Identify
Explore
Discover
Discuss
Summarise
Describe
Last, format your objectives into a numbered list. This is because when you write your thesis or dissertation, you will at times need to make reference to a specific research objective; structuring your research objectives in a numbered list will provide a clear way of doing this.
To bring all this together, let’s compare the first research objective in the previous example with the above guidance:
Research Objective:
1. Develop finite element models using explicit dynamics to mimic mallet blows during cup/shell insertion, initially using simplified experimentally validated foam models to represent the acetabulum.
Checking Against Recommended Approach:
Q: Is it specific? A: Yes, it is clear what the student intends to do (produce a finite element model), why they intend to do it (mimic cup/shell blows) and their parameters have been well-defined ( using simplified experimentally validated foam models to represent the acetabulum ).
Q: Is it measurable? A: Yes, it is clear that the research objective will be achieved once the finite element model is complete.
Q: Is it achievable? A: Yes, provided the student has access to a computer lab, modelling software and laboratory data.
Q: Is it relevant? A: Yes, mimicking impacts to a cup/shell is fundamental to the overall aim of understanding how they deform when impacted upon.
Q: Is it timebound? A: Yes, it is possible to create a limited-scope finite element model in a relatively short time, especially if you already have experience in modelling.
Q: Does it start with a verb? A: Yes, it starts with ‘develop’, which makes the intent of the objective immediately clear.
Q: Is it a numbered list? A: Yes, it is the first research objective in a list of eight.
1. making your research aim too broad.
Having a research aim too broad becomes very difficult to achieve. Normally, this occurs when a student develops their research aim before they have a good understanding of what they want to research. Remember that at the end of your project and during your viva defence , you will have to prove that you have achieved your research aims; if they are too broad, this will be an almost impossible task. In the early stages of your research project, your priority should be to narrow your study to a specific area. A good way to do this is to take the time to study existing literature, question their current approaches, findings and limitations, and consider whether there are any recurring gaps that could be investigated .
Note: Achieving a set of aims does not necessarily mean proving or disproving a theory or hypothesis, even if your research aim was to, but having done enough work to provide a useful and original insight into the principles that underlie your research aim.
Be realistic about what you can achieve in the time you have available. It is natural to want to set ambitious research objectives that require sophisticated data collection and analysis, but only completing this with six months before the end of your PhD registration period is not a worthwhile trade-off.
Each research objective should have its own purpose and distinct measurable outcome. To this effect, a common mistake is to form research objectives which have large amounts of overlap. This makes it difficult to determine when an objective is truly complete, and also presents challenges in estimating the duration of objectives when creating your project timeline. It also makes it difficult to structure your thesis into unique chapters, making it more challenging for you to write and for your audience to read.
Fortunately, this oversight can be easily avoided by using SMART objectives.
Hopefully, you now have a good idea of how to create an effective set of aims and objectives for your research project, whether it be a thesis, dissertation or research paper. While it may be tempting to dive directly into your research, spending time on getting your aims and objectives right will give your research clear direction. This won’t only reduce the likelihood of problems arising later down the line, but will also lead to a more thorough and coherent research project.
Finding a PhD has never been this easy – search for a PhD by keyword, location or academic area of interest.
Join thousands of students.
Join thousands of other students and stay up to date with the latest PhD programmes, funding opportunities and advice.
Are you puzzled in the difference between Thesis and Research Paper? If yes, then have a close look at this blog post to explore everything about the difference between Thesis and Research Paper
In the realm of academia, students and researchers encounter various types of written assignments that require rigorous investigation and analysis. Among these assignments, the thesis and research paper are two common forms of scholarly writing.
While both contribute to the advancement of knowledge and demonstrate a student’s research capabilities, there are distinct differences between them in terms of purpose, scope, originality, structure, evaluation, and length.
Understanding these differences is essential for students embarking on their academic journey or researchers seeking to make meaningful contributions to their respective fields.
By grasping the unique characteristics of a thesis and a research paper, individuals can navigate the academic landscape more effectively, align their research objectives, and tailor their writing to meet the specific expectations of each form of scholarly communication.
In this discussion, we will delve into the dissimilarities between a thesis and a research paper, shedding light on the distinct purposes they serve, the scope of their investigations, the level of originality they demand, the structure they adhere to, the evaluation criteria they face, and the length of time they require for completion.
By examining these aspects, we aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of how a thesis and a research paper differ, allowing students and researchers to approach these academic assignments with greater clarity and confidence.
Whether you are a student embarking on your undergraduate or postgraduate journey, or a researcher striving to contribute to the scholarly discourse in your field, gaining a thorough understanding of the differences between a thesis and a research paper will serve as a valuable guide in effectively formulating research questions, conducting comprehensive investigations, and presenting your findings in a manner that aligns with the expectations of your academic community.
So, let us explore the unique characteristics that set a thesis and a research paper apart, empowering you to navigate the academic landscape and engage in scholarly pursuits with distinction and purpose.
Table of Contents
A thesis is a significant academic document that showcases a student’s in-depth understanding of a particular subject and their ability to conduct independent research.
It is a formal written work that presents original findings, arguments, or theories, aiming to contribute new knowledge to the academic community. A thesis is typically pursued as a requirement for obtaining a higher academic degree, such as a Master’s or Ph.D.
The purpose of a thesis is multifold. Firstly, it serves as a demonstration of the student’s comprehensive understanding of the chosen field of study. It requires an extensive exploration of the existing literature, theories, methodologies, or experiments related to the research topic.
By delving deeply into the subject matter, a thesis allows students to showcase their analytical and critical thinking abilities, as well as their proficiency in synthesizing and evaluating complex information.
Secondly, a thesis aims to contribute to the existing body of knowledge within the specific academic discipline. It demands original research and the identification of a research gap, which the student then strives to fill through their investigations.
By conducting thorough research, collecting and analyzing data, and drawing meaningful conclusions, a thesis can offer new insights, propose novel theories, or develop innovative methodologies. Through their contribution, students endeavor to advance the understanding and knowledge within their field of study.
Lastly, a thesis serves as a requirement for obtaining a higher academic degree. It demonstrates the student’s research capabilities and scholarly competence, validating their readiness to contribute to their chosen field as a qualified professional or researcher.
Successful completion of a thesis signifies the mastery of research skills, the ability to work independently, and the capacity to engage in academic discourse.
Overall, a thesis represents a significant academic achievement, reflecting the culmination of a student’s academic journey and their dedication to expanding knowledge within their field. It serves as a testament to their intellectual capabilities, research prowess, and their potential to make meaningful contributions to their respective disciplines.
A research paper is a scholarly document that presents the results of a study or investigation conducted by a researcher or a group of researchers. It is a written work that focuses on addressing a specific research question, exploring a hypothesis, or investigating a particular topic within a given academic field. The purpose of a research paper is to contribute to the existing body of knowledge by presenting new insights, analyzing data, or providing a critical analysis of existing information.
Research papers are essential in various academic disciplines, including sciences, social sciences, humanities, and more. They serve as a means to communicate research findings, share knowledge, and engage in scholarly discussions.
Through research papers, researchers aim to advance understanding, challenge existing theories or assumptions, or propose new perspectives on a particular subject.
The primary purpose of a research paper is to contribute to the existing knowledge within a specific field of study. Researchers conduct a thorough review of relevant literature and studies to identify gaps or areas that require further investigation.
They formulate a research question or hypothesis and design a methodology to collect and analyze data that can answer the research question or test the hypothesis. The research paper then presents the findings, interpretations, and conclusions derived from the analysis of the collected data.
Research papers also play a crucial role in the dissemination of knowledge. They provide a platform for researchers to share their findings with the broader academic community.
By publishing research papers in academic journals, presenting them at conferences, or sharing them through other scholarly channels, researchers contribute to the ongoing conversations within their field. Other researchers can build upon the findings, validate or challenge the results, and collectively advance knowledge in a collaborative manner.
Moreover, research papers help researchers develop critical thinking skills, enhance their research methodology expertise, and contribute to their academic and professional growth.
Engaging in the research process, from formulating a research question to conducting data analysis, strengthens researchers’ abilities to think analytically, critically evaluate information, and draw meaningful conclusions. Research papers also provide opportunities for researchers to develop their academic writing skills, allowing them to effectively communicate their research findings and insights.
Here’s a comparison between a thesis and a research paper in tabular form:
Aspect | Thesis | Research Paper |
---|---|---|
Purpose | Presents an original argument or proposition | Presents findings based on existing research |
Length | Generally longer (around 80-100 pages) | Relatively shorter (around 10-20 pages) |
Audience | Academic community | General readership or specific field |
Structure | Introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, conclusion, and bibliography | Introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, conclusion, and references |
Originality | Emphasizes original research and contribution | Focuses on analysis and synthesis of existing knowledge |
Hypothesis | Often includes a hypothesis | May or may not include a hypothesis |
Scope | Can be more comprehensive in scope | Can be narrower in scope |
Citation Style | Usually follows a specific academic citation style (e.g., APA, MLA) | Usually follows a specific academic citation style (e.g., APA, MLA) |
Research Process | Involves conducting original research, data collection, and analysis | Involves reviewing existing literature, data analysis, and interpretation |
Defense/Oral Exam | May require a formal defense or oral examination | Generally does not require a formal defense or oral examination |
Degree Requirement | Often required for completion of a graduate degree program | Can be a part of coursework or independent study |
Please note that the specific characteristics may vary depending on the institution and academic discipline. This table provides a general overview of the key differences between a thesis and a research paper.
