Professor Peter Thorne:

On the global and EU methane pledges and more generally action on methane, to come back to my prepared remarks, there is a difference between biogenic and fossil methane in that once the fossil methane oxidises, it is carbon dioxide which is a very long-term commitment. We should absolutely be aiming for zero fossil methane, or as close to zero as we can get. I would argue that some of that is even economically beneficial in a cost-benefit scenario to the fossil fuel industry. It is mad that we have not done it but it does not excuse us for having to consider the biogenic methane piece.

In terms of the national targets, I come back to the fact that we can do what we want inside the country but when it comes to performance at EU or UNFCCC levels, like it or lump it, GWP100 takes precedence. It is our performance against GWP100 that will result or not result in fines from the EU. If the UNFCCC process moves in a different way, it might result in impacts and penalties there. Scientifically, the community is increasingly of the view that there should be at least a bundling of short-lived climate forces, of which methane is the prominent one, from long-lived climate forces, of which carbon dioxide is the prominent one, and treating them differently. That needs to come from the top down. It would be wrong for us to try to fudge the issue nationally and then have many issues in terms of our reporting.