20. Zhang Z, Poulter B, Knox S, Stavert A, McNicol G, Fluet-Chouinard E, et al. Anthropogenic emission is the main contributor to the rise of atmospheric methane during 1993–2017. Natl Sci Rev (2022) 9(5):nwab200. doi: 10.1093/nsr/nwab200

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

21. Thanwerdas J, Saunois M, Berchet A, Pison I, Bousquet P. Investigation of the renewed methane growth post-2007 with high-resolution 3-D variational inverse modeling and isotopic constraints. Atmos Chem Phys (2024) 24(4):2129–67. doi: 10.5194/acp-24-2129-2024

22. Yin Y, Chevallier F, Ciais P, Bousquet P, Saunois M, Zheng B, et al. Accelerating methane growth rate from 2010 to 2017: leading contributions from the tropics and East Asia. Atmos Chem Phys (2021) 21(16):12631–47. doi: 10.5194/acp-21-12631-2021

23. Feng L, Palmer PI, Zhu S, Parker RJ, Liu Y. Tropical methane emissions explain large fraction of recent changes in global atmospheric methane growth rate. Nat Commun (2022) 13(1):1378. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-28989-z

24. Oh Y, Zhuang Q, Welp LR, Liu L, Lan X, Basu S, et al. Improved global wetland carbon isotopic signatures support post-2006 microbial methane emission increase. Commun Earth Environ (2022) 3(1):1–12. doi: 10.1038/s43247-022-00488-5

25. Zhang Z, Poulter B, Feldman AF, Ying Q, Ciais P, Peng S, et al. Recent intensification of wetland methane feedback. Nat Clim Change (2023) 13(5):430–3. doi: 10.1038/s41558-023-01629-0

26. Gedney N, Huntingford C, Comyn-Platt E, Wiltshire A. Significant feedbacks of wetland methane release on climate change and the causes of their uncertainty. Environ Res Lett (2019) 14(8):84027. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab2726

27. Thornhill G, Collins W, Olivié D, Skeie RB, Archibald A, Bauer S, et al. Climate-driven chemistry and aerosol feedbacks in CMIP6 Earth system models. Atmos Chem Phys (2021) 21(2):1105–26. doi: 10.5194/acp-21-1105-2021

28. Kleinen T, Gromov S, Steil B, Brovkin V. Atmospheric methane underestimated in future climate projections. Environ Res Lett (2021) 16(9):094006. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ac1814

29. Cheng CH, Redfern SAT. Impact of interannual and multidecadal trends on methane-climate feedbacks and sensitivity. Nat Commun (2022) 13(1):3592. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-31345-w

30. Zhang Z, Zimmermann NE, Calle L, Hurtt G, Chatterjee A, Poulter B. Enhanced response of global wetland methane emissions to the 2015–2016 El Niño-Southern Oscillation event. Environ Res Lett (2018) 13(7):074009. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aac939

31. Froitzheim N, Majka J, Zastrozhnov D. Methane release from carbonate rock formations in the Siberian permafrost area during and after the 2020 heat wave. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2021) 118(32):e2107632118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2107632118

32. Kleber GE, Hodson AJ, Magerl L, Mannerfelt ES, Bradbury HJ, Zhu Y, et al. Groundwater springs formed during glacial retreat are a large source of methane in the high Arctic. Nat Geosci (2023) 16(7):597–604. doi: 10.1038/s41561-023-01210-6

33. Chen Z, Balasus N, Lin H, Nesser H, Jacob DJ. African rice cultivation linked to rising methane. Nat Clim Change (2024) 14(2):148–51. doi: 10.1038/s41558-023-01907-x

34. Laughner JL, Neu JL, Schimel D, Wennberg PO, Barsanti K, Bowman KW, et al. Societal shifts due to COVID-19 reveal large-scale complexities and feedbacks between atmospheric chemistry and climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2021) 118(46):e2109481118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2109481118

35. Peng S, Lin X, Thompson RL, Xi Y, Liu G, Hauglustaine D, et al. Wetland emission and atmospheric sink changes explain methane growth in 2020. Nature (2022) 612(7940):477–82. doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05447-w

