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
The launch of the Africa Energy Bank (AEB) has been put back yet again, raising doubts about the institution’s future ability to finance fossil fuel projects – its main objective – as global lenders retreat from such investments over climate concerns, experts told Climate Home News.
The bank, which had been billed to launch in September after a series of delays, is now scheduled to begin operations in November, according to the head of the African Energy Chamber, an advocacy body for the continent’s oil and gas sector.
Even as the world aims to transition away from fossil fuels, many African leaders have made clear they want to continue exploring and extracting the continent’s large oil and gas deposits – estimated at around 125 billion barrels of crude and over 600 trillion cubic feet of gas – to boost economic development.
As a group, Africa sided with a number of powerful oil-and-gas producing nations in blocking progress on negotiations to craft a global roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels at last year’s UN COP30 climate talks, although some countries did individually support the proposal.
-
Campaigners oppose Dangote’s planned Kenya refinery over climate and ecological risks
Plans to build Africa’s second largest oil refinery in ecologically sensitive region criticised as “environmental recklessness” -
Tanzania pushed African nations to oppose fossil fuel transition at COP30
While chairing the African group at the summit, the gas-dependent nation advised the continent’s ministers to block language on transitioning away from fossil fuels
Meanwhile, major projects under development across the continent – including the 1,443-km East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) and Dangote’s 700,000-barrel-per-day Kenyan refinery – show that African governments see oil and gas as playing a significant role in meeting their energy and economic needs for many years to come.
In 2022, at a gathering of the African Petroleum Producers’ Organization (APPO) in oil-rich Angola, ministers from its member states adopted a resolution to create the Africa Energy Bank to finance projects for the production, use and trade of oil, gas and broader energy sources.
African control over energy resources
An article on the APPO website explains that the bank was conceived as a way to overcome “disenchantment” with fossil fuels among “the international community” which it said had crystallised around the “energy transition” concept.
“If Western countries, after having long taken advantage of the energy sources they now revile to develop, can afford the luxury of abandoning them, this is not the case in Africa,” it adds, noting that many of the continent’s economies are still largely dependent on oil and gas revenues.
A separate web page about the bank, also hosted on APPO’s website, says its objectives include financing the exploration, production and refining of oil and gas, as well as supporting member states in transitioning from fossil fuels to cleaner energy sources “while ensuring energy security”.
Said Addi, a former executive with Shell and energy commodities trading house Gunvor, said the new bank was judged necessary because financing for hydrocarbons from many traditional international lenders has become constrained.
In trying to fill this financing gap, Africa is not simply setting up another fund to support oil and gas, he added. “It is also an attempt to give African countries greater control over how their energy resources and infrastructure are financed,” he explained.
Nigeria to host the AEB
The energy bank – a joint initiative of APPO and the African Export–Import Bank (Afreximbank) – has so far suffered several delays and is almost two years behind schedule. The initial plan was to start operations in January 2025, with Nigeria as the host country, but the bank’s opening was delayed to June of that year to allow Nigeria time to finalise the construction of the bank’s headquarters in Abuja.
After the government announced the completion of the offices in late November 2025, a new launch date was set for January 2026, which was moved back to April, June and then September. Now it has shifted again to November, raising concerns that the institution may be losing momentum.
Former Shell executive Addi said that if the capital is eventually paid in, the bank becomes operational and its first projects are commercially credible, then the delays will be regarded as normal teething troubles in setting up a multilateral institution. But, he added, scepticism will be justified if it continues to stall.
Uganda may see lower oil revenues than expected as costs rise and demand falls
Baron Lamarré, an oil and gas expert and former Petronas oil trader, said that missing “three deadlines in a row is not normal”, and warned that if the timeline slips again, “the story flips from ‘ambitious institution finding its footing’ to ‘good idea that lost momentum before it found any’.”
The Nigerian government, APPO and Afreximbank did not respond to requests for comment by the time of publication.
The funding challenge
The Africa Energy Bank is targeting base capital of $5 billion, with plans to scale up to $120 billion within five years by mobilising private-sector funds. However, it is expected to start operations with initial seed capital of $500 million.
The funding plan is to have the 18 member countries of the APPO contribute $83 million each to the bank as equity for a combined $1.5 billion. Afreximbank, other non-APPO African countries and investors outside the continent are expected to provide the remaining $3.5 billion.
But even the initial $500 million has not been easy to mobilise. In May, APPO Secretary-General Farid Ghezali called on members to deliver on their pledges towards the startup goal before the end of June. But the delays suggest this may not have been met, with experts saying Africa may be finding it difficult to self-fund its oil and gas projects in the absence of international capital.
Lamarré said every extension of the deadline points to the fact that “raising fossil fuel capital in Africa without the majors and their financing networks is brutally hard”.
Why the global electrification agenda misses the point on Africa’s energy crisis
Since 2020, Western lenders, export credit agencies and insurers have been in steady retreat from African hydrocarbons, he said, while oil majors are divesting their African assets, handing over fields to smaller local operators whose credit ratings are not high enough to borrow cheaply.
Even capital from China and the Gulf, which has partially filled the gap, cannot match the volume, tenor or pricing that Western investors once offered, Lamarré argued.
“If mobilising the first $500 million of seed capital [for the AEB] has taken this long, that’s the clearest signal yet of how steep the climb to $120 billion looks,” he said, noting that the continent’s energy financing gap is as large as $30 billion-$45 billion per year.
