22 headlines running through the latest IPCC report on climate change mitigation

Can the agents that have caused it stop climate change? Can. Another thing is that there is a will. Working Group III (WG3) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) yesterday published the third of the four parts of the Sixth Assessment Report (IE6). This report constitutes the most comprehensive review on “how we can mitigate climate change” since 2014, when the IPCC published its Fifth Assessment Report (IE5). There are two key conclusions of IE6. First, we have time to stop climate change, according to scientists. Secondly, without political and social will, the abyss will eventually break through.

The report addresses a wide panoply of items, from mitigation measures and a comprehensive sectoral analysis, to financing, international collaboration or reduction to net zero in ceodós (net zero greenhouse gas emissions). For the first time in the history of the IPCC, it includes chapters dedicated to technology, innovation and demand-side measures. The sixth assessment report (IE6), which has been rated as the most authoritative assessment on how to mitigate climate change ever produced, has received, during its drafting process, almost 60,000 comments from expert reviewers and governments, includes references to more than 59,000 scientific articles and has been approved by 278 authors.

22 incumbents

The dimensions of IE6 are simply formidable, and certainly unfathomable in a piece of journalism. Here (under these first lines) we will try to synthesize the keys to understanding it. But first, in any case, we are going to allow ourselves a certain journalistic license: 22 headlines. 22 headlines that do not pretend to summarize, only pretend to be (journalistic) blows at the doors of climate awareness. 22 headlines that emerge from the latest scientific report released by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

• The richest 1% emit more than twice as much_CO2 as the poorest 50%

• Women’s carbon footprints are often lower than men’s, mainly due to reduced meat consumption and driving

• Human-caused greenhouse gas emissions reached 59 GtCO2eq in 2019, the highest level since 1990

• People with high socioeconomic status contribute disproportionately to emissions and have the greatest potential to reduce them

• Climate change has soared on the agenda of politicians and the media, but it is still far from getting a level of attention and action that the scale of the climate crisis requires

• Scientists are convinced that there is an opportunity to limit warming to 1.5°C by 2100

• The world is on track for 3.2°C warming by 2100 unless policies are rapidly strengthened by the end of 2020

• Climate investment is ten times lower than would be necessary to avoid +1.5ºC

• There are currently “direct” climate laws focused on GHG reduction in 56 countries covering 53% of global emissions by 2020, and climate litigation is on the rise.

• Between 2010 and 2019, there have been sustained declines in the unit costs of solar (85%), wind power (55%) and lithium-ion batteries (85%)

• Between 2010 and 2019, there have been large increases in their deployment, for example >10 times in the case of solar energy and >100 times in the case of electric vehicles

• Photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP) and onshore and offshore wind now compete with fossil fuels for levelised energy costs in many places

• To reduce the global use of fossil fuels, we will need electricity systems with net zero_CO2 emissions and widespread electrification of the energy system

• Most methane emissions come from fugitive emissions from fossil fuel production and transport, and most (50-80%) can be avoided with current and affordable technologies

• Existing and planned fossil fuel infrastructures will single-handedly deplete the remaining carbon budget for 1.5°C without overrun

• If fossil fuel infrastructure continues to be installed without diminishing, GHG emissions will be “blocked” and 1.5 °C will no longer be reached

• Estimates of the cost of mitigation for the low-carbon transition tend to be overestimated

• Between 2020 and 2030, annual investments should be three to six times higher than current levels in all sectors to limit warming to 1.5°C

• We have enough capital and liquidity to close the investment gap and provide the necessary investment in the transition

• Beyond the obvious environmental benefits, the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies would reduce emissions, improve public revenues and macroeconomic performance

• Coal assets are at risk of being stranded by 2030, while oil and gas assets are more likely to be stranded by mid-century.

• Agriculture, forestry and other land uses contributed to just over a fifth (22%) of GHG emissions in 2019.

This report covers some of the major advances in our knowledge of mitigation since the IPCC published IE5 in 2014. Currently, publications on mitigation largely reflect the 2015 Paris Agreement, increased net-zero emissions commitments, and the growing need for action by non-governmental stakeholders, including businesses, industry and financial institutions.

1. Since IE5, greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise

We are not even close to achieving the Paris goals of keeping warming below 2°C, or ideally 1.5°C. Current Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) will lead to warming of about 2.7°C this century, or possibly even more. If_CO2 emissions continue at the current rate, we will deplete the remaining carbon budget of 1.5°C by the early 2030s. The planned and current fossil fuel energy infrastructure alone commits us to some 846 GtCO₂ (more than double what is left in our 1.5°C carbon budget) and each year we incorporate more high-carbon infrastructure than we dismantle.