36. Stevenson DS, Derwent RG, Wild O, Collins WJ. COVID-19 lockdown emission reductions have the potential to explain over half of the coincident increase in global atmospheric methane. Atmos Chem Phys (2022) 22(21):14243–52. doi: 10.5194/acp-22-14243-2022

37. Qu Z, Jacob DJ, Zhang Y, Shen L, Varon DJ, Lu X, et al. Attribution of the 2020 surge in atmospheric methane by inverse analysis of GOSAT observations. Environ Res Lett (2022) 17(9):094003. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ac8754

38. Feng L, Palmer PI, Parker RJ, Lunt MF, Bösch H. Methane emissions are predominantly responsible for record-breaking atmospheric methane growth rates in 2020 and 2021. Atmos Chem Phys (2023) 23(8):4863–80. doi: 10.5194/acp-23-4863-2023

39. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAOSTAT Online Statistical Service (2024). Available at: https://www.fao.org/statistics/en/ .

40. CNBC. Mexico’s state oil company illegally flared more than US$342 million worth of hydrocarbons. CNBC (2023). Available at: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/18/Mexicos-pemex-illegally-flared-over-342-million-worth-of-hydrocarbons.html .

41. Lyon DR, Hmiel B, Gautam R, Omara M, Roberts KA, Barkley ZR, et al. Concurrent variation in oil and gas methane emissions and oil price during the COVID-19 pandemic. Atmos Chem Phys (2021) 21(9):6605–26. doi: 10.5194/acp-21-6605-2021

42. Plant G, Kort EA, Brandt AR, Chen Y, Fordice G, Gorchov Negron AM, et al. Inefficient and unlit natural gas flares both emit large quantities of methane. Science (2022) 377(6614):1566–71. doi: 10.1126/science.abq0385

43. Irakulis-Loitxate I, Guanter L, Maasakkers JD, Zavala-Araiza D, Aben I. Satellites detect abatable super-emissions in one of the world’s largest methane hotspot regions. Environ Sci Technol (2022) 56(4):2143–52. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.1c04873

44. Deng Z, Ciais P, Tzompa-Sosa ZA, Saunois M, Qiu C, Tan C, et al. Comparing national greenhouse gas budgets reported in UNFCCC inventories against atmospheric inversions. Earth Syst Sci Data (2022) 14(4):1639–75. doi: 10.5194/essd-14-1639-2022

45. Shen L, Gautam R, Omara M, Zavala-Araiza D, Maasakkers JD, Scarpelli TR, et al. Satellite quantification of oil and natural gas methane emissions in the US and Canada including contributions from individual basins. Atmos Chem Phys (2022) 22(17):11203–15. doi: 10.5194/acp-22-11203-2022

46. Sherwin ED, Rutherford JS, Zhang Z, Chen Y, Wetherley EB, Yakovlev PV, et al. US oil and gas system emissions from nearly one million aerial site measurements. Nature (2024) 627(8003):328–34. doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07117-5

47. Duren RM, Thorpe AK, Foster KT, Rafiq T, Hopkins FM, Yadav V, et al. California’s methane super-emitters. Nature (2019) 575(7781):180–4. doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1720-3

48. Lauvaux T, Giron C, Mazzolini M, d’Aspremont A, Duren R, Cusworth D, et al. Global assessment of oil and gas methane ultra-emitters. Science (2022) 375(6580):557–61. doi: 10.1126/science.abj4351

49. Schuit BJ, Maasakkers JD, Bijl P, Mahapatra G, Van den Berg A-W, Pandey S, et al. Automated detection and monitoring of methane super-emitters using satellite data. Atmos Chem Phys (2023) 23(16):9071–98. doi: 10.5194/acp-23-9071-2023

50. McNorton J, Bousserez N, Agustí-Panareda A, Balsamo G, Cantarello L, Engelen R, et al. Quantification of methane emissions from hotspots and during COVID-19 using a global atmospheric inversion. Atmos Chem Phys (2022) 22(9):5961–81. doi: 10.5194/acp-22-5961-2022

51. International Energy Agency. World Energy Investment 2022 . Paris: IEA (2022). Available at: https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-investment-2022 .