Thesis and research paper are two distinct academic documents that have several differences. Here are the key dissimilarities between a thesis and a research paper:
Have a close look at the purpose and objective comparison.
A thesis serves the purpose of demonstrating a student’s in-depth understanding of a subject, showcasing their analytical and critical thinking abilities, and contributing new knowledge to the academic community.
It aims to obtain a higher degree, such as a Master’s or Ph.D. For example, a Ph.D. thesis in biology may involve conducting original research to discover a new species or proposing a novel scientific theory.
The primary purpose of a research paper is to contribute to existing knowledge on a subject and engage in scholarly discussions. It focuses on exploring a research question or hypothesis, presenting findings, and analyzing the collected data.
For example, a research paper in economics may investigate the impact of a specific policy on economic growth by analyzing data from various sources.
: |
Have a close look at the scope and depth comparison.
A thesis requires extensive research and an exhaustive exploration of the chosen topic. It involves delving deeply into the existing literature, critically analyzing previous studies, and offering an extensive review of relevant theories, methodologies, or experiments.
The scope of a thesis is broader, aiming to cover various aspects of the chosen field. For example, a thesis in history may involve examining multiple historical events, analyzing primary sources, and comparing different historical interpretations.
While a research paper also requires research, its scope of exploration is usually narrower compared to a thesis. Research papers often focus on addressing specific research questions, providing detailed analysis, or presenting findings within a limited context.
The scope of a research paper is more focused on a specific aspect or angle of the topic. For example, a research paper in psychology may investigate the effects of a particular therapy technique on a specific group of individuals.
Have a close look at the originality and contribution comparison.
A thesis demands original research and substantial contribution to the existing body of knowledge in the field. It requires students to identify a research gap, formulate research questions, and conduct extensive investigations to fill that gap.
A thesis should provide novel insights, theories, or methodologies that contribute to the advancement of the field. For example, a thesis in computer science may involve developing a new algorithm or software application to solve a complex problem.
While a research paper also requires originality, its scope of contribution is typically narrower compared to a thesis. Research papers often focus on addressing specific aspects or angles of a topic, providing detailed analysis, or presenting findings within a limited context.
They may offer new perspectives or interpretations but may not be as extensive in terms of contributing to the overall knowledge in the field. For example, a research paper in sociology may present a new analysis of existing survey data to support or challenge existing sociological theories.
Have a close look at structure and formatting comparison.
A thesis follows a specific structure that includes various sections such as a title page, abstract, introduction, literature review, methodology, results and analysis, discussion, conclusion, references, and appendices (if applicable).
This structured format provides a comprehensive framework for presenting the research and analysis conducted. Each section has its purpose and contributes to the overall coherence of the thesis.
A research paper usually has a more flexible structure, depending on the field of study and the specific requirements of the assignment or publication. However, it commonly includes sections like a title, abstract, introduction, literature review, methodology, results and analysis, discussion, conclusion, and references.
The structure may vary based on the specific guidelines or preferences of the intended publication. The flexibility allows researchers to adapt the structure to the needs of their study while maintaining the logical flow of information.
Have a close look at evolution and audience comparison.
A thesis is primarily evaluated by a committee of professors or experts in the field. The evaluation process involves comprehensive scrutiny of the research methodology, data analysis, theoretical frameworks, and the overall contribution to the field.
The audience for a thesis is typically limited to the academic community, including the student’s advisors, faculty members, and fellow researchers. The evaluation focuses on the originality, quality, and depth of the research conducted.
Research papers cater to a broader audience, including scholars, researchers, and professionals in the respective field. They are often evaluated through peer review processes before being published in academic journals or presented at conferences.
The evaluation criteria for research papers may vary depending on the publication or assignment guidelines, but they generally emphasize the clarity of research objectives, methodology, data analysis, and the significance of the findings. The evaluation focuses on the validity and contribution of the research to the existing knowledge.
Have a close look at length and time frame comparison.
A thesis is typically longer in length compared to a research paper. It requires a more extensive investigation and analysis, resulting in a higher word count. The time frame to complete a thesis is also longer, often spanning several semesters or years.
The extended length and timeframe allow students to engage in thorough research, conduct experiments, gather data, and provide a comprehensive analysis of the chosen topic.
Research papers are generally shorter in length compared to a thesis. They focus on specific aspects or angles of a topic, resulting in a relatively shorter word count. The time frame to complete a research paper is shorter, often within a semester or a few weeks.
The shorter length and timeframe require researchers to narrow down their focus and present a concise analysis of the chosen research question.
Have a close look at purpose and objective comparison.
A thesis serves as a culmination of a student’s academic journey, demonstrating their mastery of a subject area and their ability to conduct independent research. It aims to contribute new knowledge, theories, or methodologies to the academic community, advancing the understanding of the chosen field.
The primary objective is to obtain a higher degree, such as a Master’s or Ph.D., and showcase expertise in a specialized area of study.
The primary purpose of a research paper is to communicate the results of a specific study or investigation to the academic community. It aims to contribute to existing knowledge by presenting new findings, interpretations, or analyses on a specific research question or topic.
Research papers can be standalone publications or part of a broader research project, providing insights and contributing to ongoing scholarly discussions.
Have a close look at scope and depth comparison.
A thesis requires a comprehensive and in-depth exploration of a subject, often involving extensive literature review, data collection, and analysis. It typically covers a broader scope within the chosen field, aiming to provide a holistic understanding of the topic and its various aspects.
A thesis often requires a more extensive examination of theoretical frameworks, methodologies, and relevant literature, presenting a well-rounded analysis.
Research papers often focus on a specific aspect or angle of a topic, narrowing down the scope of the study. The depth of exploration in a research paper is more limited compared to a thesis, as it emphasizes detailed analysis and findings related to the specific research question.
While research papers may include literature review and references, the analysis is usually more targeted and specific to the research question being addressed.
Have a close look at originality and contribution comparison.
A thesis requires a higher level of originality and contribution to the field. It should offer new insights, theories, methodologies, or empirical evidence that expand existing knowledge and advance the field of study.
A thesis often addresses a research gap or poses new research questions, aiming to fill a void in the existing body of knowledge.
While research papers also require originality, their contribution is typically more limited in scope. Research papers often build upon existing theories, methodologies, or data, offering new interpretations or perspectives within a specific context.
They may present incremental findings, replication studies, or comparative analyses that deepen understanding in a focused area of study.
A thesis follows a structured format that varies across institutions and disciplines. It typically includes sections such as a title page, abstract, introduction, literature review, methodology, results and analysis, discussion, conclusion, references, and appendices (if applicable).
The structure ensures logical flow, provides context, and allows for comprehensive presentation of research and analysis.
Research papers also have a flexible structure, but they commonly include sections like a title, abstract, introduction, literature review, methodology, results and analysis, discussion, conclusion, and references. The specific structure may vary based on publication guidelines or the nature of the study.
The structure aims to present the research question, methodology, findings, and analysis in a coherent and understandable manner.
Have a close look at evaluation and audience comparison.
Theses are primarily evaluated by a committee of professors or experts in the field. The evaluation process involves rigorous scrutiny of the research methodology, data analysis, theoretical frameworks, and overall contribution to the field.
The audience for a thesis is typically limited to the academic community, including the student’s advisors, faculty members, and fellow researchers.
Research papers are evaluated through peer review processes before publication or presentation. The evaluation criteria may vary depending on the specific guidelines or intended publication, but they generally assess the clarity of research objectives, methodology, data analysis, and the significance of the findings.
The audience for research papers includes scholars, researchers, and professionals in the respective field, aiming to contribute to ongoing scholarly discussions and inform future research.
Theses are typically longer in length compared to research papers. The word count for a thesis can vary significantly, ranging from tens of thousands to over a hundred thousand words, depending on the level of study and institution’s requirements.
The time frame to complete a thesis is longer, often spanning several semesters or years, allowing for thorough research, data collection, analysis, and the writing process.
Research papers are generally shorter in length compared to theses. The word count for research papers varies depending on the specific requirements of the publication or assignment, but it is typically more concise compared to a thesis.
The time frame to complete a research paper is shorter, often within a semester or a few weeks, necessitating focused research, analysis, and writing within a more limited timeframe.
In conclusion, the difference between a thesis and a research paper lies in their purpose, scope, originality, structure, evaluation, and length. A thesis represents the culmination of a student’s academic journey, aiming to obtain a higher degree and contribute new knowledge to the academic community.
It requires extensive research, in-depth exploration of the chosen topic, and a broader scope that covers various aspects of the field. A thesis demands originality and substantial contribution, often addressing research gaps and presenting novel insights or methodologies.
