The good news first. As per the latest IEA report titled `Net Zero Roadmap: A Global Pathway to Keep the 1.5 Degree Celsius Goal in Reach’, “Positive developments over the past two years include solar PV installations and electric car sales tracking in line with the milestones set out for them in our 2021 Net Zero by 2050 report”. The report, however, cautions that “Getting to net zero emissions by 2050 requires rapid and deep cuts in emissions of both CO2 and other greenhouse gases, particularly methane, by 2030.
Delaying these cuts will make it all but impossible to achieve the net zero emissions goal…..Failure to accelerate the clean energy transition along the lines of the pathway depicted in the NZE Scenario would virtually guarantee a high overshoot of the 1.5 Degree Celsius limit with serious consequences for humans, ecosystems and climate tipping points. In such circumstances, returning the global average temperature rise to below 1.5 Degree Celsius by 2100 would require a large and costly deployment of CO2 removal technologies”.
However, even NZE by 2050 is a very long-horizon plan that have potential pitfalls in-built just like any other long-term plan, namely lulling one in to a state of inaction in immediate term with the hope (or wishful thinking?) that things will turn out well towards the end. Remember that sage advice about front-loaded savings for sound retirement plans? But in case of tackling climate change, instead of doubling down on technological solutions that are already there and proven, like renewables, actions are postponed by decades that too on the back of yet-to-be-proven-at-a-scale technologies like CCUS and Direct Air Capture. So, in a sense, these appear akin to devising back-loaded climate action plans that permits business as usual around fossil fuels albeit `abated’ fossil fuels instead of front-loaded ones.
It is telling that how the vested interests have succeeded so far in making sure that rather than fossil fuels as a category, including oil and gas, it is all about phasing down of unabated coal. Given the fact that all the fossil fuels have negative environmental footprints: as per AR4 of IPCC, Coal, Oil, and Gas have average environmental impacts of 92.0 gCO2/MJ, 76.3 gCO2/MJ, and 52.4 gCO2/MJ respectively. And add to it the Methane emissions around fossil fuels occurring at any point during production, processing and transport including Methane leaks along LNG value chain, as per the aforementioned IEA report.
Thus, it appears that singling out coal is more of a matter of continuing with the current energy infrastructure and energy-economies. When the European Union classifies natural gas as “green” or “sustainable” sources of energy, one starts doubting the definition of `green’ itself wondering how quickly different shades of grey are greenwashed! As the recent case of UK delaying the earlier-committed ban on sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2030 or loosening building energy efficiency requirements shows, the political horizon anywhere is limited to the next election cycle and domestic compulsions.
An article titled `The meaning of net zero and how to get it right’ in `Nature Climate Change’ states, “Scientists have demonstrated that every year of delay before initiating emission reductions decreases the remaining time available to reach net-zero emissions while keeping below 1.5 Degree Celsius by approximately two years. Front-loading emission reductions also preserves optionality. In particular, it maintains the option to further tighten remaining carbon budgets in light of new scientific findings.
To encourage early emission reductions, governance experts recommend the combination of long-term net-zero commitments — which set the direction of travel — with short-term interim targets, which define emissions pathways over decision-relevant time horizons. Governance, accountability and reporting mechanisms are currently inadequate. Long-term ambition is often not backed up by sufficient near-term action. Many entities have not yet set out detailed plans to achieve their pledges and are opaque about the role of carbon offsets in place of cutting their own emissions. The environmental and social integrity of some of these offsets is questionable. As a result, some advocates have accused these pledges of amounting to little more than ‘greenwashing’.” [2]
In such a scenario it becomes even more critical to get the actions initiated now rather than leaving them to some distant future. Ironically, even though the world is facing extreme weather effects almost continually in one geographical region or the other, climate change is thought of a threat in some faraway future. If anything, that `long-term’ is now! As the `Nature Climate Change’ article so aptly argues, “Net-zero commitments are not an alternative to urgent and comprehensive emissions cuts. Indeed, net zero demands greater focus on eliminating difficult emissions sources than has so far been the case.”
The urgent requirement, therefore, is to aggressively step-up efforts on both the fronts, namely the demand side as well as supply side. The accelerated pace of renewables-based energy supply must piggyback on even more ambitious actions around energy conservation and energy efficiency improvements. And it is here where the greater role of `Mission LiFE: Environmental Conscious Lifestyle’ comes to fore.
It may be remembered, however, the philosophy of `Mindful and Deliberate Utilisation, instead of Mindless and Destructive Consumption’ applies as much to governments’ own actions as to us, the individuals. Let NZE not become an excuse to license a recklessly cavalier ‘burn now, pay later’ approach, which has seen carbon emissions continue to soar. The front-loaded climate actions mean that large and sustained cuts in GHG emissions need to happen now.