52. Oh Y, Bruhwiler L, Lan X, Basu S, Schuldt K, Thoning K, et al. CarbonTracker CH4 2023 . National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Global Monitoring Laboratory (2023). doi: 10.25925/40JT-QD67

53. Hodson EL, Poulter B, Zimmermann NE, Prigent C, Kaplan JO. The El Niño–Southern Oscillation and wetland methane interannual variability. Geophys Res Lett (2011) 38(8):L08810. doi: 10.1029/2011GL046861

54. Zhu Q, Peng C, Ciais P, Jiang H, Liu J, Bousquet P, et al. Interannual variation in methane emissions from tropical wetlands triggered by repeated El Niño Southern Oscillation. Glob Change Biol (2017) 23(11):4706–16. doi: 10.1111/gcb.13726

55. Schaefer H, Smale D, Nichol SE, Bromley TM, Brailsford GW, Martin RJ, et al. Limited impact of el Niño–Southern Oscillation on variability and growth rate of atmospheric methane. Biogeosciences (2018) 15(21):6371–86. doi: 10.5194/bg-15-6371-2018

56. McNicol G, Fluet-Chouinard E, Ouyang Z, Knox S, Zhang Z, Aalto T, et al. Upscaling wetland methane emissions from the FLUXNET-CH4 eddy covariance network (UpCH4 v1. 0): model development, network assessment, and budget comparison. AGU Adv (2023) 4(5):e2023AV000956. doi: 10.1029/2023AV000956

57. Shaw JT, Allen G, Barker P, Pitt JR, Pasternak D, Bauguitte SJB, et al. Large methane emission fluxes observed from tropical wetlands in Zambia. Global Biogeochem Cycles (2022) 36(6):e2021GB007261. doi: 10.1029/2021GB007261

58. Pandey S, Houweling S, Lorente A, Borsdorff T, Tsivlidou M, Bloom AA, et al. Using satellite data to identify the methane emission controls of South Sudan’s wetlands. Biogeosciences (2021) 18(2):557–72. doi: 10.5194/bg-18-557-2021

59. Riahi K, Schaeffer R, Arango J, Calvin K, Guivarch C, Hasegawa T, et al. Mitigation pathways compatible with long-term goals. In: Shukla PR, Skea J, Slade R, Al Khourdajie R, van Diemen D, McCollum M, et al, editors. Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2022) 295–408. doi: 10.1017/9781009157926.005

60. Allen MR, Peters GP, Shine KP, Azar C, Balcombe P, Boucher O, et al. Indicate separate contributions of long-lived and short-lived greenhouse gases in emission targets. npj Clim Atmos Sci (2022) 5:5. doi: 10.1038/s41612-021-00226-2

61. Arndt C, Hristov AN, Price WJ, McClelland SC, Pelaez AM, Cueva SF, et al. Full adoption of the most effective strategies to mitigate methane emissions by ruminants can help meet the 1.5°C target by 2030 but not 2050. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2022) 119(20):e2111294119. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2111294119

62. Ivanovich CC, Sun T, Gordon DR, Ocko IB. Future warming from global food consumption. Nat Clim Chang (2023) 13(3):297–302. doi: 10.1038/s41558-023-01605-8

63. Forster P, Storelvmo T, Armour K, Collins W, Dufresne J-L, Frame D, et al. The Earth’s energy budget, climate feedbacks, and climate sensitivity. In: Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai AP, Pirani A, Connors SL, Péan C, Berger S, et al, editors. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2021) 923–1054. doi: 10.1017/9781009157896.009

64. Collins WJ, Webber CP, Cox PM, Huntingford C, Lowe J, Sitch S, et al. Increased importance of methane reduction for a 1.5 degree target. Environ Res Lett (2018) 13(5):054003. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aab89c

65. Rogelj J, Lamboll RD. Substantial reductions in non-CO 2 greenhouse gas emissions reductions implied by IPCC estimates of the remaining carbon budget. Commun Earth Environ (2024) 5:35. doi: 10.1038/s43247-023-01168-8

66. United Nations Environmental Programme. Emissions Gap Report . Nairobi: UNEP (2017). Available at: https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2017 .

