Get rid of fossil fuels – the war in Ukraine and the collapse of our relationship with Russia, the most important energy supplier, are dramatically showing us just how necessary this is. In August 2021 and February 2022, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) showed us with unprecedented precision that there is no way around it anyway, because oil, gas and coal are fueling global warming and thus imposing enormous costs on us for the future – in the first two parts of the so-called Sixth Assessment Report (AR6). The third and last volume was added on Monday: It shows the urgency of the energy transition more clearly than ever before – but also the possibilities of averting climate collapse.
The most important message of the latest report is: The 1.5-degree target is still within reach for the year 2100. In 2015, the international community agreed in the Paris climate agreement that a temperature increase of more than 1.5 degrees compared to the pre-industrial level at the end of this century is actually not acceptable: “Efforts must be made” for a corresponding limitation, but at least for a limitation to “well below” two degrees.
A quick special report on 1.5 degrees of global warming in 2018 showed that this limit was still achievable, but only with a lot of speed in climate protection and global CO2 neutrality by the middle of the century. The report presented yesterday comes to the conclusion that this is definitely doable – not for all regions of the world, but on a global level.
CO2-neutrality by the middle of the century means: Around 2050, all CO2 emissions that are still emitted then have to be compensated for by removing the greenhouse gas from the atmosphere elsewhere at the same time. After all, goals with “net zero emissions” have been announced in recent years by the EU, the USA and even China (for 2060), in Germany’s amended climate protection law there is even the year 2045 for all greenhouse gases.
Top jobs of the day
Find the best jobs now and
be notified by email.
In the scientific “climate protection pathways” that ensure the 1.5-degree target and which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was able to evaluate for its latest report, CO2 removals are an indispensable component. This reflects: The remaining CO2 budget compatible with 1.5 degrees of humanity is rapidly running out; the chance of success of achieving the goal is significantly lower than when the special report was published three and a half years ago.
In addition, some sectors, such as agriculture, will still have residual emissions after 2050 – non-CO2 emissions such as methane in particular must be offset by CO2 removal. With higher methane savings, both the dependency on withdrawals and the risk of overshooting the temperature target in the medium term can be significantly reduced.
Common portfolio for actions
Compared to previous reports, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change now has a broader understanding of the various technologies and practices used to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. This is very helpful for the debate that needs to be held in the coming years: about a portfolio of abstraction measures that is ecologically sustainable, economically and socially acceptable and also resilient to ongoing climate change and possible future world crises.
More about energy:
In addition, one finding clearly continues, which was already mentioned as a side aspect in the IPCC special report from 2018: Making the energy supply fossil-free, for example using sun or wind as sources and using hydrogen as a carrier, is only one side of the coin when it comes to climate protection.
There is also great potential to be tapped on the demand side, through changes in energy consumption behavior and lifestyle changes, for example in mobility, housing or nutrition. If governments all over the world take this into account and invest accordingly in economic incentives, new infrastructure, but also information and education, then the 1.5 degree target will be much easier to achieve.
According to the scientific scenarios, efforts in this direction will make it possible for there to be significantly fewer residual emissions by the middle of the century than indicated in more traditional climate protection paths. The CO2 withdrawals can then be correspondingly lower. For the first time, the new IPCC report offers a separate chapter on these so-called demand-side climate solutions, in which a group leader from our institute was the coordinating lead author.
This is a significant change for future climate policy: The fact that the spectrum of scientific scenarios is being substantially expanded at this point means new viable paths into a world that is “only” 1.5 degrees hotter. Climate policy is starting to move at this point, even if it’s not making the headlines at the moment because of the war in Ukraine.
The report depicts the status of emission trends more comprehensively than ever before – again coordinated by a colleague from the MCC. But he also shows the possibilities of reversing these trends. What is remarkable is the finding that climate protection technologies are becoming cheaper and cheaper – from solar panels (with a price drop of around 60 percent since 2015) to wind turbines and electricity storage.
But why has this not long since been reflected in a faster restructuring of the economy? This is mainly due to the lack of credibility of climate policy, which reduces the economic incentive effect: market players expect political backtracking and in some cases align their actions with less drastic measures than those announced.
Particularly in the case of CO2 pricing, which many governments believe is politically difficult to implement, there is still a lack of convincing political measures that are compatible with the 1.5-degree target. The report gives an indication that prices need not skyrocket: half of the global emissions of 2019 can be saved by 2030 with technologies that cost 100 euros or less per tonne of avoided CO2 emissions. For comparison: The market price for one tonne of CO2 in European emissions trading is currently just under 80 euros.
Overall, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change presents an urgently needed, unprecedentedly comprehensive synthesis of knowledge. It thus provides an indispensable basis of information for climate policy. It impressively shows what needs to be done – and also on how, with which the IPCC has some difficulties due to its consensus-oriented decision-making procedure with pointed statements, there is a much broader level of knowledge in climate economics than just a few years ago.
The process must pick up speed and the level of ambition must continue to rise. The phrase “a turning point” that the Federal Chancellor proclaimed in relation to security policy in view of the war in Ukraine also applies to the topic of climate protection: it is important to keep the costs of climate damage manageable for future generations and to enable them to live a decent life.
The author: Sabine Fuss is a climate economist at the Berlin climate research institute MCC (Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change). There she heads the working group Sustainable Resource Management and Global Change, and she is also a professor at the Humboldt University in Berlin. In 2018 she was a lead author in the IPCC special report on 1.5 degrees global warming.
More: Problem area climate balance – SAP and BCG want to make the CO2 emissions of corporations calculable