The Paris Agreement of 2015 (PA 2015) seeks to prevent a climate Armageddon: global temperature rising at a level that makes life on Planet Earth unsustainable. The global target: limit rise in global warming to 1.5-degree Celsius above pre-industrial era.
To achieve the above PA 2015 goal, climate scientists are calling for a rapid transition of economies from fossil fuels, the single biggest source of global greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions, to renewable energy. Studies of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the UN Environment Programme indicate that the use of coal, oil and gas needs to drop by 78 percent, 37 percent and 25 percent, respectively, by 2030 compared to 2010 levels in order to limit global warming to 1.5 degree Celsius. According to the 2020 UNEP Production Gap report, between 2020 and 2030, global coal, oil, and gas production would have to decline annually by 11 percent, 4 percent, and 3 percent, respectively, to be consistent with a 1.5 degree Celsius pathway.
Clearly, the challenge is for governments around the world to summon the will to retire the use of fossil fuel by phasing out facilities dependent on coal, oil and gas, and banning the establishment of new fossil-dependent plants and infrastructures. The problem is that a number of big fossil users, mostly multinational corporations (MNCs) and a few advanced economies, refuse to give up the use of fossil fuel. They keep a business-as-usual (BAU) attitude, meaning irresponsibly maintaining and expanding dirty coal, oil and gas plants.
However, a few fossil users, who are trying to wear a false image of being socially responsible, have found a way of justifying their refusal to phase out dirty plants and facilities. They proclaim that they are “net zero” emitters. How? By buying “carbon credits” or engaging in “carbon offsetting.” These carbon credits are secured by sponsoring GHG-catching projects such as tree-planting programs for reforestation or by promoting the establishment of power plants using renewable energy such as wind mills. As a result, these carbon credit buyers/offsetters have succeeded in making the discourses on climate change mitigation and adaptation confusing.
Now a group of 41 scientists—from different European and Australian academic and research institutes—came up late last year with a statement blasting the myths around “net zero targets and carbon offsetting.” Below is a summary of these myths and the position of the climate scientists:
Myth 1—Net zero by 2050 will solve the climate crisis. Scientists’ answer: misleading. The challenge is how to make major reductions in emissions now. There is no assurance that net zero targets will deliver “negative emissions,” or removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through storage in vegetation, soil and rocks.
Myth 2—Fossil fuel emissions can be compensated by “nature-based solutions” such as carbon sequestration in vegetation and soil. Again misleading. Fossil fuel emission happens immediately, while nature-based solutions take time and sometimes fail (for example, carbon released again by forest fires).
Myth 3—Net zero targets and carbon offsets provide incentives for emission reduction. Misleading. The so-called incentive declines when it becomes financially advantageous and socially acceptable to buy carbon offsets from abroad.
Myth 4—Carbon offsetting helps developing countries, as hosts of carbon sequestering projects, meet PA 2015 commitment. Misleading. Developing countries also have emission targets to deliver under PA 2015.
Myth 5—Funding renewable energy projects compensates for fossil fuel emissions. Problematic. Host countries have the duty to go renewable; but if renewable projects are used as offsets, they are simply added to the existing energy mix, meaning no overall carbon reduction.
Myth 6—Technological solutions for carbon dioxide removal will solve the problem. Overly optimistic. Yes, there are technologies being developed but they are expensive, energy intensive and still unproven. Hence, it is irresponsible to make net zero assumptions based on uncertain “future technologies.”
Myth 7—Tree plantations capture more carbon than old forests. Misleading. Old forests contain “centuries worth of carbon” and carbon released by felled trees can take a hundred years or more to be recaptured. In short, no time for tree plantations to make up for losses due to deforestation.
Myth 8—Planting trees in the tropics is win-win for both nature and local communities. Oversimplified. Planting trees by outside investors for the sole purpose of capturing carbon can threaten the rights, cultures and food security of local communities, especially of indigenous people. There are also threats to biodiversity.
Myth 9—Each ton of carbon dioxide is the same and can be treated interchangeably. False. Carbon dioxide removal tomorrow cannot compensate for emissions today. Nor emissions from luxury consumption be the same as emissions from essential food production.
Myth 10—Consumption of marketed products, including travel, can be “climate neutral.” False. Both the consumed products and travel have carbon footprint, which cannot be offset.
The conclusion of the 41 climate scientists, the solution to climate crisis is straightforward “real emissions reductions,” especially in advanced countries. Offsetting between high- and low-income countries should be rejected and replaced by just financing arrangements. Extraction and marketing of fossil fuels, the primary cause of climate crisis, should be stopped. Instead of “net zero” targets, humanity needs “real zero targets” to terminate fossil fuel production.
Dr. Rene E. Ofreneo is a Professor Emeritus of
University of the Philippines.
For comments, please write to reneofreneo@gmail.com.