In a surprise announcement on Monday, India, the world’s third largest emitter of greenhouse gases, Promised net zero emission by 2070The news, delivered at. This is the news as it happens, transmitted at COP26The U.N. Climate Summit in Glasgow means that everyone of the world’s major emitters now have a net zero target— a date by which they will add no more carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than they take out.
Combined with a flurry of country targets unveiled before or during COP26, India’s pledge means that 87% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissionsNet zero targets have been set for 89% and 80% of their economies, with different timelines.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]
That’s a seismic shift in global climate politics. The idea of net zero emission was first proposed by scientists a decade back. It was considered radical by politicians.2015. It received an indirect mention within the last text. Paris Accord The COP21 international climate treaty. 2017 saw Sweden adopt net zero as its target for 2045. In 2019, a number of countries followed the U.K.’s lead and set their 2050 targets in law. On November 3, all 139 nations had adopted net zero emission targets, even some that were previously resistant to climate action.
“If you had asked me even a year ago, at COP26 will we see India, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Russia, walking out with commitment to get to net zero emissions? I would have said that that’d be very optimistic,” says Thomas Hale, associate professor in global public policy at the University of Oxford’s Blavatnik School of Government, part of the Oxford Net Zero research project, set up to study the world’s progress on cutting emissions. “It’This is the true evidence of a tipping-point dynamic in which something appears impossible becomes possible. [starting with the work of] climate activists and developing countries, who pushed it into the Paris Agreement.”
But climate advocates’ enthusiasm around the rise of net zero targets comes with a major caveat. The adoption of a net zero target doesn’t mean that a country is on track to wean its economy off the fossil fuels that produce most greenhouse gas emissions in time to stop the worst of climate change—or that it even intends to do so. Each country has a different strategy for achieving a net zero future.
According to Oxford’s Net Zero TrackerThe COP26 pledges were launched by Hale with colleagues on the week prior to COP26. Only a few of these are meaningful, strong commitments and have clearly defined plans. These strong pledges cover only 18% global emissions and 27% global GDP.
That doesn’t mean most pledges are useless, but it means they are the start—not the end—of efforts to get the world on track for net zero emissions.
What is a net zero commitment good?
If you’re looking at your country’s net zero target and wondering if it means anything, there are four key points to look out for, according to the Net Zero tracker.
First, it is important that the timeframe for achieving the target be consistent with science. Scientists have determined that human-caused carbon dioxide emissions must be reduced. By 2030, by 45 % from the 2010 levelsTo keep the global temperature rise below 1.5C since preindustrial times, we must reach net zero by 2050. (That’s the point after which climate change impacts become a lot worse and avoiding it is the aim of the Paris Agreement). For wealthier countries, which tend to have much higher per-capita emissions than developing countries along with more resources to pay for decarbonization, Hale says the date needs to be 2050 at the very latest and ideally earlier in order to keep the world’s goals on limiting climate change within reach. Interim dates, like 2030, should be included to prevent action being delayed until it’s too late.
Second, targets should include all greenhouse emissions—not only carbon dioxide emissions but also methane and others, which are less plentiful but still play an important role in warming the planet. The target should also cover all emissions generated by a country’s residents, regardless of where they are generated—most have committed only to reducing emissions produced within their borders, leaving out those generated when people fly or ship products around the world or the production of products outside its borders.
The third is that net zero goals must be supported by specific plans detailing how they will achieve them, such as policies to increase renewable energy and restore natural carbon sinks. Governments should give citizens a way to hold them accountable if they don’t stay on track, such as an institution or law. Oxford Net Zero reports that although the number is growing, just 14 of the 139 countries has made their goals legally binding. Only 57 countries have created a plan.
Fourth, targets should be focused on reducing emissions rather than offsetting them. Domestic offset can refer to a country that captures carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through planting trees and using advanced technologies. You can offset it overseas. A first country may pay for projects in another country to reduce its emissions.
