Net zero clarity
Authors: None The Lancet Planetary Health
Journal: The Lancet Planetary Health (2021)

Globally, we need to rapidly reduce carbon emissions to stabilise the concentration of atmospheric CO2 and prevent increasingly dangerous climatic changes. It is not possible to prevent all emissions though, so there is a need to balance greenhouse gas sources and sinks. To achieve this goal, many countries, cities, and companies have committed to a high-level aspiration to reach Net Zero emissions by a certain date. Net zero implies that emissions and removals should balance and has become a central aspect of climate discourse. A new report from the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU) on the global state of net zero targets finds that, taken together, jurisdictions with net zero targets represent at least 61% of global greenhouse gas emissions, 68% of GDP (measured as purchasing power parity) and 56% of the world's population. The majority of these commitments were put in place in just the last 18 months, many in response to the UN Race to Zero campaign. Both the scale of existing commitments and the rate of increase are encouraging, but such promises need to be interpreted with care. When examined closely, plans can be hard to interpret and compare because the definitions used are often loose and variable. For example, some concern just CO2 and others all greenhouse gases, or in some cases this remains unspecified. Additionally, emissions accounting can consider just direct emissions—for example airports considering buildings and ground operations but excluding aircraft emissions—or pledges can include the wider emissions associated with supply chains and product use and disposal. The extent to which plans rely on CO2 removals and offsetting is also contentious and often unstated or inadequately constrained. This variable quality is captured in the ECIU report which finds that only about 20% of existing net zero targets currently meet a minimum set of robustness criteria, or “starting line” as set out by the UN Race to Zero Campaign. In a recent comment, Joeri Rogelj and co-authors call on governments (national and regional) and companies to clarify three aspects of their targets: their scope; how they are deemed adequate and fair; and concrete road maps towards and beyond net zero. Of these three, adequacy and fairness is perhaps the most contentious and interesting. In their comment the authors explain that in setting net-zero targets, countries and companies generally assume that these will meet the global goals of the Paris agreement. However, this involves assumptions about what a fair contribution would be and what others should contribute. These ethical judgments are unavoidable, but often remain tacit. Such judgements can imply very different levels of responsibility and associated fair mitigation effort, see for example the fair shares approach to national emissions responsibility by Jason Hickel. Sectors and nations do have different capacities to decarbonise and so variable rates of progress are to be expected. But while sectors that are hard to decarbonise are quick to argue for the need for more time, as well as carbon removal and/or offsetting, we are yet to see many sectors that can decarbonise more easily and fully setting more ambitious targets with very early net zero and indeed net negative emissions commitments. Clarity and transparency around ethical judgements involved in net zero planning are needed to counter the propensity to select criteria which favour a given actors particular circumstances. Of course, commitments only have any real-world value when they are acted upon, so while high level goals are useful, they are much more believable if they are backed up with near-term goals and an implementation plan. In the lead up to the UN Climate Summit in Glasgow we need to press those making net zero commitments to be clear about their framing of the problem, what is included and excluded, and how that is justified in the context of what they assume others will or should do. We also need to see concrete planning and early emissions cutting. Heavy reliance on CO2 removal and/or offsetting, particularly in other nations are warning signs that real progress is expected elsewhere. Recent net zero progress remains encouraging, but much more remains to be done if these commitments are to put us on the road to Paris Agreement compliance. Continuing scrutiny and pressure to improve reporting will be vital in making net-zero (and net-negative) commitments meaningful in real terms.