Thread by @JoeriRogelj

How can #NetZero targets be made rigorous, fair and transparent?

We published 10 guidelines that can help

Details are buried in the supplement of our @nature comment.

Here I'll be going through them, one per day

@COP26 @topnigel @PEspinosaC

(1/n)

https://twitter.com/JoeriRogelj/status/1371749405355864064

The supplement contains an overview table (👇) and a detailed set of guidelines for #NetZero targets

They cover:
I. Scope (of target)
II. Adequacy & Fairness
III. Long term roadmap

It's a long list - so let's get through it one day at a time

(2/n)

nature.com/articles/d4158…

Point I.1: Define the global climate goal your #NetZero target contributes to

The #ParisAgreement aims to hold warming "well below 2°C" and pursues to limit it to 1.5°C. Rigorous targets should be more specific than that.

(3/n)

Point I.2: Define by when #NetZero is intended to be achieved (and over which time period it is assessed)

Emissions change from year to year, & these variations can be tweaked by policies. A target could be achieved in one year while emissions shoot up again in the next.

(4/n)

Point I.3: Define the emissions that are covered by the individual #NetZero target

The #ParisAgreement covers a set of greenhouse gases, incl. CO2, CH4 and N2O. Net-zero targets need to define which ones they cover. That choice determines what the climate outcome.

(5/n)

I.4 Define which metric is used to aggregate greenhouse gases to assess #NetZero

The #ParisAgreement uses the GWP-100 metric. This results in a peak & decline in global warming.

That means, we aim to keep warming as low as possible and gradually start reversing it.

(6/n)

Using other metrics to define #NetZero goals is not simply a technical change

Switching away from GWP100 to aggregate GHGs changes the meaning of #NetZero

Defining the #ParisAgreement netzero goal with a different metric typically means that climate ambition is weakened

(7/n)

I.5 Define the boundaries or scope of emissions covered by the #NetZero target

Which emission sources are counted in targets matters. Does the target cover direct domestic emissions or also from imports? Does the target cover a company's entire supply chain?

(8/n)

A good place to start understanding the scope of emissions of companies is the GHG Protocol: @ghgprotocol

(9/n)

I.6 Describe the expected contribution of direct CO2 removals and/or offsets to achieve the #NetZero target

Any #NetZero target uses a combination of reductions and removals, but targets that prioritize deep direct reductions over removals and offsets are preferred.

(10/n)

Note:
With direct CO2 removals we mean those under the control of the organization or entity.
Offsets, on the other hand, are purchased reductions or removals fulfilled by someone else, elsewhere.

On the whole, direct emissions reductions are preferable.

(11/n)

I.7 Clarify how direct CO2 removal and/or offset options included in the #NetZero target will deliver

Wishful thinking won't save the day!

(12/n)

The 7 previous points clarify the 'scope' of #NetZero targets.

Next on the list are the 'adequacy & fairness' of #NetZero targets.

These aspects are less technical but therefore no less important.

(13/n)

II.1 Justify how your target is a fair and adequate contribution to the global climate goal

- Would we still reach #NetZero if the entire world would follow a similar approach?
- What and how fair are the implications of your target's fairness approach for others?

(14/n)

Fairness issues of #NetZero targets relate to the unequal distribution of finance, opportunities, historical responsibilities, but also technical potentials.

The latter is also important when comparing targets between sectors.

(15/n)

The fair contribution of certain companies and countries to a global #NetZero goal might well be a net-negative target.

Climate policies can be win–win, but emissions targets are a zero-sum game.

(16/n)

If sectors or countries with large reduction and removal potentials aim to reach net zero at the same time as the global average (for example, net-zero CO2 in 2050 for 1.5°C), this is insufficient to reach #NetZero globally and not a fair or adequate contribution.

(17/n)