67. Brazzola N, Wohland J, Patt A. Offsetting unabated agricultural emissions with CO 2 removal to achieve ambitious climate targets. PloS One (2021) 16(3):e0247887. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247887

68. Reisinger A, Geden O. Temporary overshoot: origins, prospects, and a long path ahead. One Earth (2023) 6(12):1631–7. doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2023.11.008

69. Myhre G, Shindell D, Breon F-M, Collins W, Fuglestvedt J, Huang J, et al. Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner GK, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, et al, editors. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2013) 659–740. Available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/climate-change-2013-the-physical-science-basis/anthropogenic-and-natural-radiative-forcing/63EB1057C36890FEAA4269F771336D4D .

70. Ocko IB, Hamburg SP, Jacob DJ, Keith DW, Keohane NO, Oppenheimer M, et al. Unmask temporal trade-offs in climate policy debates. Science (2017) 356(6337):492–3. doi: 10.1126/science.aaj2350

71. Shindell D, Borgford-Parnell N, Brauer M, Haines A, Kuylenstierna JCI, Leonard SA, et al. A climate policy pathway for near- and long-term benefits. Science (2017) 356(6337):493–4. doi: 10.1126/science.aak9521

72. Allen MR, Shine KP, Fuglestvedt JS, Millar RJ, Cain M, Frame DJ, et al. A solution to the misrepresentations of CO 2 -equivalent emissions of short- lived climate pollutants under ambitious mitigation. npj Clim Atmos Sci (2018) 1(1):16. doi: 10.1038/s41612-018-0026-8

73. Liu S, Proudman J, Mitloehner FM. Rethinking methane from animal agriculture. J Agric Biol Sci CABI (2021) 2(1):1–13. doi: 10.1186/s43170-021-00041-y

74. Ridoutt B. Climate neutral livestock production–A radiative forcing-based climate footprint approach. J Cleaner Prod (2021) 291:125260. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125260

75. Donnison CL, Murphy-Bokern D. Are climate neutrality claims in the livestock sector too good to be true? Environ Res Lett (2024) 19(1):011001. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ad0f75

76. Rogelj J, Schleussner C-F. Unintentional unfairness when applying new greenhouse gas emissions metrics at country level. Environ Res Lett (2019) 14(11):114039. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab4928

77. West JJ, Fiore AM, Horowitz LW. Scenarios of methane emission reductions to 2030: abatement costs and co-benefits to ozone air quality and human mortality. Clim Change (2012) 114(3–4):441–61. doi: 10.1007/s10584-012-0426-4

78. Shindell DT, Fuglestvedt JS, Collins WJ. The social cost of methane: theory and applications. Faraday Discuss (2017) 200:429–51. doi: 10.1039/C7FD00009J

79. Mar KA, Unger C, Walderdorff L, Butler T. Beyond CO 2 equivalence: the impacts of methane on climate, ecosystems, and health. Environ Sci Policy (2022) 134:127–36. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2022.03.027

80. Fu B, Gasser T, Li B, Tao S, Ciais P, Piao S, et al. Short-lived climate forcers have long-term climate impacts via the carbon–climate feedback. Nat Clim Change (2020) 10(9):851–5. doi: 10.1038/s41558-020-0841-x

81. Nzotungicimpaye CM, MacIsaac AJ, Zickfeld K. Delaying methane mitigation increases the risk of breaching the 2°C warming limit. Commun Earth Environ (2023) 4(1):250. doi: 10.1038/s43247-023-00898-z

82. Harmsen MJHM, van Vuuren DP, Bodirsky BL, Chateau J, Durand-Lasserve O, Drouet L, et al. The role of methane in future climate strategies: mitigation potentials and climate impacts. Clim Change (2019) 163(3):1409–25. doi: 10.1007/s10584-019-02437-2

83. Howarth RW, Jacobson MZ. How green is blue hydrogen? Energy Sci Eng (2021) 9(10):1676–87. doi: 10.1002/ese3.956

84. Ocko IB, Hamburg SP. Climate consequences of hydrogen emissions. Atmos Chem Phys (2022) 22(14):9349–68. doi: 10.5194/acp-22-9349-2022

85. Bertagni MB, Pacala SW, Paulot F, Porporato A. Risk of the hydrogen economy for atmospheric methane. Nat Commun (2022) 13(1):7706. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-35419-7

86. Byers E, Krey V, Kriegler E, Riahi K, Schaeffer R, Jarmo K, et al. AR6 Scenarios Database hosted by International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. (2022). Available at: doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5886911

87. Dooley K, Keith H, Larson A, Catacora-Vargas G, Carton W, Christiansen KL, et al. The Land Gap Report 2022 . (2022). Available at: https://landgap.org/2022/report .