Of greenhouse gases (GHG), CO₂ is the one that causes the most warming due to its high concentration and its long stay in the atmosphere. Despite efforts to reduce emissions, burning fossil fuels adds more CO₂ to the atmosphere, raising the accumulated atmospheric concentration to unsustainable levels. Between the years 1850 and 2019, coal, oil and gas accounted for about 66% of cumulative_CO2 emissions, while land-use change was responsible for about 32%.

However, since IE5, there is greater recognition of increased emissions of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). Both are potent GHGs that retain about 34 to 300 times more heat than_CO2 respectively (over a 100-year period). Methane is responsible for nearly a quarter of human-caused warming to date, and concentrations are rising faster today than at any time since the 1980s. Today, methane emissions are two and a half times higher than pre-industrial levels. The authors of the IE6 Summary for Policymakers (RRP) by Working Group I (WG I) stressed that a “strong, rapid and sustained reduction” in methane emissions would have a double impact: limiting the “warming effect resulting from the decrease in aerosol pollution”, and improving air quality.

Between 2008 and 2017, agriculture and waste contributed the most to the increase, followed by the fossil fuel industry. However, calculating exactly how much and from where methane emissions are increasing is a subject of constant research and debate. For example, some researchers have found that the role of North American shale gas (called “hydraulic fracturing”) has been significantly underestimated in the calculation of global methane emissions.

N2O emissions have increased by 20% from pre-industrial levels, with the largest increase observed in the last 50 years, mainly due to the addition of nitrogen to crop fields through fertilizers.

In 2018, global GHG emissions were about 57% higher than in 1990 and about 43% higher than in 2000. Emissions continued to rise in 2019, by which time they reached approximately 59 GtCO2. However, in 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic produced a large historical decline in CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry. During the height of global lockdowns, daily emissions were reduced by 17% compared to 2019, levels not seen since 2006, and people around the world were able to have a brief relief from deadly air pollution. Since then, emissions have rebounded and, last year, reached their highest level. However, research has shown that rebuilding the economy in a greener, more sustainable, fairer and climate-focused way represents a better opportunity than the brief disruption of emissions caused by lockdowns, which will have little long-term impact.

2. Without a radical push on climate ambition, our hopes of achieving the Paris Agreement’s goals of 1.5°C and 2°C without “excess” are out of reach

We are increasingly likely to “exceed” average global temperatures of 1.5°C and 2°C (meaning that the average global temperature temporarily exceeds, by decades, the temperature target before falling again. This can only occur if atmospheric GHG concentrations are reduced, which is achieved by removing carbon [EDC]dioxide, which is not a reality at all [véase a continuación].) More and more research shows that, for the same end-of-the-century temperature increase, the excess is likely to produce more climate damage (some of which is irreversible), such as biodiversity loss and extreme weather conditions, than if we reach that point without overdoing it.

Delaying mitigation means we will have to reduce more emissions each year in order to meet the Paris Agreement by 2030. We were already aware of the dangers of delaying mitigation in 2014, when the IPCC stated that situations with high emissions up to 2030 would have higher long-term economic costs and that they would “substantially increase the difficulty of the transition” and “narrow the range of options consistent with… 2 °C’. Currently, the average annual emission reductions needed to remain below 1.5°C are four times higher than they would be if collective mitigation and ambition had begun in 2010, according to UNEP. This highlights the need to act quickly.

Investment levels also do not come close to what we need to stay in line with the Paris Agreement. The 2015 Paris Agreement recognized the critical role that finance plays in both mitigation and adaptation, placing investors and financial commitments at the centre of climate policy and action. However, climate finance has only increased slightly since IE5 and reached around USD 579 billion in 2018/2017. This figure is about ten times lower than the estimated $6.3 trillion that is estimated to be needed each year until 2030 to comply with the Paris Agreement.

Since IE5, the divide between public and private climate finance has remained relatively stable (approximately 44% public and 56% private in 2018). However, private financing has overtaken public funding in the energy sector, and progressively in transport, reflecting a more consolidated renewable energy market and the fact that projects are now considered less risky. The private sector is expressing growing concern about the risks of climate impact, but decision-makers and financial institutions continue to underestimate climate-related economic risks.

