While the primary focus of tackling climate change is on carbon dioxide (CO2), a group of other greenhouse gases and aerosols – known as “super pollutants” – is having a profound impact on both global temperature and human health.
They are responsible for around 45% of global warming to date, as well as millions of premature deaths each year.
Cutting emissions of these non-CO2 pollutants, which include methane, hydrofluorocarbons and black carbon, is seen as one of the quickest ways to tackle climate change.
Studies have shown how global action to reduce emissions of super pollutants could avoid four times more warming by 2050 than decarbonisation policies alone.
At the same time, it could prevent some 2.4 million deaths a year caused by air pollution.
And, yet, emissions of many super pollutants are soaring.
In this article, we unpack what super pollutants are and why they have an outsized impact on the climate and public health.
The other 45%
CO2 is responsible for around 55% of global warming to date. The other 45% comes from super pollutants: methane; black carbon; fluorinated gases; nitrous oxide; and tropospheric ozone.
These pollutants are present at lower concentrations in the atmosphere than CO2. But each tonne of these substances has a more powerful warming impact than a tonne of CO2 – up to tens of thousands of times more. As a result, they are still responsible for a lot of warming.
Most super pollutants remain in the atmosphere for less time than CO2, ranging from a few days to a few decades. These are known collectively as “short-lived climate pollutants”.
Others, including nitrous oxide and some fluorinated gases, can have very long lifetimes – even tens of thousands of years in some cases.
As well as being substantial contributors to global warming, super pollutants are a major threat to human health.
Poor air quality caused by these pollutants has been linked to a series of heart and respiratory diseases, as well as lung cancer and strokes.
Methane, black carbon and tropospheric ozone are the super pollutants with the most significant impacts on health.
Methane
Methane is the second-largest contributor to climate change after CO2. In its first 20 years in the atmosphere, when it is most potent, methane has a warming potential more than 80 times greater than CO2.
Methane has both human-related and natural sources. Global human-caused methane emissions come from three main areas:
- Agriculture (~40%), such as from livestock and rice production.
- Fossil fuels (~35%), as a by-product of fossil fuel extraction, storage and distribution.
- Waste (~20%), from food and other organic materials decaying in landfills and wastewater.
Recent research has shown that methane emissions have continued to rise, with “no hint of a decline”. According to the World Meteorological Organization, atmospheric concentrations of methane in 2023 were 265% higher than pre-industrial levels.
Methane impacts public health indirectly in a number of ways.
By increasing atmospheric temperatures, disrupting rainfall patterns and contributing to the formation of tropospheric ozone, emissions of the gas contribute to crop failures which exacerbate food insecurity. The gas has been estimated to cause up to 12% of annual agricultural losses of staple crops.
Increased food insecurity has a number of implications for human health. Research has indicated that nearly half of deaths among children under five are linked to undernutrition. These mostly occur in low- and middle-income countries.
However, the biggest impact methane has on health is its contribution to the creation of tropospheric ozone.
Tropospheric ozone
Tropospheric ozone is among the shortest-lived super pollutants, with an atmospheric lifetime of just days to weeks.
But, despite its short-lived nature, the greenhouse gas has a major impact on human health. It has been linked to around 600,000 to 1 million premature respiratory deaths annually and a similar number of premature cardiovascular deaths.
The greenhouse gas does not have any direct sources, but is formed when hydrocarbons – including methane, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and carbon monoxide – react with nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight.
Concentrations of this harmful pollutant are rising. Soaring emissions of its precursor gas – methane – are believed to be responsible for up to half of the observed increase.
As a major component of smog, tropospheric ozone can worsen bronchitis and emphysema, trigger asthma and permanently damage lung tissue. Children, the elderly and people with lung or cardiovascular diseases are particularly at risk from ozone exposure.
In addition to harming human health, studies have shown that many species of plants are sensitive to ozone, including agricultural crops, grassland and trees. Tropospheric ozone damages plants in many ways, including by entering pores in their leaves and burning plant tissue during respiration.
As a result, ozone emissions are a growing threat to food security.