88. Hayek MN, Harwatt H, Ripple WJ, Mueller ND. The carbon opportunity cost of animal-sourced food production on land. Nat Sustain (2021) 4(1):21–4. doi: 10.1038/s41893-020-00603-4

89. Weber J, King JA, Abraham NL, Grosvenor DP, Smith CJ, Shin YM, et al. Chemistry-albedo feedbacks offset up to a third of forestation’s CO 2 removal benefits. Science (2024) 383(6685):860–4. doi: 10.1126/science.adg6196

90. International Energy Agency. Global Methane Tracker 2023 . Paris: IEA (2023). Available at: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-methane-tracker-2023 .

91. Natural Resources Canada. Methane Centre of Excellence (2024). Available at: https://natural-resources.Canada.ca/climate-change/methane-centre-excellence/25656 .

92. Andreae MO, Jones CD, Cox PM. Strong present-day aerosol cooling implies a hot future. Nature (2005) 435(7046):1187–90. doi: 10.1038/nature03671

93. Raes F, Seinfeld JH. New directions: climate change and air pollution abatement: a bumpy road. Atmos Environ (2009) 43(32):5132–3. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.06.001

94. Shindell D, Smith CJ. Climate and air-quality benefits of a realistic phase-out of fossil fuels. Nature (2019) 573(7774):408–11. doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1554-z

95. Dreyfus GB, Xu Y, Shindell DT, Zaelke D, Ramanathan V. Mitigating Climate Disruption in Time: a self-consistent approach for avoiding both near-term and long-term global warming. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2022) 119(22):e2123536119. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2123536119

96. Riahi K, van Vuuren DP, Kriegler E, Edmonds J, O’Neill B, Fujimori S, et al. The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: an overview. Glob Environ Change (2017) 42:153–68. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.009

97. Staniaszek Z, Griffiths PT, Folberth GA, O’Connor FM, Abraham NL, Archibald AT. The role of future anthropogenic methane emissions in air quality and climate. npj Clim Atmos Sci (2022) 5(1):1–8. doi: 10.1038/s41612-022-00247-5

98. Jones CD, Frölicher TL, Koven C, MacDougall AH, Matthews HD, Zickfeld K, et al. The Zero Emissions Commitment Model Intercomparison Project (ZECMIP) contribution to C4MIP: quantifying committed climate changes following zero carbon emissions. Geosci Model Dev (2019) 12(10):4375–85. doi: 10.5194/gmd-12-4375-2019

99. Palazzo Corner S, Siegert M, Ceppi P, Fox-Kemper B, Frölicher TL, Gallego-Sala A, et al. The Zero Emissions Commitment and climate stabilization. Front Sci (2023) 1:1170744. doi: 10.3389/fsci.2023.1170744

100. Parsons LA, Shindell D, Tigchelaar M, Zhang Y, Spector JT. Increased labor losses and decreased adaptation potential in a warmer world. Nat Commun (2021) 12:7286. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-27328-y

101. Saunois M, Stavert AR, Poulter B, Bousquet P, Canadell JG, Jackson RB, et al. The global methane budget 2000–2017. Earth Syst Sci Data (2020) 12(3):1561–623. doi: 10.5194/essd-12-1561-2020

102. Nisbet EG, Fisher RE, Lowry D, France JL, Allen G, Bakkaloglu S, et al. Methane mitigation: methods to reduce emissions, on the path to the Paris agreement. Rev Geophys (2020) 58(1):RG000675:e2019. doi: 10.1029/2019RG000675

103. Willett W, Rockström J, Loken B, Springmann M, Lang T, Vermeulen S, et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet (2019) 393(10170):447–92. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4

104. Babiker M, Berndes G, Blok K, Cohen B, Cowie A, Geden O, et al. Cross-sectoral perspectives. In: Shukla PR, Skea J, Slade R, Al Khourdajie R, van Diemen D, McCollum M, et al, editors. Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2022) 1245–1354 . Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/ .

