Written by Ajay Shankar
At the ongoing COP 27 at Sharm El-Sheikh in Egypt, the IPCC has made it clear that climate catastrophe is unfolding. Global warming has already touched 1.1 degrees Celsius and extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and severe. The current commitments and policies of different nations will lead to a temperature rise of 2.8 degrees by the end of this century. The window of opportunity to restrict global warming to 1.5 degrees seems to be closing rapidly. To avert this, carbon emissions must come down 45 per cent by 2030 and touch net zero by 2050. Is this likely? No, as of now. Is it feasible? Yes.
The G-20 countries account for over 70 per cent of global carbon emissions. What they, especially the US and China, do in the next few years would determine the fate of humankind — their rapid decarbonisation would make the decisive difference. It would also make it easier for the rest of the world to follow. The US, the preeminent global power, has critical responsibility. Its per capita carbon emissions, notwithstanding a sharp and encouraging decline from over 20 to 14.6 tonnes per capita, are still the highest in the world, that too by a wide margin. China is next at 8.4 tonnes per capita while Europe is at 6.8 tonnes per capita.
The problem is that on climate change, the US is internally divided with the Republicans still not seeing the need for immediate action. The US did not join the Kyoto Protocol and President Trump took the country out of the Paris Agreement (facilitated by Barack Obama’s leadership), which it has re-joined under Joe Biden. It took leadership on climate change last year, hosting a global summit, which affirmed the 1.5 degrees goal.
However, it took a year of intense effort and compromise for Biden to get the $369-billion dollar funding required for climate action, far less than what was proposed, and that too as a part of the Inflation Reduction Act. With this, there is a possibility that the US’s climate commitment for 2030 which it announced last year, at COP26, may be achieved. But even that would be far too little. The US must bring down its per capita emissions, first to the current European levels and then further. The new conservative Supreme Court in the US has recently ruled that climate action by the EPA (Environment Protection Agency) to mandate a progressive reduction in carbon emissions — which Obama had initiated, and which was yielding positive results — is legally not permissible without Congressional approval.
Standalone legislation on climate change does not appear feasible for the present. Biden’s electoral campaign promise for the US to have a fossil fuel electricity system by 2035 remains unfulfilled. Unless scientists, climate activists and civil society worldwide succeed in persuading the Republicans to see reason, there is little hope.
China, having become the factory of the world, emits the most. It has declared 2060 as the year to achieve net zero after the West pledged carbon neutrality by 2050. It needs to reach net zero much earlier. China has the capacity to do so, having acted strategically, and developed technologies and competitive manufacturing capacities across the entire range of renewable energy sectors, ranging from solar panels to electric vehicles (EVs) and batteries.
Electricity is the low-hanging fruit for decarbonisation. Solar and wind are the cheapest sources of electricity. Germany, which already gets 40 per cent of its electricity from renewables, has decided to have a fossil fuel-free electricity system by 2035. So has California in the US.
India has displayed commendable climate responsibility with Prime Minister Modi announcing at COP26 that by 2030, the country would create 500GW of fossil fuel-free generation capacity and meet half of our energy needs from renewables. The energy crisis in Europe, with gas prices having risen manifold, has made the economic case for faster movement towards renewables more compelling. The advanced economies — the US, Europe, China, Japan and South Korea — should ideally aim at achieving carbon-free electricity systems by 2030. This would undoubtedly be challenging, but not beyond the technological capacities of these economies. It would also be a strong antidote to the impending recessions in different parts of the world by creating demand and jobs. However, the interests of the powerful fossil fuel industry in postponing this transition would have to be overcome.
Electric vehicles (EVs) have arrived and are gaining market share across the world. Europe has decided to end the sale of internal combustion engine vehicles by 2035 while the UK has already set 2030 as the deadline for this target. The increasing share of renewables in the electricity system will decarbonise EV transport.
High gas prices are pushing heating systems to shift to electricity. As transport and heating systems turn to electricity, which gets decarbonised at the same time, the emissions reduction needed to keep global warming closer to the 1.5 degrees target could become feasible. That said, many industrial processes cannot run on electricity. Nor can air transport or shipping. These “hard to abate sectors” continue to present technological challenges in doing away with the use of fossil fuels. Hydrogen can be a substitute for fossil fuels. Green hydrogen made from renewables is one such solution. Costs of this alternative fuel are declining. As breakthroughs occur, making industrial-scale deployment feasible for such technologies, the pathway to net zero would begin to get clearer. A rapid transition can be promoted by having lower tax rates for goods whose production has low to zero carbon emissions. A differential import duty structure would incentivise the transition in exporting countries.
The advanced industrial economies need to act now to decarbonise rapidly. Their actions must match rhetoric. That is the only hope to restrict global warming to 1.5 degrees.
The writer, a distinguished fellow at TERI, is former Secretary Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade
