The IMO’s 80th Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC80) was under pressure to deliver an outcome to reduce the global maritime transportation industry’s carbon footprint and to steer the sector towards a viable climate path that is 1.5 degrees-aligned.

It was a political compromise after two weeks of intense politicking that got member states through to settle on the 2023 IMO Greenhouse Gas Strategy on Friday, just as hopes were fading of any meaningful outcome from the negotiations at the IMO’s climate talks in London.

The Pacific collective from the Marshall Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Tuvalu, Tonga and Solomon Islands, who have been at the IMO since 2015 joined by Vanuatu, Nauru, Samoa and Nauru — referred to as the 6PAC Plus — overcame strong resistance to ensure international shipping continues to steam towards full decarbonisation by 2050.

Vanuatu’s Climate Change Minister Ralph Regevanu, who attended the IMO meeting for the first time, said: “This outcome is far from perfect, but countries across the world came together and got it done — and it gives us a shot at 1.5 degrees.”

Pacific nations were advocating for global shipping to reach zero emissions by 2050 consistent with the science-based targets.

They had proposed absolute emissions cuts from the sector of at least 37 percent by 2030 and 96 percent by 2040 for the industry, to ensure the IMO is not out of step on climate change.

Countries came up short
But countries came up short, instead agreeing that to “reach net-zero GHG emissions from international shipping” a reduction of at least 20 percent by 2030, striving for 30 percent, and at least 70 percent by 2040, striving for 80 percent compared to 2008, “by or around 2050”, was sufficient to set them on the right trajectory.

While there were concerns that targets were not ambitious, they were accepted as better than what nations had decided on in an earlier revised draft text on Thursday, when they agreed for only 20 percent by 2030, with the upper limit of 25 percent, and at least 70 percent by 2040, striving for 75.

“These higher targets are the result of relentless, unceasing lobbying by ambitious Pacific islands, against the odds,” Marshall Islands special presidential envoy for the decarbonisation of maritime shipping, Albon Ishoda said.

​​”If we are to have any hope of saving our beautiful Blue Planet, and building a truly ecological civilisation, the climate vulnerable needs our voices to be heard and we are confident that they have been heard today.”

Tuvalu’s Minister for Transport, Energy and Tourism, Nielu Mesake, said he was “very disappointed” to have “a strategy that falls short of what we need”.

“But we are also realistic and understand that to reach any chance of setting this critical sector in the right direction we needed to compromise,” Mesake said.

He said Tuvalu was confident in the shipping industry’s ability to change.

“We have seen it before. We are confident that our industry will now prioritise each effort and each capital into decarbonizing [and] see shipping stepping up to the plate and fulfil its responsibility to reduce emissions.”

Ishoda said the IMO’s focus now was to deliver on the targets.

“We look forward to swift agreement on a just and equitable economic measure to price shipping emissions and bend the emissions curve fast enough to keep 1.5 alive.”

More work ahead
IMO chief Kitck Lim said the adoption of the strategy was a “monumental development” but it was only “a starting point for the work that needs to intensify even more over the years and decades ahead of us.”

“However, with the Revised Strategy that you have now agreed on, we have a clear direction, a common vision, and ambitious targets to guide us to deliver what the world expects from us,” Lim said.

And Pacific nations are under no illusion of the task ahead for international shipping truly to truly meet the 1.5 degrees limit.

Fiji’s Minister for Transport Ro Filipe Tuisawau said: “We know that we have much more work to do now to adopt a universal GHG levy and global fuel standards urgently.

“These are tools which will actually reduce emissions. We also look forward to the utilisation of viable alternative fuels,” Tuisawau said.

Kiribati Minister for Information, Communication and Transport Tekeeua Tarati said the process of arriving at the final outcome “has been an extremely challenging and distressing negotiation for all parties involved.”

“We had hoped for a revised strategy that was completely aligned to 1.5 degrees, not a strategy that merely keeps it within reach,” Tarati said.

“We need to work on the measures that are essential to achieve the emissions reductions we so desperately need.”

Carbon levy on the table

The calls for a GHG levy for pollution from ships also made it through as an option under the basket of candidate mid-term GHG reduction measures, work on which will be ongoing in future IMO forums.

While the word “levy” is not mentioned, the strategy states an economic measure should be developed “on the basis of maritime GHG emissions pricing mechanism”.