105. Harrison MT, Cullen BR, Mayberry DE, Cowie AL, Bilotto F, Badgery WB, et al. Carbon myopia: the urgent need for integrated social, economic and environmental action in the livestock sector. Glob Change Biol (2021) 27(22):5726–61. doi: 10.1111/gcb.15816

106. Global Methane Hub and ClimateWorks Foundation. Global Innovation Needs Assessments: Food System Methane [Technical Report] . ClimateWorks Foundation (2023). Available at: https://www.climateworks.org/ginas-methane/ .

107. Wang Y, Guo X, Huo Y, Li M, Pan Y, Yu S, et al. Toward a versatile spaceborne architecture for immediate monitoring of the global methane pledge. Atmos Chem Phys (2023) 23(9):5233–49. doi: 10.5194/acp-23-5233-2023

108. Pandey S, Gautam R, Houweling S, van der Gon HD, Sadavarte P, Borsdorff T, et al. Satellite observations reveal extreme methane leakage from a natural gas well blowout. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2019) 116(52):26376–81. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1908712116

109. Varon DJ, Jacob DJ, Jervis D, McKeever J. Quantifying time-averaged methane emissions from individual coal mine vents with GHGSat-D satellite observations. Environ Sci Technol (2020) 54(16):10246–53. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c01213

110. Sadavarte P, Pandey S, Maasakkers JD, Lorente A, Borsdorff T, Denier van der Gon H, et al. Methane emissions from superemitting coal mines in Australia quantified using TROPOMI satellite observations. Environ Sci Technol (2021) 55(24):16573–80. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.1c03976

111. de Foy B, Schauer JJ, Lorente A, Borsdorff T. Investigating high methane emissions from urban areas detected by TROPOMI and their association with untreated wastewater. Environ Res Lett (2023) 18(4):044004. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/acc118

112. Maasakkers JD, Varon DJ, Elfarsdóttir A, McKeever J, Jervis D, Mahapatra G, et al. Using satellites to uncover large methane emissions from landfills. Sci Adv (2022) 8(31):eabn9683. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abn9683

113. Chen Z, Jacob DJ, Nesser H, Sulprizio MP, Lorente A, Varon DJ, et al. Methane emissions from China: a high-resolution inversion of TROPOMI satellite observations. Atmos Chem Phys (2022) 22(16):10809–26. doi: 10.5194/acp-22-10809-2022

114. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Report on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases: Estimates Incorporating Recent Scientific Advances . Washington, DC: U.S. EPA (2023). Available at: https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/scghg .

115. Climate Impact Lab. Data-Driven Spatial Climate Impact Model User Manual. [Version 092022-EPA] . Climate Impact Lab (2022). Available at: https://impactlab.org/research/dscim-user-manual-version-092022-epa .

116. Rennert K, Errickson F, Prest BC, Rennels L, Newell RG, Pizer W, et al. Comprehensive evidence implies a higher social cost of CO 2 . Nature (2022) 610(7933):687–92. doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05224-9

117. Howard PH, Sterner T. Few and not so far between: a meta-analysis of climate damage estimates. Environ Resour Econ (2017) 68(1):197–225. doi: 10.1007/s10640-017-0166-z

118. Wang T, Teng F. Damage function uncertainty increases the social cost of methane and nitrous oxide. Nat Clim Change (2023) 13(11):–1258–65. doi: 10.1038/s41558-023-01803-4

119. Melvin AM, Sarofim MC, Crimmins AR. Climate benefits of U.S. EPA programs and policies that reduced methane emissions 1993–2013. Environ Sci Technol (2016) 50(13):6873–81. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.6b00367

120. Sarofim MC, Waldhoff ST, Anenberg SC. Valuing the ozone-related health benefits of methane emission controls. Environ Resour Econ (2017) 66(1):45–63. doi: 10.1007/s10640-015-9937-6

121. Vandyck T, Keramidas K, Tchung-Ming S, Weitzel M, Van Dingenen R. Quantifying air quality co-benefits of climate policy across sectors and regions. Clim Change (2020) 163(3):1501–17. doi: 10.1007/s10584-020-02685-7

122. Sampedro J, Waldhoff S, Sarofim M, Van Dingenen R. Marginal damage of methane emissions: ozone impacts on agriculture. Environ Resour Econ (2023) 84(4):1095–126. doi: 10.1007/s10640-022-00750-6

123. California Air Resources Board. Cap-and-Trade Program (2023). Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/cap-and-trade-program .

