Climate change is driving natural systems beyond their limits

by Leave a Comment

This article is also available in Spanish.

Key points:

  • Emissions of greenhouse gases in the post-industrial era have significantly altered the planet’s climate, resulting in extreme weather anomalies across the globe.  
  • While extreme events such as droughts, storms, heat and unpredictable precipitation are natural phenomena, the increased severity and magnitude with which they are occurring under climate change exacerbates their impacts on humans and natural systems.
  • Changes in climate and land use are making animals’ and plants’ habitats unlivable, forcing them to migrate or adapt, or otherwise become extinct. This has knock-on effects for human livelihoods.
  • Natural systems face pressure from both climate effects, such as heat, and human effects, such as land-use change, with the combination of these stressors intensifying challenges.
  • Environmental changes in one system are triggering reactions in other systems, with cascading effects that threaten the stability of the planet’s climate systems. 
  • Scientists are increasingly worried that climate change is edging natural systems closer to dangerous positive feedback loops that fuel more extreme weather and environmental degradation, in turn accelerating the pace of global warming. 
  • Every increment of warming increases the chance of dangerous positive feedback loops, the effects of which – including the loss of crucial global carbon sinks and weather-modulating ecosystems – are often irreversible.
  • Atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases have reached unprecedented levels in recent years, and deforestation and land degradation continue to erode the capacity of the land to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. 
  • To reduce detrimental warming to humans and nature and meet Paris Agreement targets of limiting warming to 2°C or 1.5°C with little or no ‘overshoot’ – where temperatures temporarily exceed the target before dropping back – “rapid and deep, and in most cases immediate” reductions in greenhouse gas emissions will be needed across all sectors.

Climate change is intensifying weather anomalies

Since the discovery that burning carbon-rich materials such as coal, oil and natural gas can generate heat to power industrial activities, humanity has released billions of tonnes of carbon that had been stored in the Earth for millions of years into the atmosphere. This massive and continuous release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, including methane, has significantly altered the planet’s climate. Since the onset of the Industrial Revolution, the Earth’s average temperature has risen by approximately 1.2-1.3°C – driven largely by the continuous and unchecked accumulation of these emissions.1The range of 1.2-1.3°C represents a five-year average.

The speed of global warming has ramped up considerably over the last three decades, and particularly since 2015, attributed to increased fossil fuel emissions, deforestation and changes in land use. Despite pledges made to curb emissions in the Paris Agreement, where most countries worldwide agreed to limit “the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels” and to pursue efforts “to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels” by the end of the century, the last 10 years have been the hottest on record. 2023 is officially the hottest year on record since record-taking began. 

This planetary warming is intensifying weather anomalies across the globe, resulting in more frequent and severe storms, heatwaves and droughts, and unpredictable precipitation patterns. While droughts, storms, heat and extreme precipitation are natural phenomena, the increased severity and magnitude with which they are occurring under climate change exacerbates their impacts on humans and ecosystems (Figure 1). 

Extreme heatwaves are now occurring at almost five times the frequency they were occurring during pre-industrial times and are anticipated to further increase in frequency by 8.6 times at 1.5°C of warming, 13.6 times at 2°C of warming, and 27.4 times at 3°C of warming. Every increment of warming amplifies the climate risks to ecosystems and humans. 

Paris Agreement targets 

The 1.5°C target, endorsed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), marks a crucial threshold beyond which the impacts of global warming become increasingly severe for both humans and the environment. This target was determined based on the risks posed by increasing temperatures on a range of factors, including food security, extreme weather events, health, biodiversity loss, water supply and economic growth. 

February 2023 to January 2024 marked the first 12-month period in human history where average global temperature rise exceeded 1.5°C. Although breaching the Paris Agreement target would require average annual temperatures to stay above 1.5°C for at least 20 consecutive years, the fact that we are already seeing consecutive months exceed this threshold suggests that we are approaching this critical point.2The point where 1.5°C of warming is breached is measured as the midpoint of the first 20-year period where global average temperatures are 1.5°C higher than the pre-industrial average.

Even though the 1.5°C target has not yet been breached, we are already experiencing the consequences of global warming. Though substantially less risky than higher global warming levels, the target of 1.5°C should not be viewed as a definitive ‘safe’ limit – there is no universally ‘safe’ level of global warming. What is considered an acceptable level of warming will be highly subjective. For example, extreme heat in 2024 alone has had tragic consequences for people and nature: in Saudi Arabia, during the Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca, 1,300 people collapsed and died as temperatures soared in June, while almost 40 monkeys drowned in a well in India in a desperate effort to reach water as lakes have dried up the same month. 

Current policies place us on a trajectory to reach 2.7°C of warming by 2100. The expected impacts would not increase linearly, with certain effects becoming disproportionately severe. For example, the chance of having a major heatwave increases to 30% under 1.5°C of warming, but more than doubles to 80% at 3°C. At local levels, the impacts of a warmer world are also non-linear: as the global temperature reflects an average from across the world, actual temperatures in specific locations vary significantly, from much lower to much higher than the global average. 

This variation means that the impacts of warming are unequally distributed – ​​actual temperatures in specific regions can vary greatly – some places may warm much faster or slower than the global mean. For example, average July temperatures in 2023 for parts of northern and eastern Canada – which experienced record-breaking forest fires that year – were up to 7°C higher than the 30-year average. 

Fig. 1: Risks to land and ocean systems with increasing levels of global warming
Source: Figure SPM.3, IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, 2022. Circles from least to most indicate increasing levels of confidence. Colours from palest to darkest indicate increasing risk. 

Climate and land-use changes are critically altering ecosystems and affecting species in a number of ways, resulting in biodiversity loss (Fig. 1). Estimates suggest that wildlife populations have declined by 69% over the past five decades due to human impacts. Future climate change could cause abrupt and irreversible species loss this century, affecting marine ecosystems as early as 2030 and land ecosystems around mid-century. 

Reduced biodiversity weakens ecosystem resilience to climate impacts and also reduces ecosystem services – i.e. the benefits that humans derive from natural ecosystems – such as food security, climate regulation and carbon sequestration. Though difficult to quantify because of the innate complexity of natural systems and their interactions, ecosystem services worldwide are estimated to be worth USD 150 trillion a year – or twice global GDP in 2021, and at least 1.5 times 2023 GDP.

The relationship between climate and biodiversity is deeply intertwined  

The impacts of climate change on natural systems are complex and interconnected, making them difficult to predict and manage. Ecosystems face pressure from both climate effects, such as heat, and human effects, such as land-use change, with the combination of these stressors intensifying challenges for natural systems. Climate change is driving species to shift their geographic ranges as they seek more suitable habitats in response to changing temperatures, altered precipitation patterns and disruptions to their ecosystems. 

As temperatures rise, marine and land species are moving poleward or to higher elevations to find the conditions they need to survive, or otherwise risk extinction. Shifts in species’ distributions can lead to new interactions between species and their environments, with potential knock-on effects for human livelihoods. 

Marine migrations and mortality: lobsters, sardines, cod and anchovies

For example, climate change-driven increases in ocean temperatures are pushing American lobsters northward along the US coast, disrupting local fishing industries. Warmer waters along the coast of Northwest Africa are driving sardines northwards, presenting a risk to millions of people in the region that rely on these fish for food security. On the west coast of South America, warmer ocean temperatures are shifting anchovy populations, thereby threatening a globally important commercial fish industry. In these situations, fishing pressure under climate change could exacerbate the stress on fish populations that are already struggling to adapt to new environments, potentially leading to overexploitation and further declines in fish stocks. 

For extreme events with a sudden onset, such as heatwaves, some species may not be able to migrate or adapt quickly enough as they are pushed beyond their thermal tolerance limits, i.e. the temperature range within which a species can survive and function. Marine heatwaves in 2014-16 and 2019 in Alaska drastically disrupted Pacific cod populations, resulting in the closing of the fishery – Alaska’s second-largest commercial groundfish fishery – in 2020. 

In the Mediterranean Sea, climate change is increasing the frequency and intensity of marine heatwaves, leading to widespread mass mortality events of marine organisms. From 2015 to 2019, the Mediterranean Sea experienced five consecutive years of mass mortality events, affecting a vast range of marine habitats and species, posing a severe threat to the functioning of its ecosystems. 

Coral bleaching: too hot to recover

One of the most striking examples of climate change-induced mass mortality is warm-water coral reefs, which are increasingly facing mass mortality from human-caused marine heatwaves (Figure 1). Between 2009 and 2018, around 14% of corals from the world’s reefs had been lost, an amount larger than Australia’s coral reefs, largely due to bleaching, where corals expel the symbiotic algae that they depend on for existence in response to high water temperature, ultimately resulting in death if the warm water conditions persist. 

Though corals can recover if water temperatures cool quickly enough, the increasing frequency of  heatwaves due to climate change means that the corals’ windows for recovery between heatwave events are getting smaller, potentially leading to extinction. At 1.5°C of warming, estimates suggest 99% of coral reefs could be lost, with no coral reefs existing at 2°C. 

For humans, this means the loss of critical ecosystem services, such as coastal protection, food resources and recreation. Coral reefs reduce wave energy by up to 97%, safeguarding 5.3 million people and USD 109 billion in GDP per decade. Reef tourism is valued at USD 35.8 billion a year,3In 2017. while reef-associated fisheries are valued at USD 6.8 billion.4In 2011.  

Heat on land: mass mortality of flying-foxes, birds and howler monkeys 

On land, mass mortality events from heatwaves have been recorded in flying-foxes – bats that eat fruits and nectar. Flying-foxes play a crucial role in ecosystems by pollinating plants and dispersing seeds over large distances in their native habitats across South and Southeast Asia, Australia and East Africa. This helps maintain plant biodiversity and regenerate forests. They are also critical pollinators for commercially valuable foods, such as durian fruit. Despite their mobility, flying-foxes  are extremely sensitive to heat stress: during the 2019-2020 summer in Australia – one of the hottest on record, made worse by climate change – at least 72,175 flying-foxes died from heat stress. 

Mass mortality events on land have also been recorded elsewhere: an extreme heat event in South Africa in 2021 killed more than 100 wild birds and bats. Heatwaves in Mexico in 2024 caused the death of over 200 howler monkeys in the wild. Howler monkeys are important seed dispersers, particularly in forests disturbed by humans where they help to restore degraded habitats. 

Drought: mass animal mortality induced by complex, additive effects

Prolonged dry spells are becoming more common in South America: over the 10 years between 2005 and 2015, three once-in-a-century droughts – or megadroughts – occurred in the region. Severe drought in Colombia in 2014 is reported to have caused the mortality of at least 20,000 animals, including wild pigs, deer, crocodiles and tortoises. The interplay of land-use change – particularly deforestation – and human-caused climate change is intensifying the impacts of the drought: deforestation in Brazil and Bolivia has aggravated drying in Colombia by changing the patterns of moisture cycling by forests across the region.  

Declining pollination: a threat to food security

Pollination is a critical ecosystem service for humans, with the annual contribution of pollinators to global agricultural production and food security estimated at more than USD 500 million. Changes in climate are also disrupting the finely tuned relationships between insect pollinators and the plants they pollinate by altering the timing of flowering and pollinator activity. This creates a mismatch that can reduce pollination efficiency, with impacts on food security and prices. 

Bumblebees in Europe and North America are declining due to climate change, among other factors. This decline is threatening essential pollination services and could lead to an ‘extinction vortex’, where the loss of bumblebees negatively impacts the plants they pollinate, further endangering both species. Further studies indicate that bumblebees will continue to face declines with climate change. More widely, a study on 38 globally distributed insects projects that up to two-thirds could become extinct this century. According to the IPCC, three times the number of insects will lose more than half of their climatically suitable ranges at 2°C of warming compared to at 1.5°C. 

Dangerous feedback loops that perpetuate warming 

Environmental changes in one system may trigger reactions in other systems. For example, climate change is increasing the likelihood of wildfires by creating hotter, drier conditions and extending the fire season, all of which make ecosystems more vulnerable to burning (Fig. 2). Forests, which are estimated to cool the earth by 1°C, play a crucial role in global carbon storage and are increasingly threatened by wildfires. 

Climate-induced drying is transforming forests into highly flammable tinderboxes, increasing their vulnerability to wildfires. As prolonged droughts and elevated temperatures reduce soil moisture and dry out vegetation, forests are becoming less efficient at sequestering carbon and more prone to fires. These fires not only devastate vast areas of forest, thereby reducing their ability to absorb carbon, but also release stored carbon back into the atmosphere, further amplifying global warming. This creates a dangerous positive feedback loop, where rising temperatures fuel more extreme weather and environmental degradation, which in turn accelerates the pace of climate change.

Fig. 2: Illustration of a forest fire feedback loop
Source: World Resources Institute, 2020.

If the feedback loop is not stopped, the system could reach a critical threshold where a small change can trigger a significant and potentially irreversible shift in the system’s behavior or state, called a ‘tipping point’. Once a tipping point is reached, the system may undergo rapid changes that are difficult or impossible to reverse, even if the original trigger is reduced or removed (see fig. 3).  

Fig. 3. Visualisation of a tipping point
Source: Rate-induced tipping in natural and human systems, 2023. 

Figure 3 represents a landscape where the trough shows the stable ‘base state’ or natural condition of the system, the ball shows the system’s current state and the vertical red line shows the threshold. If the  ball, which represents the system, is to the left of this threshold, it rolls into the trough and returns to its stable natural state. If the ball rolls over the hill to the right and crosses the threshold, it rolls away towards a new state.

Tipping points can occur either quickly or slowly depending on the system. Fast-onset tipping points happen within years or decades after crossing a critical threshold. For example, the transformation of forest into savanna due to wildfires and drought. Slow-onset tipping points develop over much longer timescales, such as centuries. Here, a system might exceed a critical threshold without immediately transitioning into an alternative stable state, but the change eventually becomes unavoidable over time. An example of a slow-onset tipping point is the thawing of permafrost or ice sheets.