On the other hand, a research paper focuses on presenting specific findings, interpretations, or analyses within a narrower scope. While it also requires originality, its contribution is usually more limited, building upon existing theories or data to offer new perspectives or interpretations.
Research papers have a flexible structure, adapting to the requirements of the publication or assignment, while the thesis follows a specific and comprehensive format.
Theses are primarily evaluated by a committee of experts in the field, targeting the academic community, while research papers undergo peer review processes for publication and cater to a broader audience of scholars, researchers, and professionals.
Furthermore, the length and time frame differ between the two. Theses are generally longer, spanning several semesters or years, allowing for thorough research and analysis, while research papers are shorter and completed within a semester or a few weeks, requiring focused research and concise presentation of findings.
Understanding these distinctions is crucial for students and researchers to navigate their academic endeavors effectively. Whether one aims to pursue advanced degrees or contribute to scholarly discussions, recognizing the unique characteristics of the thesis and research paper helps in formulating research objectives, selecting appropriate methodologies, and presenting research outcomes in a manner suitable to their intended audience.
What is the main objective of a thesis.
The main objective of a thesis is to demonstrate a student’s in-depth understanding of a subject, showcase their analytical and critical thinking abilities, and contribute new knowledge to the academic community.
No, a research paper and a thesis are distinct academic documents. While both involve research and analysis, a thesis is more comprehensive, requires a higher level of originality, and aims for a higher academic degree.
The duration to complete a thesis can vary depending on the program and the nature of the research. It often takes several semesters or years to conduct the necessary research, collect data, analyze findings, and write the thesis.
A thesis is typically evaluated by a committee of professors or experts in the field. They assess the research methodology, data analysis, theoretical frameworks, and the overall contribution to the field.
The audience for a research paper includes scholars, researchers, and professionals in the respective field. Research papers are often published in academic journals or presented at conferences to engage in scholarly discussions.
Whenever the new semester starts, you will get a lot of assignment writing tasks. Now you enter the new academic…
Homework is one of the most important parts that have to be done by students. It has been around for…
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .
[email protected]
It is not uncommon for individuals, academic and nonacademic to use “thesis” and “research paper” interchangeably. However, while the thesis vs. research paper puzzle might seem amusing to some, for graduate, postgraduate and doctoral students, knowing the differences between the two is crucial. Not only does a clear demarcation of the two terms help you acquire a precise approach toward writing each of them, but it also helps you keep in mind the subtle nuances that go into creating the two documents. This brief guide discusses the main difference between a thesis and a research paper.
This article discusses the main difference between a thesis and a research paper. To give you an opportunity to practice proofreading, we have left a few spelling, punctuation, or grammatical errors in the text. See if you can spot them! If you spot the errors correctly, you will be entitled to a 10% discount.
It is not uncommon for individuals, academic and nonacademic to use “thesis” and “research paper” interchangeably. After all, both terms share the same domain, academic writing . Moreover, characteristics like the writing style, tone, and structure of a thesis and research paper are also homogenous to a certain degree. Hence, it is not surprising that many people mistake one for the other.
However, while the thesis vs. research paper puzzle might seem amusing to some, for graduate, postgraduate and doctoral students, knowing the differences between the two is crucial. Not only does a clear demarcation of the two terms help you acquire a precise approach toward writing each of them, but it also helps you keep in mind the subtle nuances that go into creating the two documents.
The first step to discerning between a thesis and research paper is to know what they signify.
Thesis: A thesis or a dissertation is an academic document that a candidate writes to acquire a university degree or similar qualification. Students typically submit a thesis at the end of their final academic term. It generally consists of putting forward an argument and backing it up with individual research and existing data.
How to Write a Perfect Ph.D. Thesis
How to Choose a Thesis or Dissertation Topic: 6 Tips
5 Common Mistakes When Writing a Thesis or Dissertation
How to Structure a Dissertation: A Brief Guide
A Step-by-Step Guide on Writing and Structuring Your Dissertation
Research Paper: A research paper is also an academic document, albeit shorter compared to a thesis. It consists of conducting independent and extensive research on a topic and compiling the data in a structured and comprehensible form. A research paper demonstrates a student's academic prowess in their field of study along with strong analytical skills.
7 Tips to Write an Effective Research Paper
7 Steps to Publishing in a Scientific Journal
Publishing Articles in Peer-Reviewed Journals: A Comprehensive Guide
10 Free Online Journal and Research Databases for Researchers
How to Formulate Research Questions
Now that we have a fundamental understanding of a thesis and a research paper, it is time to dig deeper. To the untrained eye, a research paper and a thesis might seem similar. However, there are some differences, concrete and subtle, that set the two apart.
The objective behind writing a thesis is to obtain a master's degree or doctorate and the ilk. Hence, it needs to exemplify the scope of your knowledge in your study field. That is why choosing an intriguing thesis topic and putting forward your arguments convincingly in favor of it is crucial.
A research paper is written as a part of a course's curriculum or written for publication in a peer-review journal. Its purpose is to contribute something new to the knowledge base of its topic.
Although both documents share quite a few similarities in their structures, the framework of a thesis is more rigid. Also, almost every university has its proprietary guidelines set out for thesis writing.
Comparatively, a research paper only needs to keep the IMRAD format consistent throughout its length. When planning to publish your research paper in a peer-review journal, you also must follow your target journal guidelines.
A thesis is an extensive document encompassing the entire duration of a master's or doctoral course and as such, it takes months and even years to write.
A research paper, being less lengthy, typically takes a few weeks or a few months to complete.
Writing a thesis entails working with a faculty supervisor to ensure that you are on the right track. However, a research paper is more of a solo project and rarely needs a dedicated supervisor to oversee.
The final stage of thesis completion is a viva voce examination and a thesis defense. It includes proffering your thesis to the examination board or a thesis committee for a questionnaire and related discussions. Whether or not you will receive a degree depends on the result of this examination and the defense.
A research paper is said to be complete when you finalize a draft, check it for plagiarism, and proofread for any language and contextual errors . Now all that's left is to submit it to the assigned authority.
What is Plagiarism | How to Avoid It
How to Choose the Right Plagiarism Checker for Your Academic Works
5 Practical Ways to Avoid Plagiarism
10 Common Grammar Mistakes in Academic Writing
Guide to Avoid Common Mistakes in Sentence Structuring
In the context of academic writing, a thesis and a research paper might appear the same. But, there are some fundamental differences that set apart the two writing formats. However, since both the documents come under the scope of academic writing, they also share some similarities. Both require formal language, formal tone, factually correct information & proper citations. Also, editing and proofreading are a must for both. Editing and Proofreading ensure that your document is properly formatted and devoid of all grammatical & contextual errors. So, the next time when you come across a thesis vs. research paper argument, keep these differences in mind.
Editing or Proofreading? Which Service Should I Choose?
Thesis Proofreading and Editing Services
8 Benefits of Using Professional Proofreading and Editing Services
Achieve What You Want with Academic Editing and Proofreading
How Much Do Proofreading and Editing Cost?
Best Edit & Proof expert editors and proofreaders focus on offering papers with proper tone, content, and style of academic writing, and also provide an upscale editing and proofreading service for you. If you consider our pieces of advice, you will witness a notable increase in the chance for your research manuscript to be accepted by the publishers. We work together as an academic writing style guide by bestowing subject-area editing and proofreading around several categorized writing styles. With the group of our expert editors, you will always find us all set to help you identify the tone and style that your manuscript needs to get a nod from the publishers.
You can also avail of our assistance if you are looking for editors who can format your manuscript, or just check on the particular styles for the formatting task as per the guidelines provided to you, e.g., APA, MLA, or Chicago/Turabian styles. Best Edit & Proof editors and proofreaders provide all sorts of academic writing help, including editing and proofreading services, using our user-friendly website, and a streamlined ordering process.
Visit our order page if you want our subject-area editors or language experts to work on your manuscript to improve its tone and style and give it a perfect academic tone and style through proper editing and proofreading. The process of submitting a paper is very easy and quick. Click here to find out how it works.
Our pricing is based on the type of service you avail of here, be it editing or proofreading. We charge on the basis of the word count of your manuscript that you submit for editing and proofreading and the turnaround time it takes to get it done. If you want to get an instant price quote for your project, copy and paste your document or enter your word count into our pricing calculator.
Contact us to get support with academic editing and proofreading. We have a 24/7 active live chat mode to offer you direct support along with qualified editors to refine and furbish your manuscript.
Follow us on Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, and Medium .
For more posts, click here.
How to Determine Variability in a Dataset
How to Determine Central Tendency
How to Specify Study Variables in Research Papers?
Population vs Sample | Sampling Methods for a Dissertation
7 Issues to Avoid That may Dent the Quality of Thesis Writing
How to Ensure the Quality of Academic Writing in a Thesis and Dissertation?
How to Define Population and Sample in a Dissertation?
ANOVA vs MANOVA: Which Method to Use in Dissertations?
Preparing a research paper is the most painstaking and challenging task for many individuals. However, with rigorous practice, it would be much hassle-free for you to sum up entirely. Are you thinking of the best ways to write an impactful research paper? We are here to help you! We present an easy-to-follow rubric that will help you draft an impeccable research paper.
