Zero-Zero, Net Zero

Context: Climate change agenda is back on the agenda with change in leadership in the US, yet the enthusiasm around the net-zero target as panacea comes with its own set of challenges and concerns.

Background: US in climate leader’s Summit has announced a target of 50-52% reduction below its 2005 emission, a deviation from net-zero enthusiasm.

Why are net-zero targets meaningless?

• No substance in net-zero target: No plans on how they will get to net-zero by 2050, or, in the case of China, by 2060.
• Overlooking Paris Agreement: Yet to take stock of what has been done or not done to meet Paris commitments, no debates on how minuscule, off-track, and inequitable the targets are.
• Net-zero – A flawed idea: Countries will emit more, but they will mop up these emissions to saying “net-net”. The methods devised to soak up emissions are not fulfilling, for e.g.
  • While planting more trees would sequester carbon (which we will continue to emit), there are huge challenges in estimating the “tree-soak.”
  • Similarly with carbon capture and storage technologies), there are issues to sort with the set of technologies, fancifully called negative emission.
  • No discussion on emission pathways: which effectively undermines efficacy of reaching net-zero.
• Intrinsically inequitable: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) argue that global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide would need to fall by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching net-zero by 2050.
  • This overlooks historical emissions responsibilities and lacks equitability in approach since to achieve the global net-zero target by 2050; developed nations should achieve it by 2030.

Conclusion: Inspiration to act - US 2030 target will put pressure on the rest of the world, including India, to act and bring the focus back on credible actions rather than more and more words.