Black carbon
Black carbon is formed by the incomplete combustion of wood, biofuels and fossil fuels in a process which also creates carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and VOCs.
Commonly known as soot, black carbon has a warming impact up to 1,500 times stronger than CO2 per tonne. The pollutant dims sunlight that reaches the Earth, interferes with rainfall patterns and disrupts monsoons. Where it settles on snow and ice, it reduces reflectivity and increases melt rates.
Black carbon is a major component of fine particulate matter air pollution (PM2.5), which has been linked to a raft of negative health outcomes, including premature death in adults with heart and lung disease, strokes, heart attacks, chronic respiratory diseases such as bronchitis, aggravated asthma and other cardio-respiratory symptoms.
Each year, around 4–8 million deaths globally are associated with long-term exposure to PM2.5.
While untangling how many deaths are directly attributable to black carbon is tricky, there is growing evidence of its specific health impacts.
Studies have shown that exposure to black carbon correlates with high blood-pressure levels more strongly than PM2.5 overall. Exposure to the pollutant in pregnancy has also been found to impact the development and health of newborn children and is associated with reduced birthweight.
An integrated approach to climate and health
There has been growing political momentum around the threat of super pollutants.
One clear example of this is the Global Methane Pledge, an initiative launched at the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow in 2021. The pledge, which has been backed by 158 countries and the European Union, commits governments to collectively reduce global human-caused methane emissions by at least 30% below 2020 levels by 2030.
However, methane emissions are going in the wrong direction. Emissions are currently on track to increase by 5-13% above 2020 levels by 2030, according to a 2022 analysis from the Climate and Clean Air Coalition and United Nations Environment Programme.
Building awareness of the health consequences of climate change can encourage policymakers to set ambitious limits on super pollutant emissions. It can also underline the importance of a joined-up policy approach to climate and health, where emissions reduction pledges can help spur policies that improve lives.
The Global Methane Pledge and the Kigali Amendment – an international agreement to reduce the production and use of hydrofluorocarbons – are just two pledges that could have immediate and dramatic effects on public health, if fully implemented.
Cutting emissions of super pollutants is one of the most effective ways to “keep 1.5C alive” in the near-term, while protecting health and avoiding tipping points that could cause irreversible shifts in the Earth system.
Combined with the health benefits, rapidly reducing emissions of these pollutants is a clear win-win for people and the planet.
The post Guest post: How ‘super pollutants’ harm human health and worsen climate change appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Guest post: How ‘super pollutants’ harm human health and worsen climate change
Australia’s network of marine parks is the largest in the world, covering more than half (52%) of Australia’s Commonwealth waters. You could be forgiven for assuming that a marine park is much like a national park on land: a highly protected place where people can enjoy nature while conservation efforts help habitats recover and wildlife thrive. You wouldn’t expect someone to bulldoze a national park, so why should they be allowed to bottom trawl in a marine park?
The reality is that not all marine parks are equally protected. Australia’s Marine Parks Network is divided into different zoning categories, with each zone determining which activities are permitted and the level of protection provided.
More than half of the Commonwealth Marine Parks Network allows industrial activities like oil and gas mining, and industrial fishing.
Our survival, and the survival of our planet, depends on the ocean. The ocean produces more oxygen than all of our forests combined, sustains communities and regulates the earth’s temperature. It’s home to wondrous wildlife and important ecosystems like coral reefs and kelp forests.
We love our big blue backyard
Australia’s ocean is teeming with life that is found nowhere else on earth. Schools of colourful fish, vibrant coral reefs, endemic shark nurseries, pods of dolphins, families of whales, playful seal pups and threatened Jurassic-era turtles call Australian waters home.
Since time began, from the turquoise waves to the deep blue, the ocean has connected our shorelines and communities, fed us, guided us and grounded us. We are intrinsically connected to our big blue backyard – more than 85% of us live within 50km of the shoreline. For tens of thousands of years, people have lived in harmony with the ocean and the wildlife within it, caring for and being sustained by its rich waters. Australia’s waters are some of the most unique and abundant places on Earth but our Marine Parks Network is falling short to properly protect them.
