SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
iea
The Big Lie Known as 'Net Zero' Will Lead Us to Climate Disaster
Because of the sheer volume of countries involved, the Climate Action Tracker focused on the 40 countries that are responsible for 80 percent of the world's emissions, and ranked their plans based on how likely they are to result in the necessary cuts.
Image courtesy of the Climate Action Tracker.
Only four negotiating parties--Chile, Costa Rica, the European Union, and the United Kingdom--had plans that CAT found acceptable for holding warming to the Glasgow talks' stated goal of holding warming to 1.5degC (or "1.5 to stay alive" as negotiators from island nations say).
The reason these countries have managed to delude themselves and others? Instead of laying out concrete plans to drastically cut emissions immediately, during the next crucial two decades, some countries plan to cut their emissions only minimally, and balance what is left by doing things like buying carbon offsets, planting trees, and investing in carbon capture technology. Instead of cutting their greenhouse gas emissions to zero, they would reach something they call "net zero."
The simple phrase that begat a legion of creative accounting
When countries promise that they can reach net zero without making sharp cuts to emissions in the next decade, those claims should not be taken at face value. The commitments are too far into the future and action is needed now. Reliable, quantifiable methods of carbon capture and sequestration do not exist yet at the scale necessary to help meet those targets. A country could embark on a massive reforestation project, only to see those forests decimated by wildfires or illegal logging. They could invest in carbon capture technology that fails to pan out. They could restore wetlands, only to see them thrashed by climate change-intensified hurricanes. A coal plant can be shut down in a day, while a forest takes decades to grow.
Furthermore, many net zero schemes rely on carbon markets, offset schemes, and using lands in the global south as carbon sinks--a tactic that might mean forced removal of the people currently living on them. The use of lands as carbon sinks is referred to as "nature-based solutions." Sara Shaw, climate justice and energy programme coordinator at Friends of the Earth International said, it "rings alarm bells. Clearly, it's an intoxicating idea, that after decades of inaction nature can come to save us from climate breakdown. But 'Nature Based Solutions' will likely lead to land grabs, food insecurity and rights violations for people already on the sharp edge of climate impacts."
There simply is not enough land and trees in the world to soak up the emissions of big polluters and northern governments. For these reasons, organizations ranging from Friends of the Earth to Indigenous Environmental Network, from Power Shift Africa to the Third World Network and many others, are calling for "Real Solutions Not 'Net Zero," and satirists like Australia's The Juice are directly mocking net zero as a fantasy.
As Meena Raman, from the environmental group Friends of the Earth Malaysia, said at a press briefing last week, "Offsetting is no longer a solution. It has to be real zero. And it should have been real zero yesterday."
Promise now, deliver later
Another problem is how many countries are planning on reducing their emissions in the next decades, rather than this one. The greenhouse gas emissions cuts that nations have laid out in their NDCs fall into two categories: short-term (by 2030); and long-term (by 2050 for developed nations and by 2060 for developing nations).
What matters most is that these short-term emissions cuts are made this decade. But most of last week's good news was based on long-term commitments, which gives the nations making those pledges over a decade before they can be held accountable for failing to meet their emissions goals.
At a press briefing, Professor Niklas Hohne, of the NewClimate Institute, one of the two organizations who put out the Climate Action Tracker report, said "We now have more than 140 governments announcing net zero targets that cover more than 90 percent of global greenhouse emissions. And at first sight, that's positive news. If we then assume that all of these countries indeed meet their net zero targets, then we calculate a temperature increase by the end of the century of 1.8 degrees."
That, said Hohne, is the optimistic scenario. But it is not a likely one. "It's not time to sit back and relax," he added. "Because not a single country has short-term policies in place to put itself on track towards its own net zero targets. Right now, the net zero targets are a good vision but they have to be backed by short-term action otherwise, otherwise they are simply not credible. And that's also where this COP has moved only a small step forward. We still have a huge gap. Assuming all countries implement everything they have proposed here, we would still emit twice as much as we should in 2030 compared to if we want to be on a 1.5 pathway."
If one takes into account only the short-term targets that the nations participating in COP26 have made for 2030, temperatures would rise by 2.4 C. If one looks at their existing (not promised) policies and actions, temperatures will increase to 2.7degC. "All countries have to go back and rethink what they can do," Hohne said. "And the only way to do that is to go into emergency mode. Governments have to do something substantially different."
Given this urgency, developing nations are calling for NDCs to be reported every year instead of every five years, a demand that was included in the draft text published on Wednesday morning, and to develop even more ambitious short-term actions. "The key issue for us is not net zero targets in 2050 particularly for the rich world," said Meena Raman. "Net zero by 2050 is too little, too late, particularly for the rich world."