Runaway wildfires in Canada

Though wildfires are natural phenomena, they are becoming larger and more frequent – fires are burning almost double the amount of forest that were burning two decades ago. Canada experienced devastating forest wildfires in both 2023 and 2024, with 2023’s extreme wildfires found to have been made more than twice as likely due to climate change. The 2023 forest fires are believed to have released around 640 million tonnes of carbon, or about the same annual emissions from fossil fuels in a large industrialised nation.

Drought, fire and beetles in the US

A warming climate is causing more tree mortality in the western US from increased fire, drought and insect outbreaks. Warm conditions during the 2012-14 drought in California – aggravated by human-caused warming – not only reduced tree resilience but also increased populations of bark beetles, which infested ponderosa pine trees and increased their mortality by almost 30%. This highlights the intricate interplay between climate and ecosystems and how climate-induced changes can disrupt ecosystem balance and have cascading effects. It is estimated that every 1°C increase in local average temperature increases ponderosa pine mortality by 35-40% due to the additive effects of climate and beetles.   

Fire in the Brazilian Pantanal

Wildfires in 2024 in South America’s Pantanal Wetland – the world’s largest tropical wetland and one of the most biodiverse regions on earth – have burnt more than 13% of the biome. The fires were fuelled by climate change, estimated to have made these fires 40% more intense and 4-5 times more likely. If global warming reaches 2°C, fire conditions like these in the region will become twice as likely. In addition to threatening species survival and human livelihoods, the cascading effects of disruptions such as these threaten the stability of the planet’s climate systems.

Deforestation, fire and drought in the Amazon

Scientists are increasingly worried that the effects of drought, wildfires and deforestation in the Amazon – the earth’s largest rainforest – may cause it to enter a dangerous positive feedback loop, potentially leading to a sudden tipping point, transforming into an alternative state such as a savanna. 

This change would result in the irreversible loss of a major carbon sink – as once a certain level of damage is done, the forest will not be able to regenerate and recover – potentially releasing up to 90 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, more than double annual emissions from fossil fuels. 

In some parts of the Amazon, particularly in the eastern region where deforestation rates are highest, the forest is already releasing more carbon than it can absorb. An Amazon tipping point would also mean the loss of a critical modulator of regional climate, with every country in South America, apart from Chile which is shielded by the Andes, benefitting from the moisture generated by the Amazon.  

Alarmingly, the Amazon has already lost up to 15% to 17% of its forest area. Scientists estimate that the Amazon could reach a tipping point once 20-25% of native forest is lost. Other estimates suggest that a tipping point could be reached by 2050, corroborated by another analysis that suggests that the region could experience severe ecological disruption by mid-century, compromising the capacity of the forest to store carbon.

Glacier melt in the Andes 

Glaciers gradually form as snow accumulates and compacts over centuries. They typically grow during winter and melt in warmer seasons, with the meltwater providing a water source that is replenished during glacier growth. However, rising global temperatures are causing glaciers to shrink faster than they can regenerate. As glaciers retreat, the meltwater volume increases until reaching a tipping point, beyond which it declines until it stops as the glacier eventually disappears. 

Tropical glaciers in the Peruvian Andes are highly sensitive to climate change. Between 2000 and 2016, the area covered by glaciers in Peruvian Andes shrank by almost a third, attributed to a combination of climate change and the intense El Niño of 2015/16.5El Niño events are becoming more intense as a result of climate change. Meltwater from glaciers is a critical resource for drinking, irrigation and hydroelectric power and therefore has wide-ranging consequences for both urban and rural populations in the region. 

Permafrost and ice sheet melt in the Arctic, Greenland and the Antarctic

The Arctic is warming almost four times faster than the global average. This is leading to the melting of permafrost – a layer of soil rich in organic materials that has been frozen for many years – potentially causing a dangerous positive feedback loop. As permafrost thaws, microbial activity causes the significant release of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide and methane, which have been trapped in the frozen ground for millennia. 

The release of these gases contributes to further warming of the atmosphere, which in turn accelerates the thawing of permafrost. This cycle can lead to increasingly rapid permafrost degradation, amplifying global warming and exacerbating climate impacts worldwide – it is estimated that Arctic permafrost holds up to 1,600 billion tonnes of carbon, about twice the amount of carbon present in the atmosphere today. 

Of particular concern is the release of methane from permafrost, which is a potent greenhouse gas with a global warming potential that is 28-36 times higher than carbon dioxide.6This refers to the amount of heat a greenhouse gas traps relative to carbon dioxide, evaluated over a 100-year period in this example. At just 1.5°C of warming, there is high confidence that the risk of permafrost degradation is ‘high’, increasing to ‘very high’ at just over 2.0°C of warming. Permafrost thaw also comes with an additional risk: it releases pathogens that may pose significant health risks to humans and animals, as was the case with an outbreak of anthrax disease studied in 2020. 

The Arctic is also experiencing a reduction in sea ice extent due to rising global temperatures. This loss of sea ice contributes to a dangerous feedback loop: ice reflects sunlight, but as it melts, the darker ocean absorbs more heat, thereby accelerating warming. Scientists estimate that an Arctic sea ice tipping point could be imminent – at between 1°C and 3°C of global warming. Similar estimates have been made for the Greenland ice sheet and West Antarctic ice sheet. 

The collapse of these ice sheets will increase sea levels globally, devastating coastal areas in the absence of concerted adaptation efforts. With anticipated warming this century, the ice sheets are expected to continue melting, but as these sheets grow much slower than they melt, this could result in a lag response – meaning they will continue to melt even once temperatures stabilise. Their melting may not be reversible this century and we are likely to still be locked into several meters of sea level rise.

The collapse of a critical Atlantic Ocean current 

Another example of a crucial tipping point is the collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) – a critical ocean current system that modulates global climate by transporting heat, freshwater and carbon. If the AMOC slows down and collapses, it would result in an irreversible change to global climate, including disrupting rainfall patterns in the Amazon, with catastrophic consequences for global carbon cycling as well as agricultural production and food security from decreased ocean productivity and changes in weather patterns. According to climate scientist Tim Lenton, a collapse would cause changes to the earth’s climate that would be “so abrupt and severe that they would be near impossible to adapt to in some locations”. 

The AMOC has weakened since industrial times – with a significant contribution from human-caused warming – and is likely to continue weakening this century. However, it is debated how soon a complete collapse could occur. One analysis estimates that it is concerningly close – by 2057 – with another analysis also suggesting that the AMOC is on course for reaching a tipping point in a century’s time or potentially even sooner.  

Overshooting Paris Agreement targets

The term ‘temperature overshoot’ is used by the IPCC to describe scenarios where global warming temporarily surpasses a target level, typically 1.5°C to 2°C, before eventually declining back to that level. Temperature overshoot scenarios are common in climate models: according to the IPCC’s “Global Warming of 1.5°C” report, 90% of the pathways that aim to limit warming to 1.5°C by 2100 involve a period of overshoot. 

Scientists warn that temperature overshoot poses a risk to species through prolonged exposure to temperatures beyond their historical tolerance limits – that is, the environmental limits within which they have adapted over many years. This extended exposure can lead to increased stress, reduced resilience, and, in some cases, irreversible damage to ecosystems and extinction of species – even once global temperatures begin to decline back to a target temperature following a peak in warming during an overshoot. The risks are especially high for tropical ecosystems, such as the Amazon and the Pantanal, and tropical coral reefs, where species are particularly sensitive to temperature changes. 

Achieving a 1.5°C limit with minimal or no overshoot requires rapid and significant reductions in emissions, with limited carbon dioxide removal (CDR), such as reforestation or bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). On the contrary, pathways that delay emissions reductions are more likely to overshoot the target, necessitating greater reliance on large-scale CDR to lower global temperatures by the century’s end – which comes with various risks and uncertainties.  

The IPCC warns that climate-related risks are higher if global warming overshoots 1.5°C compared to if warming gradually stabilises at 1.5°C. The longer emissions cuts are postponed, the more we risk exposing ecosystems and human populations to severe climate impacts over the coming decades, sometimes with irreversible consequences.

Solutions are available to limit catastrophic warming 

Limiting detrimental warming to humans and nature to meet Paris Agreement targets of keeping warming to 1.5°C with little or no overshoot, or to 2°C, requires “rapid and deep, and in most cases immediate” reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in all sectors. 

Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions reached unprecedented levels in 2023, and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations in recent years were at their highest in 4.5 million years. Methane concentrations in the atmosphere have been rising “dangerously fast” since around 2007, and have reached record levels in recent years. As the earth continues to warm, the ocean and land will become less effective sinks for slowing the rate of increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, undermining the planet’s natural ability to mitigate climate impacts.

Deforestation from land-use change – primarily from agriculture – and rising temperatures means that forests are losing their capacity to sequester carbon – an ecosystem service valued at up to USD 135 trillion. If uncurtailed, deforestation and land degradation will continue to release carbon dioxide and erode the capacity of the land to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. At the same time, land-use change, including deforestation, accounts for around 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions,7In 2010. making it a significant contributor to climate change. 

The most efficient and affordable way to cut emissions is by reducing dependence on fossil fuels and transitioning to renewable electricity. To meet the 1.5°C target, the IPCC recommends that coal usage must be eliminated, and oil and gas consumption reduced by 60% and 70%, respectively, by 2050.8Compared to 2019 values. Increased electrification with nearly all power from zero or low-carbon sources is essential. 

Reducing emissions from methane, a short-lived gas with a high global warming potential, is one of the quickest and most effective ways to slow global warming. Addressing methane sources such as pipeline leaks and abandoned oil and gas wells, and introducing technologies for mitigating livestock methane, could cut human-caused methane emissions by up to 45% by 2030. This could prevent nearly 0.3°C of warming by the 2040s, leading to significant health benefits and savings. To keep warming below 1.5°C, the IPCC recommends a 34% reduction in methane by 2030. Existing technology can reduce methane emissions from fossil fuel operations – which contribute around 40% of human-caused methane – by 70%, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). 

If countries and companies do not reduce their fossil fuel production, they risk increasing the costs of achieving a just and equitable energy transition as well as diminishing returns on investments and USD 1.4 trillion in stranded assets. 

Renewable power is becoming more and more accessible: costs from wind and solar have been falling since 2010, reaching record-low levels in recent years and making them increasingly competitive with fossil fuels. In 2022, 85% of added global utility-scale wind and solar capacity was more affordable than fossil fuel alternatives. In 2023, additions of renewable energy – particularly solar photovoltaic – grew at the fastest rate in the past two decades, by almost 50% compared to 2022. To meet the 1.5°C target, rapid renewables deployment of around 1,000 GW per year until 2030 will be necessary. 

Restoring degraded lands, preventing further deforestation and planting forests can significantly enhance carbon sequestration, improve resilience to climate impacts and help stabilise the global climate​. For example, forests managed and protected by Indigenous People in the Amazon between 2001 and 2021 removed 340 million tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere each year – more than the fossil fuel emissions of the UK in 2022. Forest restoration and protection are recognised by the IPCC as key to limiting global warming to 1.5ºC or well below 2ºC and come with various co-benefits, including supporting biodiversity, improving air and water quality, flood control and reversal of land degradation, if managed properly.

  • 1
    The range of 1.2-1.3°C represents a five-year average.
  • 2
    The point where 1.5°C of warming is breached is measured as the midpoint of the first 20-year period where global average temperatures are 1.5°C higher than the pre-industrial average.
  • 3
    In 2017.
  • 4
    In 2011.
  • 5
    El Niño events are becoming more intense as a result of climate change.
  • 6
    This refers to the amount of heat a greenhouse gas traps relative to carbon dioxide, evaluated over a 100-year period in this example.
  • 7
    In 2010.
  • 8
    Compared to 2019 values.

Unnatural disasters: The connection between extreme weather and fossil fuels

by Leave a Comment

Key points:

  • Rising temperatures have increased the likelihood and intensity of extreme weather events, and individual extreme weather events can now be directly attributed to the effects of climate change.
  • Fossil fuels are responsible for around 70% of carbon dioxide emissions that lead to climate change since the industrial revolution, with the rest resulting from farming and deforestation. One third of fossil fuel emissions since 1965 have been caused by the output of just 20 fossil fuel firms.
  • Fossil fuel companies have known about their impact on climate change for decades while proactively working to oppose climate action.
  • Litigation is increasingly being used to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for their impacts on the basis of climate science connecting extreme weather events to their emissions, and claims they misled the public in denying responsibility for climate change.
  • Profits of fossil fuel firms over a 30-year period stand at more than USD 21 trillion – are more than a quarter larger than the damages related to climate change they are estimated to be responsible for, calculated at USD 15 trillion.
  • Reducing supply and demand of fossil fuels is necessary to limit global temperature rise and its impact on extreme weather events. Most of the technologies needed are available and already cheaper or close to it.
  • Progress in decarbonising energy systems and transportation show it is possible to phase out fossil fuels.

Explaining extreme weather

Rising global temperatures impact the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events outside the boundaries of natural variability. While not the sole cause of the intensification of extreme weather, recent events such as heatwaves, droughts and floods would not have happened at the same frequency and intensity without the fossil fuel-driven influence on climate change.

More than 500 attribution studies have linked individual extreme weather events to climate change. Attribution science compares models of a world with and without increased greenhouse gas emissions using observed climate data to assess the extent to which climate change impacts extreme weather.

These studies have confirmed that heatwaves are now stronger and more likely due to human-caused climate change. Studies have also shown that climate change has driven the occurrence of compound events, including simultaneous heatwaves and floods, which have been particularly damaging to people and crops in affected regions.

With nearly 20 years of attribution studies to refer to, and evidence on the physical science behind climate change, it is now possible to link many extreme weather events to climate change without undertaking a dedicated study on a specific event (Table 1).

A larger proportion of attribution is certain in the Global North due to limited data in the Global South, where climate impacts are felt more severely. Researchers warn this may lead to underestimating the role of climate change in data-poor regions.

Table 1: Attributing climate change impact on extreme weather event based on body of research
Fossil fuels are responsible for bulk of global warming

Climate change is caused by the emission of greenhouse gases which absorb energy, slow heat loss to space and act as a blanket trapping heat in the atmosphere. Human-caused greenhouse gas emissions get released into the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas), deforestation and farming.

