COP 26, the next gathering of the Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, is scheduled for November in Glasgow, and climate issues are climbing up the political agenda, including in the UK, the COP26 host. As part of its sixth Carbon Budget, set to run from 2033 to 2037, the UK government has announced that it will aim for a 78% reduction on 1990 levels by 2035, with the UK share of emissions from shipping and aviation included for the first time. The new target is 15 years earlier than the previous ‘80% reduction by 2050’ target, which was replaced by the UKs ‘net zero’ by 2050 commitment in 2019.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson said ‘We want to see world leaders follow our lead and match our ambition in the run up to the crucial climate summit COP26, as we will only build back greener’. That should put the UK at the front of the pack in policy terms, with the EU struggling to get commitment to an ‘at least 55%’ EU emission reduction target for 2030. Meanwhile, in the US, President Biden pledged to cut carbon emissions by 50-52% below 2005 levels by 2030, essentially doubling its previous promise, while China said it wanted to cooperate with the USA on cutting emissions. And, at the US Climate Summit, Canada said it will cut emissions 40-45% by 2030 compared with 2005 levels, a big jump from its earlier pledge of 30%, while Japan said it would cut by 46% by then.
So there is some good news – although targets far off are easy to set, these are nearer than the 2050 targets more common earlier. However, the question remains, will these more ambitious targets be achieved and will similar ones be adopted more widely? There is certainly a long way to go, for China especially. So far it has avoided major absolute emissions cut targets, and just agreed to reduce emissions per unit of GDP by 18% between 2020 and 2025. Although that should mean that emissions will stabilise by 2035.
Germany is the main driver within the EU, and it was recently claimed that it could achieve 65% reduction of emissions by 2030 and then climate neutrality by 2045, five years earlier than its then planned goal. According to a new study by the Climate Neutrality Foundation and the think tanks Agora Energiewende and Agora Verkehrswende that would require an accelerated the phase-out of coal- by 2030 instead of 2038. And then the even more rapid expansion of renewable electricity generation along with expansion of heating networks, so as to achieve carbon-neutrality by 2043 and climate neutrality, by avoiding or offsetting all greenhouse gas emissions, in 2045. That now all looks a bit more credible, if a last minute policy change is confirmed: following a landmark court ruling in favour of youth plaintiffs, a ‘net zero by 2045’ target has been proposed, with a 65% emissions reduction by 2030, and 85-90% by 2040, all compared to 1990 levels. Previously, the goals were 55% by 2030 and climate neutrality by 2050.
Japan’s promise to cut emissions by 46% by 2030 is a bit less inspiring, but at least it is moving forward at last, although it will be achieved in part by restarting some old nuclear plants, so that nuclear supplies 20% of its power. Some of the other high ‘net carbon’ reduction targets kicking around for other countries, or the world as a whole, rely on wide-scale carbon removal/Carbon Capture and Storage, despite the major problems that are now becoming apparent with some aspects of that and the wider concept of geoengineering. It’s a big debatable issue. Some solar radiation management options may be quick to deploy, but have unknown longer term impacts. And while there may be a role for some negative emission technology, fundamentally we have to avoid producing CO2, not try to bury it.
Will COP 26 help?
Will the Glasgow gathering, which is expected to attract between 20,000 and 30,000 people, improve the situation- for example by pushing for the rapid expansion of renewables rather than diverting effort into CCS, DAC and nuclear? COPs are mainly about adjusting national energy policies to fit global climate requirements, within the contexts of legal agreements on targets and, where possible, funding. It’s a complex, messy, bureaucratic process of negotiation. But the host country, in this case the UK, can shape the overall tone and direction. Currently the UK government has proposed five summit themes: clean energy, clean transport, nature-based solutions, adaptation and finance. This sound reasonable at first glance, but UCL Prof. Simon Lewis, writing in the Guardian, says it ‘is neither the inclusive approach needed as the host of the talks, nor is it logical. Why, for example, is health not on the list? What about agriculture, which causes one-third of global emissions?’ A wider approach is needed. Well maybe. Certainly land use and farm emissions are important.
Help may yet come from the Climate Compatible Growth research programme, funded by the UK government. It is supporting preparations for COP26, and has been asked by the COP26 unit in the UK government’s Cabinet Office to assemble and synthesize academic evidence on eight priority topics:
*Renewables integration into reliable, secure electricity systems, including the future design of markets that take account of changes in technology and decentralization *Regional collaboration to achieve climate compatible growth, including international electricity grids *Shifting away from coal-fired power, including innovative finance for retiring existing plants early *The implications of electricity system change for materials, mining, and processing *Political, economic, & energy system implications of a transition to clean transport *Investment ready energy policies: a synthesis of existing evidence *The political economy of energy system transitions *Covid recovery and climate compatible growth
Whether this shopping list for ‘climate compatible growth’, and emission targets stretching out beyond 2030, will be enough to satisfy ‘zero emissions now’ climate militants remains to be seen. Certainly lobbyists are calling for a shift from complacency to dramatic acceleration. They want growth in green energy, if nothing else!
Meantime, there is a risk that COP 26 will get postponed - again. It was originally planned for November last year but was held over due to the pandemic. With key players India and Brazil currently very hard hit, that may well happen again. Or it may become a virtual gathering. Perhaps it should be anyway- to cut emissions. That’s what the GWPF said . Although that would dissefranchise those without vaccine cover and those in less well net-connected countries. A delay might be better, if it can’t go ahead fully.
Comments
Post a Comment