Australia’s marine parks aren’t living up to their name
The Australian Commonwealth Marine Parks Network covers commonwealth waters 5.5km from the coast. The network is divided into 7 regional management areas, overall the network contains 60 marine parks. Zoning types determine what activities are allowed in each area. Over half of the network allows industrial activities, risking our most precious and threatened ocean wildlife.
Within many of our marine parks, destructive industries are allowed to fish, trawl, dig and mine using barbaric and cruel methods. Here are some of the zones explained:
- Bottom Trawling: Special Purpose (trawl) zones allow bottom trawling. This covers 10 marine parks totalling almost 13 million hectares. Bottom trawlers bulldoze the seafloor with weighted nets, deforesting our underwater forests; a cruel, indiscriminate and inefficient way to fish.
- Other Industrial Fishing: Includes “Habitat Protection Zones, ““Multi Use Zones” and “Special Purpose Zones.” Fishing methods vary from park to park but many marine parks in these zones allow industrial fishing like longlining. Longlining involves setting lines that can be 100km long, bristling with deadly hooks designed to catch a specific fish species. But longlining is not a selective method of fishing – significant numbers of sharks, rays, turtles, dolphins and seabirds can be harmed or killed as bycatch in the process.
- Oil and Gas Mining: Many “Special Purpose” and “Multi Use” zones allow seismic blasting and oil and gas mining. 30 marine parks or 65 million hectares of Australia’s highest conservation value areas for ocean wildlife are open for mining and exploration of oil and gas.
- Ocean Sanctuaries: National Park and Sanctuary zones are fully and highly protected marine parks designed to conserve wildlife and their habitat, where fishing, mining, and other industrial activities are not allowed.
Industrial fishing is one of the biggest threats to the ocean
In May, Greenpeace Australia Pacific sailed our campaigning vessel Oceania through some of Australia’s most beautiful and threatened marine parks. Our crew visited Jervis and Hunter marine parks to document their beauty, showcase what’s at risk and aim to expose the industrial fishing activities in these protected waters. Both of these marine parks allow bottom trawling and longlining methods of industrial fishing.
Industrial fishing is ripping the ocean apart across the planet. Longlining, also known as longline fishing, is an industrial fishing method that involves the use of a fishing line with thousands of baited hooks. These fishing lines can stretch over 100 kilometers in length and are set to capture a fish species, often tuna or billfish species. But it is not a selective method of fishing and often results in significant bycatch. This includes a range of non-target species like sharks, rays, sea turtles, marine mammals, and seabirds which are often injured or killed as bycatch.
Bottom trawling involves dragging heavy weighted nets along the ocean floor. This fishing method is popular with commercial fishing companies, because it makes it easy to catch large quantities of fish in one go. But it also damages the seafloor, releasing carbon and can kill or injure non-target ocean life like coral, fur seals, dolphins and seabirds. You may have watched the reality of bottom trawling (and the benefits of ocean sanctuaries) in Ocean with David Attenborough, if not, add it to your watch list!
Fully protected ocean sanctuaries that ban industrial fishing and mining can protect ocean wildlife and underwater wonderlands for generations to come. Vast, robust sanctuaries create blue havens where ocean wildlife are safe from nets and hooks, and can truly rest, recover, thrive and replenish out into the surrounding waters. Ocean sanctuaries ensure a healthy ocean full of life.
A once-in-a-decade chance to fix what’s falling short
We have a unique opportunity to turn the tide.
The Australian Government is asking for your feedback on how our Commonwealth Marine Parks Network is managed. This is our once-in-a-decade chance to protect ocean wildlife, ban industrial fishing and create more ocean sanctuaries.
As part of the review the Government is asking for submissions from the public to hear from you on what improvements are needed to better protect our vast network of marine parks. Writing a submission is a powerful way to influence government decisions and create real change.
This is the moment to ban industrial activities like bottom trawling and oil and gas mining. But only if they hear from YOU. Add your name!
Greenpeace is calling on the Australian government to:
1. Ban industrial activities from Australia’s Marine Parks Network: Ban industrial activities, such as industrial fishing, seismic blasting and oil and gas mining, from Australia’s marine parks.
