How will climate negotiators deal with diminishing carbon budget for 1.5C?
Some thoughts from our recent @OneEarth_CP paper "#UNFCCC must confront the political economy of net-negative emissions"
Now available #OpenAccess for 2 months cell.com/one-earth/full…#COP26
(1/n)
Basic problem is quite easy to understand. We're very close to 1.5C, and even if you think it's still possible to stay within the remaining carbon budget (<500 Gt), this would mean that every country needs to reach net zero pretty soon. #COP26
(3/n)
This is how this would look like (stylised pathways). Would this be 'fair' in a global context, keeping in mind historical responsibility for climate chnage? Probably not. But whatever you think, for #UNFCCC negotiations it is more important what governments think #COP26
(4/n)
Well, India seems to think that such a trajectory wouldn't be fair, rejects to set a net-zero year, instead started to demand that developed countries commit to reaching net-negative first huffpost.com/entry/india-cl… #COP26
(5/n)
Here's how it could look like (again, stylised pathways).
No overshoot of global carbon budget, but developed countries net-negative from 2045, China stays at net zero, India and others peaking ~2030, and staying above net-zero #COP26
(7/n)
But India and other developed countries could even call for considering a 3rd option (again, stylised pathways).
Overshooting global carbon budget (as assumed in many #IPCC scenarios), "payback" through developed countries & China, even later peak for India and ROW #COP26
(8/n)
We were not the first ones to think about this. 10 years ago, @tavoni_massimo, Rob Socolow & @spacem0nk3y already saw it coming.
But now it finally reaches #UNFCCC negotiations, mostly likely during the Global Stocktake, to be concluded 2023 mdpi.com/2071-1050/4/2/… #COP26
(9/n)
Even although this makes sense in a strict 'carbon counting' perspective, there are obvs. many caveats and downsides. More on that later, once #COP26 started.
For now, I refer you to our lead author's thread
"Constructive ambiguity" is a useful tool to reach agreement under #UNFCCC. But problematic that #ParisAgreement doesn't exclude or at least sets clear constraints for 1.5C overshoot. Creates way too much flexibility
See our 2017 @NatureGeosci piece rdcu.be/cAqml#COP26
IPCC #AR6 WGI report on the physical science basis of climate change is out today.
Find the the Summary for Policymakers and the Full Report here ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
[1/n]
First, some important context on remaining carbon budgets, pathways and net-zero emissions - since it doesn't make any sense to talk about Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) in isolation. ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/ #IPCC#AR6
[3/n]
The inconvenient truth about the #renewables boom in a world of growing energy consumption. Share of fossil fuels basically unchanged 2009-2019.
From @REN21's new 'Renewables 2021 Global Status Report' ren21.net/reports/global…
The 11.2% #renewables share excludes so-called 'traditional biomass' (e.g., wood for cookstoves). Even then, share of #bioenergy among renewables still considerable
From @REN21's new 'Renewables 2021 Global Status Report' ren21.net/reports/global…
You might have heard #renewables overtook fossil fuels in new infrastructure but this usually only refers to power sector & only to capacity not generation. Picture for whole energy system rather bleak
From @REN21's new Renewables 2021 Global Status Report ren21.net/reports/global…
A crucial aspect still unclear in Biden administration's #climate policy plan. Does "net-zero economy by 2050" cover all greenhouse gases (like in EU) or only CO2 (like US 2035 target for power sector)?
Net-zero GHG is much more ambitious than net-zero CO2 whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/…
Net zero GHG is much harder to achieve than net zero CO2. In global scenarios, it takes 10-20 years longer swp-berlin.org/10.18449/2020R…
Main reason is that non-CO2 emissions like nitrous oxide (N20) and methane (CH4) are much harder or impossible to eliminate, so they need to be counterbalanced by CO2 removal, which takes longer.
Below global pathways. For countries, it depends on their specific emissions profile
Study assumes 95% conventional mitigation, making it one of the more ambitious for industrialized countries (CCC for UK & COM for EU: ~90%, see swp-berlin.org/10.18449/2020R…)
Residual emissions mainly from agriculture & industry, aviation already at zero agora-energiewende.de/en/press/news-…
[2/n]
Carbon Dioxide Removal is slightly higher than residual emissions (64 vs, 62 Mt), mainly consisting of Bioenergy with CCS (mostly in industry, not in power sector) and Direct Air Capture with CO2 storage
Scenario does not rely on LULUCF sink agora-energiewende.de/en/press/news-…
[3/n]