Stable climate metrics for emissions of short and long-lived species—combining steps and pulses
Open accessAbstract
Multi-gas climate agreements rely on a methodology (widely referred to as ‘metrics’) to place emissions of different gases on a CO 2 -equivalent scale. There has been an ongoing debate on the extent to which existing metrics serve current climate policy. Endpoint metrics (such as global temperature change potential GTP) are the most closely related to policy goals based on temperature limits (such as Article 2 of the Paris Agreement). However, for short-lived climate forcers (SLCFs), endpoint metrics vary strongly with time horizon making them difficult to apply in practical situations. We show how combining endpoint metrics for a step change in SLCF emissions with a pulse emission of CO 2 leads to an endpoint metric that only varies slowly over time horizons of interest. We therefore suggest that these combined step-pulse metrics (denoted combined global warming potential CGWP and combined global temperature change potential CGTP) can be a useful way to include short and long-lived species in the same basket in policy applications—this assumes a single basket approach is preferred by policy makers. The advantage of a combined step-pulse metric for SLCFs is that for species with a lifetime less than 20 years a single time horizon of around 75 years can cover the range of timescales appropriate to the Paris Agreement. These metrics build on recent work using the traditional global warming potential (GWP) metric in a new way, called GWP*. We show how the GWP* relates to CGWP and CGTP and that it systematically underestimates the temperature effects of SLCFs by up to 20%. These step-pulse metrics are all more appropriate than the conventional GWP for comparing the relative contributions of different species to future temperature targets and for SLCFs they are much less dependent on time horizon than GTP.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
GWPs mask the end-point impact of emissions and are considered inappropriate for the goals of the Paris Agreement.
“In other word, GWPs mask the end-point impact of the emissions and therefore, is considered inappropriate for the goals of the Paris Agreement19.”
From Risk to rely on soil carbon sequestration to offset global ruminant emissions (2023) · cites this paper as [19]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Accounting for the climate-carbon feedback in emission metrics
Gasser, T., Peters, G. P., Fuglestvedt, J. S., Collins, W. J., Shindell, D. T., & Ciais, P. (2017) · Earth System Dynamics · doi:10.5194/esd-8-235-2017 · Cited by 129 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The contribution of global aviation to anthropogenic climate forcing for 2000 to 2018
Lee, D. S., Fahey, D. W., Skowron, A., Allen, M. R., Burkhardt, U., Chen, Q., Doherty, S. J., Freeman, S., Forster, P. M., Fuglestvedt, J., et al. (2021) · Atmospheric Environment · doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2020.117834 · Cited by 1,715 · see citing works
Self-citationRisk to rely on soil carbon sequestration to offset global ruminant emissions
Wang, Y., de Boer, I. J. M., Persson, U. M., Ripoll-Bosch, R., Cederberg, C., Gerber, P. J., Smith, P., & van Middelaar, C. E. (2023) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-023-43452-3 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
- Authors
- Collins, W. J., Frame, D. J., Fuglestvedt, J. S., & Shine, K. P.
- Affiliations
- University of Reading (GB)
- Victoria University of Wellington (NZ)
- CICERO Center for International Climate Research (NO)
- Corresponding author
- Collins, William J
- Venue
- Environmental Research Letters
- Publisher
- IOP Publishing
- Published
- 2020-02-01
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 024018
- ISSN
- 1748-9326 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2996476959
- Cited by
- 101
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 14.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Environmental Research Letters (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- CentAUR (University of Reading) (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- H2020 Environment (641816)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Climate Change Policy and Economics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate variability and models
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate Change and Geoengineering
- Keywords
- short-lived climate forcers, climate metrics, CO2 equivalent emissions, global warming potential, global temperature change potential, Paris Agreement, climate policy
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review