From The Guardian
The world needs to cut carbon emissions by nearly a fifth in the next four years, and by close to half within a decade, to avoid overshooting climate targets by a disastrous margin.
Although the “window has closed” on holding temperature rises to 1.5C, in line with scientific advice, limiting the “overshoot” of that target is still possible, according to the UN Environment Programme (UNEP).
But countries are failing to translate their long-term targets on reducing emissions into short-term actions, a report on the “emissions gap” between climate goals and policies has found.
Global carbon output appears to have stalled: the emission levels in 2025 were broadly similar to those of the previous year. But UNEP analysts were wary of calling it a peak or plateau, given the vast uncertainties of geopolitics and an increased reliance on fossil fuels, despite strong growth in renewable energy.
Cutting greenhouse gases by 18% by 2030, and by 45% by 2035, would yield a good chance of limiting temperature rises to 1.7C above preindustrial levels. This would still allow events such as the record heatwaves of the last few months to become frequent and common, but could help prevent them from getting drastically worse.
Governments were warned for years that time was running out, said Inger Andersen, the executive director of UNEP. “[We used to say] there’s still an opportunity if we make this herculean effort [to stay within the 1.5C limit],” she said. “It’s now clear the herculean effort was not made. We procrastinated, and now we are saying this window has closed.”
Nevertheless, she urged countries to keep the 1.5C goal – the centrepiece of the Paris climate agreement. “We can make the overshoot as brief and as short as possible. It’s not time to throw in the towel and give up. This is about how to find our way back, as shortly and quickly as possible.”
Under Donald Trump, the US – the world’s second biggest emitter, after China – has withdrawn from the Paris climate agreement and is threatening to reverse its longstanding trend of falling greenhouse gas emissions.
Bill Hare, the chief executive of the Climate Analytics thinktank, said: “All governments have a job to do, but in particular it is time for major fossil fuel producers such as the US and Saudi Arabia, which produce 20-25% of fossil fuels globally, to stop playing politics and face the scientific reality. Right now they are looking at the fire, denying it exists and pouring more petrol on it, while their own citizens increasingly face searing heat, wildfires and other impacts.”
Other countries appear to have been affected by US intransigence – pledges made last year on greenhouse gases were noticeably weak, according to UNEP analysis. At the Cop30 climate summit in Brazil last November, governments were supposed to make fresh commitments under the Paris agreement to cut emissions. But the commitments made were nowhere near strong enough.
Even if all of those updated pledges were fulfilled, temperatures would still rise to 2.6C above preindustrial levels, according to UNEP’s projections, endangering life across swathes of the globe. Policy has also not kept up with pledges: on current policies around the world, temperatures would rise to 2.8C. Every five years of greenhouse gas emissions at current levels pushes up forecasts of global heating by 0.1C. Scientists also fear that the greater the margin by which we exceed 1.5C, the greater the likelihood of triggering tipping points in the climate system.
Mohamed Adow, the director of the thinktank Power Shift Africa, said: “The tragedy is that we have the solutions within our grasp. Solar and wind power are growing far faster than anyone expected, yet governments are still failing to move away from fossil fuels quickly enough. The technology is racing ahead while political leadership is dragging its feet.”
The shortfall in countries’ commitments is supposed to be corrected under a Paris agreement mechanism called the “global stocktake”, an assessment of emissions targets next scheduled for 2028. But that has also been thrown into doubt: this week, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change failed to set a timetable to publish its latest report before the global stocktake, which would prevent governments from assessing their progress against the latest science.
Johan Rockström, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and one of the world’s leading climate scientists, said rows over the timing of IPCC reports must not be allowed to stall government action. “If all current national commitments are implemented, global emissions are projected to reach approximately 50 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent annually by 2035, when they should be below 35 gigatonnes. The science is already clear. Closing that gap is a question of political action, not a lack of scientific evidence,” he said.
One way identified by UNEP to limit warming quickly would be to cut methane, a greenhouse gas 80 times more powerful than carbon dioxide.
18% by 2030 translates to a compound 4.8% per annum reduction. 45% by 2035 is equivalent to 6.5% per annum reduction. Yet emissions have only just peaked. Maybe.
So, how achievable are these targets? Electricity and heat are responsible for 33% of global emissions. Transport for 16%, fugitive emissions (i.e., gas leaks) for 7%.
Roughly 40% of electricity comes from renewable sources, including hydro. Suppose we aim for a 2/3rds reduction in total emissions from electricity by 2035. That would cut total emissions by +-20%, and would require us to produce 80% of electricity from renewables and nuclear. In other words, for the world as a whole, renewables as a percentage of total generation would have to rise by 4-5% per annum. Some countries will not achieve this. Some (the US, for example) are not even trying. So the rest of us will just have to work harder. But to raise the percentage of renewables in electricity by 4 or 5% per annum seems perfectly doable. Australia, for example, is doing this. If the percentage of wind and solar (currently 17%) rises by 15% per annum, i.e., to 19.6% in 2027, 22.5% in 2028, and 25.9% in 2029, and 29.8% in 2030, then we can do it, easily. (For the percentage to rise by 15% a year, the absolute amount of renewable energy generated would have to rise faster, because electricity demand is growing.)
 |
| Source: Our World in Data |
OWID gives different figures (+-25%) for the share of transport here. So let's say +-20%, of which +-15% is from cars and trucks. The world is heading fast towards 95% electric land transport. (Air and sea are another matter.) In China, for example, where EVs/PHEVs are now 2/3rds of new car sales, emissions from transport fell 16% in Q2, though this was exacerbated by behavioural changes due to the Iran War. When car and trucks are 100% of sales (5 years?), the emissions of the total car/truck fleet will fall by 6.7% per year, assuming vehicles last 15 years. Emissions from sea transport will also fall, as 40% of sea transport's emissions come from transporting fossil fuels. Let's say that by 2035, we cut transport emissions by half.
Fugitive emissions will fall as less coal and gas is mined. Another 2%?
Total emissions will only fall 32% (20% + 10% + 2%). That's not enough, though it's much better than nothing.
Switching to renewables would accelerate if we had a carbon tax, which rose each year, and we also taxed imports from countries which didn't have one. The EU has imposed a carbon border tax, and any country which gets its own carbon tax can avoid paying this tax, which means every country has an incentive to introduce one.
Targeting net-zero decades away has allowed politicians and companies to promise that they will some magical day far in the future achieve net-zero, while continuing to emit now. And who will still be around in 35 years to make their excuses and explain why we failed? Instead, every country should set an annual target — to reduce emissions by 5% every year. That won't get us to net-zero by 2050, but nor will this current charade. But it will get us on track to cut emissions by 45% by 2037.
It's doable. Let's stop phiffing and phaffing and shilly-shallying and do it.