On Tuesday morning, at a press conference held by the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Tina Stege, Climate Envoy for the Marshall Islands expressed similar sentiments: "I think we need to see folks coming back on commitments in 2022. For these things to have impact and make sense you have to start next year. The decade of action is now."
More than just a COP problem
This use of the term "net zero" to delay action is not unique to COP 26. A report from Corporate Accountability published last month and titled "The Big Con: How Polluters Are Advancing a 'Net Zero' Climate Agenda to Delay, Deceive and Deny," found that Microsoft, for example, has based its plan to reach net zero by 2030 on a still-unproven carbon capture technology.
But it is especially critical at the UN climate negotiations because of its capacity to block what nations in the developing world are calling for instead: ambitious short-term commitments backed by action and the phase out of fossil fuels. Yesterday's draft of the COP26's final decision text mentioned fossil fuels for the first time with a demand to "accelerate the phase out of coal and subsidies for fossil fuels."
Jennifer Morgan, Executive Director of Greenpeace International, said: "What's very concerning here in Glasgow is that the first draft of the climate pact text is already exceptionally weak. Usually the text starts with some ambition, which then gets watered down. To keep 1.5 alive, four words must be added: 'fossil fuels phase out,' and countries must come back next year to close the gap."
Tina Stege, Climate Envoy for the Marshall Islands, too, stated that concrete, near-term action was the only viable solution to the climate crisis. "We can't just have promises of what we're going to do; we actually have to have actions to back them up," Stege said. "As we laid out, on policies like phasing out coal, policies on methane, ending of fossil fuel subsidies, these are the concrete actions that need to happen now."
'Pivotal Moment': IEA Says Cutting Methane From Fossil Fuels 75% by 2030 'Essential'
When the Paris-based global energy watchdog in May released its Net-Zero by 2050 roadmap that signaled the need to keep fossil fuels in the ground, Greenpeace International executive director Jennifer Morgan declared, "Finally the IEA is starting to get it."
While discussions on greenhouse gas emissions often center on carbon dioxide, the focus of the new report--Curtailing Methane Emissions From Fossil Fuel Operations: Pathways to a 75% cut by 2030--is up to 87 times more potent than CO2 over a 20-year period.
Methane, which is more potent than CO2 but also disappears more quickly, "has contributed to around 30% of the global rise in temperatures to date," the report says, "and curbing these emissions is the most effective means available for limiting global warming in the near term."
The report continues:
Emissions from fossil fuel operations present a major opportunity in this respect, since the pathways to reduction are both clear and cost-effective. Fossil fuel operations generated close to 120 [million tonnes] of methane in 2020--nearly one-third of all methane emissions from human activity. The scope for reducing these emissions is enormous. This is particularly true in the oil and gas sector, where it is possible to avoid more than 70% of current emissions with existing technology, and where around 45% could be avoided at no net cost.
Reducing fossil fuel demand alone will not do the job quickly or effectively enough, which means early and concerted abatement efforts by governments and industry are essential. Under the IEA's Net-Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario, methane emissions from fossil fuel operations would need to fall by around 75% between 2020 and 2030. Only about one-third of this decrease is the result of reduced consumption of fossil fuels, principally coal. Most of the decline comes from the rapid deployment of measures and technologies to eliminate avoidable methane emissions by 2030.
Offering "practical steps that can be taken by countries and companies to secure a 75% reduction," the report calls on both governments and businesses to take urgent action.
While the IEA highlighted the necessity of cutting methane, some climate campaigners reiterated the broader need for a "managed decline in oil and gas production, starting now." As Oil Change International's David Tong put it: "That needs to be the top focus, even as we address methane."
IEA executive director Fatih Birol, in a statement about the new report, acknowledged recent efforts to address methane pollution.
"At a time when we are constantly being reminded of the damaging effects of climate change," Birol said, "it is inexcusable that massive amounts of methane continue to be allowed to just seep into the air from fossil fuel operations."
"These emissions are avoidable, the solutions are proven and even profitable in many cases. And the benefits in terms of avoided near-term warming are huge," he added. "I welcome the renewed impetus behind this issue with the Global Methane Pledge, announced by the European Union and the United States, and urge all countries and companies to step up their actions."
Related Content
Critics Warn Biden That 30% Methane Reduction by 2030 Not Good Enough
Unveiled last month during an event hosted by U.S. President Joe Biden, the pledge aims to reduce all methane emissions worldwide at least 30% by 2030. Though climate campaigners charge that it doesn't go far enough, the agency's statement noted Thursday that "if the world achieves the 75% cut in methane from fossil fuel operations as described in the new IEA report, this would lower total human-caused methane emissions by around 25%, and so would go a long way to achieving the aim of the Global Methane Pledge."
