When it comes to climate policy, net zero is our lodestar — the goal for nations and companies alike. But with greenhouse gas emissions yet to peak and anti-climate sentiments rising, it’s worth examining whether, in our quest to balance the numbers, we’ve forgotten about our societies.
Net zero is no doubt scientifically accurate and, happily, simple to understand — turning a complicated mass of industries, technologies and systems into one easy-to-understand equation: The greenhouse gases we pump out into the atmosphere must be balanced with what we draw down, most likely through a mix of restored natural ecosystems and high-tech engineered approaches, in order to fight climate change. To achieve that balance, it’s clear that we have to reduce emissions, by a lot.
While achieving net zero is absolutely essential, we’re currently at risk from straying from the original goal.
Let’s revisit the 2015 Paris Agreement. The net-zero commitment lies in Article 4.1:
“In order to achieve the long-term temperature goal set out in Article 2, Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that peaking will take longer for developing country Parties, and to undertake rapid reductions thereafter in accordance with best available science, so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gasses in the second half of this century, on the basis of equity, and in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty.”
A series of national pledges aiming to achieve that balance by 2050 followed, so far covering 92% of global gross domestic production and 88% of emissions. But Radhika Khosla, an associate professor at the University of Oxford’s Smith School, told me that the question of climate justice, though clearly outlined in the agreement, has been absent from most ensuing net-zero plans. And although net zero itself is not responsible for creating inequalities around climate change, the drive toward it could be making things worse.
In a new paper, Khosla along with her colleagues at Oxford, have identified four trends that are exacerbating pre-existing inequalities:
• Emphasis on numerical target setting
• Pushing action to mid-century deadlines
• Growing dependence on developing carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies, which are untested at scale
• Further marginalization of climate adaptation
In short, rather than being a push toward rapidly reducing emissions, net-zero pledges have increased our reliance on developing CDR technology and locked in worsening climate impacts as temperatures continue to rise.
Khosla explained that each ton of carbon emitted, or not emitted, has different implications for equity which the mere numerical balancing of emissions and removals fails to take into consideration. Let’s imagine a simplified, hypothetical scenario in which we opt to continue to burn fossil fuels, but are able to compensate for all the released CO2 with removals. Technically net zero has been achieved, but we would fail to solve the environmental and social hazards associated with fossil fuel extraction, such as dangerous air pollution, which is responsible for about 7 million deaths a year and is typically worse in poorer areas.
Ultimately, net zero is the
scientific target we need. But to be
successful, we’ll need
to consider the implications
beyond the numbers
On the other hand, imagine that we invest in eliminating fossil fuels much earlier than 2050. This would have plentiful co-benefits, such as cleaner air and decentralized energy systems. CDR, which we are likely to still need, can be focused on cleaning up residual emissions from hard-to-abate sectors and what was emitted in the past.
Those historical emissions are one of the clearest ways in which net-zero commitments are failing in terms of climate justice. As things stand, very few pledges account for the CO2 that’s already accumulated in the atmosphere. Much of the conversation today revolves around getting everyone to commit to net zero, but that arguably fails to account for the fact that high-income countries are responsible for the majority of CO2 emissions so far.
A more just way of reaching net zero would require retaining the global focus of the original target, rather than the mish-mash of national pledges.
The burden ought to be on developed nations to reduce emissions rapidly and aim for net-negative emissions (removing more than we emit), while low-income and middle-income nations should perhaps be allowed to emit for a little longer while they level up their standard of living. Historical emissions could be accounted for in carbon-takeback obligations, a proposed policy which would see fossil-fuel producers pay to clean up the carbon from their products and has been gathering support from scientists and former oil and gas executives.
Story continues below advertisement
In Europe and the US, it’s worth noting the presence of a growing anti-climate movement and claims of a net zero “assault on working people’s pockets.” In Denmark, for example, truck drivers took to the road recently to protest a new green road tax that would see heavy goods vehicles that run on diesel or petrol charged on a per-kilometer basis. While the Danish government is right to spark a shift toward electric vehicles — and compromises must be made — the dissatisfaction is perhaps a sign they’re making the wrong people pay.
As another consideration for equality, net-zero action must be accompanied by better job opportunities and financial support for lower-income groups, who are less able to pay to be green.
There are opportunities for fairness to become embedded in net-zero plans, Khosla says, whether that’s through better guidelines for companies and government, such as the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) Net Zero Standard, or making sure that climate justice occupies the role it deserves in policy discussions, for example, at the annual United Nations climate summit.
Ultimately, net zero is the scientific target we need. But to be successful, we’ll need to consider the implications beyond the numbers.
Lara Williams is a Bloomberg Opinion Columnist.
Source: Bloomberg