124. Parry I, Black S, Minnett D, Mylonas V, Vernon N. How to cut methane emissions. IMF Staff Climate Note 2022/008 . Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund (2022).

125. Nordhaus W. Projections and uncertainties about climate change in an era of minimal climate policies. Am Econ J Econ Policy (2018) 10(3):333–60. doi: 10.1257/pol.20170046

126. International Energy Agency. Methane emissions remained stubbornly high in 2022 even as soaring energy prices made actions to reduce them cheaper than ever (2023). Available at: https://www.iea.org/news/methane-emissions-remained-stubbornly-high-in-2022-even-as-soaring-energy-prices-made-actions-to-reduce-them-cheaper-than-ever .

127. International Energy Agency. Global Methane Tracker 2024 . Paris: IEA (2024). Available at: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-methane-tracker-2024 .

128. Buonocore J, Reka S, Yang D, Chang C, Roy A, Thompson T, et al. Air pollution and health impacts of oil & gas production in the United States. Env Res Health (2023) 1(2):021006. doi: 10.1088/2752-5309/acc886

129. Chen C, McCabe DC, Fleischman LE, Cohan DS. Black carbon emissions and associated health impacts of gas flaring in the United States. Atmosphere (2022) 13(3):385. doi: 10.3390/atmos13030385

130. Emanuel RE, Caretta MA, Rivers IIIL, Vasudevan P. Natural gas gathering and transmission pipelines and social vulnerability in the United States. GeoHealth (2021) 5(6):e2021GH000442. doi: 10.1029/2021GH000442

131. O’Connor FM, Johnson BT, Jamil O, Andrews T, Mulcahy JP, Manners J. Apportionment of the pre-industrial to present-day climate forcing by methane using UKESM1: the role of the cloud radiative effect. J Adv Model Earth Syst (2022) 14(10):e2022MS002991. doi: 10.1029/2022MS002991

132. Smith CJ, Kramer RJ, Myhre G, Forster PM, Soden BJ, Andrews T, et al. Understanding rapid adjustments to diverse forcing agents. Geophys Res Lett (2018) 45(21):12–023. doi: 10.1029/2018GL079826

133. Allen RJ, Zhao X, Randles CA, Kramer RJ, Samset BH, Smith CJ. Surface warming and wetting due to methane’s long-wave radiative effects muted by short-wave absorption. Nat Geosci (2023) 16(4):314–20. doi: 10.1038/s41561-023-01144-z

134. Jackson RB, Abernethy S, Canadell JG, Cargnello M, Davis SJ, Féron S, et al. Atmospheric methane removal: a research agenda. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci (2021) 379(2210):20200454. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2020.0454

135. International Energy Agency. World Energy Outlook 2018 . Paris: IEA (2018). Available at: https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2018 .

136. Alexandratos N, Bruisma J. World Agriculture Towards 2030/2050–The 2012 Revision, ESA Working Paper No. 12–03 . Rome: Agricultural Development Economics Unit, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (2012). Available at: https://www.fao.org/4/ap106e/ap106e.pdf .

137. Robinson S, Mason d’Croz D, Islam S, Sulser TB, Robertson RD, Zhu T, et al. The International Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade (Impact): model description for version 3 [IFRI discussion paper 1483]. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (2015). Available at: https://www.ifpri.org/publication/international-model-policy-analysis-agricultural-commodities-and-trade-impact-model-0 .