Some students find it difficult to understand and write error-free coursework papers. So, it requires pouring multiple skills, attention, and energy to frame impressive coursework. Here we present few such tips for flawless coursework.
Paraphrasing is a regular exercise in academic writing. High school students, college students, and research scholars are required to paraphrase to demonstrate their understanding of a text. However, there are cases when, due to ineffective paraphrasing, instances of plagiarism dot an academic manuscript. Therefore, academic writers must correctly understand the fundamentals of academic paraphrasing and apply them to their writings to avoid any occurrence of any academic offense. This article will peruse the anatomy of academic paraphrasing. In addition, it will examine how paraphrasing is different from summarization and suggest ways to paraphrase effectively.
Writing a thesis or dissertation is considered the final phase of your Ph.D. journey. You must cover three to five years of study and research into your thesis. A doctoral thesis or dissertation is a long essay of knowledge and research on a specific niche that poses interesting questions and answers with your reasoning. Ph.D. candidates should carefully choose the study topic according to their expertise. This article explains how to write an impeccable Ph.D. thesis for outstanding results in 6 helpful steps.
Now, you have finished your thesis or dissertation. The next is writing a research paper based on your thesis and dissertation. A research paper is vital for academic writing, supplying in-depth analysis, comments, and in-depth discussion about your research.
For a high-quality research paper, dissertation, or thesis, a helpful research question plays a critical role in designing it. It precisely suggests what you wish to study, presenting your research's apparent emphasis and objective.
The corpus research suggests that the most often used tenses in academic writing are the simple present, the simple past, and the present perfect. Then, what comes next is the future tense.
Home » Education » What is the Difference Between Thesis and Research Paper
The main difference between thesis and research paper is that thesis is a long academic paper that typically serves as the final project for a university degree, while research paper is a piece of academic writing on a particular topic.
In brief, both thesis and research paper are types of academic writing students need to complete in their academic life. While there are many similarities between the two, including the use of academic writing and structure, they are not the same.
1. What is a Thesis – Definition, Features 2. What is a Research Paper – Definition, Features 3. Difference Between Thesis and Research Paper – Comparison of Key Differences
A thesis is a long paper that typically serves as the final project for a university degree. Submitting a thesis is generally required for completing undergraduate honours, masters , and doctoral degrees . The theses are very long and may contain hundreds of pages. They are also scholarly in nature and allows students to contribute valuable research in their field of study.
Moreover, a major part of a thesis work involves research and writing. It generally has advanced research design and analysis. When writing a thesis, the students will have to prove or disapprove a hypothesis , and their conclusions have to be backed by extensive research and an insightful, learned description of how they got to that conclusion. In some degree programs, students also have to perform an oral defence of the thesis paper in front of a panel of experts.
These are the components you will usually find in a thesis paper.
A research paper is a type of academic writing that involves research, source evaluation, critical thinking, organization, and composition. Moreover, through a research paper, students can explore, interpret, and evaluate sources related to a particular topic. In fact, primary and secondary sources are very important components of a research paper. But it’s important to note that a research paper is not just a summary of a topic using primary and secondary sources. It’s not just an opinion essay or an expository essay that contains the writer’s opinions and views, either. A research paper is a type of writing that requires evaluating different sources and interpreting the information of these sources through one’s own lens. Furthermore, the main purpose of this type of writing is to offer a unique perspective on a topic analyzing and evaluating what others have already said about it.
In addition, there are different types of research papers. Argumentative research papers and analytical research papers are two of the main types of research papers.
A thesis or dissertation is a long academic paper that typically serves as the final project for a university degree while a research paper is a type of academic writing that involves research, source evaluation, critical thinking, organization, and composition.
In an academic context, students may be required to write research papers for assignments and homework, but a thesis is usually the final project.
A thesis tends to be longer than a research paper; in fact, a thesis can take many months, sometimes years, to complete.
The thesis is written under the supervision of one or more academic supervisors whereas research papers usually do not have supervisors.
Students have to complete a thesis in order to complete their degree, whereas students write research papers to expand their knowledge.
In brief, the main difference between thesis and research paper is that thesis is a long research paper that typically serves as the final project for a university degree, while a research paper is a piece of academic writing on a particular topic. Moreover, in an academic context, students may be required to write research papers for assignments and homework. But the thesis is usually the final project.
1. Stute, Martin. “ How to Write Your Thesis .” Columbia University. 2. “ Genre and the Research Paper .” Purdue Writing Lab.
1. “ Research Paper ” (CC BY-SA 3.0) By Nick Youngson via Alpha Stock Images
Hasanthi is a seasoned content writer and editor with over 8 years of experience. Armed with a BA degree in English and a knack for digital marketing, she explores her passions for literature, history, culture, and food through her engaging and informative writing.
Leave a reply cancel reply.
Table of contents
Every student needs to write some academic papers for the university. However, even young people with experience can’t determine the difference between an essay and a research paper. Although these two areas of academic writing have many similarities, the requirements are still significantly different.
Before we dive into the detailed definitions, let’s first explore the key differences between an essay and a research paper.
Criteria | Research Paper | Essay |
---|---|---|
Focus | Explores and presents various viewpoints on a topic while also including the writer’s insights and ideas. | Primarily expresses the writer’s point of view. |
Length | Typically spans at least 8 pages in length. | Typically short, with an average length of 5 paragraphs. |
Depth of Understanding | Requires a deep understanding of the topic, gained through thorough research. | Does not always require an in-depth understanding of the topic. |
Familiarity with Sources | Demands familiarity with research writings related to the chosen subject. | May or may not need familiarity with other research or writings. |
Skill Development | Enhances the writer’s knowledge about the topic. | Develops the writer’s skills in presenting ideas clearly and effectively. |
Approach | Examines and compares different sources of information on a topic, ultimately presenting an overview of the findings. | The writer practices organizing thoughts logically and coherently. |
Types and Variations | Research papers come in various forms such as compare and contrast, argumentative, analytical, cause and effect, and subject-based papers, with the latter being the most common. A specific subject or topic is chosen, researched, and then written about in detail. | Essays come in different types such as academic, narrative, and philosophical. Academic essays often include a literature review that evaluates, describes, summarizes, and clarifies the selected material. |
Process and Presentation | After gathering detailed information on the topic, the writer organizes and presents it from their perspective, using citations from the research to support their analysis. | In an essay, the writer conveys personal thoughts and ideas. The purpose and type of essay are considered, along with the intended audience. The writing must be well-structured, clear, and supported by relevant facts and examples. |
What is an essay.
An essay is a short piece of writing that presents a personal opinion on a specific topic. Essays can be formal or informal, but in an academic setting, they are usually formal. The main purpose of an essay is to inform the reader or argue a particular perspective.
Essays do not always aim to be scientific but require a clear structure. This structure typically includes an introduction, a body, and a conclusion. Following this format lets you organize your thoughts and communicate them effectively.
With their versatility, essays can cover various topics, from complex ideas to everyday subjects. What makes your essay unique is the creativity and originality of your ideas. Before you begin, it is important to drafting an essay carefully. This process involves brainstorming fresh ideas and planning how to present them. Although your classmates might use the same basic structure, your writing skills and unique perspective will help your essay stand out. Focus on making your ideas compelling, rather than just sticking to the format.
A research paper explores a specific scientific topic in detail. It provides analysis, interpretation, and argument based on careful study. Unlike essays, research papers focus less on personal opinions and more on thorough examination of the subject. They require you to use different sources and add new insights to the academic discussion.
In a research paper, it is not enough to just present facts or share personal views. You need to study the topic in depth, understand what others have said about it, and clearly outline your approach. This type of assignment involves more than just collecting information. You must also evaluate the information to build a strong argument.
Teachers expect you to show your ability to analyze information, choose reliable sources, and have a deep understanding of the topic. Research papers require you to go beyond basic knowledge and present your findings in a clear and organized way.
A typical research paper consists of several key elements that are crucial for presenting your argument and findings clearly:
Whether writing a research paper or a term paper, maintaining this clear structure is essential for demonstrating a thorough understanding of your topic.
The central difference is the goal of these academic assignments. The essay aims to express an individual point of view and find a creative, fresh approach to an existing topic. A good research paper seeks to introduce scientific novelty by examining existing data and conducting new experiments to analyze the information obtained.
The first and main difference between an essay and a research paper is the purpose of writing . An essay as an academic task has the goal of developing students’ creative thinking. It also teaches us a structured presentation of thoughts regarding a certain topic. The student is required to have a non-standard approach, fresh thoughts, and reasoned conclusions on the given topic.
The purpose of the research work is to study a scientific topic in detail. This academic assignment is aimed at assessing the student’s analytical abilities and competence to determine cause-and-effect relationships, filter sources, and formulate logical conclusions. Such work requires theoretical knowledge, preliminary study of existing scientific works, and the ability to formulate goals and research methods.
Moreover, a student is supposed to show the capacity to draw comprehensive conclusions based on available data and information obtained during independent research. This task may seem complicated to students, so they opt for resorting to the help of PapersOwl writing service to save time.
