What can we do to mitigate climate change according to the IPCC?

A report structures the measures following the “avoid-change-improve” approach

Not by expected has been less alarming. In April, the third and final part of the Sixth Report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was launched.

In previous reports, more technologically accessible measures and more progressive cuts were proposed. Now, the urgency of limiting global warming to 1.5°C (or more realistically, 2°C) makes experts raise the need to implement drastic policies in the short term combined in the medium term with technologies such as carbon capture, whose large-scale application still faces significant technical challenges.

An important novelty of the new report is that it incorporates an analysis focused on the decisions that people and households make as consumers. It is on the direct and indirect energy consumption of households that the short-term shock actions fall (by 2050).

In the current context – rising energy prices, high dependence on non-democratic countries – the debate on what impact our actions can have is sharpening.

The carbon footprint of citizens is an appropriate measure to measure their responsibility, as it considers the direct and indirect emissions associated with the decisions they make. A change in consumption patterns helps guide the economy on a more sustainable development path and can help mitigate climate change.

The “avoid-change-improve” approach

The report structures the measures following the ‘avoid-change-improve’ approach, which was originally applied to sustainable transport, but is now used more generally to consumer behaviour.

The expert panel estimates the mitigation potential of these measures at a 40-70% reduction in emissions. It could reach 5% very quickly just with changes in our habits (mainly in developed countries). In addition to these socio-cultural factors, the measures also focus on the use of infrastructures and the adoption of new technologies that allow such modifications.

Among the behavioral changes, in the “avoid” category, we find the non-use of the car and the reduction of one long-haul flight per year as the two elements with the greatest mitigating potential at the individual level, followed remotely by the increase in remote work, less use and greater recycling of packaging and the reduction of food waste.

“Changes” include increased use of public transport, reduced meat consumption, increased active mobility (cycling and walking), and replacing the plane, where possible, with the train.

Among the “improvements”, the star measures are the electric vehicle increasingly powered by renewable energies, which should also provide electricity for our homes, and improvements in insulation and ways of heating our homes.

In individual terms, changing the car for an electric one (or even better, walking and cycling), could reduce 2 tons of CO_₂ equivalent per year per person. And the same is the reduction of one flight per year.

In total, a saving of 9 tons of CO_₂ equivalent could be achieved with the indicated measures. But this would be for high-spending consumers in developed countries. For the world population as a whole, the most relevant measure would be the change in diet, since most do not fly, their expenditure is very low and their emissions are well below the world average of 7.8 tons.

The footprint of companies and greenwashing

Consumer contributions would allow us to buy time – which we have already almost completely lost – while deepening changes to get rid of fossil energy. Eliminating it still requires overcoming not only technological obstacles (application of hydrogen in airplanes and ships, for example), but also related to knowledge transfer and financing.

Governments must implement more ambitious policies than those implemented so far. The Objective 55 plan being discussed in the EU for the ecological transition proposes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by 2030 (compared to 1990) and achieve climate neutrality by 2050. This plan focuses, among other areas, on energy, mobility and food in line with the recommendations of the IPCC Sixth Report. It is a step in the right direction, but without a firm commitment from the population it will be insufficient.

However, demand-driven (consumer) mitigation measures, by shifting responsibility to households, allow those primarily responsible for carbon emissions to “wash their hands”. We are talking about companies and, above all, multinationals.

An analysis of direct carbon emissions shows that for the global economy, 90 public and private fossil energy companies are directly responsible for 63% of historical emissions.

Multinational subsidiaries account for 22.5% of the global economy’s carbon footprint and US subsidiaries alone. Operating in the rest of the world, they account for 1.5% of total emissions.

There are initiatives to fight climate change in the private sector in which more and more companies are involved – Science based targets, SBTi, ISO 14064 organizational carbon footprint standards, GHG Protocol, Carbon Disclosure Project, the UN NAZCA platform, etc. –. They are increasingly aware of reducing their carbon footprint due to increasing pressure from consumers and investors. However, much remains to be done. Also to ensure that the measures taken are not a mere “greenwashing”.

The United Nations (and the European Union) are aware of the growing existence of this greenswashing. For this reason, the United Nations has just launched in April 2022 a high-level group of experts to combat it. The aim is to push companies, investors and cities to deliver on their zero-emission pledges.

Will consumers change our behavior?

The positive perspective of this IPCC view is that changes in our habits can be compatible with the global improvement in well-being: they contribute to reducing the differences due to economic inequality – developed countries and households with higher incomes are the most responsible for emissions and their reduction – and gender inequalities – men tend to eat more animal protein and travel more by car – and Improve governance by reducing the concentration of power of certain countries and collectives and increasing citizen participation.

The adoption and effectiveness of the measures will be highly conditioned by enormous economic inequalities and the unfair distribution of climate responsibilities among individuals. We must all strive to change habits, although predictions for 2030 suggest that the poorest 50% of the world’s population will produce emissions well below the target, while the level of emissions of the richest 1% will be 30 times higher than set in the Paris Agreement.

Experts recognize that the motivation of consumers to implement these necessary changes is low globally. Therefore, incentive and penalty policies that take into account the social and cultural contexts in each country will be essential.

When it comes to avoiding highly polluting measures or promoting sustainable ones, we cannot only think of solutions related to greenhouse gas taxes that involve price increases, since such measures can be regressive and have little effect on higher-income households.

It is very important to regulate and limit actions and sometimes even prohibit. Establishing low-emission zones in urban centers, prohibiting the use of single-use plastics and the sale of fossil fuel vehicles, etc., are measures that have already been taken or that must be taken to accompany and promote or limit consumer action.

Perhaps now is the time to paraphrase John F. Kennedy, and ask ourselves not only what our country can do for the planet, but what we can do for the planet and if we are willing to do it.

Source: El Diario