“A GHG levy, starting at $100/tonne, is the only way to keep it there. Ultimately it’s not the targets but the incentives we put in place to meet them. So we in the Pacific are going to keep up a strong fight for a levy that gets us to zero emissions by 2050.”

Ishoda said a universal GHG levy “is the most effective, the most efficient, and the most equitable economic measure to accelerate the decarbonisation of international shipping.”

But he acknowledged more needed to be done.

“There is much work to do to ensure that 1.5 remains not just within reach, but it’s achieved in reality.”

‘Wish and prayer agreement’
But shipping and climate campaigners say the plan is not good enough.

According to the Clean Shipping Coalition, the target agreed to in the final strategy was weak and “is far short of what is needed to be sure of keeping global heating below 1.5 degrees.”

“There is no excuse for this wish and a prayer agreement,” the group’s president, John Maggs, said.

Maggs said the member states had known halving emissions by the end of the decade “was both possible and affordable”.

“The most vulnerable put up an admirable fight for high ambition and significantly improved the agreement but we are still a long way from the IMO treating the climate crisis with the urgency that it deserves and that the public demands.”

University College London’s shipping expert Dr Tristan Smith said outcome of IMO’s climate talks “owes so much to the leadership of a small number of climate vulnerable countries – to their determination and perseverance in convincing much larger economies to act more ambitiously”.

“That this still does not do enough to ensure the survival of the vulnerable countries, in spite of what they have given to help secure the sustainability of global trade, is why more is needed, and all the more reason to give them the credit for what they have done and to heed their calls for a GHG levy,” Dr Smith added.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

As the Glasgow climate summits gets underway, New Zealand’s government has announced a revised pledge, with a headline figure of a 50 percent reduction on gross 2005 emissions by the end of this decade.

This looks good on the surface, but the substance of this new commitment, known as a Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), is best assessed in emissions across decades.

New Zealand’s actual emissions in the 2010s were 701 million tonnes (Mt) of carbon dioxide equivalent. The carbon budget for the 2020s is 675Mt. The old pledge for the 2020s was 623Mt.

The Climate Change Commission’s advice was for “much less than” 593Mt, and the new NDC is 571Mt. So yes, the new pledge meets the commission’s advice and is a step up on the old, but it does not meet our fair share under the Paris Agreement.

It is also a stretch to call the new NDC consistent with the goal of keeping global temperature rise under 1.5℃.

True 1.5℃ compliance would require halving fossil fuel burning over the next decade, while the current plan is for cuts of a quarter.

Emissions need to halve this decade
Countries’ climate pledges are at the heart of the Paris Agreement. The initial round of pledges in 2016 added up to global warming of 3.5℃, but it was always intended they would be ratcheted up over time.

In the run-up to COP26, a flurry of new announcements brought that figure down to 2.7℃ — better, but still a significant miss on 1.5℃.

As this graph from the UN’s Emissions Gap Report 2021 shows, the world will need to halve emissions this decade to keep on track for 1.5℃.

New Zealand’s first NDC, for net 2030 emissions to be 30 percent below gross 2005 emissions, was widely seen as inadequate. An update, reflecting the ambition of the 2019 Zero Carbon Act to keep warming below 1.5℃, has been awaited eagerly.

But several factors have combined to make a truly ambitious NDC particularly difficult.

First, New Zealand’s old climate strategy was based on tree planting and the purchase of offshore carbon credits. The tree planting came to and end in the early 2010s and is only now resuming, while the Emissions Trading Scheme was closed to international markets in 2015. The Paris Agreement was intended to allow a restart of international carbon trading, but this has not yet been possible.

Second, New Zealand has a terrible record in cutting emissions so far. Burning of fossil fuels actually increased by 9 percent from 2016 to 2019. It’s a challenge to turn around our high-emissions economy.

Third, our new climate strategy, involving carbon budgets and pathways under advice from the Climate Change Commission, is only just kicking in. The government has made an in-principle agreement on carbon budgets out to 2030, and has begun consultation on how to meet them. The full emissions-reduction plan will not be ready until May 2022.

Regarding a revised NDC, the government passed the buck and asked the commission for advice. The commission declined to give specific recommendations, but advised:

We recommend that to make the NDC more likely to be compatible with contributing to global efforts under the Paris Agreement to limit warming to 1.5℃ above pre-industrial levels, the contribution Aotearoa makes over the NDC period should reflect a reduction to net emissions of much more than 36 percent below 2005 gross levels by 2030, with the likelihood of compatibility increasing as the NDC is strengthened further.

The government then received advice on what would be a fair target for New Zealand. However, any consideration of historic or economic responsibility points to vastly increased cuts, essentially leading to net-zero emissions by 2030.

Announcing the new NDC, Climate Change Minister James Shaw admitted it wasn’t enough, saying:

I think we should be doing a whole lot more. But, the alternative is committing to something that we can’t deliver on.

What proper climate action could look like
Only about a third of New Zealand’s pledged emissions cuts will come from within the country. The rest will have to be purchased as carbon credits from offshore mitigation.

That’s the same amount (100Mt) that Japan, with an economy 25 times larger than New Zealand’s, is planning to include in its NDC. There is no system for doing this yet, or for ensuring these cuts are genuine. And there’s a price tag, possibly running into many billions of dollars.

New Zealand has an impressive climate framework in place. Unfortunately, just as its institutions are beginning to bite, they are starting to falter against the scale of the challenge.

The commission’s advice to the minister was disappointing. It’s being challenged in court by Lawyers For Climate Action New Zealand, whose judicial review in relation to both the NDC and the domestic emissions budgets will be heard in February 2022.

With only two months to go until 2022 and the official start of the carbon budgets, there is no plan how to meet them. The suggestions in the consultation document add up to only half the cuts needed for the first budget period.

Thinking in the transport area is the furthest advanced, with a solid approach to fuel efficiency already approved, and an acknowledgement total driving must decrease, active and public transport must increase, and new roads may not be compatible with climate targets.

But industry needs to step up massively. The proposed 2037 end date for coal burning is far too late, while the milk cooperative Fonterra — poised to announce a record payout to farmers — intends to begin phasing out natural gas for milk drying only after that date.

The potentially most far-reaching suggestion is to set a renewable energy target. A clear path to 100 percent renewable energy would provide a significant counterweight to the endless debates about trees and agricultural emissions, but it is still barely on the radar.

Perhaps one outcome of the new NDC will be that, faced with the prospect of a NZ$5 billion bill for offshore mitigation, we might decide to spend the money on emissions cuts in Aotearoa instead.

Dr Robert McLachlan is professor in applied mathematics at Massey University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

New Zealand’s Climate Change Commission this week released its long-anticipated advice to the government on how to reshape the economy to meet the country’s domestic and international climate change obligations.

The document sets out three emissions budgets, covering 15 years to 2035 in five-yearly plans. It also provides advice on the direction policy should take to achieve the country’s 2050 net-zero goal.

New Zealand’s net emissions rose by 57 percent between 1990 and 2018, placing it among the poorest performers in the OECD.

As one of New Zealand’s six climate change commissioners I have been part of the process of making a clear case to government that we must take “immediate and decisive action on climate change” across all sectors.

The commission’s priorities include a rapid shift to electric transport, accelerated renewable energy generation, climate-friendly farming practices and more permanent forests, predominantly in native trees.

It also says New Zealand must raise its pledge under the Paris Agreement, known as the Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), because its current commitment is not compatible with the goal of limiting warming to 1.5℃ above pre-industrial levels.

Ambitious but realistic carbon budgets
The good news is the draft carbon budgets are achievable, with technologies that already exist.

The commission’s advice is built around 17 recommendations that cover many sectors of the economy. One of the key messages is that Aotearoa New Zealand cannot plant its way out of trouble but needs to make real cuts in emissions and eliminate the use of fossil fuels.

Most of the solutions are well known. We need to reduce emissions from transport, from energy and industry, from agriculture and from waste.

Breaking: New Zealand roadmap to net zero unveiled. Here’s what it means for you.https://t.co/5oLgapQdDC

— The Spinoff (@TheSpinoffTV) January 31, 2021

Reducing transport emissions is crucial as the sector was responsible for 36.3 percent of New Zealand’s emissions of long-lived greenhouse gases in 2018 and accounts for most of the growth in emissions over the past 30 years.

Recommendations for the transport sector include electrification of the vehicle fleet, improved public transport networks and better integration of active transport (walking and cycling).

A rapid increase in electric cars would reduce emissions from private and commercial transport, while supporting low-carbon fuels like “green” hydrogen and biofuels would help the freight sector (including heavy trucks, shipping and aircraft).