2. Create more ocean sanctuaries: Increase fully protected sanctuaries in Australia’s marine parks based on science principles.
3. Connect Australia’s Marine Parks Network to the High Seas: mCreate seascape connectivity by linking Australian marine parks to new high seas ocean sanctuaries.
References
Substantiation that more than half of the Marine Parks Network permits industrial activity comes from a peer-reviewed systematic literature review (Phillips et al. 2025, PLOS One, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307324). The study found that within the Commonwealth Marine Parks Network specifically, “all zones are considered partially protected areas, meaning areas where extractive activities are permitted, except ‘Pink zones’ (Preservation Zones; IUCN Ia) and ‘Green Zones’ (IUCN II).” In other words, every Commonwealth marine park zone type other than the network’s strict no-take sanctuary and national park zones (IUCN Ia and II) permits some form of extractive industrial activity. Since no-take zones are the minority zone type across the network by area, this supports the conclusion that the majority of the network’s area is zoned to permit industrial activity.
DCCEEW Australian Marine Parks spatial dataset (https://fed.dcceew.gov.au/datasets/erin::australian-marine-parks/explore), filtered by zone type. This confirms that 38.43% of the network’s area is zoned as Sanctuary or National Park zones (IUCN Ia and II). These are the no-take categories excluded from the peer-reviewed study’s definition of partially protected/industrial-permitting zones. The remaining 61.57% of the network falls within the zone categories the study classifies as permitting industrial activity (per The MPA Guide definition of “industrial” applied in Phillips et al. 2025), directly corroborating the peer-reviewed finding with current Commonwealth-specific spatial data.
For further information on activities permitted within the Marine Parks Network Zoning, you can refer to the Management Plans zoning and rules for each Marine Parks Network area, for example: Temperate East, Coral Sea, North.
A new report from Greenpeace Australia Pacific advocates for the closure of bottom trawling in Australia’s Commonwealth Marine Parks Network. Bottom trawling continues to be a pervasive threat to ocean life in Australia, with 10 marine parks totalling almost 13 million hectares, allowing bottom trawling.
Australia’s network of marine parks, which is the biggest in the world, covers more than half (52%) of Australia’s Commonwealth domestic waters, but not all parks are created equal. Australia’s Marine Parks Network is divided into different zoning categories, with each zone determining which activities are permitted and the level of protection provided. More than half of the Marine Parks Network allow industrial activities like industrial fishing and oil and gas mining. This includes zoning types that allow destructive fishing by longliners and bottom trawlers, who pillage underwater wonderlands, rip up coral and indiscriminately and violently catch any animal in their path, including turtles, seals and dolphins, all within areas labelled a marine park.
The Federal government has commenced a review into the majority of Australia’s Commonwealth Marine Parks Network management plans. This presents an opportunity to ban industrial activities from our marine parks and create more ocean sanctuaries.
© Harriet Spark / Grumpy Turtle Film / Greenpeace
The banner drop is a distinctive part of the Greenpeace repertoire.
The moment of the unfolding is intrinsically dramatic. It is the reveal; when the moral and scientific truth of a situation is unveiled to the world. The wrong is being labelled—not through a written submission, or a social media post, or a statement in a meeting—but in words emblazoned in real physical space, chosen and occupied with precision, for all to see. There is jeopardy and transgression. And there are consequences—for the activists and for Greenpeace, as well as for the target of the communication. One of the reasons the banner remains such an effective tool in our toolbox is because of its undeniable clarity in cutting through, driving change and accountability in a way that few other tactics can. It is naming the wrong: in giant, clear letters.
We’ve hung these massive messages at environmental crime scenes, corporate headquarters, and iconic landmarks; on government buildings, ships and planes—in locations all around the world, for years.
My own memories unfurl even as I write this, but because the campaign to stop Woodside at Scott Reef is so pressing, what immediately springs to mind are two of our banners in that campaign: one on a crane outside their Perth HQ, and another on some of their corroding industrial junk at sea. What about you? Is there a particular banner that you picture when you think of Greenpeace?