Although most countries are able to use offsets in some way, scientists warn that too many will put undue pressure on the world to achieve net zero. They don’t always work. There isn’t enough land to grow enough trees on the planet to offset emissions. Carbon capture technology can be expensive right now and it could stay so for the next few decades. And overseas offsets are hard to regulate and could end up being counted towards two countries’ targets. The tracker shows that only 15 countries have indicated they won’t use offsets.
What countries are most successful in achieving their targets?
There are sixteen countries that fulfill Oxford Net Zero’s minimum standards for robustness in all those criteria, to some extent. Sweden is the one. The legally binding goal is to achieve net zero greenhouse gases emissions by 2045. This includes aviation and shipping. Sweden must achieve a minimum 63% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 as compared to 1990 levels. An offset of no more than 8% is allowed. Sweden hasDetailed plans To expand the country’s already substantial renewable energy supplies, keep pressing for decarbonization of transport, a carbon tax and phase out of fossil fuels.
Oxford Net Zero researchers also consider the U.K., which is hosting COP26, a solid target. It set legally-binding goals to attain net zero by 2020 and reduce its emissions by 78% in comparison to 1990 levels. The government announced that it had lowered its emissions by 78% compared to 1990 levels in October. Publication of its Plan to get there, including policies to expand the use of electric vehicles, grow the U.K.’s offshore wind sector and overhaul how buildings are heated.
But even a robust target and plan does not mean the government’s actions and spending are in line with its climate goals. For example, in the U.K. critics say the net zero plan doesn’t include enough public money to trigger the radical market transformations that the government hopes to kickstart. The country may also approve a Scottish offshore oilfield that could produce as much as 170 million barrels per year between 2025-2050. Paris-based International Energy Agency This year, we were warned soonerTo reach net zero for the year 2050, no oil and coal projects must be approved after 2021.
Which countries have the lowest targets?
Climate experts have been classified Australia’s net zero targets as one of the weakest announced so far. The Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced a 2050 net-zero target after resisted calls for it for several months. Although the target of 2050 is on par with other advanced nations, it does not include an interim goal for 2030. The government’s newly published climate plan contains no taxes or mandates to help expand renewable energy or close down fossil fuel projects and critics said it “grossly manipulated” emissions data Morrison says the bulk of Australia’s emissions reductions will be driven by “future technologies” that are not yet developed—a notion that fellow leaders have lambasted as “dangerous”.
Many of the countries who have made net zero pledges recently presented vague targets. For example, Russia and Saudi Arabia, both of which set late targets in 2060, neither have made them law nor presented any plans to achieve them. They haven’t specified whether they zero out all greenhouse gas emissions or just carbon dioxide, or whether they will include their aviation and shipping emissions. Both economies rely heavily on exports of fossil fuels—oil and natural gas—and neither of their governments have indicated that they intend to change that any time soon. Instead, officials have touted plans to invest in carbon capture technologies, and, in Russia’s case, improve carbon absorption in its vast forests.
So, are most net zero targets meaningless?
It is. There’s no reason that governments can’t flesh out their targets and plans to make them more robust in the coming months and years.
This year’s U.N. climate summit, COP26, is the first summit since the 2015 Paris Agreement where signatories have been obliged to update the targets they submitted as part of the deal—that’s why we’ve seen so many new ones set recently. One of the issues being discussed in Glasgow is how frequently countries will need to revise their target lists in the future. An international group consisting of 50 countries that are most at risk from the effects of climate change. Are you pushing?Each year, you can sign up for an update. This could increase pressure on anyone who doesn’t have a solid plan.
Some climate activists warned that setting targets to achieve net zero for distant dates may help governments distract the public and advocates from the polluting acts of the past. Hale doubts that it will succeed. “Even if an entity has set a target arguably for PR reasons, hoping to get people off their back for a little while, they are quickly realizing people are much smarter than that,” he says.
Once a target has been established, political leaders as well as activists for climate change will be required to intensify their pressure to make sure it is achieved. “A target is obviously not sufficient to achieve those goals,” he says. “But targets have really clarified what the direction of travel is. And now, rather than discussing the goal, we’re discussing how quickly we can get there, which is a much more productive place to be.”
