The United Nations' annual climate change conference, COP28, kicks off on November 30th, and this year's focus is on a five-year global stocktake. Through this process, we will not only measure where we are, but also, hopefully, gradually step up efforts and official commitments to limit average global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. To go. Unfortunately, as the UN's 2023 Emissions Gap Report points out, we are further behind schedule and, far from decreasing, global emissions are still increasing. I am.
A number of international and specialized bodies, such as the International Energy Agency and the Energy Transition Commission, have developed plans to limit emissions. A widely known initiative is the Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which aims to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C by 2050. A strict schedule has been set to achieve emissions reductions. This has led many countries to announce plans to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.
Unfortunately, there are two problems with these announcements. First, even if a country achieves net zero emissions by 2050 (and many countries are behind schedule), what about cumulative emissions depends on the trajectory of the emissions curve? is also not talked about. A little-known statement from the IPCC report is that to keep temperature rise below 1.5°C, emissions must be reduced by 45% between 2010 and 2030, towards zero emissions by 2050. It was said that there was. Instead, with global carbon emissions coming in second place, the report has little to say about how to allocate the remaining carbon budget among countries.
Applying the lens of equity and practicality highlights both issues. Which countries need to reduce their emissions by how much and by when? Is “zero” all that poor developing countries need to focus on today?
A fair path to net zero emissions
If the world must reach zero emissions by 2050, it is unrealistic and unfair to ask all countries to reach that goal at the same time. Poor countries and countries with low per capita emissions are not in a position to reach zero emissions by 2050, as they will still have to increase their energy consumption, including fossil fuels, to develop. Therefore, by 2050, we will achieve net-zero global emissions, or equivalent allowable cumulative emissions. only works If countries with high emissions can reduce their emissions to zero sooner than 2050.
Rather than all countries following the same path towards zero emissions, we need a framework that is fair, realistic and recognizes differences between countries.poor country1 Just as the Pareto 80/20 rule helps maximize effectiveness, most (but not necessarily all) projected emissions should be significantly reduced as soon as possible.
This is similar to “flattening the curve,” a phrase that became popular during the COVID-19 pandemic. Poor countries can remain even with a small tail of emissions beyond their 2050 notional date, keeping their area under the curve the same (or even lower).
In contrast, high-emitting countries cannot leave an emissions tail because there is no global carbon space. They can also afford to aggressively transition to zero emissions by 2050 or even earlier. Their efforts to achieve zero emissions will help the poor by innovating and paying a premium to early adopters of new technologies such as green hydrogen and battery storage, but the benefits will only trickle down. I can't convey it. Even to everyone.
The reason we need such differentiated goals across countries is that it is much more costly. lose not just reduce emissions. Reducing emissions, even in sectors that are “easy” to decarbonize, such as electricity, means reducing the last 10 or 20% of emissions within a sector (the so-called tail of emissions). Much cheaper than removal.
The need for reliable power
Electricity is the most important and also the most emitting sector in most developing countries. The good news, as we aim to decarbonize this sector, is that wind and solar are very cheap. But the bad news is that this is only if you don't need storage, which is expensive and will be needed as the share of wind and solar grows. On a per kilowatt-hour basis, storage is several times the cost of solar power today;2 It's also more expensive than generating electricity from fossil fuels (absent a carbon price).
While all countries are grappling with the well-known variability of solar and wind power, developing countries have additional challenges. That is, there is a lack of sufficient alternative installed capacity to cushion volatility. Rich countries have plenty of power capacity, but poor countries still need to grow. For example, in many African countries, per capita electricity consumption is lower than the electricity consumption of one refrigerator in the United States.
As developed countries expanded their renewable energy capacity, many retained or even increased their electricity generation from natural gas. capacity, which acts like insurance. Most developing countries lack such buffers, and under the slogan “zero carbon,” pressure is mounting on poor countries not to finance fossil fuel power generation. Behind-the-scenes calculations show that even with 100% coal-based electricity, 35 kWh of electricity per household per month would reach around 1 billion people who lack electricity connections and quality supplies. , this turns out to be only equivalent. That's about 0.25% of today's global emissions. And the new grid supply will not be 100% coal. Solar power is much cheaper and can meet at least part of grid-based supply.
But before worrying about the hard-to-reduce emissions tail, poor countries should aim to actively decarbonize, for example, 70% to 80% of their future power sector emissions. 100% decarbonization will require major energy storage and grid overhauls, especially if we have to worry about the worst-case scenario of days of hot summer weather and low winds. . My team's analysis of India's power grid in 2030 shows that a disproportionate amount of storage capacity will be required to ensure supply reliability during short periods of highest demand ( (assuming we cannot expand the supply of fossil fuels). By not worrying about eliminating the tail part of electricity emissions, poor people can also prioritize the electrification of sectors such as transportation and cooking that today use fossil fuels directly.
correct way to help
Developing countries will need support to accelerate decarbonization. Some zero-carbon projects are already viable, but more rapid decarbonization will require paying a premium. Since the poor cannot do this, the wealthy need to step up their support. At COP15 in 2009, rich countries pledged $100 billion a year in climate change aid by 2020, but the deadline was later extended to 2025.
In addition to scheduling issues, there are also concerns about the form of support. Climate change support for the poor should be provided in the form of grants and discount loans, with conventional financing for projects that are already financeable with conventional financing, such as setting up solar power plants. It's not an offer. If climate experts are looking for “additionality” when measuring carbon reductions (for example, not counting the preservation of forests that are not going to be logged anyway), they also want additionality (or not) in financial terms. We also need funds that otherwise would not have been realized. Accounting tricks and double counting should also not be tolerated in such finances.
Market viability provides an interesting indicator for action. Many countries are not even doing what is economically viable today in terms of reducing emissions. For example, we're not scaling up wind and solar power fast enough, long before we need batteries. This requires attention to fundamental issues such as counterparty risk (loss-making utilities), outdated power grid management, and land acquisition hurdles.
Focusing on achieving “zero” or “just zero” is not only a distraction, but also prevents improvements to existing infrastructure that could increase efficiency and reduce pollution, such as cleaning up existing power plants. there is a possibility. Such efforts have the potential to reduce local air pollution (a bigger concern today than carbon in many regions), and allow existing power plants to be retrofitted to operate more flexibly. This will be necessary in a future where intermittent renewable energy becomes more widespread.
You can't change the past. This is one reason to focus on future emissions. If the rich enjoy the luxury of ignoring past emissions (which ideally they shouldn't, since “all carbon is equal”), then the poor have the luxury of ignoring past emissions, which they ideally shouldn't because “all carbon is equal.” We need to accept not only reducing emissions, but also following a step-by-step approach. , in some cases there is a temporary increase in emissions. Poor people may become more aggressive on the front lines in exchange for breathing space to reduce emissions, which will be more difficult in the future. If this means increased use of fossil fuels by poor countries, this should not be denied under climate change absolutism.