To start with, the basic structure of any college essay involves a text consisting of five paragraphs, divided into three main factions: introduction, body part, and conclusion. When students lack time to compose a nicely structured academic essay, they can always pay to write a research paper and have their tasks done by a professional. The introduction presents the topic, sets the main direction for further text, and also works as a bait to motivate the reader to study further work. The introduction is followed by three body paragraphs. Each of the three body paragraphs presents a separate idea.
The last paragraph of any essay is a conclusion. In this paragraph, the college or university student must resume the arguments and ideas presented in the text, summarizing them into the main message of the essay. Often, the idea that you present in your conclusions will be most memorable to the reader.
Consequently, let’s overview the structure of a research paper. Compared to the structure of an essay, the organization of a research paper is much more ornate. This type of work requires a title page and abstract that go before the main body of text. On the title page, the student describes his topic of work, as well as gives contact details. An abstract is a short description of the main ideas and research methods of your work. The research work itself consists of an introduction, background, main part, and conclusions. Also, at the very end, they often add acknowledgments and a list of references, which must be formatted following the required international format.
The length and depth of analysis between these two academic assignments also differ significantly. As for the essay, it is often a short prose piece whose length does not exceed 1000 words. You are faced with the task of fitting a large array of ideas into a small amount of text. The essay format itself rarely requires rigorous and thorough research of the topic, but you should work on creativity and the presence of a message in your essay. Most academic papers fall in the 300 to 600-word range.
On the other hand, a research paper is a scientific project that includes many theoretical aspects that require analysis and clarification. Thus, the volume is significantly bigger. Basic research paper lengths range from 4,000 to 6,000 words. In this case, you will no doubt have to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the selected sources, formulate a research vector, and spend time conducting your experiments, or ask PapersOwl to do a research paper for you . A research paper is a scientific project that includes many theoretical aspects that require analysis and clarification.
The presence of theoretical sources and references is not a mandatory requirement for an essay. You can state your own thoughts on a given topic without resorting to the help of existing sources. Present your ideas on the topic, giving arguments that seem logical to you. If you do decide to base your paper on existing works, you must be sure to indicate where the information was taken from. And yet, the teacher needs to see your own thoughts rather than a dry listing of existing ideas.
Unlike an essay, a quality research paper must include primary and secondary sources, as well as a specific citation format. Surely, you are not the first person to study this scientific topic. In order not to repeat existing thoughts, you need to conduct a search to form a reliable basis for your study. If you skip this step, you risk basing your paper on misleading scientific findings.
The very specificity of the essay as an academic paper is the subjective presentation of information. A large percentage of your essay should consist of your perspective and vision of the chosen topic. For this reason, essays often use a less formal and more subjective tone. However, you can still use a large amount of colloquial vocabulary, completely disregarding the norms of formal style. Students often have trouble figuring out the right style for their university assignments. In such cases, a reasonable solution is to seek help from a specialist. When you buy custom-written essays from PapersOwl, you’ll always get a perfectly balanced academic paper.
On the other hand, a research paper is a serious scientific work. The student must maintain a formal tone while complying with all structural requirements. Also, in investigative work, there is little room for subjectivity and a personal approach since an objective style is required. At the same time, do not oversaturate your research work with formalism and standard clichés.
The essay format can be used both in the educational process and in an independent literary style. Therefore, the audience for such a written assignment can be wide and varied. When you’re writing an essay, make sure it’s understandable in academia and for a wide audience.
Research work, on the contrary, is aimed at a range of professionals in the chosen field. Written in scientific language, the goal of this work is to attract the attention of scientists and students of certain majors. Your scientific work should be rich in theory and related terms.
As you may have noticed, research papers and essays have many differences, both global and specific. These two types of academic assignments differ in the purpose of writing, have different structures and formats, and are aimed at testing different skills. And yet, every day, students face difficulties in understanding the basic requirements, which leads to incorrect execution of the task. To summarize the main differences, let’s look at the table below.
There are many types of papers, each focusing on different topics, serving different purposes, and requiring a specific structure. Those are different types of essays that share a common ground but differ in the way they present information and arguments.
Analytical paper. The purpose of such an essay is an in-depth analysis of the chosen topic, studying different approaches and points of view, and formulating one’s own conclusions based on the information studied and scientific evidence.
Argumentative paper. This type of essay takes as a basis an ambiguous topic; the author must take a certain position and provide a number of arguments.
Informative paper. It has an informative purpose — a presentation of information to the reader, preceded by careful analysis and selection of data.
Persuasive paper . The purpose of this paper is to present convincing arguments, using chosen writing techniques, confirming the author’s position regarding the selected scientific topic.
To get a high grade, you need to understand the requirements of academic requirements. No matter how informatively rich your work is, if it does not meet the requirements, it cannot be highly appreciated. Each type of academic assignment has its own clearly defined, unique format. It’s necessary to know the difference between a research paper vs argumentative essay so as not to get confused while completing a college assignment. So before you start writing an assignment, make sure you understand the type of academic writing required of you.
Research papers and essays are aimed at testing various skills of the student, following different structures, and having several requirements. An essay is a more creative writing task, which involves showing originality and expressing a personal opinion on a certain topic. At the same time, a research paper is a type of scientific writing that adheres to a strict structure and uses a formal tone. Understanding the main differences will make your writing process easier, saving you time researching the requirements. Remember that knowing the essence of the assignment is a key factor in writing a decent paper.
Just fill out the form, press the button, and have no worries!
We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy.
Know the Differences & Comparisons
On the other hand, a research paper is analytical, argumentative and interpretative in nature. It involves the pursuit of knowledge and intelligent analysis of the information collected. It contains the idea of the author, often supported by expert opinions, research and information available in this regard.
Whether you are writing a thesis or research paper, they are equally challenging and take a lot of time to prepare. In this post, we will update you on all the points of difference between thesis and research paper.
Comparison chart.
Basis for Comparison | Thesis | Research Paper |
---|---|---|
Meaning | Thesis refers to an original, non-plagiarised, written scholastic paper acting as a final project prepared and submitted for obtaining a university degree. | Research Paper is an original, non-plagiarised, elongated form of an essay highlighting the interpretation, evaluation or argument submitted by a researcher. |
What is it? | Final Project | Expanded essay on research findings |
Length | Around 20,000 to 80,000 words. | Proportional to study |
Contains | The central question that leads to the research. | Central argument |
Objective | To obtain a degree or professional qualification or to showcase your knowledge in the concerned field of study. | To prove credibility and contribute knowledge in the concerned field. |
Audience | Educational Committees or Professors | Scientist or Researcher |
Guide | Written under supervision of the guide | Not written under the supervision of the guide. |
Description of Subject Matter | Narrow | Broad |
Usage | Not much used. | Used for further studies. |
The thesis is a document containing the research and findings that students submit to get the professional qualification or degree . It has to be argumentative, which proposes a debatable point with which people could either agree or disagree. In short, it is a research report in writing that contains a problem which is yet to be dealt with.
In a thesis, the researcher puts forth his/her conclusion. The researcher also gives evidence in support of the conclusion.
Submission of the thesis is a mandatory requirement of a postgraduate course and PhD degree. In this, the primary focus is on the novelty of research along with the research methodology.
It is all about possibilities, by introducing several anti-thesis. Also, it ends up all the possibilities by nullifying all these anti-thesis.
Also Read : Difference Between Thesis and Dissertation
A thesis statement is a sentence of one line, usually written at the end of your first paragraph. It presents the argument to the reader.
It is a blueprint of your thesis that directs the writer while writing the thesis and guides the reader through it.
Research Paper is a form of academic writing. It is prepared on the basis of the original research conducted by the author on a specific topic, along with its analysis and interpretation of the findings.
An author generally starts writing a research paper on the basis of what he knows about the topic and seeks to find out what experts know. Further, it involves thorough and systematic research on a particular subject to extract the maximum information.
In short, a research paper is a written and published report containing the results of scientific research or a review of published scientific papers. Here, the scientific research is the primary research article, while the review of a published scientific paper is the review article.
In case of the primary research article, the author of the research paper provides important information about the research. This enables the scientific community members to:
On the other hand, a review article is written to analyze, summarize and synthesize the research carried out previously.
When a research work is published in a scientific journal, it conveys the knowledge to a larger group of people and also makes people aware of the scientific work. Research work published as a research paper passes on knowledge and information to many people. The research paper provides relevant information about the disease and the treatment options at hand .
To start writing a research paper, one should always go for a topic that is interesting and a bit challenging too. Here, the key to choosing the topic is to pick the one that you can manage. So, you could avoid such topics which are very technical or specialized and also those topics for which data is not easily available. Also, do not go for any controversial topic.
The researcher’s approach and attitude towards the topic will decide the amount of effort and enthusiasm.
The total number of pages included in a Research Paper relies upon the research topic. It may include 8 to 10 pages, which are:
Also Read : Difference Between Research Proposal and Research Report
Once the research paper is published, it increases the fellowship and job opportunities for new researchers. On the other hand, thesis writing will enable the students to get the desired degree at the end of the course they have opted.