The banners can attract global attention, but they have quiet beginnings. Each one is made by hand, often by volunteers. It is the invisible labour behind each spectacular public moment. One of the key pieces of equipment in our workshop at Rainbow Warrior House is the sewing machine. Sometimes our workshop is full of people and noise; at others it is quiet, the only sound being the gentle, purposeful, whir and buzz of a banner being sewn. It is usually our warehouse manager, Kieran Holmes, on the tools, head over the machine, carefully pouring over the raw canvas or tarp as the banner takes shape. Kieran’s one of those people who seems to be able to turn his hand to almost anything, but you wouldn’t know it because he’s old-school modest. In addition to being incredibly skilled, Kieran’s an all-round beaut human to have in the heart of our headquarters; never too busy to take the time to show a newcomer, or curious visitor, around his domain.
Once the banner is sewn up, the lettering needs to be outlined. This is done on a magnetic wall—a fit-for-purpose feature at Rainbow Warrior House, where the banner is held up with magnets, and the edges of the letters neatly traced from a projection.
Next comes the painting. It usually starts late in the afternoon, sometimes going into evenings and weekends, with volunteers, staff, mates crowded around, brushes in hand. It is a calming meditative feeling of shared purpose, giving each letter its visual heft, the colour building power and presence with each stroke.
Then you stand back, stretch, and look at the message, now ready.
S A V E S C O T T R E E F
Throughout history, every great push for social change has required some form of invisible labour; preparation in the form of quiet things seldom seen, but vital. It is the enabling work of love instantiated in action. And of course, so much of the time it has been women who have done this labour, so that the men could get the chance to make the speeches and stand on the podiums. The inaugural Greenpeace voyage to stop nuclear testing in 1971 had a male-only crew, but wouldn’t have happened without the ideas and work of women behind the scenes.
It is what we do together, after all, that changes the world. Sometimes that work happens on a stage, a ship on the wild seas, or up the side of a building. But mostly, it is the hidden diligence of those who care and contribute to all the enabling work that makes a change once thought impossible, inevitable. It is Kieran at his sewing machine. It was Dorothy Stowe doing the administrative work of the ‘Don’t Make A Wave Committee’ that became Greenpeace.
When we think of social change, it is the sturm and drang that we remember. The drop of the banner, the chant of the crowd, the raising of the new flag. But look behind the curtain, and there’ll be a crew of people who are taking responsibility for the administration, the sewing and the painting, making the food, checking the bus timetables, getting stuff done. And behind them are even more handsinvisibly donating time and trust; the financial, material and expert resources that make it all possible. There’s love, camaraderie and know-how at every stage.
We are social and cooperative creatures by nature. And we human beings have been stitching for millenia, sewing the possibilities of our common future. Political and corporate bullies and algorithmically manipulative platforms would have us forget this, and abandon who we are. But we should be in no doubt that the brighter prospects for ourselves and life on earth continue to be stitched and painted; collaboratively and with love, by the diligent hands of millions of people who care, each day, in every community and city across the world.
With Love,
David
Q & A
I always get great questions when interviewing prospective new team members. One that came up again recently was: “Is Greenpeace actually one organisation?”
Around the world, people know Greenpeace by our one global name, united by a shared mission: securing an Earth capable of nurturing life in all its magnificent diversity, with a particular focus on climate and biodiversity. Behind the scenes, though, we’re organised as a network of 25 legally autonomous national and regional offices, including Greenpeace Australia Pacific, working alongside Greenpeace International.
That structure gives us the best of both worlds: we work together leveraging the power of a global network on the issues that matter most, while each office remains legally independent and deeply connected to the communities, cultures and political realities where we’re embedded. Local knowledge informs global action, and global collaboration strengthens and supports local campaigns.
It’s a model that has enabled Greenpeace to take on some of the world’s biggest challenges for over five decades–while withstanding challenges and attacks from governments and corporations. Global enough to tackle global problems, local enough to understand our communities and the natural places we love.
If you’re curious to learn more, you can read about the Greenpeace Global Network structure here.
-
Climate Change12 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases12 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits