Why is net-zero an important target?

For the last couple of years, there has been a concerted campaign to get countries, especially the big emitters, to commit themselves to achieve “climate neutrality” by 2050. This is sometimes referred to as the state of net-zero emissions that would require countries to significantly reduce their emissions, while increasing land or forest sinks that would absorb the emissions that do take place. If the sinks are not adequate, countries can commit themselves to deploying technologies that physically remove carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Most of such carbon dioxide removal technologies are still unproven and extremely expensive.
Scientists and climate change campaign groups say global carbon neutrality by 2050 is the only way to achieve the Paris Agreement target of keeping global temperatures from rising beyond 2°C compared to pre-industrial times. At the current rate of emissions, the world is headed for a 3° to 4°C rise in temperatures by 2100.

When this Paris agreement signed?

• In December 2015, 195 countries signed an agreement to slow the process of global warming by making efforts to “hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels”.
• This basically means that the countries would try to limit the increase in global temperature rise. While poor countries and island states had requested a lower goal considering threats of droughts and sea-level rise, climate experts have said maintaining a 2 degrees increase will be a challenge in itself. The agreement came into force in November 2016.
• Another crucial point in this agreement was the decision to limit the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by human activity to a level that can be naturally absorbed by trees, soils and oceans. Nations have pledged “to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century”. According to UN’s climate science panel, net zero emissions must be attained by 2070 to avoid dangerous warming.
• Developed countries were also told to provide financial resources to help developing countries in dealing with climate change and for adaptation measures. As part of a review mechanism, developed countries were also asked to communicate every two years the “indicative” amount of money they would be able to raise over the next two years, and information on how much of it would come from public financial sources. In contrast, developing countries have only been “encouraged” to provide such information every two years on a voluntary basis.
• A key feature of the Paris Agreement has been the way the agreement reflects the principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ (CBDR) which has been invoked four times in the CBDR principle. Emerging nations stressed on the developed world to take greater responsibility for climate actions since they are largely responsible for emitting almost all of the greenhouse gases from about 1850 to the 1980s.
• The agreement also includes a mechanism to address financial losses faced by less developed nations due to climate change impacts like droughts, floods etc. However, developed nations won’t face financial claims since it “does not involve or provide a basis for any liability or compensation.

Where India ranks in emission of greenhouse gases?

India, the world’s third biggest emitter of greenhouse gases after the US and China. The top four emitters (China, USA, EU and India) contribute to over 55 per cent of the total emissions over the last decade, excluding emissions from land-use change such as deforestation, the report states. If land-use change emissions were included, the rankings would change, with Brazil likely to be the largest emitter. The largest share of emissions come from the energy sector and its fossil fuel emissions. Industry produces the next largest footprint, followed by forestry, transport, agriculture and buildings. India is among a small group of countries that are on track to achieve their self-declared climate targets under the Paris Agreement with their current policies in place. However, it mentions that there are uncertainties regarding India’s emissions future, the biggest of which is how rapidly the country’s economy will grow.

Who will directly affect by China’s commitment?

• The Chinese announcement is naturally expected to increase pressure on India to follow suit, and agree to some long-term commitment even if it was not exactly 2050 net-zero goal. That is something that India is unlikely to do.
• “It is the wrong kind of demand being put on us. In fact, if you look at the pledges that have been made in the Paris Agreement, India is the only G20 country whose actions are on track to meet the 2° goal. The other developed countries actually have to make efforts towards a 1.5° world, but they are failing even to do enough to meet the 2° target. So, yes, there would be enhanced pressure, and we will have to deal with it. But it is an unfair demand, and we will have to resist it as we have been doing all along.
• India’s actions as “2°C compatible”, while the US, China and even the European Union’s current efforts are classified as “insufficient”.
•  India was in the process of formulating a long-term climate policy for itself, but that effort seems to have been shelved as of now.
• Another side-effect of the Chinese decision could be an increased divergence in the positions of India and China at the climate negotiations. China might now have fewer grounds to align itself with India as a developing country.

How significant is China’s commitment for India ?

• China is the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases. It accounts for almost 30% of global emissions, more than the combined emissions in the United States, the European Union and India, the three next biggest emitters. Getting China to commit itself to a net-zero target, even if it is 10 years later than what everyone has in mind, is a big breakthrough, especially since countries have been reluctant to pledge themselves to such long term commitments.
• So far, the European Union was the only big emitter to have committed itself to a net-zero emission status by 2050. More than 70 other countries have also made similar commitments but most of them have relatively low emissions because of which their net-zero status would not help the planet’s cause in a big way. The real heavyweights whose climate actions are crucial to achieving the Paris Agreement targets are the Big Four — China, the US, the European Union and India — who together account for more than half the global emissions, followed by countries such as Russia, Brazil, South Africa, Japan and Australia.
• South Africa declared its intention to become carbon-neutral by 2050, but other countries have been holding back. The United States, under the Donald Trump administration, has walked out of the Paris Agreement, and does not even believe in these targets.
• The only way India can turn net zero is by removing CO2 using carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. CCS refers to capturing CO2 from point sources, transporting it to preselected locations and storing it underground. CCS technology is nothing new and has been known since 1938. The first plant came about in the 1970s in the US, which had a capacity of removing 1.4 million tonnes (MT) of CO2 per year. Today, there are about 19 major CCS plants (including two plants in the power sector, though one has since been mothballed being economically unviable) and their combined capacity is about 40 MT of CO2 per year.
• CCS is an extremely expensive technology and it has a host of other issues like finding potential reservoirs for storage having stable geological environment, low seismic activity, etc. Given the high costs involved, there is practically no demand for CCS technology. Some reduction in capital costs, however, has been observed as mentioned in the Global CCS Report (2019), which states that the cost of capturing carbon has reduced from $100 per tonne of CO2 at the Boundary Dam facility (Canada) to $65 per tonne of CO2 at the Petra Nova facility (the US) over a span of three years.
• The story of CCS is primarily a chicken-and-egg story. Developers of the technology will only venture into the field when there is sufficient demand, and the flip side is that demand will only grow when costs are low. It is only the government that can break this impasse by investing in CCS technology, at least for a few demonstration units. The government of India has a large presence in the power sector, which in any case accounts for about 54% of the emissions and, therefore, it is here where the action should originate.
• The government should identify centrally-owned generating stations that still have sufficient life and set up CCS units in these plants. Other emitting sectors, such as industrial, transport and agricultural, are dominated by private enterprise that, of course, don’t have the means to invest in this technology. Initial government investment may trigger a fall in capital costs, which may lead to further adoption of the technology. Finally, it would not be out of place to mention that the best way to promote this technology would be to make it a part-and-parcel of the INDCs, which would have guaranteed quick percolation at reduced cost due to economies of scale.