Part of the transport story is urban planning — changing how people and goods move around. The commission recommends limiting urban sprawl, making walking and cycling safer and easier and shifting more freight from road to rail or shipping.

The commission also calls for rapid decarbonisation of electricity generation, and energy generally, to phase out the use of coal. Between now and 2035, it estimates New Zealand could cut transport emissions by 47 percent and those coming from heat and electricity generation by 45 percent.

I can’t stress this enough. We’re heading for economic change, to decarbonise the country. There’ll be winners and losers. Who they are depends on decisions by govts, informed by advice out a week from today by the Climate Change Commission. Have your say! https://t.co/pAs5PLeaKo

— Eloise Gibson (@eloise_gibson) January 24, 2021

Emissions from agriculture
Methane accounts for 43.5 percent of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions, and more than 80 percent of total methane comes from cud-chewing farm animals. But the short-lived nature of methane in the atmosphere means we do not need to reduce methane emissions so fast.

The Zero Carbon Act calls for a 24-47 percent reduction in methane emissions by 2050, compared to net-zero for carbon dioxide.

The commission’s advice is that biogenic methane emissions can be reduced by 19 percent by 2035 while further improving productivity in the sector through better feed, fewer but more productive animals and continued research into emission-reducing technologies.

The commission calls for real cuts in emissions rather than offsets through tree planting, but argues forestry should continue to play an important role in the long-term storage of carbon, for example if timber is used in buildings or furniture and to provide bioenergy.

It recommends a shift towards more permanent native forests to improve long-term carbon storage, biodiversity and soil retention.

Waste is another sector with significant potential to cut emissions. Per head of population, New Zealanders throw away roughly twice what an average OECD citizen does. The commission recommends moving towards a circular economy, where resources are valued and reused.

In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, the main issue in the waste sector is methane release from decomposing solid waste. Capturing that gas at source could reduce methane emissions by 14 percent by 2035.

Cost of a fair transition
The commission’s draft budgets recommend an overall reduction in total greenhouse gas emissions of 36 percent by 2035, starting with 2 percent by 2025 and 17 percent by 2030. It estimates the cost of achieving this is less than 1 percent of projected GDP, much lower than was initially thought.

The payoffs for public health, for our environment and biodiversity make this a good investment, let alone the huge avoided costs from unchecked climate change.

The commission’s recommendations will go through a public consultation process until March 14, and the government has until the end of the year to decide which parts of the advice it takes on board.

An important aspect of the advice is inclusiveness and support for all sectors of society as we move to a low-emissions future. The commission takes a te ao Māori (Māori world view) approach, making it clear that Aotearoa must have an equitable and fair transition.

By Dr James Renwick, professor, Physical Geography (climate science), Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By Will Steffen of the Australian National University

Opposition leader Anthony Albanese’s announcement on Friday that a Labor government in Australia would adopt a target of net-zero emissions by 2050 was a big step in the right direction. But a bit of simple maths reveals the policy is too little, too late.

Perhaps the most robust way to assess whether a proposed climate action is strong enough to meet a temperature target is to apply the “carbon budget” approach. A carbon budget is the cumulative amount of carbon dioxide the world can emit to stay within a desired temperature target.

Once the budget is spent (in other words, the carbon dioxide is emitted), the world must have achieved net-zero emissions if the temperature target is to be met.

READ MORE: Yes, more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere helps plants grow, but it’s no excuse to downplay climate change

So let’s take a look at how Labor’s target stacks up against the remaining carbon budget.

Blowing the budget
The term “net-zero emissions” means any human emissions of carbon dioxide are cancelled out by the uptake of carbon by the Earth – such as by vegetation or soil – or that the emissions are prevented from entering the atmosphere, by using technology such as carbon capture and storage.

(The net-zero emissions concept is fraught with scientific complexities and the potential for perverse outcomes and unethical government policies – but that’s an article for another day.)

So let’s assume every country in the world adopted the net-zero-by-2050 target. This is a plausible assumption, as the UK, New Zealand, Canada, France, Germany and many others have already done so.

What then should the world’s remaining carbon budget be, starting from this year?

The globally agreed Paris target aims to stabilise the global average temperature rise at 1.5℃ above the pre-industrial level, or at least keep the rise to well below 2℃.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that from 2020, the remaining 1.5℃ carbon budget is about 130 GtC (billion tonnes of carbon dioxide). This is based on a 66% probability that limiting further emissions to this level will keep warming below the 1.5℃ threshold.

