In a post Kyoto Protocol world, since the Paris Agreement in 2015 and with Greta Thunberg's meteoric rise to fame, we hear evermore climate jargon being flung about the news these days.
And that's not a bad thing.
After all, climate change remains this generation's single-most important challenge and threat (yes, more than COVID-19).
However, it's important we understand all these terms politicians use, debate and set policy around. As climate diplomacy begins to take centre stage (finally), we the people, must understand climate change politics better. Otherwise, who will keep decision makers in check about the future of our children and their children.
Back in the late 2000's, when I studied and worked on climate change policy, it was all about carbon neutrality.
Remember? Carbon footprints and CO2?
Well, it's all still there. But they have new or different names for it.
Carbon emissions reduction targets are negotiated every year at the annual United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change's (UNFCCC) annual meetings called COP, or Conference of the Parties.
At the end of every year, as the COP draws to an end, more climate policy debate splashes onto the news. For those who follow and understand sustainable development and climate change it is fascinating to see the negotiations at a COP.
Literally, the future of our planet is at stake.
But can everyone keep up with the debate?
It's hard.
Climate change, important as it is, has not been taught at most of our schools. Apart from a climatical phenomena, few understand the links between our economy, national security, energy development and carbon emissions.
We tend to think of climate change as an environmental issue. World leaders and private sector stakeholders look at it differently. For them, it is about moving rapidly to seek competitive advantages.
It's political, It's economical,
most if all, it's not just environmental.
10 years ago, the fight against climate change meant transitioning to a low carbon economy. Today, the ask has intensified. We can hear big talk about the combustion engine going the way of the dodo by 2050.
Political leaders are sending clearer signals about their willingness to tackle climate change. This has led to more companies making better efforts to go greener.
Take the latest case of Shell in The Netherlands.
Boy did they get hit hard!
If you haven't still heard, Multinational oil and gas company Royal Dutch Shell has been ordered to reduce its CO2 emissions by 45% in a landmark legal case.
On May 26, 2021 a panel of judges in a lower court in The Hague ruled that the company's policies on the matter were too vague.
It said the reduction must happen by 2030. What makes this case unique is that no compensation is being demanded from the company. Instead, for the first time in history, Shell is being asked to issue a policy change.
Will this set a precedent for other oil and gas companies across the world? Maybe. What is for sure is that reduction targets are now not just being imposed on governments but also on companies.
So, is a green boom just about to hit us?
Over 40 green companies have seen their share prices triple since 2019. Take Tesla, for example. Their share price is nine times higher since the start of 2019.
In 2009, I worked as a Climate Change Attaché at the British Embassy in Santiago, Chile. I talked on a daily bases to local decision makers. Private and public sector alike. When discussing cutting down carbon emissions by replacing coal-energy plants I would hear things like, "Chile needs coal to continue it's economic development path."
I even had a discussion at Chile's Lower House of Congress where a "diputado" (congressman) told me that as a UK representative, I had a lot of nerve talking about CO2 emissions after BP's oil-spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. The Honourable Congressman was still under the impression that British Petroleum was UK publicly owned.
Anyway.
My point is that those same people that defended coal, today would deny their statements that development can't be achieved sustainably. The progress we have made in the past decade is proving to the world that cheap dirty energy and sustainable development can be decoupled. Renewable energy is a viable alternative.
But greenwashing is still very present. Also among countries.
Take Romania and Poland for example. They are lobbying for natural gas to be considered as green alternative energy sources in the EU's new Green Deal. Why? Their plan is to replace coal with this less contaminating energy source. Natural gas. Yes, it's less CO2 intense than coal. But it is no where near being green. We need to make huge changes to save the world from disastrous climate change.
Now is not the moment for green washing your energy matrix.
In 2021, CO2 emissions debates talks less about transitioning to a low carbon economy and more about the need to reach net zero targets by 2050.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) recently shocked most of us by announcing their roadmap report.
With "Net Zero by 2050" the IEA offers a comprehensive roadmap laid out all the way through to 2050. In a decade, 60% of car sales across the globe should be electric and by 2035 all should be. By 2040, all coal-fired power plants without technology that captures their pollution should be retired.
The list goes on.
The main message from the IEA, however, is that the time to stop investing in fossil fuel resources is now. Not in 10 or 15 years..now!
Hold on? The IEA?
Aren't those the same people who that since the 1970s oil crises have maintained ultra-close links to the oil and gas industry?
Yeah, them.
The IEA, who's “sustainable development scenarios” were shat on by activists and scientists because their work failed to give an accurate view?
Yeah, them.
The IEA, who is commonly associated to give cover to energy firms intent on continuing to profit off oil and gas?
Exactly, them lot.
So honestly, you would be excused for being a little doubtful about the report.
I was.
Until I read it.
Nothing to say. Totally in-line with with the IEA (and I never thought I'd say that).
It goes to show two things.
1. Things are changing ...
2. ... and the situation must be really, really bad if the IEA is telling us to clean up the global energy matrix.
I might have left some of you at net zero.
After all, what the hell is it?
Net zero refers to the balance between the amount of greenhouse gas produced and the amount removed from the atmosphere. Net zero is reached when the amount we add is no more than the amount taken away.
But how can we achieve this and why does it matter?
Since the Kyoto Protocol, signed in 1997, countries have been committing to reduce the amount of CO2 they emit. And by CO2, we are talking Green House Gases (GHGs):
• Carbon dioxide (CO2);
• Methane (CH4);
• Nitrous oxide (N2O);
• Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs);
• Perfluorocarbons (PFCs); and
• Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6)
For example, in 2008 when the UK committed and passed a law to reduce their carbon emissions by 80%. In the year 2050 they were aiming to reduce their GHGs in comparison to their 1990 levels (BTW: Notice the date, it's political too. Post Cold War. USSR's collapse meant Russia was left with a carbon emissions credit surplus, which was one of the reasons they signed the Kyoto Protocol. But that's whole other story).
Back to the IEA. These guys now believe the world has a viable pathway to building a global energy sector with net zero emissions by 2050. Sounds good, but the time frame is narrow and the plan requires an unprecedented transformation of how energy is produced, transported and used globally.
Are we ready?
Climate pledges by governments to date – even if fully achieved – would fall well short of what is required to bring global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions to net zero by 2050 and give the world a chance of limiting the global temperature rise to 1.5 °C. That's why the IEA's Net Zero by 2050: a Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector is so drastic in its approach.
Basically, our efforts to fight climate change are just not good enough.
And Greta, I don't mean you. Although your boat ride across the Atlantic did attract a lot of people in cars and helicopters. :P