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
SYDNEY, Thursday 30 October 2026 — In response to reports that the Albanese government is set to introduce draft legislation this year that would seek to ban data centres in Australia’s suburbs, Joe Rafalowicz, Head of Climate and Energy at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said:
“These reports are a testament to the growing community opposition to these completely inappropriate AI factories that have sprung up across our suburbs, and Big Tech corporations should take heed — the data centre build-out must not happen without the endorsement of the Australian people.
“But the government can’t simply ship this problem out to regional Australia without addressing the fundamental issues with this extractive new industry.
“We’re already seeing a trend of AI data centre proposals moving to the regions, in areas that are more water-scarce, more environmentally sensitive, and next to sources of fracked and coal seam gas to support their massive BYO gas-fired power plans — a pattern we’ve seen play out in the United States.
“From the Beetaloo Basin in the NT to the Western Downs in Qld, we’re seeing a wave of AI data centre proposals that would see new gas fast-tracked to support their massive energy demand, and threaten to completely derail Australia’s energy transition.
“Just as suburban Australians are asking, “what for?”, regional communities like Berry Springs and Dalby do not want dirty data centres setting up shop with absolutely no benefit to their communities. Greenpeace is calling for a moratorium on AI data centre developments until strict and enforceable safeguards are in place to protect our climate and our communities.”
-ENDS-
Media contact
Kate O’Callaghan on +61 406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
AI data centre ban in suburbs would not address fundamental issues: Greenpeace
In the thick of the COP29 climate summit in Azerbaijan in 2024, the UN climate talks were rattled by what can only be described as a major PR disaster. The BBC, Reuters and The Guardian all carried headlines, attributed to leading climate policy experts, that the COPs were “no longer fit for purpose”.
The articles outlined a series of reforms called for in an open letter signed by 22 eminent scientists and politicians, including a former UN secretary-general and previous UN climate chief, with a further 150 lending their support. The headlines shook confidence in the COP process, just as governments were wrestling over a new climate finance goal.
The Club of Rome – which handled the media relations for the letter – hurried to say that its “constructive, supportive ideas” had been “misinterpreted”. Negotiators kept calm(ish) and carried on, in the end landing the finance goal after some high-stakes drama on the final day.
-
Early speakers’ list suggests few powerful leaders will attend COP31
Just 77 heads of state or government are scheduled to address the COP31 climate summit in Antalya, a third less than the COP28 peak -
Africa wants adaptation finance on COP31 agenda, raising risk of a fight
The African Group wants dedicated space on tripling adaptation finance, the Green Climate Fund and trade, setting up a possible clash
To my surprise, when I went back this week to read the letter again, I could not find the offending line about the COPs not being fit for purpose. The Club of Rome has yet to respond to my query about its disappearance.
Whatever happened to the wording, that sentiment has been widely shared. COPs have ballooned in size while the importance of their outcomes seems to have diminished since the 2015 Paris Agreement (with the exception of the 2023 COP in Dubai where countries agreed to transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems).
The same on the surface
Two years on from those painful headlines in Baku, has anything changed for the better? You might be forgiven for thinking not. Official decisions are still made by consensus rather than the majority voting some have called for to stop blockers.
Tens of thousands of officials, activists and business execs still scurry around the halls to an ever-growing list of side events, roundtables and dialogues, while deals still come down to rows, all-nighters and jargon-filled texts adopted to rounds of applause.
But it would not be true to say that COPs have completely failed to respond to the very real need to translate the words of the Paris Agreement into action in the outside world.
Global warming is projected to be around 1.3C lower this century than it would have been if the world had not committed to tackle the climate crisis under that accord. Developing countries have a valued space at COPs in which their voices have equal weight in decision-making, unlike in many other international fora. And most importantly, perhaps, there has been a subtle shift, tipping the balance away from negotiating towards doing.
Brazil branded last year’s summit in Belém as the “COP of Implementation”, corralling the sprawling Action Agenda into six axes. This was a bid to impose some structure on the mushrooming efforts between governments, UN agencies, cities, businesses and civil society to set targets and spur faster results on their pet issues, from methane emissions to health and adaptation in conflict zones. COP30 alone saw the launch of 120 “plans to accelerate solutions”.
COP30 roadmaps off the cuff
Meanwhile, as the formal negotiations drew to a close, it was clear that consensus decision-making was evolving into something a little more improvised.
With only around half of all countries on board with the idea of a roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels, COP30 President André Corrêa do Lago announced his team would put one together over the coming year, along with another on how to meet a global goal to halt deforestation by 2030. Those roadmaps will be launched next week, presented and discussed at COP31, though it’s still unclear whether or how they’ll be incorporated into the formal negotiating agenda.
Some leading policy-makers don’t think that matters too much. Speaking to journalists before the Antalya summit, COP30 CEO Ana Toni and Dutch climate minister Stientje van Veldhoven said “coalitions of the willing” can move ahead without needing consensus from the COPs. This, they said, was evident this year at the first global conference on TAFF, co-chaired by van Veldhoven and attended by 60 countries.
“Consensus or no-consensus in the general COP doesn’t make a difference for the choices I have to make in my country to get my country to phase out fossil fuels,” said the Dutch minister. The Netherlands recently became one of the first to publish a national TAFF plan.
COP31 banks on flagship voluntary initiatives
This thinking has permeated the management and expected outcomes of this year’s COP too. Earlier this year, Türkiye, supported by international energy agencies, floated the idea of a voluntary goal to boost electrification to 35% of the world’s final energy consumption by 2035 – and this is now being touted as one of the main results to be expected from Antalya.
Türkiye is also championing a pledge on AI and climate, while co-host Australia is pushing to ease access to climate finance for least developed countries and small island states.
COP31 presidency announces AI pledge as UN climate chief says Big Tech ‘on thin ice’
None of these needs consensus. But with a political cover decision already in the works, as trailed by the COP presidents, they – and perhaps the fossil fuel roadmap – may find a home in the official text if language acceptable to most can be found, giving them them additional weight.
UNFCCC reform process in the shadows
Formal reform is underway too, if quietly. UN climate chief Simon Stiell is leading a review informed by ongoing consultations with a group of 15 well-respected climate policy experts, three of whom signed the open letter in 2024.
Among them is leading Swedish climate and sustainability scientist Johan Rockström who has strong ideas about how to make COPs function better, including a switch to majority voting. He told the same press briefing nothing stands in the way of this, because the rules of procedure for making decisions at COPs have never been formally agreed.
Still, to get away from the default setting of consensus would require agreement on a new system that may be impossible to achieve given the rise in bullying tactics by fossil fuel heavyweights.
Comment: The UN climate process was built for negotiation – now it must support implementation
The deliberations with the high-level policy gurus, as reflected in a summary of June’s session in Bonn, largely echo what’s already happening organically, calling for stronger partnerships and accountability both in and between the Action Agenda and negotiations. It doesn’t mention voting.
A general overview of the reform exercise says that “improving and optimizing the [UN climate] process over the medium to long term… will be critical to fostering trust, enhancing collaboration, and catalyzing increased ambition”.
In the short term, don’t hold your breath for anything concrete on reform at COP31 but watch for signs in what ends up dominating the headlines from Türkiye.
The post Editor’s Desk: COP reform is happening quietly, behind the headlines appeared first on Climate Home News.
Editor’s Desk: COP reform is happening quietly, behind the headlines