Fossil fuels account for around 69% of global carbon dioxide emissions since the industrial revolution. Of this, 80% is the output of the Carbon Majors.1 Carbon Majors is the name applied to 122 large oil, gas, coal and cement firms whose production data has been tracked from the start of the industrial revolution in 1854.

Fig 1: Total carbon dioxide emissions by source, 1850-2021 (% total)

In 2018, researchers reported that just 20 fossil fuel companies were responsible for over a third of global carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane emissions – 480 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent – since 1965, when it is documented that the environmental impacts of fuels were known to industry leaders.

Without significant efforts to stop burning fossil fuels, we risk exceeding the Paris Agreement target of 1.5 degrees celsius, which will increase the prospect of earth systems reaching a climate tipping point, catalysing large and often irreversible changes to the climate. The United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) 2023 production gap report found that more than double the amount of fossil fuel production is planned in 2030 than would be consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 degrees celsius.

Living with the impacts of climate change: Who foots the bill?

The impacts of an increasingly warming world and the extreme weather events that come with it are experienced globally, but are particularly onerous for low-income countries. Research has found that “global warming has very likely exacerbated global economic inequality”. GDP per capita in tropical countries has fallen by a quarter since the 1960s relative to a world without climate change. Globally, a 1 degrees celsius increase in temperature could lead to a 12% decline in GDP.

The polluter pays principle is a widely accepted practice of placing the responsibility of negative externalities2 A negative externality is when one party incurs the costs of a negative effect resulting from actions taken by another. In the last 20 years, moves have been taken to impose the costs of externalities on the producer onto emitters, that is the fossil fuel companies whose products emit greenhouse gas. The principle can be applied through different approaches. One approach is a “carbon price”, which is leveraged through policy instruments such as a carbon tax or emissions trading system. Other approaches can include windfall taxes on excessive profits and legally mandated payments to cover loss and damage costs.

Based on the social cost of carbon (using an estimate of USD 185 per tonne), climate science and policy think tank Climate Analytics finds that the “dirtiest dozen” Carbon Majors are responsible for around USD 15 trillion in economic damages for production between 1985 to 2018, a period in which they earned USD 21 trillion in profits.3 The methodology conservatively estimates that producers are responsible for one third of damages caused by fossil fuels’ greenhouse gas emissions.

The profits of fossil fuel companies are such that earnings in 2022 of seven of the largest carbon majors – including Aramco, ExxonMobil and Shell – were almost twice the calculated damages for that year, at USD 497 billion against USD 260 billion. And earnings continue to grow. In the aftermath of the 2022 gas crisis, Saudi Aramco’s CEO claimed the company had “probably the highest net income ever recorded in the corporate world”, with operational cash flow of USD 186 billion.

Table 2: Estimated climate damages linked to emissions from the 12 highest-emitting (MtCO2e) fossil fuel companies and their respective financial gains (2020 USD trillions), 1985-2018

Legal routes to hold fossil fuel companies accountable

While research continues linking the emissions of the fossil fuel industry to estimates of monetary climate damages, the approach of holding the industry accountable is being put into practice through legal routes. More and more legal connections are being made between extreme weather and the fossil fuel industry, litigating and legislating to demand payments for loss and damage.

Legislating polluter pays

In May 2024 the US state of Vermont, hit by extensive flooding in 2023, passed a law that aims to force the fossil fuel industry to pay into a fund for climate damages that have hurt public health, agriculture, housing and other areas. The state could collect money from companies that emitted more than 1 billion tons of CO2 around the world from 1995 to 2024.

Those companies with a certain threshold of business activity in Vermont would be charged according to their percentage of global emissions, with the funds to be used to rebuild and upgrade infrastructure such as stormwater drainage systems, roads and bridges. Other states reportedly considering a similar approach include Massachusetts, Maryland and New York.

Litigating loss and damage

According to the LSE Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, liability for damages sustained in extreme weather events based on the polluter pays principle is an area of growing climate litigation. It cites the ongoing case Municipalities of Puerto Rico v. Exxon Mobil Corp, which makes “extensive arguments about the ‘compounded losses’ sustained by Puerto Rican communities as a result of Hurricane María in 2017 and Hurricane Fiona in 2022” to argue that fossil fuel companies are liable for losses incurred during these storms as well as ongoing economic impacts.

In May 2022, after a seven-year investigation into whether 47 of the world’s largest fossil fuel companies in the world had violated the human rights of Filipinos, the Philippines Commission on Human Rights found that climate change is a human rights issue and that the world’s largest fossil fuel companies knew about the impacts of climate change and attempted to obstruct efforts to address climate change.

A case filed in 2015 by a Peruvian farmer against RWE, one of Germany’s largest electricity producers which has used coal-burning power stations, alleges the power company is liable for climate damages in Peru caused by a melting glacier. The case appears to be nearing conclusion, though no verdict has been issued as of mid-2024.

Alongside this there are over 20 lawsuits from states and municipalities in the United States seeking damages for extreme weather events from large oil companies for allegedly concealing their own scientific knowledge about climate change and thus deceiving the public about the danger of global warming caused by their products.

There is momentum building in this area. In June 2024 California’s attorney general announced it was seeking damages from large oil companies under a new state law that allows the administration to claim profits earned by companies that violated unfair competition and false advertising laws.

And in the same month, the Supreme Court asked the US solicitor general for its opinion on whether a legal case from Hawaii suing the oil industry for deceptive advertising can be heard under federal or state law. In 2023 the Hawaii state supreme court ruled the case could go to trial under state law, but this was appealed by the oil industry, including companies such as ExxonMobil and Chevron. The final decision on where to try the case could lead to the other 20+ lawsuits going to trial.

Fossil fuel industry awareness of climate change and opposition to action

There is a growing body of evidence that the fossil fuel industry knew decades ago that the burning of fossil fuels was a driver of climate change. Newly released documents indicate the oil industry funded climate change research as early as 1954. Shell’s scientists internally warned about the dangers of climate change in the 1980s, according to media reports.

Peer reviewed academic research has found that Exxon knew about climate change in the 1970s but continued to make public statements regarding climate science that were in direct contradiction to its own scientific data, which closely matched global warming forecasts of independent academic and government models. Other studies find that Total also knew about climate change in the 1970s but engaged in denial of climate science in the 1980s and 1990s.

Despite its early knowledge about climate change, the fossil fuel industry has used a range of strategies to oppose government-led efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for decades. One of the most well known was to fund and promote the denial of climate change as an urgent threat that needs addressing.

Trade associations in particular have lobbied to undermine the conditions that would have enabled rival green technologies to flourish. In the United States and Europe new evidence shows oil and gas industry trade associations have lobbied since the 1960s to delay the uptake of solar and wind energy, and electric vehicles. In Asia the fossil fuel industry has pressured the Japanese government to prioritise fossil fuel technologies such as coal, LNG and ammonia co-firing. In the US the oil industry is suing the federal government for emission standards that seek to advance the adoption of clean technologies.

Research by the US Senate into the scale of this agenda culminated in a May 2024 hearing to discuss the oil and gas industry’s “Campaign of Climate Denial, Disinformation, and Doublespeak”. Based on internal documents from industry firms, the staff report found that:

  • Historically fossil fuel companies “understood since at least the 1960s that burning fossil fuels causes climate change and then worked for decades to undermine public understanding of this fact and to deny the underlying science”.
  • There has been a shift in emphasis as “the industry’s outright denial of climate change has evolved into a green-seeming cover for its ongoing covert operation – a campaign of deception, disinformation, and doublespeak waged using dark money, phony front groups, false economics, and relentless exertion of political influence – to block climate progress”.
  • For example, the industry has put resources into portraying natural gas as a clean green fuel “while internally acknowledging that there is significant scientific evidence that the lifecycle emissions from natural gas are as harmful to the climate as coal and are incompatible with scientific emissions reduction targets”.
  • One tactic has been to “privately lobby – either directly or through their trade associations – against pro-climate legislation and regulations that they publicly claimed to support”.

Fossil fuels must be phased out to slow temperature rises

The world’s preeminent authority on climate change science – the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – has stated clearly that global greenhouse gas emissions need to peak before 2025 and be reduced by 43% by 2030. Fossil fuel companies are moving slowly or obstructing climate action. Government policies to reduce supply and demand of fossil fuels would be required to achieve this reduction.

Reducing supply of fossil fuels

The contribution of fossil fuels to global warming was finally recognised by all countries at COP28 where nations agreed to “Transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade, so as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science”.

Action needs to be taken on fossil fuel supply to stay inside the 1.5°C carbon budget threshold. To achieve this, almost 40% of already developed reserves of oil, gas and coal needs to stay in the ground and new fields should not be opened. Looking ahead, the International Institute for Sustainable Development finds that by 2030 oil production needs to fall by 15% and gas production by 30% (compared to 2020 levels) to stay within the 1.5°C budget, based on the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) Net Zero Emissions by 2050 (NZE) scenario.

Fig 2: Oil and gas production from new and existing fields vs a 1.5°C aligned pathway

Some countries are already leading the way in this area. Colombia has stopped approving new exploration licences for oil, gas and coal since 2023. In Europe, France, Ireland, Spain and Denmark have banned the exploration and extraction of fossil fuels. These countries, alongside sub-national administrations such as the Canadian province of Quebec and the US state of Washington, have joined together to create the Beyond Oil & Gas Alliance, which advocates for more countries to follow their lead in reducing production towards a just, equitable and managed phase out. Another approach being championed by a number of national governments, cities and civil society leaders is the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Reducing demand for fossil fuels

Alongside supply measures, demand for fossil fuels must be curtailed and replaced with other technologies. The IEA Net Zero Roadmap recommends achieving the following milestones:

  • By 2025 no new sales of fossil fuel boilers
  • By 2030 increasing renewables capacity threefold, all new buildings are zero-carbon ready and 60% of global car sales are electric
  • By 2035 no new internal combustion engine car sales and net zero emissions electricity in advanced economies

Along these lines, governments have acted to reduce future demand by announcing they will phase out the sale of internal combustion engine vehicles and water heaters. According to the IEA 20 countries have announced they will ban the sale of internal combustion engine vehicles. There are also a growing number of EU countries that have committed to phase out the sale of fossil fuel powered water heaters.

Governments are deepening policies to reduce demand for fossil fuels, including by accelerating the use of solar and wind energy for electricity generation through subsidies, enabling access to land, and research and development to increase efficiencies and lower costs. This has been a factor in the tumbling costs of solar panels, wind turbines and batteries that have helped make solar and wind energy some of the cheapest options for new electricity generation. Together these have contributed to the increasing share of renewable energy in electricity generation in a number of countries. In 2023 global renewable capacity additions reached almost 510 GW, which is the fastest growth rate in the last two decades.

In the European Union ever more ambitious directives on the binding renewable energy target (currently at 42.5% by 2030) are contributing to the rising use of renewable energy. This has increasingly displaced fossil fuels for electricity generation, resulting in a 24% reduction in emissions from power plants across the bloc in 2023.

Advances in reducing the use of fossil fuels can be seen in the generation mix across a number of high-consumption countries. The Energy Institute tracked generation across 21 countries that collectively account for 80% of global consumption and found that of the ten most decarbonised electricity systems, 40% generate less than a third of their power from fossil fuels. In Brazil, that figure falls to less than 10%. Germany, the Netherlands and Spain generate roughly a third of electricity from solar and wind power.

Fig 3: Top 10 decarbonised electricity systems among high-consumption countries

China in particular has vastly accelerated its use of renewable energy, although the significant size of China’s energy use means that it still relies heavily on fossil fuels. Between 2014 and 2023 China’s solar capacity increased from 28 GW to close to 610 GW and wind energy from 96 GW to 4,441 GW. To give an idea of the scale of this shift, in 2023 China commissioned the same amount of solar PV as the rest of the world did in 2022. This meant that by 2023 China accounted for 14% of installed solar PV capacity globally.

In the area of transportation, policies such as subsidies in China and stricter auto emissions standards and tax credits in the US through the Inflation Reduction Act (which also apply to clean energy and buildings), promote the use of electric vehicles (EVs) to reduce oil demand. This has led to a jump in the number of EVs from around 300,000 in 2013 to just over 28 million in 2023. Globally, the sales of EVs displaced around 0.9 million barrels per day (Mb/d) of oil in 2023, when total oil demand grew by 2.1 Mb/d.

Fig 4: Global electric vehicle sales by region, 2013-2023

Looking ahead, another area of focus are the reforms needed to reduce the size of global fossil fuel subsidies, which amounted to over USD 1.5 trillion in 2022, according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD).

Reducing the scale of worsening extreme weather events

The impacts of climate change are set to worsen as global temperatures rise. Extreme weather events are likely to continue to get more frequent and more severe as a result. Climate science is clear that fossil fuels, and the emissions from the largest fossil fuel companies, are responsible for these changes. Only reducing the supply and use of fossil fuels can limit the rise in global temperatures and the extent to which these impacts worsen.

  • 1
    Carbon Majors is the name applied to 122 large oil, gas, coal and cement firms whose production data has been tracked from the start of the industrial revolution in 1854.
  • 2
    A negative externality is when one party incurs the costs of a negative effect resulting from actions taken by another. In the last 20 years, moves have been taken to impose the costs of externalities on the producer
  • 3
    The methodology conservatively estimates that producers are responsible for one third of damages caused by fossil fuels’ greenhouse gas emissions.

How to spot greenwashing in a sustainability report: A guide to spotting false environmental claims

by Leave a Comment

Key points:

This guide shows how to unpick a sustainability report and spot greenwashing in 11 areas. Each section explains a type of greenwashing that could be discovered in a sustainability report. This guide is intended for journalists, professionals working in climate and climate activists. At the end of each section, questions help to guide your judgement on a company’s greenwashing practices. If the answer to the majority of green questions 🟢 is no and the answer to most of the red questions 🔴 is yes, then a company may be greenwashing.

What is greenwashing?

Greenwashing is when companies portray themselves as sustainable or environmentally friendly despite their products or concrete actions not matching their claims. Greenwashing can take various forms, such as false advertising, misleading labelling or exaggerated environmental benefits or actions. It involves using corporate communications and marketing strategies to mislead consumers.1For more information, read Stop Funding Heat’s report on greenwashing in the fossil fuel industry.