Jonathan Banks, Clean Air Task Force's international director for super pollutants, said that the IEA's report "makes clear that making substantial cuts to methane emissions from the fossil fuel sector is the lowest hanging fruit in global climate policy."
"Multiple sectors are contributing to the global methane crisis, and there are opportunities to reduce methane emissions from each of them," he added, "but it's clear from this report that cutting emissions from the oil, gas, and coal sectors is a critical opportunity to do it at pace and scale. We need substantial, economy-wide methane reductions this decade for us to stand a chance of avoiding the worst climate tipping points."
The report comes just ahead of COP 26, the United Nations summit set to kick off in Scotland at the end of the month. In anticipation of that and new methane policies from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Earthworks policy director Lauren Pagel recently proposed a more ambitious goal, which she repeated in a statement Thursday.
"This is a pivotal moment," Pagel said. "The Biden administration can either be a leader on methane pollution or cave to industry and risk climate catastrophe. The EPA has the authority under the Clean Air Act to cut oil and gas methane pollution by 65% by 2025. Their new rules must use that full authority."
"While cutting methane is a vital start, it is not enough," she added. "The U.S. must begin a managed decline of fossil fuels that centers industry workers and frontline communities who are most exposed to the health and climate impacts of fossil fuels."
The IEA--the World's Most Influential Energy Modelling Agency--Closes the Door on New Fossil Fuel Extraction
Today, after years of pressure from climate advocates, investors, businesses, and diplomats, the IEA finally released its first ever fully fledged energy scenario aligned with the urgent goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (degC). As with past IEA modelling efforts, this new scenario needs some fixes (more on that below), and we're still analyzing all of its implications. But one conclusion in particular stands out to us at Oil Change International (OCI).
In its Summary for Policymakers, in a bolded headline, the IEA finds that, "There is no need for investment in new fossil fuel supply in our net zero pathway."
They add, "Beyond projects already committed as of 2021, there are no new oil and gas fields approved for development in our pathway, and no new coal mines or mine extensions are required."
This is huge. An agency that has consistently boosted new oil and gas development in its flagship annual World Energy Outlook (WEO) is now backing up the global call to stop the expansion of fossil fuel extraction.
The oil and gas industry has lost a powerful shield
Big Oil and Gas companies and the governments of fossil fuel-producing countries have lost one of their key covers for claiming that developing new oil and gas reserves is fully consistent with their commitments to "net zero" or the Paris Agreement. People around the world who have been demanding that governments, banks, and other financial institutions stop enabling the expansion of oil, gas, and coal extraction can point to the IEA's "authoritative" analysis reaching the same conclusion.
Of course, the IEA is behind the curve. OCI has been analyzing the disconnect between new fossil fuel development and the Paris goals since 2016. We found then that already operating or under construction oil and gas fields and coal mines contain enough fossil fuel reserves to push the world well beyond 1.5 degrees of warming. The implication was as clear then as it is now: The world must stop digging new holes, and focus instead on managing a rapid and equitable wind down of already developed extraction.
With the IEA's fully Paris-aligned scenario now saying the same, companies like Shell and Total can no longer comfortably point to the IEA to defend their plans to expand gas extraction. The UK government, which helped commission this new IEA report, will have a tougher time claiming that its decision to keep the door open to new licenses for offshore exploration and extraction fits with its Paris commitment. In fact, IEA director Dr. Fatih Birol has already today confronted the UK over its continued support for oil, gas, and coal expansion and investment. And major fossil banks like JPMorgan Chase and Citi have a new minimum baseline for "stress testing" their portfolios and the legitimacy of their net zero plans.
A job half done: The IEA must put 1.5degC at the heart of the WEO
The IEA finally embracing a 1.5degC-aligned pathway as "the energy future we all need" is a major milestone. But the IEA must do much more beyond today's report to prove its climate credibility and commitment, particularly given the agency is positioning itself to play an advisory role at COP26.
To guide policies and investments towards a future fully aligned with the Paris goals, the IEA must go beyond developing a 1.5degC-aligned scenario and position it at the heart of the WEO. It is the WEO that decision makers look to year after year to guide trillions in public and private capital, and which the IEA itself calls the "gold standard of energy analysis."
Dr. Birol made a welcome announcement last week, committing that this new 1.5degC-aligned scenario will be "integral" to WEO 2021 and future WEOs. But we don't know yet what that will mean in practice.