Dr. Owenga says
February 23, 2023 at 2:38 pm
So good and informative. These are quite beneficial insights. Thanks
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
There are alternatives to writing a dissertation. One of these is a project study, or an applied study. Most students in advanced studies have a general idea of what a dissertation is, but fewer people know what a project study is. It is good to know the difference between a dissertation and a project study before you make the choice to pursue one or the other. If you have already chosen a project study, however, and are still not sure what it entails, this blog may help you.
Aligning theoretical framework, gathering articles, synthesizing gaps, articulating a clear methodology and data plan, and writing about the theoretical and practical implications of your research are part of our comprehensive dissertation editing services.
Most of us know that a dissertation is an extended piece of research. A typical structure for a dissertation in the social sciences is five chapters: introduction, literature review, methodology, results, and discussion. A central feature of the dissertation is the research problem. The research problem is the impetus for conducting a study: there is inconclusiveness about a topic in the literature or a gap in our understanding of a phenomenon. This inconclusiveness or gap serves as a rationale for conducting the study and drives the research questions, which are designed to collect information to add to our understanding of the topic.
The key difference between a project study and a dissertation is that a project study does not proceed from a research problem. The purpose of a project study is not to add to our understanding of research on a topic. The purpose of a project study is to help solve an existing local real-world problem, which is why project studies are also called applied studies. The purpose of a project study is to collect information to help address an identifiable problem in a specific setting.
Let’s say, for example, graduation rates at a particular high school are lower than state and national averages. Low graduation rates, likely the result of dropout, would be the specific local problem. A project study would be appropriate to collect information on how to address the problem of low graduation rates at that school. Information collected from the study culminates in an applied document, such as policy recommendations, curricular design, or a program evaluation. The applied document is a key feature of the project study and offers evidenced-based ways to address the local problem.
Difference between research project and term paper writing.
DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE PROJECT MATERIAL
The term paper and the research project are two distinct things, even though you might think they are the same although they both have similar qualities. Even so, they might be connected. But one must take into account the distinctions.
A term paper is typically written to demonstrate that a student has learned or gained knowledge of a particular subject, the final test includes a sizable portion of the term paper, which is due at the end of the term and the normal word count for a term paper is between 3,000 and 5,000, term papers typically permit the writer’s views and allow for a critical analysis of current issues, the term paper includes arguments and/or persuasions that need to be backed by data gathered from a wide range of trustworthy sources, like academic papers, scholarly periodicals, or textbooks, a research project, on the other hand, is often an academic study done to address theoretical concerns, the task for the student is to analyze the supplied data and produce an important, remarkable paper, the word count for a research project is limited to 5,000, your instructor will decide how long the research project should be, the instructor or the student choose the themes in each case.
Research and reference materials are needed in each situation and each case, and creating an outline before attempting to write the final versions is beneficial. In actuality, there are many similarities between term papers and research project.
A research paper may be assigned at any time, whereas a term paper is typically assigned at the end of the term this is the main distinction between the two types of papers, although writing term papers or research project might feel like a waste of time, both are intended to improve how well you can express your knowledge and understanding of a particular subject and both are intended to aid in your understanding of the note-taking, referencing, and research procedures, recognize and incorporate the lessons you’ve gained from prior writing assignments as you work to compose each of these papers in turn and always use writing as a tool to express yourself in unique and fascinating ways.
You should be able to present a case, lay out your argument, and make sure you provide solid, credible evidence to support your claims, no matter what the job requires, the greatest writers will give it their all.
A major, methodical, and theoretical level of questioning must be addressed by the student when writing a research paper, which is an academic writing style. Similarly to that, a term paper demands the student to analyze the information they have learned to present their comprehension of the subject coherently, it can range in length from a few sentences to 5,000 words, during a particular course, a problem is the focus of a research project.
Research papers are created to investigate particular issues that haven’t been adequately addressed or occasionally when the findings are in question. Typically, a research report includes components of research and regardless of the topic, a research project has a set format that includes a title page, table of contents, introduction, background information, literature review, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions/recommendations.
Specific writing instructions are provided for each of these parts and the format often doesn’t change, regardless of the study problem question. Writing a project of this nature typically takes time, both for the research and the writing.
There are numerous research types, and each has unique characteristics depending on the method used to gather the data, some examples include interviews, observation, questionnaires, surveys, and experiments, the length of the research project will rely on the hypothesis and the goal of the investigation, as well as the volume and complexity of the problem question.
A research project often takes a lot of time to write. Research project typically include a minimum of ten pages and a maximum of one hundred pages, rarely does a research report come in under ten pages; in this situation, it would be very impossible to clarify the main ideas, examine the findings, and demonstrate the hypothesis.
A term paper, on the other hand, is meant to test students’ understanding of certain topics they have studied, students may be required to write an essay, take an exam, or complete another work after they have finished studying a certain issue.
Term papers are a requirement for students to show that they have acquired the necessary knowledge and skills in a particular subject area, near the end of a class students are typically given a term paper assignment that will contribute toward the subject’s final mark; in some cases, it may even be the sole one, despite the wide range in length, they typically range from three to five thousand words.
good project topics
A critical essay covering a current or well-liked topic can be the format for a term paper and when the assignment is set up in this way, the student is required to present both their point of view and evidence of a thorough understanding of the subject, the essay should also include some arguments that are convincing and supported by data or facts.
A term paper allows for an essential analysis of current issues and typically offers the writer’s viewpoint, the arguments and persuasions in a term paper must be backed up with data gathered from a variety of trustworthy sources, including academic journals, academic papers, and textbooks, because it is a component of the course, a term paper is often finished after a set amount of time studying.
Typically, phrases and themes are used to split up the course and at the end of a term, students are typically required to take a test or complete another assignment to demonstrate their understanding of the content covered throughout the term. The grades for this assignment typically carry considerable weight in the student’s final grade.
A term paper might have any format or content, contrasting with a research paper that follows a particular format, an essay or other type of writing may be used as the basis for a term paper, as may a questions-and-answers format, an article, review, annotated bibliography, test, or even a research paper.
Lack of quality control and scientific evidence for the efficacy and safety of medicinal plants, studies on alterations of serum proteins, lipid profile and bilirubin levels in preeclamptic women, evaluation of lipids profile in tuberculosis (tb) patients on anti-tuberculosis therapy, leave a reply cancel reply.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .
Journal articles are the academic's stock in trade, t he basic means of communicating research findings to an audience of one’s peers. That holds true across the disciplinary spectrum, so no matter where you land as a concentrator, you can expect to rely on them heavily.
Regardless of the discipline, moreover, journal articles perform an important knowledge-updating function .
Textbooks and handbooks and manuals will have a secondary function for chemists and physicists and biologists, of course. But in the sciences, articles are the standard and preferred publication form.
In the social sciences and humanities , where knowledge develops a little less rapidly or is driven less by issues of time-sensitivity , journal articles and books are more often used together.
Not all important and influential ideas warrant book-length studies, and some inquiry is just better suited to the size and scope and concentrated discussion that the article format offers.
Journal articles sometimes just present the most appropriate solution for communicating findings or making a convincing argument. A 20-page article may perfectly fit a researcher's needs. Sustaining that argument for 200 pages might be unnecessary -- or impossible.
The quality of a research article and the legitimacy of its findings are verified by other scholars, prior to publication, through a rigorous evaluation method called peer-review . This seal of approval by other scholars doesn't mean that an article is the best, or truest, or last word on a topic. If that were the case, research on lots of things would cease. Peer review simply means other experts believe the methods, the evidence, the conclusions of an article have met important standards of legitimacy, reliability, and intellectual honesty.
Searching the journal literature is part of being a responsible researcher at any level: professor, grad student, concentrator, first-year. Knowing why academic articles matter will help you make good decisions about what you find -- and what you choose to rely on in your work.
Think of journal articles as the way you tap into the ongoing scholarly conversation , as a way of testing the currency of a finding, analysis, or argumentative position, and a way of bolstering the authority (or plausibility) of explanations you'll offer in the papers and projects you'll complete at Harvard.
Except where otherwise noted, this work is subject to a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , which allows anyone to share and adapt our material as long as proper attribution is given. For details and exceptions, see the Harvard Library Copyright Policy ©2021 Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College.
During our academic studies we are given to make something unique to explore our expertise in our subject. So today I am going to compare project, thesis and research paper. Project is a type of practical thing. Like in the last semester of your studies you have to make a project. If you are IT student then you can make a software, website or database program which you can call it as project. You have to also submit documentation of some code used in the project and describe different parts of project and how you achieve to make it.
Project, thesis and research paper
Thesis is like you are doing investigation of some topic or may be more than one topic. You have to explore other research papers or theories that other people have already written and get your own knowledge of what you get and how you can present it. On the other hand research paper is to do something new. You have to investigate others theories and make some flaws or make some new ideas. So thesis is just to increase your knowledge and research paper is to get new idea with prove.
