Net Zero emissions by 2050 prioritise mitigation for climate stabilisation. Pledges to achieve this still-distant target have grown but actions are urgently needed in the near term. The 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is committed to “the stabilisation of greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic or human-caused interference with the climate system”. Consequently, climate negotiations are supposed to focus on stepping up mitigation efforts. But bringing the target forward will not prevent global temperatures from rising 1.5°c above pre-industrial levels well before 2050.
Since the 2021 UNFCCC Conference of Parties (COP) in Glasgow, many governments have promised to achieve Net Zero emissions by 2050, After reneging on various other Glasgow commitments, such as ending coal burning for energy, G7 Western leaders piously reiterated the ‘Net Zero by 2050’ promise in April 2024.
The agreement allows notable exemptions which are hardly trivial. GHG emission calculations exclude exemptions, e.g., for military purposes, air and marine transportation. Meanwhile, invoking the ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ (CBDR) principle, some developing countries have bargained for more time. For example, India has announced a 2070 deadline. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on keeping warming under 1.5°c was used to advocate for the Net Zero by 2050 target. Net Zero by 2050 offers an attractively simple target for climate stabilisation. If fully enforced, Net Zero should stabilise the climate from 2050, but will certainly not check global warming in time.
Net Zero had first appeared at the UNFCCC’s 2014 Emissions Gap Report and at the UNFCCC COP then. World Bank President Jim Kim had proclaimed then, “we must achieve zero net emissions of greenhouse gases before 2100”. The 2015 Paris Agreement committed to “undertake rapid emissions reductions … to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removal by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century”. Hence, the new 2050 target year is a significant improvement over earlier target years, but will not cut GHG emissions in time to avoid breaching the 1.5°c threshold.
Net Zero sinks have also come under careful scrutiny. Removing GHGs will Trap and absorb less heat in Earth’s atmosphere. Net Zero has revived hope in carbon sinks with little recognition that most consequences of climate change, especially global warming, are largely irreversible.
Many carbon sequestration proponents believe ‘carbon dioxide removal’ and ‘negative emissions’ technologies will be enough. These include carbon capture and storage, topsoil carbon sequestration, large- scale tree planting and reforestation, with more controversial ‘geo- engineering’ schemes touted recently. The IPCC Special Report has warned that while some options might be technologically feasible, many have not proved viable at scale. There is also no scientific basis for claims that global warming’s worse effects can be reversed. The International Energy Agency’s revised Net Zero Roadmap for the 2023 Dubai COP led the UNFCCC to endorse “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade, so as to achieve Net Zero by 2050 in keeping with the science”.
Some Net Zero advocates want to make State parties more accountable by proposing a new legally binding agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol, abandoned by most rich nation governments following US Senate rejection. After this comes the question of temperature targets. Governments previously had pledged to meet the 2015 Paris Agreement’s goal of keeping global warming under 1.5°c. But UN Climate Action and Finance Special Envoy Mark Carney expects the threshold to be breached in under a decade, well before 2050.
Over recent decades, the climate policy target discourse has gone from emissions reduction to limiting temperature warming above pre- industrial levels. The European Union adopted the 2°c threshold in 1996, insisting it should be for all. However, some of the most vulnerable developing countries, mainly in the tropics, insisted on 1.5°c. The IPCC argued in 2014 that warming under 2°c would require “near zero emissions of carbon dioxide and other long-lived greenhouse gases by the end of the century”. Carbon budget projections have improved with better GHG emissions and atmospheric persistence monitoring techniques.
Following sustained efforts by some developing countries, led by some of the most vulnerable, a later IPCC Special Report has urged keeping global warming under 1.5°c. Low-lying island nations rallied around 1.5°c. Climate analyst H. F. Nakabuye has in this context taken a significant stand by pointing out that it is time for the rich polluters to pay for the climate crisis that they have shaped. The world is standing at a critical juncture. It has been affirmed that Climate change is not just a future threat-it is here, and is already disturbing lives and creating distress. From record-breaking heat waves to floods and landslides, the planet is sending us clear signals that we cannot afford to ignore. Nakabuye, who is from Uganda has drawn attention to the fact that Uganda, a country that contributes less than 0.02 per cent of global C02 emissions still ranks as the 36th most vulnerable country facing the impacts of climate change through change in weather patterns resulting in flooded roads and mudslides. We have also recently seen how intemperate weather and rain can affect education and also create health problems in Bangladesh. We have also seen how Climate Change Trust Funds (BCCTF) have been directed towards infrastructure, neglecting long-term drought impacts in the Barind region in Bangladesh. A study carried out by CPRD has indicated that the area in Dinajpur, Thakurgaon, Chapainawabganj, Naogaon and Kurigram could have been better handled. That would also apply with regard to Sylhet, Cummilla, Chottogram Hill Tracts and Feni. Our agricultural plantations were also badly affected and did not survive as the case of neighbouring sub-regions in North East India, Nepal and Bhutan. This scenario has led to loss in livelihood and food security.
This evolving scenario is particularly frustrating for Africa– a continent rich in resources and biodiversity. African environmentalists have particularly expressed their anger as they continue to bear the brunt of a crisis they do not consider to have been created by them. They have consequently observed that their people are paying with their lives and futures for the emissions and actions of the world’s wealthiest. Africa, despite its negligible carbon footprint, is on the frontlines of environmental disasters, while the fossil fuel industry continues to rake in record profits.
According to Oxfam, “the richest 1 per cent emit as much planet-heating pollution as the poorest two-thirds of humanity and their carbon emissions are enough to cause 1.3 million excess deaths due to heat”. There is also another unhappy dimension. In most poor developing countries as water sources dry up, girls are being forced to walk further and further, giving up education and opportunities to secure the most basic human needs. Environmentalists have worked out that by 2030 water insecurity is expected to displace 700 million people globally– most of them girls and women. This is not just a climate crisis. It is also being viewed as a social justice crisis.
This November, at COP29 in Baku, leaders from the Global North, including the United States, must agree on a new goal for climate finance that includes taxing the ultra-wealthy and fossil fuel companies. Rich countries, whose emissions have fueled the climate crisis, must also step up and take the lead. It is time for rich polluters to pay for the destruction they are causing. The people who have contributed the least to this crisis are the ones suffering the most. The future deserves to witness equality. Renewable energy needs to power our economies. Such a scenario will help all of us to move together and prosper on our planet. Muhammad Zamir, a former Ambassador, is an analyst specialised in foreign affairs, right to information and good governance.
Oct 20, 2024. From The Financial Express.