Greenwashing is harmful to the environment, society and the company: Consumers feel discouraged from taking action, policymakers get the wrong signals about progress and investments decrease due to shareholder mistrust. It can also undermine other companies’ genuine action on climate, as greenwashing makes their progress look less ambitious.

Greenwashing is part of a broader concept called climate disinformation or misinformation. According to the global coalition Climate Action Against Disinformation, one aspect of climate disinformation is that it “falsely publicises efforts as supportive of climate goals that in fact contribute to climate warming or contravene the scientific consensus on mitigation or adaptation.”

What does the UN say about greenwashing?

The United Nations has warned that greenwashing is a major obstacle to tackling climate change. In 2022, a UN high-level expert group published a report named ‘Integrity Matters: Net Zero Commitments by Businesses, Financial Institutions, Cities and Regions’. The report outlines 10 recommendations as “a roadmap to prevent net zero from being undermined by false claims, ambiguity and ‘greenwash’”. They include how to announce and set a net zero pledge, what role voluntary carbon offsets should play, and the importance of phasing out fossil fuels. Catherine McKenna, chair of the group, said: “We urgently need every business, (…) to walk the talk on their net-zero promises. We cannot afford slow movers, fake movers or any form of greenwashing.” The UN report and recommendations form the basis of this guide.

Where is the company positioned in rankings or reports?

Rankings can provide an understanding of whether and how a company is greenwashing. Rankings either aggregate different metrics to give an overall company score or focus on one aspect (such as deforestation). Screening rankings for your company of choice is the first step to understanding what the company’s problems are. Here is a non-exhaustive list of company rankings2https://greenwash.com/:

Is the company ranked poorly in terms of sustainability claims?

When and where to find sustainability reports

Companies publish annual reports and sustainability reports. Annual reports must be published by listed corporations every year to show shareholders how their operations and financial situations are evolving. Sustainability or Environment, Social and Governance (ESG) reports are optional in most jurisdictions. The US and the EU will soon require companies to publish some climate and sustainability information.

For publicly listed companies, annual reports are usually published in the so-called “proxy season” between mid-April and mid-June, when annual shareholder meetings are held. When a sustainability report is published usually depends on the schedule of the annual report and on the initiatives in which the company is engaged. Global disclosure system CDP, for instance, releases some of its results in Q4. Sustainability reports are usually found on a company’s website under a “sustainability”, “ESG” or “climate” tab. Rather than just reading examples of a company’s sustainability measures, it is important to look for greenhouse gas emissions data, usually under “climate”.

1. Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions

Sustainability reports are often designed to demonstrate the company’s positive environmental impact. However, those impacts have to be corroborated with emissions data. This data can be found in the appendix as an emissions table or by using Ctrl+F and typing “scope”. Three categories of emissions are typically used to measure a company’s overall emissions. The distinction is not based on a scientific definition but was established by the industry-led GHG Protocol.

  • Scope 1 emissions, often referred to as “direct emissions”, are all emissions that arise directly from the production process, e.g. from fuel combustion in furnaces.
  • Scope 2 emissions come from purchased energy, such as electricity, heating and cooling (often referred to as “indirect, from electricity purchased and consumed”).
  • Scope 3 emissions are all other indirect emissions not included in Scope 2. Companies often call them “emissions from manufacturing sites”. Scope 3 emissions can represent 90% of a company’s total emissions. They are emissions generated both upstream and downstream:
  1. Upstream emissions are created in the supply chain during production. For example, the emissions of a motorbike producer would include those emitted during the production of wheels bought from a third party. Business flights and employee commuting also belong here.
  2. Downstream emissions are created from the use of a product and can include waste disposal, the energy used to maintain a product, and distribution to shops.

Companies usually report scope 1 and 2 emissions and sometimes scope 3 emissions, though often this is incomplete. Frequently, companies highlight the reductions achieved in the first two scope categories, as those usually represent a smaller portion of total emissions and their reduction is easier to achieve compared to scope 3.

A table with total emissions, often available in the appendix of a sustainability report, will give a more accurate view of a company’s emissions. Alternatively, former sustainability reports can be used to add up the emissions from each year to see if the total emissions have increased or decreased. There are usually two ways of accounting – market-based vs. location-based – and it is important that one method is used consistently.

Box 1: Market-based vs. location-based emissions accounting

For scope 2 emissions, most companies must provide emissions data based on both market-based and location-based calculations.

Market-based emissions are calculated from the company’s local power grid. The company may purchase certificates stating that its energy comes from a renewable source and then claim that it emits zero emissions. Scientists have criticised this method as evidence shows these purchases do not encourage more renewable energy investment. It also distorts the perception of real emissions mitigation measures taken by committed companies. A recent trend involves companies highlighting only ‘market-based’ data, resulting in a rosier picture for their emissions – but arguably a less honest one. One recent study published by Nature highlighted that “if this trend continues, 42% of committed scope 2 emission reductions will not result in real-world mitigation”.

Location-based emissions are calculated from contracts with the company’s electric utilities. Usually, the company provides the emissions average for the regional grid on which it is located.

The measure used for emissions is called CO2e, which takes all emissions that are produced as equivalent to carbon dioxide (CO2) so that it is possible to compare the quantities. If there is no “e” next to the CO2, a company is failing to account for methane and other greenhouse gases.

Are the company’s total emissions from scope 1, 2 and 3 increasing?
Does the company omit to report on CO2e or other greenhouse gas emissions by only reporting on CO2 emissions?
Box 2: The devil’s in the details: Find the small print

Headlines in a sustainability report are the big achievements the company wants the reader to focus on. The aspects of which they are less proud are often in the footnotes. That is where indicators of greenwashing might be found. The smaller the font, the more important it is to read. Moreover, as a guide by the journalism platform Clean Energy Wire outlines: “Sometimes when a company says their disclosure includes “all xyz”, consider what is excluded from XYZ rather than interpreting this at face value as a confirmation of comprehensiveness.” This is typically the case when a company describes what it has included in its scope 3 emissions.

2. Omitting parts of scope 3

There are 15 different categories of scope 3 emissions – indirect emissions emerging from a company’s value chain – which typically represent 90% of total emissions. The numbers relating to scope 3 emissions are important: while a company may not solely be responsible for these emissions, it can alter the products it offers, choose less polluting providers or collaborate with suppliers to reduce their emissions. For some companies (e.g. coal, oil and gas companies), Scope 3 emissions are predominantly from the use of their product and are relatively straightforward to measure. However, while pressure to report scope 3 emissions has increased, companies have not always responded in good faith.

A company will usually specify which scope 3 categories are included in its sustainability report. This is an opportunity to see if any categories are excluded. The 15 categories are:

  1. Purchased goods and services
  2. Capital goods
  3. Fuel- and energy-related activities not included in scope 1 or scope 2
  4. Upstream transportation and distribution
  5. Waste generated in operations
  6. Business travel
  7. Employee commuting
  8. Upstream leased assets
  9. Downstream transportation and distribution
  10. Processing of sold products
  11. Use of sold products
  12. End-of-life treatment of sold products
  13. Downstream leased assets
  14. Franchises
  15. Investments

As scope 3 emissions are diverse and harder to measure, the UN Integrity Matters report states: “Where data is missing for scope 3 emissions, businesses should explain how they are working on getting the data or what estimates they are using.” Figure 1 shows the sectors with a large share of scope 3 emissions among their overall emissions.

Fig. 1: Share of scope 3 emissions by sector
Source: WRI, CDP and Concordia University, Trends Show Companies Are Ready for Scope 3 Reporting with US Climate Disclosure Rule, 2022.
Does the company leave out several categories of scope 3 emissions without further explanation?
When scope 3 emissions are incomplete, does the company fail to explain how it will measure scope 3 emissions in the future?

3. Net-zero and interim targets

Corporate net-zero commitments continue to gain momentum. More than 4,000 companies, representing over a third of the global economy’s market capitalisation, had set net-zero targets by the end of 2022. The significance of a net-zero target for a company lies in its potential to reduce emissions and address climate change. Setting a net-zero target also offers a company the opportunity for transformational change. However, not every company will publish information on its environmental or climate performance, and many companies are reluctant to make their commitments public out of fear of being criticised by civil society. This omission of information on climate efforts is also a form of greenwashing, known as greenhushing.

The UN Integrity Matters report states: “Targets must account for all greenhouse gas emissions (based on internationally approved measures of warming effects) and include separate targets for material non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions (e.g. fossil methane and biogenic methane).” For instance, if a company operates in one of the sectors listed below (Figure 2), it should have a methane target, as it most likely has high methane emissions.

Fig. 2: Methane emissions by sector in 2021, in million tonnes
Source: IEA, Sources of methane emissions, 2021.

Companies must achieve net-zero before 2050 to reach the Paris Agreement goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C. Interim targets are crucial as they serve as tangible commitments for early action and they can ensure companies stay on track by providing a transparent roadmap with checkpoints. By setting interim targets, companies can also measure their progress and improve or adjust their behaviour to achieve long-term goals.

The three types of interim targets to look out for are:

  1. Short-term targets: Rapid and significant reductions in value chain direct and indirect emissions are essential to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C. Companies must prioritise halving emissions by 2030.
  2. Medium-term targets: Company emissions reductions are set between 2026 and 2035 for a clearly defined scope of emissions. This target should cover at least 95% of scope 1 and 2 emissions and, where applicable, the most relevant scope 3 emissions.
  3. Long-term targets: Companies set a target to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 or earlier. This target should include at least 95% of scope 1 and 2 emissions as well as scope 3 emissions.
Does the company publish its commitments and targets?
Does the company have interim targets and detailed information on achieving them, including a regular review process?
If the company tends to emit greenhouse gases other than CO2, does it have a separate target, e.g. for methane?

4. Baseline year

When a company promises to reduce its emissions, it needs to decide on a baseline for the reduction. For instance, when a beverage company pledges to reduce its emissions by 10% – lower than what level? If a company chooses to reduce its emissions compared to 2019, when emissions were already very low due to COVID lockdowns, this will have a very different (and more ambitious) outcome than if it chooses 2023 as its baseline, when emissions were high due to the post-pandemic recovery.

The fictional example in Figure 3 shows a company aiming to reduce its emissions by 10% by 2025 using two years of reference. Using 2018 as a baseline, a 10% reduction would mean emitting 18,000 metric tons of CO2e in 2025. Using 2022, it would emit 54,000 metric tons of CO2e. In other words, the fewer emissions in a baseline year, the more is required to reduce emissions, and the more ambitious the target. In this example, using the 2018 baseline is much more ambitious than choosing 2022.

Fig. 3: 10% emissions reduction using two different baseline years, in metric tonnes

Other companies do not pledge to reduce emissions compared to their past emissions but to their future ones. Often, they use a business-as-usual scenario, promising to reduce emissions – e.g. by 10% in 2027 compared to the emissions they would have emitted in 2027 without any climate mitigation measures. These accounting methods are a way of allowing the company to continue emitting more than in previous years.

Does the baseline year have particularly high emissions?
Does the baseline year come from a business-as-usual scenario?

5. Intensity target

The intensity of emissions is the amount of greenhouse gases released every time a company manufactures and sells a product. In short, it is emissions by product. Intensity of emissions is seen as a problematic accounting metric. The UN Integrity Matters report states: “Non-state actors cannot focus on reducing the intensity of their emissions rather than their absolute emissions.”

Imagine a car company pledges to reduce its emissions intensity by 2% each year (green line in Figure 4). However, over the years, the car business has performed well and car production has increased (grey line). The company’s absolute emissions would increase as a result (yellow line). In other words, when a company sells more cars compared to the previous year, its overall emissions increase no matter how low the emissions intensity of car production is.

Fig. 4: Emissions intensity vs absolute emissions

In sustainability reports, intensity targets can be recognised when the company has, for example, a target of “-55% CO2 emissions per product sold”. However, if a company uses an intensity target in addition to an absolute emissions target, overall emissions should be reduced.

Does the company have an intensity target without an absolute emissions target?

6. Renewable energy targets

Energy plays a vital role in a company’s operations, contributing to costs and emissions. Renewable energy targets are becoming increasingly common. A company’s renewable energy target is set in order to achieve a specific amount of renewable energy production or consumption. Typically integrated into a company’s sustainability initiatives, the target actively contributes to reducing its carbon footprint and overall environmental impact.

In practice, companies’ renewable energy targets vary. Some set ambitious goals, aiming for 100% reliance on renewable energy or specific percentage targets, while others opt for partial commitments. Many companies are engaged in renewable energy transition initiatives such as RE100. This global corporate renewable energy initiative brings together numerous large businesses committed to sourcing 100% of their electricity from renewables.

However, there is uncertainty around what exactly is included in the definition of renewable energy. This question is highly contested and debated, including by governments and the EU. Companies must explain what is covered in their renewable energy targets; for instance, is gas, biomass or hydrogen included? Or only wind and solar? The latter are universally accepted as renewable energy, whereas gas, biomass and hydrogen are far more controversial and have not been proven to reduce emissions effectively in their current forms.

Another key issue is whether the renewable energy a company purchases justifies the reporting of lower electricity emissions. A company can only claim zero emissions for its power consumption if it has been the primary cause for that renewable energy to be generated. “Renewable energy certificates” (RECs) are “very unlikely to contribute to additional renewable electricity supply capacity”, according to the New Climate Institute. Comparatively, power purchase agreements (PPAs) are more likely to do so but are still problematic, as the electricity still comes from the grid, where fossil fuels might still dominate. Ideally, a company will always prominently report its location-based ‘unfiltered’ power consumption emissions (see Box 1).

Does the company set clear-cut definitions for “renewable energy” in its targets?
Are the chosen renewable energy sources scientifically proven to reduce emissions effectively, such as wind and solar (vs. gas, biomass and non-green hydrogen)?
Does the company engage independent entities to verify or certify its energy production and consumption?
Does the company offer updates on its progress towards achieving its target?
Does the company provide detailed information on the additionality of its renewables purchases?