Africa’s investment landscape, meanwhile, has been shifting. While foreign direct investment dropped from a 2024 peak, inflows remained roughly one-third above the continent’s long-term average in 2025, according to the 2026 World Investment Report from UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD). They are concentrated in a few sectors including critical minerals needed for renewable energy technologies, battery manufacturing and advanced industrial production.
At the same time, data on global energy investment from the International Energy Agency (IEA) shows that fossil fuel investment in Africa has declined over the last decade.
“Trojan horse” for fossil fuels
While the Africa Energy Bank struggles to get off the ground, climate campaigners have criticised its primary aim of financing oil and gas on the continent at a time when the world is starting to move away from high-carbon fuels to cleaner alternatives.
Bhekumuzi Dean Bhebhe, founder of Africa Change Lab, described the bank as a “Trojan horse”, arguing that its focus on fossil fuel financing runs counter to the global energy transition and the African Union’s Agenda 2063 goals of sustainable development and inclusive growth.
The energy bank, he warned, “risks locking Africa into a new cycle of debt, dependency and fossil fuel entrenchment”, adding that its financing blueprint does not pave the way for a climate-resilient future. “In truth, it is to deepen the same extractive, carbon-heavy pathways that the continent should be moving away from,” he added.
Ugandan farmers use British court to try to stop East Africa oil pipeline
Kenya-based climate and energy expert Joab Okanda said the AEB’s plan to finance oil and gas is “a misplaced priority” and it should instead back clean energy in line with the policies of some of Africa’s major export markets like Europe.
In addition, the new bank could struggle to mobilise enough resources to advance large-scale oil and gas projects, he added, noting that its proposed $5-billion initial capital is equivalent to the cost of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline alone.
The AEB’s aim of backing more fossil fuels should be flipped “to support countries that are oil-dependent to start working on their transition plans”, Okanda said.
The post Launch of Africa Energy Bank delayed again in blow to oil and gas hopes appeared first on Climate Home News.
Launch of Africa Energy Bank delayed again in blow to oil and gas hopes
A booklet published by the UK’s opposition Conservative party includes a “cost of net-zero” that appears to have been doubled by a spreadsheet error.
The “common sense” policy document argues that “what people ultimately want is a government competent enough to solve the problems for which it takes responsibility”.
In a section that says “sophisticat[ed]…modelling” should not be a substitute for “political judgement”, the “Right Way” document disparages various estimates of the cost of net-zero.
The Conservative document then claims – incorrectly – that the government’s official adviser, the Climate Change Committee (CCC), had put the cost of net-zero at close to £1tn. It says:
“In 2020, the CCC estimated that its route to net-zero would cost £957bn.”
In fact, the CCC’s 2020 estimate was exactly half this amount – £478bn – and last year it published a revised figure of £108bn, largely as a result of the falling cost of electric vehicles (EVs).
Spreadsheet error
The Conservative party’s erroneous claim appears to stem from another report that had accidentally added up numbers twice, using a spreadsheet published by the CCC in 2020.
The 2020 spreadsheet contains a table listing the additional investments that would be needed to build a net-zero economy, from low-carbon electricity generation through to heat pumps and EVs.
These extra capital expenditures, listed as “CAPEX”, add up to a total of £1.38tn over the 30 years of 2020-50. They are set against operational savings, listed as “OPEX”, of £0.90tn.
Added up over 2020-50, the combined CAPEX and OPEX figures come to a total of £478bn.
In addition to the annual sectoral CAPEX and OPEX figures, the CCC’s 2020 spreadsheet also has a line giving combined totals for each year. It appears that someone has added all of these numbers together, resulting in the savings and costs being counted twice.
This double-counted total for the cost of net-zero amounts to £957bn – as shown in the image below – and it appears to be the source of the claim in the Conservative booklet.
At the time of publication in 2020, the CCC said that the £478bn net cost of net-zero amounted to less than 1% of GDP over 30 years – and that the large investment needed would not only result in savings due to lower fossil-fuel imports, but that it would boost GDP overall, by around 2%.
In 2025, the CCC revised its estimates for investment costs and operating savings to £670bn and £562bn respectively, giving a net total of £108bn over 2025-50, or less than 0.2% of GDP.
Earlier this year, the committee said that cutting emissions to net-zero would cost less than a single fossil-fuel price shock and that doing so would have benefits worth £110bn per year.
Paper trail
The erroneous claim in the Conservative document is referenced to the CCC’s 2020 advice on the UK’s sixth “carbon budget”, which, as explained, does not contain the £957bn figure.
The earliest online use of the £957bn figure found by Carbon Brief is a 12 January 2026 article in the Spectator, by retired engineer and self-described “accidental energy analyst” David Turver.
A day later, Turver repeated the mistaken number in a report for the free-market Institute of Economic Affairs. His report cites figure 5.3 of the CCC’s 2020 advice.
However, as set out above, the CCC spreadsheet containing the data for figure 5.3 only adds up to £478bn, half the figure claimed by Turver.
It appears that Turver accidentally added up all of the numbers in the CCC spreadsheet, without noting that it already included a line for the annual total. This results in double-counting the cost.
(Turver’s report also triggered a slew of inaccurate headlines stating that net-zero would cost £7.6tn – or even £9tn. These figures, which came from Turver’s report, were based, among other things, on the implicit assumption that fossil fuels and the cars, boilers and power plants that use them are all free.)
After Turver’s report and article in January 2026, the erroneous £957bn figure was repeated in March by the Great British Think Tank. The organisation has the tagline “data, not vibes” and says of its work: “Every figure [is] sourced from official public bodies.”
The £957bn figure then appeared in the Conservative “Right Way” document in October 2026.