Research paper should be related to practical examples, I mean to say it should also work practically. While thesis may or may not be practically exists. Research paper takes more time to do and its hard work. In master studies most of universities give student a choice of selecting a project or a thesis. It depends upon a student whether he has knowledge of computer language and can build a great software or he can also take thesis.
In phd studies students have to do some research and it is not easy. I have seen many students whose thesis are rejected many times. So it is not so easy to make thesis. You have to work hard to present your thesis and defend against your knowledge.
Related posts.
Flow regimes in the east branch of the penobscot river are a focus of wpes summer research activities.
Undergraduate research assistant, Izaak Krause, from the Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering is working with Bea Van Dam and Sean Smith to assemble historic information, compile hydrologic and spatial data, and parameterize a watershed hydrologic model to evaluate flow regimes affecting Atlantic salmon habitat in the East Branch of the Penobscot River. Sponsored by Maine Sea Grant and led by the Penobscot Nation, the project is focused on the examination of scenarios related to watershed conditions, climate, civil infrastructure, and human generated disturbances to help guide river management decision-making. Progress this summer has included field observations, data development, and watershed model construction to advance our understanding of the many factors affecting watershed and river conditions.
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 .
Get the industry’s biggest tech news, techcrunch daily news.
Every weekday and Sunday, you can get the best of TechCrunch’s coverage.
Startups are the core of TechCrunch, so get our best coverage delivered weekly.
The latest Fintech news and analysis, delivered every Tuesday.
TechCrunch Mobility is your destination for transportation news and insight.
The Palmer Luckey-founded defense startup wants to become a serious rival to longstanding kingpins, and has been clocking some big wins.
The satellite is designed to complement data provided by existing astronomical efforts such as that of the famed Hubble Telescope.
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…
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 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 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.
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…
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.
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.
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 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
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…
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…
As has been the case with Nothing’s other handsets, there are a few hoops required to purchase the device in the U.S.
Digital transformation — the process of transforming outdated apps and processes with cloud technologies and digital workflows — can be a risky undertaking. In 2023, Harvard Business Review reported that…
Napkin wants to use generative AI to make turning text into visualizations as easy as clicking on a button and customizing the results.
Security researchers found a dozen vulnerabilities in 5G baseband chips found in phones made by Google, OPPO, OnePlus, Motorola, and Samsung.
Most startups are looking to solve a problem inside a business, but Bandana, a New York City-based startup, has a different goal. It wants to help people at the lower…
Hewlett Packard Enterprise’s (HPE) planned $14 billion acquisition of Juniper Networks is one step closer to completion — the U.K.’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has confirmed that the deal…
Ride-hail giant Lyft will pilot a new feature called Price Lock that will let a rider purchase a monthly subscription “that caps the price for a specific route at a…
Audible, the audiobook company owned by Amazon, announced on Wednesday that it is testing an AI-powered search feature to assist users in narrowing down their audiobook search. Starting today, select…
In a sign that big tech companies are ready and willing to shell out cash for database tech, Neon, a startup building an open source alternative to AWS Aurora Postgres,…
The ex-Clubhouse, Netflix employees raised $1.65M for an app that combines social media, networking, and dating.
New York-based fintech Payoneer has acquired Skuad, a Singapore-based global HR and payroll startup, for $61 million in cash, the company exclusively told TechCrunch. Payoneer said it could also pay…
Elon Musk’s X is being taken to court in Ireland for using Europeans’ data to train AI models without asking for their consent.
Automattic, the owner of WordPress.com, has launched a new AI tool designed to help bloggers write more clearly and succinctly.
Cybersecurity remains a white-hot space for investors. In the latest example of that demand, EQT has bought a majority stake in Acronis, a security company that specializes in data protection,…
The ICO issued the provisional fine in “failing to implement appropriate security measures prior to the attack.”
African e-commerce company Jumia is selling 20 million American depositary shares over the next couple of weeks, TechCrunch has learned. The at-the-market transaction is to take advantage of strong results…
Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky suggested on Tuesday’s Q2 earnings call with investors that the company will soon expand into new products and services, including co-hosting, a relaunch of Airbnb’s “experiences,”…
Artificial Intelligence (AI) advancements have enabled the development of Large Language Models (LLMs) that can perform a variety of tasks with remarkable semantic understanding and accuracy. ChatGPT is one such LLM that has gained significant attention due to its impressive capabilities for assisting in various knowledge-intensive tasks. Due to the knowledge-intensive nature of engineering secure software, ChatGPT's assistance is expected to be explored for security-related tasks during the development/evolution of software. To gain an understanding of the potential of ChatGPT as an emerging technology for supporting software security, we adopted a two-fold approach. Initially, we performed an empirical study to analyse the perceptions of those who had explored the use of ChatGPT for security tasks and shared their views on Twitter. It was determined that security practitioners view ChatGPT as beneficial for various software security tasks, including vulnerability detection, information retrieval, and penetration testing. Secondly, we designed an experiment aimed at investigating the practicality of this technology when deployed as an oracle in real-world settings. In particular, we focused on vulnerability detection and qualitatively examined ChatGPT outputs for given prompts within this prominent software security task. Based on our analysis, responses from ChatGPT in this task are largely filled with generic security information and may not be appropriate for industry use. To prevent data leakage, we performed this analysis on a vulnerability dataset compiled after the OpenAI data cut-off date from real-world projects covering 40 distinct vulnerability types and 12 programming languages. We assert that the findings from this study would contribute to future research aimed at developing and evaluating LLMs dedicated to software security.
Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.
Published on October 12, 2022 by Shona McCombes and Tegan George. Revised on November 21, 2023.
A research proposal describes what you will investigate, why it’s important, and how you will conduct your research.
The format of a research proposal varies between fields, but most proposals will contain at least these elements:
Literature review.
While the sections may vary, the overall objective is always the same. A research proposal serves as a blueprint and guide for your research plan, helping you get organized and feel confident in the path forward you choose to take.
Research proposal purpose, research proposal examples, research design and methods, contribution to knowledge, research schedule, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about research proposals.
Academics often have to write research proposals to get funding for their projects. As a student, you might have to write a research proposal as part of a grad school application , or prior to starting your thesis or dissertation .
In addition to helping you figure out what your research can look like, a proposal can also serve to demonstrate why your project is worth pursuing to a funder, educational institution, or supervisor.
Show your reader why your project is interesting, original, and important. | |
Demonstrate your comfort and familiarity with your field. Show that you understand the current state of research on your topic. | |
Make a case for your . Demonstrate that you have carefully thought about the data, tools, and procedures necessary to conduct your research. | |
Confirm that your project is feasible within the timeline of your program or funding deadline. |
The length of a research proposal can vary quite a bit. A bachelor’s or master’s thesis proposal can be just a few pages, while proposals for PhD dissertations or research funding are usually much longer and more detailed. Your supervisor can help you determine the best length for your work.
One trick to get started is to think of your proposal’s structure as a shorter version of your thesis or dissertation , only without the results , conclusion and discussion sections.
Download our research proposal template
Writing a research proposal can be quite challenging, but a good starting point could be to look at some examples. We’ve included a few for you below.
Like your dissertation or thesis, the proposal will usually have a title page that includes:
The first part of your proposal is the initial pitch for your project. Make sure it succinctly explains what you want to do and why.
Your introduction should:
To guide your introduction , include information about:
Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:
See an example
As you get started, it’s important to demonstrate that you’re familiar with the most important research on your topic. A strong literature review shows your reader that your project has a solid foundation in existing knowledge or theory. It also shows that you’re not simply repeating what other people have already done or said, but rather using existing research as a jumping-off point for your own.
In this section, share exactly how your project will contribute to ongoing conversations in the field by:
Following the literature review, restate your main objectives . This brings the focus back to your own project. Next, your research design or methodology section will describe your overall approach, and the practical steps you will take to answer your research questions.
? or ? , , or research design? | |
, )? ? | |
, , , )? | |
? |
To finish your proposal on a strong note, explore the potential implications of your research for your field. Emphasize again what you aim to contribute and why it matters.
For example, your results might have implications for:
Last but not least, your research proposal must include correct citations for every source you have used, compiled in a reference list . To create citations quickly and easily, you can use our free APA citation generator .
Some institutions or funders require a detailed timeline of the project, asking you to forecast what you will do at each stage and how long it may take. While not always required, be sure to check the requirements of your project.
Here’s an example schedule to help you get started. You can also download a template at the button below.
Download our research schedule template
Research phase | Objectives | Deadline |
---|---|---|
1. Background research and literature review | 20th January | |
2. Research design planning | and data analysis methods | 13th February |
3. Data collection and preparation | with selected participants and code interviews | 24th March |
4. Data analysis | of interview transcripts | 22nd April |
5. Writing | 17th June | |
6. Revision | final work | 28th July |
If you are applying for research funding, chances are you will have to include a detailed budget. This shows your estimates of how much each part of your project will cost.
Make sure to check what type of costs the funding body will agree to cover. For each item, include:
To determine your budget, think about:
If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.
Methodology
Statistics
Research bias
Once you’ve decided on your research objectives , you need to explain them in your paper, at the end of your problem statement .