7. Carbon offsets

Carbon offsetting refers to the practice of a company compensating for its emissions by investing in projects that aim to reduce or remove an equivalent amount of emissions from the atmosphere. Companies seek to use carbon offsetting to demonstrate their commitment to sustainability and may highlight them in public relations and marketing materials to create a positive image and attract eco-conscious consumers.

However, carbon offsetting has been criticised for creating opportunities for greenwashing. Companies may rely on this short-term tactic instead of sustainably mitigating emissions, for example, by switching to renewable energy. Offsets can result in accounting issues, environmentally damaging activities and social inequities. For instance, carbon offsets in the form of reforestation or afforestation require a lot of land, which is limited. Reforestation and afforestation are also not necessarily a permanent form of removal, as trees can burn or get diseases. A fashion company should not compensate for fossil fuels used in manufacturing with carbon offsets, as electrification of the manufacturing process is already a sustainable alternative.

In addition, the quality and transparency of carbon offsetting programmes vary greatly, leading to concerns about greenwashing and deceptive practices. One investigation found that 90% of offsets sold by the world’s leading certifier do not lead to genuine emissions reductions. The investigation also found human rights issues to be a “serious concern” in at least one of the offsetting projects. In the EU, carbon neutrality claims based on offsets will be banned from 2026 if the Green Claims Directive is approved ahead of EU elections in April.

Companies might refer to carbon offsetting with synonyms, such as:

  • Compensate: A direct synonym for ‘offset’.
  • Neutrality/neutralise: Carbon neutrality means that the amount of CO2 produced during a process equals zero, which companies might seek to achieve using carbon offsets. As a term, “carbon neutral” has been increasingly regulated worldwide.
  • Removal: This refers to offsetting that aims to remove CO2 from the atmosphere permanently.
  • Balancing: A term often used to describe the process of offsetting emissions. A company or organisation is said to be “carbon neutral” when it offsets, or balances, all of its emissions.
  • Insetting: A term used by companies such as Nestlé and Pepsi that usually refers to emissions offsetting in the value chain. This can be a highly untransparent practice and can lead to the double counting of emissions reductions.
Does the company use carbon offsets to compensate a large chunk of its emissions?
Does the company use carbon offsets to compensate emissions for which low-carbon alternatives exist?
Does the company claim to be “carbon neutral”?
After buying offsets, has the company implemented additional changes to sustainably reduce emissions (such as installing solar panels, making processes more energy efficient or electrifying machines)?
Has the company achieved a decrease in emissions due to these long-term, sustainable measures and not only the carbon offsets it purchased?
Does the company explain where by how much and through which method it is offsetting?

8. Hydrogen

Many auto companies are promoting hydrogen as the solution to replace fossil fuels. However, hydrogen production needs a large amount of electricity, and storing it is not easy. In most cases, it is easier to use already available electrification solutions, such as electric vehicles. In addition, for hydrogen to be green, the electricity used to produce it needs to be green too, but the majority of grid-distributed electricity globally is generated from fossil fuels. There are very few sectors in which the use of green hydrogen makes sense today due to the lack of electrified options. Areas of potential application are the production of fertilisers and steel, or powering ships and planes.

Does the company claim to use hydrogen as a mitigation solution in a sector or process where electrification is a better solution (such as automobiles or heating)?

9. CDR and geoengineering

Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technology is designed to tackle excess CO2 in the atmosphere by capturing and sequestering carbon in various environments, such as the ocean, terrestrial biosphere or geological reservoirs. Geoengineering seeks to restore the balance in the climate system by either removing excess CO2 or reflecting solar radiation away from Earth.

Greenwashing in the fields of CDR and geoengineering can occur in the form of promoting these technologies as quick fixes or sustainable climate change measures to tackle a company’s emissions or environmental impacts. However, they have not been proven to be effective climate change solutions due to high scientific uncertainty and side effects.

Greenwashing could occur when a company commits to implementing these initiatives while actively expanding its carbon-intensive operations. This could include continued reliance on fossil fuels in the supply chain, or continued operations in the fossil fuel sector, while counting on these unproven technologies to deal with the outcomes afterwards.

Does the company rely on underdeveloped CDR to reduce its emissions?
Does the company use CDR to compensate for emissions for which low-carbon alternatives exist?

10. Gas

Some companies claim to be environmentally friendly by switching high-emitting energy operations to ‘green’ sources of power that ultimately turn out to be gas, also known as natural gas or fossil gas. Gas is currently being heavily promoted as a ‘transition fuel’ that can replace coal in the energy transition or help companies meet emissions reduction targets.

However, gas is still a fossil fuel and burning gas produces emissions, primarily CO2 and methane, making it a significant contributor to climate change. Therefore, promoting gas as a clean alternative is a form of greenwashing. It diverts the focus of companies or other entities away from more sustainable and renewable energy sources that are proven to reduce emissions. It is also misleading to the public, who can be led to believe gas is a clean and sustainable energy source when, in fact, it is not as environmentally friendly as renewable energy sources like solar or wind.

Does the company include gas in its emissions reduction strategy and present it as a “cleaner alternative” or “’transition fuel”?
Does the company invest in gas production and related infrastructure?

11. CCS

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a technology used to capture CO2 from power plants and various industrial processes, preventing its release into the atmosphere. For example, CO2 is captured at large stationary sources, such as fossil fuel-fired power plants, and injected into the deep subsurface for long-time storage. Only 30 CCS plants are currently operating worldwide. UN secretary-general António Guterres has criticised CCS as greenwashing, since it does not address the root cause of emissions, but allows industries to continue emitting CO2 by burning fossil fuels while claiming to be engaging in climate measures.

Additionally, CCS requires significant energy resources to operate, meaning that using fossil fuels to power it can eliminate the environmental benefits it claims to provide. The effectiveness and safety of CCS has also been questioned, with the leakage of stored emissions potentially having harmful effects on the environment.

Does the company use CCS to compensate for emissions when low-carbon alternatives exist?
Does the company report specific and quantifiable carbon capture and storage metrics, such as the amount of CO2 captured and stored annually, and are these metrics independently verified or audited?
Is the company using CCS in addition to using other measures to substantially and sustainably reduce emissions (such as installing solar panels, making processes more energy efficient or electrifying machines)?

Summary of questions

Is the company ranked poorly in terms of sustainability claims?
Are the company’s total emissions from scope 1, 2 and 3 increasing?
Does the company omit to report on CO2e or other greenhouse gas emissions by only reporting on CO2 emissions?
Does the company leave out several categories of scope 3 emissions without further explanation?
When scope 3 emissions are incomplete, does the company fail to explain how it will measure scope 3 emissions in the future?
Does the company publish its commitments and targets?
Does the company have interim targets and detailed information on achieving them, including a regular review process?
If the company tends to emit greenhouse gases other than CO2, does it have a separate target, e.g. for methane?
Does the baseline year have particularly high emissions?
Does the baseline year come from a business-as-usual scenario?
Does the company have an intensity target without an absolute emissions target?
Does the company set clear-cut definitions for “renewable energy” in its targets?
Are the chosen renewable energy sources scientifically proven to reduce emissions effectively, such as wind and solar (vs. gas, biomass and non-green hydrogen)?
Does the company engage independent entities to verify or certify its energy production and consumption?
Does the company offer updates on its progress towards achieving its target?
Does the company provide detailed information on the additionality of its renewables purchases?
Does the company use carbon offsets to compensate a large chunk of its emissions?
Does the company use carbon offsets to compensate emissions for which low-carbon alternatives exist?
Does the company claim to be “carbon neutral”?
After buying offsets, has the company implemented additional changes to sustainably reduce emissions (such as installing solar panels, making processes more energy efficient or electrifying machines)? Has the company achieved a decrease of emissions due to these long-term, sustainable measures and not only the carbon offsets it purchased?
Does the company explain where by how much and through which method it is offsetting?
Does the company claim to use hydrogen as a mitigation solution in a sector or process where electrification is a better solution (such as automobiles or heating)?
Does the company rely on underdeveloped CDR for reducing its emissions?
Does the company use CDR to compensate for emissions for which low-carbon alternatives exist?
Does the company include gas in its emissions reduction strategy and present it as a “cleaner alternative” or “transition fuel”?
Does the company invest in gas production and related infrastructure?
Does the company use CCS to compensate for emissions for which low-carbon alternatives exist?
Does the company report specific and quantifiable carbon capture and storage metrics, such as the amount of CO2 captured and stored annually, and are these metrics independently verified or audited?
Is the company using CCS in addition to using other measures to substantially and sustainably reduce emissions (such as installing solar panels, making processes more energy efficient or electrifying machines)?

Other tools & resources to spot greenwashing

COP28: Assessment of the Oil and Gas Decarbonization Charter

by Leave a Comment

Key Points:

  • 50 oil and gas companies signed up to the Oil and Gas Decarbonization Charter at COP28 in Dubai, including 29 nationally owned companies.
  • Under the initiative, the oil and gas companies pledged to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The deal is voluntary and broadly repeats previous pledges made in 2021.
  • The agreement sets targets for reducing carbon dioxide and methane emissions, but does not affect oil and gas production or emissions from consumption.
  • Notable new net zero operational emissions targets include: Bapco, KazMunaiGas, Pertamina, National Oil Company of Libya, Socar, Sonangol & YPF.
  • Major investor-owned oil companies notably absent from the Charter include Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Suncor.
  • Major nationally owned oil companies notably absent from the Charter include Kuwait Petroleum Corporation, QatarEnergy, Iraq’s State Oil Marketing Company, China’s Sinopec, CNOOC and PetroChina and the National Iranian Oil Company.

Voluntary pledges repeated

At COP28, the United Arab Emirates government and company executives launched the Oil and Gas Decarbonization Charter (OGDC), which aims to reduce the greenhouse gas pollution of 50 major oil and gas companies. Twelve of these companies are also members of the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI) launched nearly a decade ago. The new alliance is similar in approach to the OGCI (see Table 1). Companies set their own emissions reductions plans and meeting targets is voluntary. There is no penalty for not meeting self-imposed goals, for example on the continuation of gas flaring.1Gas flaring is the process of burning the natural gas which comes out of the ground during oil drilling.

Production and Scope 3 emissions

The Decarbonization Charter, as well as previous voluntary initiatives, are not aligned with the Paris Agreement goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C. Under the agreements, companies have not set targets to reduce Scope 3 emissions, which make up 80-95% of emissions from the oil and gas industry.2Scope 1 emissions are direct emissions from sources owned or controlled by a company, Scope 2 are indirect emissions from the energy it uses, and Scope 3 includes emissions the company is indirectly responsible for in its value chain, including from the use of the products it sells. Pledges on reducing carbon intensity and methane flaring could be achieved while these firms continue levels of oil and gas production that are incompatible with climate goals. In its updated net zero scenario released in September 2023, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said “no new long-lead time upstream oil and gas fields are needed” to achieve net zero by 2050.

Table. 1: Comparison of old and new voluntary commitments to decarbonise
Source: OGDC press release, OGCI strategy, 2021.

How the charter falls short

The OGDC made several pledges related to reducing emissions and investing in energy systems. However, these fall short of what is needed to reach the Paris Agreement goals of limiting global warming to well below 2°C and pursuing efforts to limit global temperature increase to 1.5°C.

Pledge 1: Reducing emissions

Charter signatories claim to support the Paris Agreement goals and the goal of reaching net zero by 2050.

  • These goals set no short term targets, despite the IEA showing that Scope 1 and 2 emissions from oil and gas need to be reduced by 60% by 2030 to remain on track for global net zero emissions by 2050.
  • The companies do not commit to cutting back oil and gas activities under the agreement. A report from United Nations experts recommends that oil and gas companies end production, expansion of reserves and exploration for new fields in order to reach net zero emissions. It concluded that “non-state actors cannot claim to be net-zero while continuing to build or invest in new fossil fuel supply”.
  • For their goals to be meaningful, and not just pay lip service to the Paris Agreement, charter signatories must also align their lobbying efforts and leave associations that are opposed to Paris-aligned climate policies.
Pledge 2: Investment in energy systems

OGDC members pledged to invest in the energy system of the future.

  • Without any quantifiable targets, this promise is too vague to be meaningful and needs to be accompanied by a phase-out date for oil and gas production.
  • A new IEA report finds that the industry allocated just 2.5% of its capital expenditure to clean energy 2022 and that this will need to rise to 50% by 2030 in order to align with the Paris Agreement.
Pledge 3: Methane and flaring

Members pledged to achieve near zero methane emissions by 2030.

  • Intensity targets do not guarantee overall reductions in emissions if production volumes are increasing. Instead, targets should be set for absolute methane emissions reductions, in line with the 75% reduction by 2030 called for in the IEA Net Zero scenario.3The IEA’s net zero scenario provides a pathway for the global energy sector to achieve net zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050.
  • Previous initiatives, such as the Zero Routine Flaring Initiative launched by the World Bank in 2015, failed to reduce flaring. While flaring intensity has improved as a result of decoupling from oil production, total volumes of gas flaring have not materially declined since 2010. The industry’s own efforts have also not led to sufficient reduction in flaring.

Agency of oil and gas industry

Ahead of COP28, several governments called for a phase out of fossil fuels, and this is a crucial issue at the summit taking place in Dubai. Companies often seek to get ahead of the regulatory curve. By proactively announcing the speed at which it will decarbonise, the oil and gas industry seeks to reinforce its own agency to tackle climate change. For an industry with billions in sunk investments in oil and gas wells, pipelines and refineries, this is preferable to rules imposed by governments, which it will have less control over.