In WEO 2019, the IEA dismissed a 1.5degC-aligned energy transformation as "very difficult and very expensive" and spent only seven of 600 plus pages discussing it. WEO 2020 included a short 1.5degC-aligned energy "case" to 2030, the building block of today's report. However, that case was rarely mentioned outside of the chapter devoted to it. The summaries of other chapters still primarily focused on the Stated Energy Policies Scenario (STEPS), a pathway towards catastrophic levels of global warming.
The scenario that the IEA positions as the central scenario in the WEO commonly becomes what governments and investors use as their default for energy decision making, guiding trillions of dollars of investment. The IEA must seize this moment to transform its flagship WEO report, putting a 1.5degC scenario at the center, and focusing each headline, chapter, and graph on the implications of it.
Risky modelling choices must be fixed
The IEA also needs to revisit and fix risky and bad choices within its modelling between now and WEO 2021. Below we provide an overview of ways in which the IEA must improve its scenario to drive the world towards the bold and just energy solutions we need, based on initial analysis from OCI and partner groups.
Underestimating wind and solar. While the IEA closing the door on new fossil fuel extraction is a welcome shift, the IEA's new "Net Zero Energy" roadmap continues to underestimate the growth potential and cost declines of solar and wind power, a chronic problem at the IEA. Kingsmill Bond, an energy transition expert at Carbon Tracker Initiative, has noted that the IEA's scenario forecasts rapid solar capacity growth until 2030 (22 percent per year). But that growth drops to 8 percent per year to 2040 and 3 percent per year to 2050. The latest scenario by the Energy Transitions Commission shows solar power providing twice as much energy in 2050 compared to the IEA's new scenario (27-35 terawatts vs 14.5 terawatts).
As a consequence of underselling wind and solar, the IEA makes room for dirty, riskier alternatives to meet energy demand.
Gambling on CCS. The IEA assumes that carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects will wipe out 1.6 billion tonnes (Gt) of CO2 pollution as soon as 2030. The IEA admits that CCS projects only have capacity to sequester 0.04 Gt of emissions at present. Most of that capacity is currently devoted to pumping more oil out of the ground. Relying on CCS to grow almost 4,000 percent over the next nine years is wildly optimistic given the technology's poor track record and failure to take off to date. It's also an irresponsible gamble. The IEA's own report acknowledges that, with greater investment in already proven renewable energy technologies, it wouldn't be necessary to expand fossil fuel-based CCS. This alternative "Low CCUS Case" mentioned in the report should be the base assumption.
Clinging to fossil gas. By gambling on a massive scale-up of CCS taking away some of its emissions, the IEA's 1.5degC scenario also makes room for dangerous levels of fossil gas reliance this decade. In the IEA's model, gas does not peak until 2025 and declines by only 6 percent below 2020 levels by 2030. By contrast, the 2020 Production Gap Report, released by the United Nations Environment Programme and a consortium of global research organisations, shows gas declining by a median of 3 percent per year between now and 2030 in 1.5degC-consistent pathways. Moreover, even if the carbon emissions from burning fossil gas to produce electricity or hydrogen are effectively captured, that will not remove the health and pollution impacts communities face where the gas is being extracted.
Projecting dangerous growth in bioenergy. Fossil fuel production and use should be replaced with truly clean energy solutions. Bioenergy does not fit that bill. Yet, the IEA's scenario relies on a 65 percent increase in bioenergy from 2020 to 2050, increasing the total land area devoted to bioenergy production by 25% to 410 million hectares in 2050, an area the size of India and Pakistan combined. Growth in bioenergy production is already linked to land grabs and human rights violations, food insecurity, and loss of biodiversity. As Hannah Mowat, campaigns coordinator with Fern, puts it, "Instead of burning trees for energy, we should focus on cutting fossil fuel use, maximising energy efficiency and increasing renewables such as solar, wind, heat pumps and geothermal."
Higher ambition matters
All in all, today's 1.5degC report release is a major step forward for the IEA. Its first effort to model a 1.5-aligned energy future makes a clear case that this transformation is critical and achievable, requires deep emissions cuts by 2030 and a "huge decline" in fossil fuels, and, if done in a just and inclusive way, would improve people's well-being and livelihoods all over the world.
At the same time, we can't grade the IEA only against its past performance. The ultimate measure is whether the agency drives forward solutions that are bold enough to stem the climate crisis and protect the communities on its frontlines, not the polluters responsible for causing it. In this regard, the IEA has more homework to complete.
But now that the head of the IEA is proclaiming that, "The world does not need any new investments in oil, coal or gas," it will be a whole lot harder for governments, oil and gas companies, banks, and insurers to justify their own support for continued expansion. And that is undoubtedly a huge win for the climate.
Most Popular