Keep your research objectives clear and concise, and use appropriate verbs to accurately convey the work that you will carry out for each one.
I will compare …
A research aim is a broad statement indicating the general purpose of your research project. It should appear in your introduction at the end of your problem statement , before your research objectives.
Research objectives are more specific than your research aim. They indicate the specific ways you’ll address the overarching aim.
A PhD, which is short for philosophiae doctor (doctor of philosophy in Latin), is the highest university degree that can be obtained. In a PhD, students spend 3–5 years writing a dissertation , which aims to make a significant, original contribution to current knowledge.
A PhD is intended to prepare students for a career as a researcher, whether that be in academia, the public sector, or the private sector.
A master’s is a 1- or 2-year graduate degree that can prepare you for a variety of careers.
All master’s involve graduate-level coursework. Some are research-intensive and intend to prepare students for further study in a PhD; these usually require their students to write a master’s thesis . Others focus on professional training for a specific career.
Critical thinking refers to the ability to evaluate information and to be aware of biases or assumptions, including your own.
Like information literacy , it involves evaluating arguments, identifying and solving problems in an objective and systematic way, and clearly communicating your ideas.
The best way to remember the difference between a research plan and a research proposal is that they have fundamentally different audiences. A research plan helps you, the researcher, organize your thoughts. On the other hand, a dissertation proposal or research proposal aims to convince others (e.g., a supervisor, a funding body, or a dissertation committee) that your research topic is relevant and worthy of being conducted.
If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.
McCombes, S. & George, T. (2023, November 21). How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved August 6, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/research-process/research-proposal/
Other students also liked, how to write a problem statement | guide & examples, writing strong research questions | criteria & examples, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".
I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”
The promise of generative AI technology to transform companies, industries, and societies is leading tech giants and beyond to spend an estimated ~$1tn on capex in coming years, including significant investments in data centers, chips, other AI infrastructure, and the power grid. But this spending has little to show for it so far. Whether this large spend will ever pay off in terms of AI benefits and returns, and the implications for economies, companies, and markets if it does—or if it doesn’t—is Top of Mind.
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.
Lead article, explore article hub, read article explainer.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ).
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 ).
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).
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.
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 ).
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.
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 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 (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.
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.
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.
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 ).
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.
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 ).
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 ).
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.
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.
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 .
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.
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsci.2024.1349770/full#supplementary-material
We thank Katie Owens for analyses of AR6 scenarios and the Global Methane Hub for financial support.
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.
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.
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.
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
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
The main difference between research and project is that research is the systematic investigation and study of materials and sources to establish facts and reach new conclusions, while a project is a specific and finite activity that gives a measurable and observable result under preset requirements. Both research and projects use a systematic ...
Texila American University. The main difference between a research paper and a research project is that a research paper is a written document presenting the findings and conclusions of an ...
best essay writing service reviews 2022. However, the main difference is that while an academic research proposal is for a specific line of research, a project proposal is for approval of a relatively smaller enterprise or scientific scheme; most often, project proposals are written with the intent of obtaining support in the form of budget ...
A research project is an academic, scientific, or professional undertaking to answer a research question. Research projects can take many forms, such as qualitative or quantitative, descriptive, longitudinal, experimental, or correlational. What kind of research approach you choose will depend on your topic.
All of the exercises outlined in Part Two of the book, " Exercises in the Process of Research" are examples of this: while none of these assignments are "research papers," all of them involve research in order to make a point. A third reason has to do with the connotations of the word "paper" versus the word "essay."
A research design is a strategy for answering your research question using empirical data. Creating a research design means making decisions about: Your overall research objectives and approach. Whether you'll rely on primary research or secondary research. Your sampling methods or criteria for selecting subjects. Your data collection methods.
Types of Research Designs Compared | Guide & Examples. Published on June 20, 2019 by Shona McCombes.Revised on June 22, 2023. When you start planning a research project, developing research questions and creating a research design, you will have to make various decisions about the type of research you want to do.. There are many ways to categorize different types of research.
Definition: Research Paper is a written document that presents the author's original research, analysis, and interpretation of a specific topic or issue. It is typically based on Empirical Evidence, and may involve qualitative or quantitative research methods, or a combination of both. The purpose of a research paper is to contribute new ...
The golden thread simply refers to the collective research aims, research objectives, and research questions for any given project (i.e., a dissertation, thesis, or research paper). These three elements are bundled together because it's extremely important that they align with each other, and that the entire research project aligns with them.
Dissertation vs Thesis: Showdown Time. Before comparing dissertations to theses, it's useful to first understand what both of these are and what they have in common.. Dissertations and theses are both formal academic research projects.In other words, they're academic projects that involve you undertaking research in a structured, systematic way.
Summary. One of the most important aspects of a thesis, dissertation or research paper is the correct formulation of the aims and objectives. This is because your aims and objectives will establish the scope, depth and direction that your research will ultimately take. An effective set of aims and objectives will give your research focus and ...
Thesis and Research Paper: A Summary. A thesis is a focused argument that presents original research on a particular topic, while a research paper focuses more broadly on the existing literature related to an issue. These two types of academic writing can be easy to confuse for those new to scholarly publishing.
In conclusion, the difference between a thesis and a research paper lies in their purpose, scope, originality, structure, evaluation, and length. A thesis represents the culmination of a student's academic journey, aiming to obtain a higher degree and contribute new knowledge to the academic community. It requires extensive research, in-depth ...
A research paper, being less lengthy, typically takes a few weeks or a few months to complete. 4. Supervision. Writing a thesis entails working with a faculty supervisor to ensure that you are on the right track. However, a research paper is more of a solo project and rarely needs a dedicated supervisor to oversee. 5. Finalization
Conclusion. In brief, the main difference between thesis and research paper is that thesis is a long research paper that typically serves as the final project for a university degree, while a research paper is a piece of academic writing on a particular topic. Moreover, in an academic context, students may be required to write research papers ...
A research paper is a scientific project that includes many theoretical aspects that require analysis and clarification. ... Essay vs Research Paper: 10 Points of Difference. As you may have noticed, research papers and essays have many differences, both global and specific. These two types of academic assignments differ in the purpose of ...
It portrays the interpretation, evaluation or argument submitted by a researcher. The thesis acts as a final project. Whereas a research paper is a kind of research manual of journals. The length of the thesis is around 20,000 to 80,000 words. On the contrary, the length of the research paper is relative to the study.
The key difference between a project study and a dissertation is that a project study does not proceed from a research problem. The purpose of a project study is not to add to our understanding of research on a topic. The purpose of a project study is to help solve an existing local real-world problem, which is why project studies are also ...
Choose a research paper topic. There are many ways to generate an idea for a research paper, from brainstorming with pen and paper to talking it through with a fellow student or professor.. You can try free writing, which involves taking a broad topic and writing continuously for two or three minutes to identify absolutely anything relevant that could be interesting.
A research paper may be assigned at any time, whereas a term paper is typically assigned at the end of the term this is the main distinction between the two types of papers, although writing term papers or research project might feel like a waste of time, both are intended to improve how well you can express your knowledge and understanding of ...
Think of journal articles as the way you tap into the ongoing scholarly conversation, as a way of testing the currency of a finding, analysis, or argumentative position, and a way of bolstering the authority (or plausibility) of explanations you'll offer in the papers and projects you'll complete at Harvard.
Project, thesis and research paper. Thesis is like you are doing investigation of some topic or may be more than one topic. You have to explore other research papers or theories that other people have already written and get your own knowledge of what you get and how you can present it. On the other hand research paper is to do something new.
Undergraduate research assistant, Izaak Krause, from the Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering is working with Bea Van Dam and Sean Smith to assemble historic information, compile hydrologic and spatial data, and parameterize a watershed hydrologic model to evaluate flow regimes affecting Atlantic salmon habitat in the East Branch of the Penobscot River. Sponsored by […]
Project 2025 encourages the president to ensure that "any research conducted with taxpayer dollars serves the national interest in a concrete way in line with conservative principles". [110] [31] : 686 For example, research in climatology should receive considerably less funding, in line with Project 2025's views on climate change.
This research, and any access to it, is intended only for "wholesale clients" within the meaning of the Australian Corporations Act, unless otherwise agreed by Goldman Sachs. In producing research reports, members of Global Investment Research of Goldman Sachs Australia may attend site visits and other meetings hosted by the companies and other
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 ...
Artificial Intelligence (AI) advancements have enabled the development of Large Language Models (LLMs) that can perform a variety of tasks with remarkable semantic understanding and accuracy. ChatGPT is one such LLM that has gained significant attention due to its impressive capabilities for assisting in various knowledge-intensive tasks. Due to the knowledge-intensive nature of engineering ...
Research proposal examples. Writing a research proposal can be quite challenging, but a good starting point could be to look at some examples. We've included a few for you below. Example research proposal #1: "A Conceptual Framework for Scheduling Constraint Management".
The promise of generative AI technology to transform companies, industries, and societies is leading tech giants and beyond to spend an estimated ~$1tn on capex in coming years, including significant investments in data centers, chips, other AI infrastructure, and the power grid.
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 ...