You aren't wrong but comparison requires some context. Because of the decay comparisons are made over a time period, the EPA typically uses 100 years. It uses

You aren't wrong but comparison requires some context. Because of the decay comparisons are made over a time period, the EPA typically uses 100 years. It uses a factor of about 28x, ie methane retains 28x more heat than an equal amount of co2 over a 100 year time period. There's debate over whether 100 years is an appropriate time period. Many say its too conservative given the nature of the heating that we face. Over a 20 year time frame the ghg factor is 84x. This has implications particularly when people think about feedback effects, ie methane increases heat which causes permafrost to melt and release more methane which increases heat, etc. Another feedback effect making the picture more complicated is that the decay rate of methane in the atmosphere decreases as the concentration increases. However you cut it, methane in the atmosphere is increasing more rapidly than co2 despite its decay. Reducing it gives a lot of bang for the buck given that in industry most of the emissions come from a relatively few points in the infrastructure. There are of course other sources which are very challenging to reduce like agriculture.