Net-zero Emissions: the mostactionable climate target

Dr. Oliver Geden
German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP)
Head of Research Division EU/Europe
9 February 2018
ALPS Symposium, TokyoSWPFolie 1

Paris Agreement: 3 mitigation targets
 Holding the increase in the global average temperature

to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and topursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels [Article 2(1)] In order to achieve the long-term temperature goal set

out in Article 2, Parties aim to reach global peaking ofgreenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, […]and to undertake rapid reductions thereafter inaccordance with best available science, […] so as toachieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions
by sources and removals by sinks of greenhousegases in the second half of this century [Article 4(1)]SWP
Folie 2

3 targets: need for prioritization
 Official answer (‘zero emissions by 2099’ asoperationalization of 2/1.5 °C) unconvincing
Need for clearly defined emissions pathways, with ranges
for global peak years/levels, shorter time frame for reaching‚zero‘ and specified amount of net negative emissions
Operationalization of temperature targets requires exact‘carbon budgets’, something UNFCCC is unwilling to adopt

 Main criteria for priority target
Capability to effectively guide policy actionCompatibility with prevalent political rationales/practices(not well represented in current climate policy discourse)

SWP
Folie 3

Perspective: problem vs. actor-centered Problem-centered approach still dominantDefining threshold(s) for ‚dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system‘ (2 or 1.5 °C)
Policy action to be consistently derived from DAI (budgets) Actor-centered approach still marginal
Real-world policymaking not primarily concerned aboutsolving problems but dealing with problems
Policymaking maintains cultural norm of ‚consistency‘ but isactually defined by fundamental inconsistency between talk,decisions and actions (e.g. NDCs vs. temperature targets)Climate policymakers are not the most powerful actors
within respective political systems, not even in EU

SWP
Folie 4

Climate targets in real-world policymaking
 Talk, decisions and actions as independent

products, to maximize external stakeholder support
 In climate policy most governments choose a moreprogressive stance while talking and deciding, buta more modest one when acting
Leads to ‚hypocrisy‘ by talking/deciding about far-away
future, where need for immediate action is relatively limited=> climate policy more about intentions than results

 Modest approach: targets can guide policymakers’

actions if they are precise, evaluable, attainable &motivating (and able to minimize inconsistency)

SWPFolie 5

The case against temperature targets 2 °C has worked well as a focal point for policy

formulation, but not for appropriate action
 Not particularly actionable, inviting inconsistency
Adressing Earth system, not telling individual governments
precisely what they have to deliver (e.g. NDCs)
Evalution of target attainement only globally, no government
can be held responsible for missed target (hypocrisy) Creating ‘either/or’ situation
Fear that likely failure of ambitious temp targets would reduce
motivation for stringent mitigation action=> stretching carbon budgets by introducing negativeemissions & temperature overshoot (masking policy inaction)

SWP
Folie 6

IPCC AR5 scenarios

SWP
Folie 7

Net vs. gross CO2 removal

SWP

Anderson/Peters (2016), The trouble with negative emissions,ScienceFolie 8

Carbon removal for 1.5/2 °C

Rogelj, J. et al (2015): Energy system transformations,

Nature Climate Change

SWP
Folie 9

Deliberate temperature
overshootGeden, O./Löschel, A. (2017):
Define limits for temperature
overshoot targets, Nature

SWP
Folie 10

Targeting human activity
 Net Zero as a relatively new policy approach (in PAalso to avoid decarbonization & climate neutrality) More actionable, hedging inconsistency
Adressing every single actor, telling precisely what they all
have to deliver eventuallyTransparent system for evaluating national governments,
cities, economic sectors & companies
Possibly creating a new cultural norm, encouraging
competition to get to the finish line first Creating sooner/later or faster/slower situation
Providing a clear direction while not dictating astrict/detailed timetable, avoiding hubris

SWPFolie 11

Differentiated tasks
 Net Zero can support choosing entry points forprofound mitigation efforts now (but: target gaming) Temperature thresholds should be treated as long-term environmental quality objectives
Indicating desirable goals, serving as long-term bechmarks
Accompanied by a range of planetary vital signs, to avoid
merging a multitude of factors into one single indicator
Enabling scientists to avoid pragmatic policy concessions

 Sequential political strategies
Decarbonization first, enhanced CO2 removal later as integral
part of a climate recovery (2/1.5 °C) strategy

SWPFolie 12

Net Zero: more ambitious & more pragmatic Net Zero as conceptual challenge for OECD countries
Today‘s long-term reduction targets (e.g., 80-95% by 2050 in theEU) allow many companies & governments to think they are
only partially affected by future climate policies
Mainstream environmentalists feel comfortable focusing their
proposals on expanding renewables and increasing efficiency,
avoiding unpopular & costly measures (e.g., CCS for industrial
processes, nuclear power, synthetic fuels, limited CO2 removal)

Reduction target of 100% would push all sides out oftheir comfort zones and greatly increase the level ofseriousness in climate policy

SWP
Folie 13

Thank you very much for your attention!

@Oliver_Geden

SWP
Folie 14