Current global emissions are about 11.5 GtC per year. So at this rate, the budget would be blown in just 11 years.

How does Labor’s policy stack up?
This is where the “net-zero emissions by 2050” target fails. Even if the world met this target, and reduced emissions evenly over 30 years, cumulative global emissions would be about 170 GtC by 2050. That is well over the 130 GtC budget needed to limit warming to 1.5℃.

So how far would Labor’s target go towards limiting warming to 2℃?

The carbon budget for that target is about 335 GtC. So a net-zero-by-2050 policy could, in principle, stabilise the climate at well below 2℃.

But a word of caution is needed here. The budgets I used above ignore two “jokers in the pack” that could slash the carbon budget and make the Paris targets much harder to achieve.

Jokers in the pack
The first joker is that the carbon budgets I used assume we will reduce emissions of other greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, at about the same rate we reduce carbon dioxide.

But these potent non-CO₂ gases, which primarily come from the agriculture
sector, are generally more difficult to curb than carbon dioxide. Because of this, the IPCC recognises the carbon budget may have to be reduced if these gases are emitted at amounts higher than assumed.

Given the large uncertainties in how fast we can reduce emissions of these non-CO₂ gases, I’ve taken a mid-range estimate of their effect on the 1.5℃ carbon budget and consequently lowered it by 50 Gt. (This value is based on a median non-CO₂ warming contribution as estimated by the IPCC.) This reduces the remaining carbon budget to only about 80 Gt.

Second, the carbon budgets do not include feedbacks in the climate system, such as forest dieback in the Amazon or melting permafrost. These processes are both caused by climate change, at least in part, and amplify it by releasing more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Emissions caused by feedbacks are expected to increase as global average temperature rises. Under a 1.5℃ rise, feedback processes could emit about 70 Gt of carbon dioxide. When the 1.5℃ budget is adjusted for both non-CO2 greenhouse gases and feedbacks, this leaves just one year’s worth of global emissions in the bank.

The corresponding reductions for the 2℃ warming limit reduce its carbon budget to 160 GtC. This is less than the cumulative emissions of 170 GtC if every country adopted a net-zero-by-2050 policy.

What does effective climate action look like?
These calculations are confronting enough. But for Australia there is, in addition, a huge elephant in the room – or rather, in the coal mine.

Our exported emissions – those created when our coal, gas and other fossil fuels are burned overseas – are about 2.5 times more than our domestic emissions. Exported emissions are not counted on Australia’s ledger, but they all contribute to the escalating impacts of climate change – including the bushfires that devastated southeast Australia this summer.

So, what would an effective climate action plan look like? In my view, the central actions should be:

• cut domestic emissions by 50 percent by 2030
• move the net-zero target date forward to 2045, or, preferably 2040
• ban new fossil fuel developments of any kind, for either export or domestic use

The striking students are right. We are in a climate emergency.

The net-zero-by-2050 policy is a step in the right direction but is not nearly enough. Our emission reduction actions must be ramped up even more – and fast – to give our children and grandchildren a fighting chance of a habitable planet.

Dr Will Steffen is an emeritus professor at the Australian National University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

ANALYSIS: By Megan Darby in London

A world-leading climate action plan or a betrayal of future generations? The UK’s net zero emissions plan certainly sorted the technocrats from the activists.

In a 277-page report, the Committee on Climate Change set out how Britain could stop changing the climate by 2050, calling for legislation to make it happen.

It is a level of ambition that would have stretched credibility five years ago. This week, it landed on fertile ground, softened up by technological advances and social momentum. Even the rightwing press was relatively receptive.

Indeed, the strongest criticism of the report came from Extinction Rebellion.

Riding high after Parliament declared a “climate emergency”, one of its key asks, the activist movement asked whether the 1-2 percent of GDP cost estimate – there to reassure middle Britain – was commensurate with the scale of the challenge.

Of course, endorsing higher ambition in principle is one thing. Applying it to tough policy and investment decisions like expanding Heathrow Airport or opening a new coal mine (decisions backed by both major parties) is another.

The UK has a projected shortfall against existing emissions targets from the mid-2020s.

On an international level, together with similar plans under development in France, it is a shot in the arm for the Paris Agreement.

As Britain bids to host key UN climate talks in 2020, it signals a seriousness about ratcheting up ambition over time.

This article is republished under a Creative Commons licence.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz