The Advisory Board recommends the EU to take up a 2040 emissions reduction target of 90–95% compared to 1990 to keep the EU’s GHG budget to within 11 to 14 Gt CO2e between 2030 and 2050. #2040ClimateTarget#GreenhouseGasEmissionsBudget
Where do these numbers come from?
2/n
To arrive at this #2040ClimateTarget advice, the @esabcc_eu implemented its earlier recommendation to the @EU_Commission to follow an approach that is systematic, transparent and guided by EU values, when preparing its EU 2040 climate target proposal. 4/n
The most recent #2040ClimateTarget advice is based on two central considerations:
1) estimates of what the EU’s fair contribution to a global 1.5°C pathway would be, and
2) considerations of the feasibility of deep GHG emission reductions by 2040.
We look at both in turn 6/n
The advice quantifies different perspectives on the EU’s fair share of emissions, but bases these quantifications on ethical principles that the EU has expressed and emphasized in its laws and commitments.
These include the EU’s commitment to pursue keeping warming to 1.5C 7/n
equity provisions under the Paris Agreement 8/n
as well as principles explicitly cited in the 2021 European Climate Law.
For example, the ‘polluter pays’ principle. 9/n
The implications of these principles are then quantified.
Choices of how to capture these ethical principles with specific indicators result in a range of estimates consistent with the initial ethical principles expressed by the EU. 10/n
At the same time, socioeconomic and technological pathways for the EU are assessed to understand how deeply emissions can be reduced by 2040. 11/n
These scenarios were subsequently assessed on:
- Whether they represent the EU and its targets to a useful degree
- Whether they imply key feasibility concerns identified in the scientific literature
- The environmental risks and technological challenges they would imply 13/n
The insights of the feasibility and fair share perspectives were then combined to arrive at the recommendation to take up a #2040ClimateTarget of 90–95% compared to 1990 to keep the EU’s GHG budget to within 11 to 14 Gt CO2e between 2030 and 2050. 14/n
Note that this 2030–2050 #GreenhouseGasEmissionsBudget includes emissions from international aviation and maritime transport between EU destinations. 15/n
The advice also highlights three ‘iconic pathways’ that illustrate different choices and strategies to achieve climate neutrality in 2050. 16/n
Selected for the diverse mitigation strategies they implement, the iconic pathways have very diverse assumptions and rely in different degrees on specific mitigation measures. 17/n
These represent fundamental choices to be considered during the implementation of a 90–95% reduction by 2040. 18/n
The @esabcc_eu advice acknowledges that there is a shortfall between what the EU can achieve domestically and the GHG budget derived from a fair share analysis based on the ethical principles expressed in EU or international law. 19/n
To minimize this shortfall, the advice recommends aiming for the more ambitious end of the 90–95% range, while combining this with action outside the EU. 20/n
It even provides a few more specific suggestions for dealing with the shortfall in the underlying report. 21/n
The advice relies on several, more detailed considerations and I can’t discuss everything here. The full report is best place to explore if you’re interested in understanding all details. 22/n climate-advisory-board.europa.eu/reports-and-pu…
The drafting of this advice was an engaging, stimulating and careful process with invaluable contributions of all @esabcc_eu members and incredible support by the Advisory Board's secretariat. 23/n climate-advisory-board.europa.eu/about/advisory…
To conclude, my personal hope for the @esabcc_eu#2040ClimateTarget advice is that it can be a constructive scientific input into the 2040 target proposal by the @EU_Commission.
It represents our best available scientific understanding of what is both needed and possible. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In 2021, the European Climate Law created the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change @esabcc_eu and tasked it to inform the EU’s #2040ClimateTarget and 2030-2050 greenhouse gas (GHG) budget.
Today, @esabcc_eu published its advice.
Here’s the short version 🧵1/n
The Advisory Board recommends the @EU_Commission to take up:
a 2040 emissions reduction target of 90–95% compared to 1990
to keep the EU’s GHG budget to within 11 to 14 Gt CO2e between 2030 and 2050.
2/n
This advice is based on an assessment of what would be both a fair and a feasible emissions reduction contribution of the EU to the global challenge of keeping warming to 1.5°C. 3/n
Countries’ new and updated pledges (NDCs) submitted since COP26 reduce projected global GHG emissions in 2030 by only 0.5 gigatons of CO2 equivalent (GtCO2e) compared with projections based on pledges at the time of COP26.
Some pledges result in even higher emissions /2
Countries are off track to achieve even the globally highly insufficient NDCs. Global GHG emissions in 2030 based on current policies are estimated at 58 GtCO2e. The implementation gap in 2030 between policies and NDCs is about 3 to 6 GtCO2e. /3
Excellent conversation going on about how media messaging following the @IPCC_CH 1.5 report sating we have "12 years left" until [your favorite climate pandemonium term] has been a disservice to science communication, and is damaging to date 👇
(1/n) @guardian@Fridays4future
As one of the coordinating authors of the report I can only wholeheartedly agree with @bobkopp@PFriedling@theresphysics and others that this is a dangerous misrepresentation of the report's assessment and messages.
Let me explain why
(2/n)
Ironically, the "12 year left until climate catastrophe" message (with years being reduced as time passes) is wrong and damaging in two opposite ways:
misrepresentation through exaggeration and driving complacency through inaccurate messaging
(3/n)
Two years ago - we published a new scenario logic to avoid risky and unfair climate change scenarios in @Nature.
Yesterday, two new studies in @NatureClimate apply this logic and find that avoiding overshoot is the right thing to do both to reduce risks and overall costs.
/1
Our initial @Nature study highlighted that focussing on a target in 2100 and not caring about what happens until then results in scenarios that suggest the best way to meet a target is to plan to first miss it.
#COP26 is concluding after two years of work with some important decisions.
Some highlights of those areas I have followed most closely: 1) science 2) increased ambition 3) the Paris Rulebook
Some quick reflections (1/n)
1) science
For the first time ever, scientific evidence is included as a key framing of the various COP decisions. This is historic and includes strong messages on the scientific requirements as identified by @IPCC_CH to keep warming to 1.5C.
(2/n)
It includes required emissions reductions of -45% by 2030, and the need of reaching net zero.
The one bitter pill here is the last minute change from a "phase-out" to a "phase-down" of unabated coal power - very uncool and irresponsible
(3/n)
New #COP26 analysis: 🚨🌡️🌍
Is COP26 on track to keep 1.5°C alive?
Here I connect the dots between findings of the most recent scientific reports and look at what current pledges mean for carbon budgets limiting warming to 1.5C
About 2400 billion tonnes of CO2 (GtCO2) have already been emitted between the years 1850 and the end of 2019 (2/n)
I then add global emissions pathways consistent with current policies, and various interpretations of country pledges (called NDCs, or nationally determined contributions) from the latest update of the @UNEP#EmissionsGap Report 2021. (3/n)