  • The High Ambition Coalition – including ministers from the Marshall Islands, Tuvalu, Austria, Kenya, Spain, the Netherlands and Ethiopia – recently called for a plan, to be reflected in a negotiated decision at COP28, to accelerate renewable energy and “phase-out fossil fuel production and use”.
  • A number of countries, including Denmark and France, have made commitments to end oil and gas production as members of the Beyond Oil and Gas Initiative.
Table. 2: OGDC goals compared to signatory company pledges
Company commitments listed for the most significant OGDC signatory companies.
Source: GDCA press release, company websites: BP, Shell, Eni, ExxonMobil, Aramco, ADNOC, Bahrain Petroleum Company (Bapco), Petrobras, Petronas, Pertamina, Occidental, Ecopetrol, Equinor, Repsol, SOCAR, TotalEnergies, NNPC, PTTEP, Woodside. Accessed December 2023.
Table. 3: Selected companies with significant new net zero operational emissions targets
Full list of signatories to the Oil and Gas Decarbonization Charter from COP28 press release

Nationally-owned oil companies: ADNOC, Bapco Energies, Ecopetrol, EGAS, Equinor, GOGC, INPEX Corporation, KazMunaiGas, Mari Petroleum, Namcor, National Oil Company of Libya, Nilepet, NNPC, OGDC, OMV, ONGC, Pakistan Petroleum Limited (PPL), Pertamina, Petoro, Petrobras, Petroleum Development Oman, Petronas, PTTEP, Saudi Aramco, SNOC, SOCAR, Sonangol, Uzbekneftegaz, ZhenHua Oil, YPF.

International (privately-owned) oil companies: Azule Energy, BP, Cepsa, COSMO Energy, Crescent Petroleum, Dolphin Energy Limited, Energean Oil & Gas, Eni, EQT Corporation, Exxonmobil, ITOCHU, LUKOIL, Mitsui & Co, Oando, Occidental Petroleum, Puma Energy (Trafigura), Repsol, Shell, TotalEnergies, Woodside Energy Group.
  • 1
    Gas flaring is the process of burning the natural gas which comes out of the ground during oil drilling.
  • 2
    Scope 1 emissions are direct emissions from sources owned or controlled by a company, Scope 2 are indirect emissions from the energy it uses, and Scope 3 includes emissions the company is indirectly responsible for in its value chain, including from the use of the products it sells.
  • 3
    The IEA’s net zero scenario provides a pathway for the global energy sector to achieve net zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050.

Australia, a global climate outlier?

by Leave a Comment

Key points:

  • Australia’s environmental laws currently fall short in addressing climate change. The country does not have a climate trigger mechanism, despite having one of the highest rates of biodiversity loss in the world.
  • There is a growing number of countries, including the US, UK and New Zealand, that include climate change and emissions considerations in their environmental frameworks.
  • The Australian government’s stance on fossil fuels stands in contrast to warnings from international scientific bodies regarding the urgency of addressing climate change.
  • Australia could be responsible for up to 17% of global carbon dioxide emissions by 2030 if planned expansion of fossil fuels goes ahead.
  • The introduction of a climate trigger presents a chance for the country to align itself with global efforts in tackling GHG emissions from fossil fuel projects and reverse alarming environmental trends.

What is a climate trigger?

A climate trigger means governments have to consider the emissions and climate change impact of a project when assessing whether it should go ahead. Several countries and economies, including the US, UK, European Union, New Zealand and Canada, include assessments of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and other climate change considerations in their environmental regulatory frameworks. However, Australia currently has no explicit mechanism to account for climate change and the impacts of fossil fuel projects in its national environmental laws.

Australia’s environmental backbone

Australia has a dual approach to environmental governance, with individual states and territories having their own environmental laws and regulation, alongside national law governed primarily by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act). While state and territory laws address environmental concerns within their jurisdictions, the EPBC Act serves as a comprehensive framework that complements and coordinates these efforts.

The EPBC Act designates nine key areas as matters of national environmental significance, or triggers, including specific regions, species and ecosystems that hold ecological value and require protection at the national level. If a project is deemed likely to have a significant impact on one of these areas, then a thorough impact assessment and environmental approval process is “triggered.”

The nine triggers identified under the EPBC Act are:
  1. World Heritage properties: These include the Great Barrier Reef and the Tasmanian Wilderness.
  2. National Heritage places: Sites recognised for their outstanding heritage value to the nation, such as iconic landmarks or culturally significant areas.
  3. Wetlands of international importance: Designated under the Ramsar Convention, an international treaty aimed at conserving key wetland ecosystems and their biodiversity.
  4. Listed threatened species and ecological communities: Endangered species and ecosystems that are at risk of extinction or significant decline.
  5. Listed migratory species: Migratory birds and marine species that require protection during seasonal movements across national and international borders.
  6. Commonwealth marine areas: The marine environment within Australia’s Exclusive Economic Zone, such as the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.
  7. Nuclear actions: Activities related to uranium mining, nuclear power plants, and other nuclear-related actions.
  8. Water resources: The impacts of coal seam gas and large-scale coal mining on water quality and availability.
  9. The Great Barrier Reef: Activities that may impact water quality, coastal development and shipping activities
Criticism of current laws

The lack of a climate trigger has prompted concerns in Australia over the effectiveness of the EPBC Act, in which “climate change” appears just once, as well as the country’s commitment to the 2015 Paris Agreement. Advocates of a climate trigger argue that its omission results in insufficient scrutiny of activities. Projects with substantial climate impacts are allowed to proceed without undergoing the same rigorous assessments as those falling under other triggers, leading to potential habitat degradation and exposing ecosystems to climate-related risks.

Importance of climate trigger for Australia

Increasingly high temperatures, wildfires and other climate impacts have significantly disrupted numerous ecosystems and species in Australia. The country has one of the highest extinction rates of plant and animal species in the world. Since 1999, 84% of threatened species have experienced habitat loss. In the last seven years, Australia witnessed a series of marine heatwaves that lead to four mass coral bleaching events on the Great Barrier Reef, causing a 50% decline in the coral population. Climate change has the potential to exacerbate these losses by fivefold.

Climate triggers globally

Globally, there is a growing trend of countries incorporating climate change considerations into their national environmental frameworks, and the assessment of projects with large amounts of GHG by independent bodies has become standard practice. Examples include the EU, the UK, the US, Canada and New Zealand.

While the environmental frameworks of these countries differ in scope, enforceability and effectiveness, they all prioritise human well-being. The frameworks of the UK, US, and Canada do not explicitly mandate GHG assessments, but GHG considerations are indirectly addressed through other legal mechanisms. Climate change considerations, while not always explicitly mentioned, are increasingly woven into these frameworks, reflecting a global imperative to address climate-related challenges.

Table 1: Comparative analysis of environmental legislation

The countries chosen for analysis — the UK, EU, US, Canada and New Zealand — were selected based on several criteria to enable meaningful comparisons. New Zealand’s proximity to Australia provides regional relevance. The EU and UK dominate global climate discussions, while similarities in political systems led to the inclusion of Canada and the US.

Comparative-analysis-of-environmental-legislationDownload

Australia’s climate trigger proposal

The debate over whether to adopt a climate trigger mechanism in Australia has been ongoing for decades, and several proposals, including a bill submitted by then Shadow Minister for Environment and Heritage Anthony Albanese, failed to win enough support. This was due to concerns that such a trigger would harm jobs, economic development and investment, or clash with existing environmental legislation.

In 2020, a review of the EPBC Act found that it had failed to adequately protect Australia’s vulnerable flora, fauna and ecological communities. The Australian government has committed to revising the Act, and in December 2022 a series of reforms were proposed by the government to be adopted in late 2023. However, climate change considerations were still not addressed.

The Australian Greens plan to submit a proposal for a climate trigger, in order to position the country on par with international trends. Building on an unsuccessful 2020 proposal, the new bill is expected to cover the following:

  • Ministerial authority on carbon dioxide emissions: the bill would grant the climate minister the authority to factor in GHG emissions when making project-related decisions. These powers are categorised into two thresholds:
  • Significant Impact on Emissions: Projects emitting 25,000 to 100,000 tonnes of GHG emissions annually must be evaluated by the ministry, ensuring alignment with the national carbon budget and emission reduction targets.
  • Prohibited Impact on Emissions: Projects emitting over 100,000 tonnes will automatically be denied approval.
  • Introduction of national carbon budget and enhanced roles for the Climate Change Authority (CCA): The CCA is an Australian government agency responsible for providing independent advice on climate change policy. If passed, the bill will mandate the CCA to develop a national carbon budget spanning from 2023 to 2049 in terms of total carbon dioxide equivalent emissions. The CCA must conduct annual evaluations of the remaining budget, while the minister is responsible for evaluating projects, considering the ongoing assessments of the budget.
How does Australia’s climate trigger compare globally?

While most laws discussed in Table 1 are undergoing revisions to better address the challenges posed by climate change, parallels can be drawn between some of them and Australia’s Climate Trigger proposal. Under the Climate Change Act 2008, the UK became the world’s first country to establish legally binding carbon budgets. The measure closely resembles what the Climate Trigger bill aims to introduce in Australia — a national carbon budget, accompanied by annual evaluation of new projects. In Canada, the environment minister was also given authority to require assessments for certain projects if they could have adverse climate impacts. These parallels underscore how Australia’s bill aligns with international efforts to address climate change and responsibly manage emissions, something that is argued to be lacking in the current EPBC Act.

However, what sets the Australian Greens’ bill apart from other laws is its commitment to explicit emissions thresholds. Among the countries examined, none of them automatically ban projects that exceed specific emissions limits. While this doesn’t prevent new fossil fuel projects being approved that emit more than initially estimated, it does pave the way for regulating these emissions.

Next steps for Australia’s climate trigger mechanism

The bill is currently under consideration by an environmental committee in the Australian Senate and a final ruling is expected in December 2023. A majority of lawmakers in parliament now recognize the need for government intervention in addressing climate change, and the crossbench offers strong support for a climate trigger.1The crossbench is where independent and minor party members sit in Australia’s parliament.

However, there has been a significant shift in the stance of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Labor party since 2005. The current Labor government has ruled out a ban on new fossil fuel developments as long as investors perceive demand for coal and gas. It argues that introducing flexible measures, such as carbon offsets, would allow fossil fuel projects to proceed while still enabling the country to achieve its 43% emissions reduction target for 2030. The government’s position diverges from the warnings of organisations such as the United Nations, and leading climate science bodies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the International Energy Agency.

Australia is the world’s third-largest exporter of fossil fuels behind Russia and Saudi Arabia, accounting for about 7%. In 2022, Australia had twice the electricity use per capita of China, and 47% of its electricity was generated by coal-fired power plants — more than four times the global average. Since 2014, the expansion of LNG production in Australia has grown by 360%, leading to a significant increase in national emissions levels. By 2030, Australia could potentially be responsible for up to 17% of global emissions, up from about 5% currently, if government and industry projections for fossil fuel expansion go ahead.

The Climate Trigger bill offers Australia the opportunity to take accountability for its emissions and the global harm caused by fossil fuels extracted within the country. If passed, it may help to reverse concerning environmental and biodiversity trends.2Assumes that the rest of the world adopts policies in line with the Paris Agreement.

  • 1
    The crossbench is where independent and minor party members sit in Australia’s parliament.
  • 2
    Assumes that the rest of the world adopts policies in line with the Paris Agreement.

What’s hot (and cool) about heat pumps?

by Leave a Comment

Key points:

  • A heat pump is an electrical appliance used to warm or cool a building, provide hot water, or provide heat for some types of industrial processes.
  • Heat pumps are powered by electricity and can be extremely energy efficient, and so are set to become “the cornerstone of sustainable buildings”, according to the IEA.
  • The technology plays a large part in decarbonising buildings in national climate and energy pledges – if all governments meet their climate targets on time, heat pumps will produce almost 20% of heat in buildings in 2030, twice as much as today.
  • In 2021 (before gas prices spiked), heat pumps resulted in lower total energy costs in some countries, including Korea, Japan, Italy, China and the US. 
  • Fluctuating gas prices and supply uncertainties make heat pumps particularly attractive.
  • Heat pumps are most energy and cost efficient when installed in well-insulated homes. Badly insulated buildings, high up-front cost and a shortage of manufacturing capacity and trained technicians are some of the principal barriers to heat pump uptake. 
  • The challenge for heat pumps is not developing new technology, as is the case with some clean energy technologies, but creating policy that encourages uptake.

What is a heat pump? 

A heat pump is an electrical appliance that can be used to replace a fossil fuel-based heating system. When run on clean, renewable electricity, they reduce emissions and protect consumers from fluctuating fossil fuel prices. Heat pumps can be used to warm or cool a building, heat water, or produce low and medium-temperature heat for industry. They can be effective even in very cold climates – cold-climate heat pumps are still able to heat a building in weather conditions down to about -30°C.

Unlike some other low-carbon technologies, heat pumps are not new – they use the same technology used in fridges and air conditioners. It was first demonstrated in the mid-1700s, and heat pumps were first installed in buildings in Switzerland in the 1930s. Inside a heat pump, a gas called a refrigerant absorbs heat from one location, is compressed to increase the heat, before the heat is released in another location (for a more detailed explanation of how heat pumps work, see Box 1). 

There are three main types, which are designed to absorb heat from different places:

  • Air-source heat pumps take in heat from the air. They often look like an air conditioning unit.
  • Ground-source heat pumps absorb heat from underground. They involve digging a trench or borehole, so are sometimes called geothermal heat pumps.
  • Water-source heat pumps, which source heat from a nearby lake or river.

Heat pumps come in various forms – a heating unit with fans, a water-based distribution system (like radiators) or a ducted ventilation system. They can also be used for hot water, either by retrofitting an existing hot water tank or by combining a heat pump and water heater. Excess heat from the pump itself can even be used to provide instant hot water.

Heat pumps can also cool buildings, and rising global demand for cooling presents an opportunity for increased uptake. In cooling systems, a heat pump works the opposite way, removing heat from inside a building and dumping it outside. Reversible heat pumps that provide both heating and cooling are also available.

Box 1: How heat pumps work

All heat pumps have the same basic mechanism – they absorb heat from a cold location (a source – e.g. the outside air) and release it into a warmer location (a sink – e.g. the inside of a building). The system is powered by electricity, meaning that when run on renewable power, heat pumps are the best clean energy alternative for space heating in most environments. 

Heat pumps contain a gas called a refrigerant, which is much colder than the air or ground, and this passes through a vapour-compression cycle. Heat (thermal energy) from the air or ground is absorbed by the cold refrigerant in an evaporator, warming it up. The high-energy refrigerant gas is then compressed, making it even hotter, and pumped into a building where it releases heat via a condenser. The refrigerant is then allowed to expand, cooling it and bringing it back to the start of the cycle.

Ground-source heat pump flow diagram
Source: Climate Emergency UK

How can heat pumps help reduce emissions? 

Heat pumps can be powered with renewable electricity, dramatically reducing emissions compared to fossil fuel-based heating. 

Taking into account the current energy mix in the power system, operating an air-source heat pump already produces fewer emissions than the most efficient condensing gas boilers in North America, Central and South America and the Asia-Pacific region, according to the IEA.

Heat pumps are very efficient, with an energy output several times the amount of energy put in. A typical household heat pump has an energy output four times greater than the energy (electricity) needed to run it.1The coefficient of performance (COP) of a heating appliance is the ratio of energy used to heat produced. An average household heat pump has a COP of 4, meaning it produces four units of heat for each one unit of electricity used. A standard electric resistance heater has a COP of 1 – it produces one unit of heat for every one unit of electricity used. This makes heat pumps three to five times more efficient than gas boilers, and around four times more efficient than conventional electric heaters. This is because the heat provided by a heat pump is absorbed from its surroundings, rather than produced. The exact efficiency of a heat pump depends on the type of pump, the climate and source of heat.2The larger the difference in temperature between the source of heat and where it is released (the sink), the more energy a heat pump uses to move the heat.

Other technologies for clean heat are not fully developed and remain more expensive than heat pumps or carry other risks. The technology for clean hydrogen heating is not yet available – hydrogen is currently made using fossil fuels, risking locking-in fossil fuel use for heating – and will be more expensive and less efficient than heat pumps, as well as carrying a risk of explosions. Biomass heating emits dangerous pollutants that are harmful to health. Solar thermal systems are another option for clean heat, but these generally need to be used alongside another heat source. 

How much can heat pumps help decarbonise buildings?

The IEA considers heat pumps to be “the cornerstone of sustainable buildings”, a technology that will play a fundamental role in decarbonising space heating and cooling, alongside energy efficiency measures. Buildings account for around four gigatonnes (Gt) of direct CO2 emissions annually – around 10% of total global CO2 emissions (see chart below). Over half of this is direct emissions from space and water heating.3In 2021, space and water heating resulted in 2.45 Gt of direct CO2 emissions, 60% of this from gas, 27% from oil and 14% from coal.

If all governments meet their energy and climate targets on time, heat pumps will produce nearly 20% of heat in buildings in 2030 – double that of today – with capacity growing in all regions. In this scenario, heat pumps will account for half of the reduction in fossil fuel use for building heat by 2030, and energy efficiency for the other half.4According to the IEA’s Announced Pledges Scenario (APS), in which governments meet their announced energy and climate related pledges in full and on time.

Global energy-related CO2 emissions by sector
Source: IEA

How much can heat pumps help decarbonise industry?

Industry is responsible for 23% of global energy-related CO2 emissions, with heat making up two-thirds of industrial energy demand. Estimates indicate that the heat pump technology available today could meet 10% of industrial energy demand, although the potential decarbonisation impact of heat pumps in industry varies sector-by-sector. 

The greatest potential impact is in sectors with high demand for low-temperature heat, like the paper, food and chemical industries. Heat pumps are currently used in industry to produce low to mid-temperature heat (>160°C) for processes like bleaching and de-inking paper, or evaporating water to concentrate food. Heat pumps can also be used to capture and raise the temperature of waste heat, producing heat up to 160°C for processes like drying paper and food, and distilling chemicals. Alternatively, heat pumps can take waste heat to warm nearby buildings. 

Heat pumps have been developed to produce heat up to 180°C and systems producing temperatures up to 200°C are under development. However, other clean energy technologies, such as direct electrification, currently offer more economical solutions for high-temperature heat. Clean hydrogen may provide a solution in the long term.

How can heat pumps help decarbonise cities?

District heating networks are large-scale heating systems that provide heat to multiple homes or businesses through a network of insulated pipes carrying hot water. Today, they cover around 9% of heat demand, particularly in very cold regions, including the EU, Russia and China. However, the majority of district heating is still produced with fossil fuels – just under half is produced with coal and 38% with natural gas. Research has shown that district heating systems have the potential to meet half of Europe’s heating demand, with heat pumps powering up to 25% of these systems.

Electrical heat pumps can be used to retrofit networks that burn fossil fuels. Heat pump systems function at a lower heat than combustion systems, circulating water at around 45-60°C, which reduces wasted heat and improves overall system efficiency. District heat systems incorporating heat pumps can also make use of waste heat from nearby industry or businesses. For example, a district heating network in Vienna uses waste heat from the Therme Wien thermal baths. Water leaves the baths at around 30°C and a heat pump raises the temperature to 85°C, supplying heat to 1,900 households.

Box 2: Types of heat pumps

Different types of heat pumps collect heat from different places and can be used in different locations, depending on the climate, building density, existing infrastructure and geological features. The main categories are:

  1. Air-source heat pumps

Air-source heat pumps currently dominate the global market, accounting for around 60% of sales in 2021. This type of system absorbs heat from the air, and can either be installed as a one-block system, where one unit both absorbs the heat and emits it, or a split system, where heat is absorbed by one unit outside and emitted by another inside. Air-source heat pumps are generally quicker and cheaper to install than other types. They don’t require much ground space and do not need to be close to water, so can be installed in apartment buildings or dense urban areas. These systems can be used in almost all climates, but work most efficiently in temperate climes where air temperature does not change significantly.

  1. Ground-source heat pumps

The second-most common type of heat pump is ground-source, which accounted for around 2.5% of heat pumps installed in the EU in 2021. These systems source heat from the ground, from either a vertical heat collector in a deep borehole or a horizontal heat collector laid in trenches and buried underground. These systems are more efficient than air-source heat pumps in areas with big changes in air temperature, as ground temperature remains more constant. Ground-source heat pumps are more expensive to install than air-source systems, due to the earthworks required.

  1. Water-source heat pumps

This third type of system collects heat from water, like a lake, sea or underground water (ground water). Water-source heat pumps are especially efficient, as water is an excellent energy carrier, but can only be installed if the building is close to water. 

  1. Hybrid systems

Heat pumps can also be used alongside other clean heating technologies in a hybrid system. These are useful where a heat pump alone would be inefficient (or there is not enough space to install one big enough to make it efficient). In places where there’s a big temperature difference between the inside and outside, a very powerful and expensive heat pump would be needed to provide heat all year. Instead, a smaller heat pump can be installed, but swapped in for an electric heater on very cold days.

In the future, there is also the potential for hybrid heat pump-hydrogen systems. Hydrogen fuel cells are already being used in some countries, including Japan and South Korea, but heat pump and hydrogen boiler systems are still being developed. However, the IEA’s Net Zero Scenario foresees that hybrid heat pump systems for cold climates will meet no more than 5% of heating demand in 2050.

Ground-source, air-source and water-source heat pumps
Source: Zero Carbon Analytics

How widely used are heat pumps today? 

Heat pumps are set to be “the central technology in the global transition to secure and sustainable heating”, according to the IEA. Over the past year, the technology has received more attention as a way to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, especially natural gas in Europe, and to ensure energy security.

Heat pumps are already in use around the world – in 2021, 190 million were operating in buildings globally, meeting around 10% of building heating needs. In some countries, the technology represents a big proportion of heating appliances – 60% of buildings in Norway have heat pumps and 40% in Sweden and Finland. 

Sales of heat pumps increased by more than 13% globally in 2021, with particularly high growth in Europe (35% year-on-year). In the first half of 2022, Italy saw 114% growth compared to the same period in 2021, while the Netherlands saw 100%, Poland 96%, Finland 80%, Germany 25%, Norway 11% and the US 7%. Meanwhile some countries have had relatively stable heat pump markets for decades, including Japan. Despite this, fossil fuel air and water heaters still accounted for almost half of all heating equipment sold in 2021.5This number dropped below 50% for the first time in 2021.

Increase in heat pumps sales, 2020-2021 (%)
Source: IEA

Do heat pumps save money on heating?

According to the IEA, heating a home with an air source heat pump works out cheaper over its lifetime (without subsidies and including up-front costs) than a gas boiler in the US, Korea, Japan, Italy and China, and marginally cheaper in Canada.6The levelised cost of heating (or cooling) is the average price of one unit of heating or cooling (in this case, 1 MWh) over the lifetime of the product. This price includes upfront costs and operating expenses. It is also cheaper than gas in the UK and Germany when subsidies are taken into account. These calculations were made in 2021, before the Russian invasion of Ukraine caused spikes in gas prices, which led to a rapid increase in energy bills.

Despite saving consumers money on heating over time, heat pumps are usually more expensive to buy and install than gas boilers which can deter consumers. Purchase and installation costs vary between countries, types of heat pumps, and according to the infrastructure and energy performance of the building – the heating system may need to be upgraded (see below). The unit costs for heat pumps are unlikely to go down at the same dramatic rate seen in other clean energy technologies, like EVs and solar PV, as the technology is already mature. 

The local cost of electricity will also impact the cost of heating a home with a heat pump. In places where gas is cheaper than electricity, potentially because of government subsidies, heat pumps are less economically appealing. As a result, some clean heating policies include measures to make the price of electricity more competitive compared to gas.

Barriers to heat pumps

Thanks to their technological maturity and existing use, it should in theory be easy to scale up heat pump production and rollout. However, there are a number of barriers that require policy support and new technical solutions to overcome.

Poorly-insulated buildings and infrastructure limitations

A building must be well insulated for a heat pump to warm it efficiently. The better insulated the building, the less powerful the heat pump needed to heat it, meaning lower upfront costs, lower electricity bills and less strain on the power grid. The technology produces lower-temperature heat than gas boilers and is most efficient when left on all the time, meaning good insulation that allows heat to build up is paramount. In Denmark, heat pumps installed in houses with the highest energy efficiency rating (A+) have been found to consume 30 times less energy than those with the lowest energy efficiency rating (G).

Although new buildings can be built to the energy efficiency standards needed to operate heat pumps efficiently, heat pumps also need to be installed in existing buildings. In order to meet the REpowerEU goals, around five million will need to be installed in existing buildings by 2030 in Europe. This presents a greater challenge in countries where existing buildings are poorly insulated, like the UK. Similarly, existing district heating networks are designed to carry high-temperature heat, which is not suitable for integration with the low-temperature heat produced by heat pumps.

A resident who has decided to install a heat pump may also run into problems with local regulations, landlords or other tenants. In some regions, heat pump installation is subject to a lengthy or unclear approval process, especially if a ground-source heat pump involves digging or drilling a borehole.

Labour and manufacturing bottlenecks

A lack of skilled technicians trained to work with heat pumps is creating supply bottlenecks, for example in the EU. Expensive and non-standardised training schemes can be a barrier to workers becoming qualified. A study carried out in the UK found there is no clear training pathway for a career in clean heat, plus a lack of retraining incentives – either financial or in terms of clear career opportunities.

The forecasted rapid growth in heat pump rollout will require an increase in workers across the heat pump supply chain, and especially in installation. The same UK study estimated there are currently 3,000 heat pump engineers in the country, a number that will need to increase by 4,000-6,000 annually for the next six years for the country to reach its net-zero target. The IEA estimates that 450,000 people worldwide were already working with heat pumps in 2019, but if governments are to meet their pledges, employment in the sector will have to almost triple to more than 1.3 million workers by 2030.

Concerns over grids and energy demand

Electrifying all sectors of the economy will contribute to an increase in total electricity demand. Some have questioned whether existing power grids will be able to sustain the additional burden, raising concerns about energy security, grid instability and blackouts. Electricity industry body Eurelectric estimates that updating the European and UK power distribution grids will require EUR 34-39 billion in investments each year between 2020 and 2030 – around 0.2%-0.3% of current EU GDP. 

According to IEA estimates, if all current government pledges are met, heat pumps will contribute around 9% of the increase in electricity demand expected by 2030, and will only add moderately to peak energy demand in cold months. This impact can be limited if heat pump installation is paired with improving building energy efficiency, installing smart systems and grid planning that allows for flexibility. Heat pumps even have the potential to act as a demand-side response to help balance the grid – when used in combination with energy storage and smart systems, they can help balance grids by storing excess energy or reducing electricity demand at peak times. However, this application requires smart and integrated systems in well-insulated buildings, and as such is still in early development.

Information availability and public perception

In countries where heat pumps are rare, a lack of information about their benefits and how to choose the right kind of pump can deter consumers. A study carried out in the UK found that although 90% of respondents felt that reducing CO2 emissions was important, many did not know that heating played a role in emissions reduction, while only a minority said they were aware of low-carbon heating technologies. Concerns around appearance and noise, installation works and learning how to operate a new system can also dissuade consumers.

In some countries, however, heat pumps have achieved broad public acceptance. In Norway, 60% of buildings have them installed thanks to decades of government support, high taxes on fossil fuels, low electricity prices and a 2020 ban on oil-powered boilers. Heat pumps need to be affordable and accessible for consumers to choose them. Increasing access to clear information about upfront costs, installation and how to use them efficiently can help sway consumer’s choices.

Refrigeration chemicals

Heat pumps move heat energy by pumping a gas, called a refrigerant, around a closed system. Most heat pumps produced since the 1990s contain a hydrofluorocarbon (HFC), a type of fluorinated gas. HFCs are powerful, short-lived greenhouse gases producing a warming effect that can be thousands of times worse than that of CO2 over a few decades.7According to the Climate and Clean Air Coalition, the most abundant HFC is 3,790 times more damaging than CO2 over a 20-year period (CCAC). Exact global warming potential varies between different HFCs – see the list here adapted from IPCC AR4 (2007). However, HFC gases are only emitted when heat pumps leak or are dismantled or destroyed without proper measures being taken to ensure the refrigerants are not released.8HFCs don’t destroy the ozone layer, as was the case with chlorofluorocarbons, which were banned in the 1980s and 90s. Other types of refrigerants are already being used in heat pumps and governments are making moves to limit HFC use.

What does the future hold for heat pumps?

Unlike some clean technologies, the challenge with heat pumps is not in technology development, but in implementing policies that both address the challenges outlined above and make the most of the opportunities available to encourage heat pump rollout.

Heat pump capacity in buildings in the IEA’s Announced Pledges Scenario and Stated Policies Scenario9The IEA’s Stated Policies Scenario (STEPS) looks at the policies already in place today, assuming they are implemented.