138. Bernal B, Murray LT, Pearson TRH. Global carbon dioxide removal rates from forest landscape restoration activities. Carbon Balance Manag (2018) 13(1):22. doi: 10.1186/s13021-018-0110-8

139. Geoffroy O, Saint-Martin D, Bellon G, Voldoire A, Olivié DJL, Tytéca S. Transient climate response in a two-layer energy-balance model. Part II: Representation of the efficacy of deep-ocean heat uptake and validation for CMIP5 AOGCMs. J Climate (2013) 26(6):1859–76. doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00196.1

140. Turner MC, Jerrett M, Pope CA, Krewski D, Gapstur SM, Diver WR, et al. Long-term ozone exposure and mortality in a large prospective study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med (2016) 193(10):1134–42. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201508-1633OC

141. Lim CC, Hayes RB, Ahn J, Shao Y, Silverman DT, Jones RR, et al. Long-term exposure to ozone and cause-specific mortality risk in the United States. Am J Respir Crit Care Med (2019) 200(8):1022–31. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201806-1161OC

142. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final report, Apr 2020) . Washington, DC: U.S. EPA (2020). Available at: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/isa/recordisplay.cfm?deid=348522 .

143. Niu Y, Zhou Y, Chen R, Yin P, Meng X, Wang W, et al. Long-term exposure to ozone and cardiovascular mortality in China: a nationwide cohort study. Lancet Planet Health (2022) 6(6):e496–503. doi: 10.1016/S2542-5196(22)00093-6

144. Liu S, Zhang Y, Ma R, Liu X, Liang J, Lin H, et al. Long-term exposure to ozone and cardiovascular mortality in a large Chinese cohort. Environ Int (2022) 165:107280. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2022.107280

145. Xue T, Wang R, Tong M, Kelly FJ, Liu H, Li J, et al. Estimating the exposure–response function between long-term ozone exposure and under-5 mortality in 55 low-income and middle-income countries: a retrospective, multicentre, epidemiological study. Lancet Planet Health (2023) 7(9):e736–46. doi: 10.1016/S2542-5196(23)00165-1

146. Center for International Earth Science Information Network, Columbia University, Food and Agriculture Programme of the United Nations, and Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical. Gridded Population of the World, Version 4 (GPWv4): Population Count Grid . Palisades, NY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (2016). Available at: https://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/data/collection/gpw-v4 .

147. Global Burden of Disease Collaborative Network. Global Burden of Disease Study 2017 (GBD 2017) . Seattle, WA: The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (2017).

148. Kjellstrom T, Freyberg C, Lemke B, Otto M, Briggs D. Estimating population heat exposure and impacts on working people in conjunction with climate change. Int J Biometeorol (2018) 62(3):291–306. doi: 10.1007/s00484-017-1407-0

149. Foster J, Smallcombe JW, Hodder S, Jay O, Flouris AD, Nybo L, et al. An advanced empirical model for quantifying the impact of heat and climate change on human physical work capacity. Int J Biometeorol (2021) 65(7):1215–29. doi: 10.1007/s00484-021-02105-0

150. International Organization for Standardization. Ergonomics of the Thermal Environment — Assessment of Heat Stress Using the WBGT (Wet Bulb Globe Temperature) index [ISO Standard 7243:2017] . Geneva: ISO (2017). Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/67188.html .

151. Bröde P, Fiala D, Lemke B, Kjellstrom T. Estimated work ability in warm outdoor environments depends on the chosen heat stress assessment metric. Int J Biometeorol (2018) 62(3):331–45. doi: 10.1007/s00484-017-1346-9

152. International Labour Organization. Employment by sex and age — ILO modelled estimates. ILOSTAT Database (2023). Available at: https://ilostat.ilo.org/data .

153. World Bank. World Bank Open Data (2021). Available at: https://data.worldbank.org/ .

Keywords: methane emissions, climate change mitigation, ozone, CO 2 budget, mitigation costs, fossil fuels, net zero, livestock

Citation: Shindell D, Sadavarte P, Aben I, Bredariol TdO, Dreyfus G, Höglund-Isaksson L, Poulter B, Saunois M, Schmidt GA, Szopa S, Rentz K, Parsons L, Qu Z, Faluvegi G and Maasakkers JD. The methane imperative. Front Sci (2024) 2:1349770. doi: 10.3389/fsci.2024.1349770

Received: 05 December 2023; Accepted: 06 June 2024; Published: 30 July 2024.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2024 Shindell, Sadavarte, Aben, Bredariol, Dreyfus, Höglund-Isaksson, Poulter, Saunois, Schmidt, Szopa, Rentz, Parsons, Qu, Faluvegi and Maasakkers. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Drew Shindell, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Follow the science, follow Frontiers in Science