3. The richest 1% emit more than twice as much as the poorest 50%

Since IE5, there has been increased interest in “national ownership” of climate change, as well as other social, development and sustainability issues. The United States is responsible for about 20% of cumulative historical emissions, followed by China, Russia, Brazil and Indonesia. However, it is not enough to consider national emissions, as it is necessary to take into account the inequality in the size, wealth and intensity of carbon emissions of populations. If emissions are considered in relation to population size, developing countries tend to have lower per capita emissions and, if emissions are standardized based on population, China, Brazil and Indonesia do not even rank in the top 20.

The world’s richest 1% emit more than double the poorest 50% combined, according to UNEP. Activities that emit a lot, but only benefit a few, include airplane flights and driving SUVs. For example, if SUV emissions were counted as a country, it would rank seventh in the world. Despite COVID-19 causing carbon emissions to decline last year, the SUV sector continued to see an increase in this regard. In 2018, only 2% to 4% of people travelled on international flights, and 1% of the world’s population is responsible for about half of the_CO2 emitted by all commercial flights. The aviation sector is responsible for 2.4% of global emissions, so this 1% of users could be generating about 450 million tons of_CO2 per year, which is practically equivalent to South Africa’s annual emissions.

Research, including last month’s memorable WG II IE6 report, reveals that climate change affects people differently, depending on gender, race and ethnicity, and all of this is linked to economic vulnerability. Marginalized groups have less access to and use less energy. For example, women’s carbon footprints are usually lower than men’s, mainly due to reduced meat consumption and driving, although this varies from country to country. Still, while women tend to generate fewer emissions, their inclusion in policymaking can help improve climate policy. Climate groups now recognize that this disadvantage is the result of the interaction of numerous systems of oppression.

4. But there is hope: since IE5, national and corporate commitments to net zero emissions have multiplied, and renewables continue to exceed expectations

In addition, since IE5, there has been a substantial increase in climate policies, legislation and treaties, both at the international, national and subnational levels. And most importantly, in 2015, the Paris Agreement was signed. Article 4 of the Paris Agreement seeks to achieve a “balance between anthropogenic emissions generated by sources and removals from sinks of greenhouse gases”, which can be interpreted as net zero greenhouse gas emissions (not just_CO2). Renewable energy has also continued to far exceed expectations, making it a post-IE5 success story. In 2020 alone, the amount of new renewable electricity capacity increased by 45% to 280 gigawatts, the largest year-on-year increase since 1999 (more information in the box below), while costs fell considerably in that period. Moreover, more recently, the concept of ‘net zero emissions’ has burst into the political arena.

In 2014, the IPCC did not directly use the term “net zero emissions,” but considered limiting cumulative GHG emissions to zero as the key to stopping climate change. In 2018, the IPCC noted that, in order to limit warming to 1.5°C,_CO2 emissions should be reduced by approximately 45% by 2030 (relative to 2010 levels), and that the level of net zero emissions globally should be reached around 2050. IE6’s WG I (published in August 2021) highlighted the need not only to reduce_CO2 emissions, but also to significantly reduce other GHGs. In 2019, the UK became the first Group of Seven (G7) economy to legislate to achieve zero emissions. Currently, 136 countries with 85% of the world’s population, representing 88% of global emissions, have set net-zero targets, although these targets and the timelines for achieving them continue to generate criticism for being very vague. This 2021 document sets out the ways in which governments could start to bring transparency and accountability, factors that are considered key to achieving net zero GHG emissions, in compliance with the objectives of the Paris Agreement.

The Working Group III report (IE6 WG III) is considered the most comprehensive review of how we can mitigate climate change, since the Fifth Assessment Report (IE5) in 2014 and the three recent IPCC special reports (Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C). [SR1 .5], 2018, the 2019 Special Report on Climate Change and Land [SRCCL] and the Special Report on the Oceans and Cryosphere in a Changing [SROCC]Climate).

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created in 1988 to facilitate comprehensive assessments of the “state of scientific, technical and socio-economic knowledge” on (1) climate change, (2) its causes, (3) its potential impacts and (4) the response strategies to be implemented. It has since prepared five reports and is now in the sixth Assessment Report (AR6). IPCC Working Group III yesterday published the second installment of that Sixth Assessment Report: Sixth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, the Working Group III

*Information prepared thanks to the analysis of the Global Strategic Communications Council (GSCC), a collaborative international network of communication professionals linked to the areas of climate, energy and nature.

Source: Renewable Energies