Source: IEA

Lowering costs

Because the technology is already well developed, the sector is unlikely to experience swift technological development that leads to a sharp drop in price, as was and is being seen with solar PV and wind power. However, producing more heat pumps will result in lower unit costs, while fiscal and financial incentives, such as grants, rebates and subsidies, can be used to reduce the upfront cost of a heat pump.

When gas prices are high, heat pumps gain a competitive edge, but high electricity prices raise operating costs and make heat pumps less appealing. Policy is needed to control electricity prices to ensure heat pumps remain competitive as gas prices fluctuate. Furthermore, carbon taxes or tax relief on electric power can help balance costs. 

Building policy momentum

Governments are putting in place national climate policies that aim to reduce emissions from heating, many of which are combined with direct support for heat pumps. The most common policy support for heat pumps is fiscal or financial incentives. As of November 2022, 30 national governments offered grants for residential heat pumps, 24 offered low-interest loans, nine offered income tax rebates and five offered VAT rebates.10In many cases, this financial support is only available if existing fossil fuel heating is replaced. The 30 countries offering grants are responsible for almost three-quarters of global space heating demand.

This existing policy momentum was boosted by fluctuating gas prices and gas supply shortages, meaning governments are likely to continue strengthening policy to accelerate the heat pump rollout. In March 2022, the EU announced the REPowerEU plan, aiming to install 10 million heat pumps between 2023 and 2028 to reduce reliance on Russian gas. Germany and the Netherlands have announced bans on heating systems that run on 100% fossil fuels from 2024 and 2026 respectively, combined with improved training, scaling up production and financial support for purchasing heat pump systems (100% and hybrid). As of December 2022, 10 EU countries and the UK had a current or announced ban on some or all fossil fuel heating – all of which come into force before 2030.

Building codes, insulation regulations and clean heating mandates are also being used to encourage heat pump installations in new and existing buildings. France’s building energy code, which came into force in 2022, limits the emissions intensity of space heating and cooling. There are a few examples of heat pumps specifically being mandated for new buildings, including in Washington State (from July 2023). Such policies can take advantage of the natural replacement cycle of old heating appliances, as is the case for the UK’s boiler upgrade scheme.

In other regions, heat pumps are being encouraged through national and sub-national clean air initiatives and renewable energy targets. Through its 2017 Clean Heating Act, the Chinese government has encouraged the uptake of heat pumps in northern China to replace coal heating and improve air quality. Today, China is the global leader in heat pump installations. 

New, green jobs and increasing manufacturing capacity

In order to meet growing demand for heat pumps, governments and manufacturers will need to work together to expand production capacity. Governments are setting targets to scale up manufacturing – for example, the UK government’s Heat and Buildings Strategy sets aside GBP 450 million for subsidies to switch out gas boilers for heat pumps. It also aims for a thirtyfold increase in heat pumps manufactured and installed in the UK by 2030, with support for supply chains and industry. Manufacturers also announced plans in 2022 to expand production and open new manufacturing sites, including Mitsubishi in Turkey, Daikin in Poland and Panasonic in Czechia.

Meeting government targets for heat pump installation will also require a big push to train and reskill technicians to carry out the work. In the IEA’s announced policies scenario, the number of installers (around half of the heat pump workforce) will increase by 650,000 by 2030. Technical professionals from related fields, especially those working in fossil fuel heating, can be retrained to work with heat pumps. Research indicates that workers are willing to retrain as the new skills and expertise are needed and jobs involving fossil fuels come under increasing threat. New people will also need to be trained to enter the sector, particularly in regions where a significant proportion of the energy workforce is approaching retirement, including in the UK and US.

Governments and industry are working together to update certification and provide incentives for technical training and retraining. For example, the Dutch government announced it is working with the installation sector and manufacturers to ensure there is a training centre in every region. Pressure for installers can also be eased by standardising heat pump design and making them easier to install, reducing the need for extensive specialised training.

Better, cleaner heat pump technology

Current research and development aims to improve heat pump performance in different contexts and to reduce costs and environmental impact, as well as making them more appealing to consumers. According to the IEA, key areas for heat pump R&D are:

  • Developing smart control systems to optimise building (or whole district) energy use and to integrate heat pumps with heating storage or on-site renewable energy generation.
  • Improving efficiency to produce higher temperatures for industry and more efficient systems for colder climates
  • Improving the appearance of heat pumps and reducing noise
  • Reducing the environmental impact of materials, including refrigerants 
  • Improving drilling techniques to reduce the amount of surface space needed for ground-source systems.

New business models

Another way of reducing the upfront cost of heat pumps is through innovative business models. These include heat-as-a-service (HaaS), in which energy suppliers sell heat as a ‘service’, usually for a monthly fee that covers the loan of heating equipment, maintenance and the amount of heat generated. Such models are increasingly being tested in Europe, with energy companies in Estonia, France, the Netherlands and Switzerland offering HaaS contracts in some form. 

Other business models for heat pumps include:

  • Energy performance contracts: An energy provider installs, owns and operates a heat pump on a long-term contract with a customer, guaranteeing shared energy savings.
  • Pay-for-performance: The customer pays a rental fee for the heat pump, based on energy savings.
  • On-bill financing: The customer pays for heat pump installation gradually through their utility bill, which can be transferred to future tenants. This model is used in some parts of Canada.
  • Property-assessed clean energy: The customer buys the heat pump using a loan that is attached to the property and is paid back at the same time as property tax. The loan can be transferred to future tenants.
  • Conventional equipment lease: The customer leases the heat pump over a defined period, after which they own the heat pump.

Increasing demand for cooling

Heat pumps can provide combined heating and cooling, or cooling or heating only. Therefore, the increasing global demand for cooling creates an opportunity to boost the rollout of heat pumps. In Europe, Japan, the Republic of Korea and the US, air-source heat pumps are already generally used for both heating and cooling. In the North of China, heat pumps are primarily used for cooling. Taking a combined approach to the two uses could also accelerate the rate of innovation, meaning more efficient appliances may be developed more quickly.

  • 1
    The coefficient of performance (COP) of a heating appliance is the ratio of energy used to heat produced. An average household heat pump has a COP of 4, meaning it produces four units of heat for each one unit of electricity used. A standard electric resistance heater has a COP of 1 – it produces one unit of heat for every one unit of electricity used.
  • 2
    The larger the difference in temperature between the source of heat and where it is released (the sink), the more energy a heat pump uses to move the heat.
  • 3
    In 2021, space and water heating resulted in 2.45 Gt of direct CO2 emissions, 60% of this from gas, 27% from oil and 14% from coal.
  • 4
    According to the IEA’s Announced Pledges Scenario (APS), in which governments meet their announced energy and climate related pledges in full and on time.
  • 5
    This number dropped below 50% for the first time in 2021.
  • 6
    The levelised cost of heating (or cooling) is the average price of one unit of heating or cooling (in this case, 1 MWh) over the lifetime of the product. This price includes upfront costs and operating expenses.
  • 7
    According to the Climate and Clean Air Coalition, the most abundant HFC is 3,790 times more damaging than CO2 over a 20-year period (CCAC). Exact global warming potential varies between different HFCs – see the list here adapted from IPCC AR4 (2007).
  • 8
    HFCs don’t destroy the ozone layer, as was the case with chlorofluorocarbons, which were banned in the 1980s and 90s.
  • 9
    The IEA’s Stated Policies Scenario (STEPS) looks at the policies already in place today, assuming they are implemented.
  • 10
    In many cases, this financial support is only available if existing fossil fuel heating is replaced.

Key takeaways from the three working group reports of the IPCC sixth assessment

by Leave a Comment

Key points

  • Climate change is unequivocally caused by human activities as a result of burning fossil fuels, industrial processes and land use change and it is a threat to human well-being and planetary health.
  • Losses and damages from climate change will increase rapidly with further warming, in many cases creating risks that people and nature will be unable to adapt to. If emissions are cut at the rate currently planned, the resulting temperature rise will threaten food production, water supplies, human health, coastal settlements, national economies and the survival of much of the natural world.
  • To prevent further warming, urgent emission reductions across all sectors and rapid scale up of electrification are needed to reduce emissions and keep warming to 1.5°C by the end of the century. However, even the most ambitious scenarios indicate global temperatures will temporarily overshoot 1.5°C.
  • Models from the Working Group 1 and 3 report both indicate that deep reductions in other greenhouse gases, particularly in methane emissions, will help lower peak warming. 
  • Any further delay in concerted global action on adaptation and mitigation will miss a brief and rapidly-closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for everyone.

IPCC’s sixth assessment cycle 

Between 2020 and 2022, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released three reports from its sixth assessment cycle covering the latest science on the physical state of the global climate (Working Group 1, WGI), the impact of climate change (Working Group 2, WGII) and mitigation of climate change (Working Group 3, WGIII). 

The sixth assessment cycle (AR6)  included 782 scientists, who worked on a voluntary basis, with 67 countries contributing to create the most authoritative assessment of climate change to date. 

This briefing summarises key themes that run through these three reports: 

  • The human-driven impact of climate change
  • The cause and current trajectory of our climate crisis
  • The speed and scale of the transformation required to achieve a safe(r) climate

Climate change is happening all around us 

The term “unequivocal” was used in both WG1 and WG2 to describe the scientific consensus that the climate is changing as a result of human activity, representing a threat to human well-being, societies and the natural world.1WG1, SPM A.1, WG2, SPM D.5.3. Human actions have warmed the climate at a rate that is unprecedented in at least the last 2,000 years, increasing the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events across the world. 2WG1, SPM1.WG2,SPM B.1.1 The physical impact of climate change is causing substantial damages and, in some cases, irreversible losses.3WG2,SPM B.1.1 

The WG2 report emphasised that we have a brief and rapidly-closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable future. Additionally, WG3 stressed that without urgent, effective and equitable mitigation, climate change increasingly threatens the health and livelihoods of people around the globe, ecosystem health and biodiversity.4WG2, SPM D.5.3 and WG3, SPM D.1.1

National commitments made by governments prior to COP26 are not enough to limit warming to 1.5°C and are likely to lead to global warming of 2.8°C by 2100. 5WG3, SPM B.6.WG3, SPM C.1.1. Both WG1 and WG3 reports agreed that even in the most ambitious emissions reduction scenario, it is more likely than not that global warming will reach 1.5°C by 2030 and overshoot to 1.6°C, before dropping back down.6WG1 Table SPM1, WG3, SPM Table SPM 2

The WG2 report described the devastating impacts of our current emissions pathway:

  • Food production and food security will be threatened by even a small amount of additional warming, which will cause increases in the severity and frequency of heatwaves, droughts and floods, along with sea-level rise7WG2, SPM B.4.3.
  • If warming reaches 2°C, there will be significant increases in ill-health and premature death as a result of more extreme weather and heatwaves, and disease spread8WG2, SPM B.4.4.
  • The extinction risk for unique and threatened species will be at least 10 times higher if temperature rise continues to 3°C, compared with if it is limited to 1.5°C.9WG2, SPM B.6.4.

Reliance on fossil fuels is the root cause of climate change 

Human activities around fossil fuel combustion, industrial processes, land use change and forestry have caused greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to increase dramatically since pre-industrial times, and emissions were higher between 2010-2019 than in any previous decade.10WG3, SPM B.1, Footnote 6WG3, SPM B.1. Of the GHGs, CO2 has contributed the most to recorded warming to date, followed by methane.11WG1, Figure SPM2.WG1 D.1.7, Figure SPM2
In 2019, coal contributed to 33% of all human-related CO2 emissions, followed by oil (29%) and gas (18%).12WG3, Technical Summary, Figure TS.3. Public and private finance continue to flow into fossil fuels and, as a result, GHG emissions continue to rise across all sectors and subsectors, and most rapidly in transport and industry. 13WG3, Technical Summary, page 23.WG3, SPM B.5.4. Between 2019-2020, investment in fossil fuels was greater than that for climate adaptation and mitigation.14WG3, SPM B.5.4. In the power sector, fossil fuel-related investment was, on average, USD 120 billion a year. An average of USD 650 billion were invested in the oil supply and USD 100 billion in coal supply.15WG3, Chapter 15, 15.3.3. In comparison, actual global public finance flow for adaptation was USD 46 billion.16WG3, Chapter 15, 15.1.1.

Delayed climate action in reducing our reliance on fossil fuels is partly the result of a concerted effort to generate rhetoric and misinformation that undermines climate science and disregards risk and urgency.17WG2, Chapter 14, 14.3.1. This is particularly true in the US, where despite scientific certainty of the anthropogenic influence on climate change, misinformation and politicisation of climate change science has created polarisation in public and policy domains.18WG2, Chapter 14, 14.3.1.

People who have contributed the least to the existing climate crisis are likely to be the most vulnerable and least able to adapt. The richest 10% of households contribute about 36%-45% of global GHG emissions. About two thirds of the top 10% richest households live in developed countries.19WG3, Technical Summary, page 21. But increased heavy rain, tropical cyclones and drought will force more people from their homes, particularly in places that are more vulnerable and have less ability to adapt.20WG2 SPM B.4.7. 

Urgent, transformative change is needed to limit global warming

To limit warming to 1.5°C, we need to drastically reduce our reliance on fossil fuels for energy production and switch to widespread electrification using renewable energy generation. 21WG3, SPM C.3.2.WG3, SPM C.3.2. Changing how electricity is generated is especially important in transitioning our energy system, and in scenarios limiting warming to 1.5°C (with no or limited overshoot), the electricity sector reaches net-zero CO2 emissions globally between 2045 and 2055.22WG3, Chapter 6, Executive summary. In these scenarios, electricity supply rises to 48%-58% of final energy use by 2050 (in comparison to 20% in 2019).23WG3, Chapter 6, Executive summary. A combination of widespread electrification of all energy demand and a shift to renewable electricity systems that emit no CO2 will create co-benefits such as better health and cleaner air.24WG3, SPM C.4.1, SPM E.2.2.

We also need to have strong, rapid and sustained reductions in methane emissions. Models show that reducing methane emissions by a third by 2030 is needed to create a net cooling effect. 25WG3, SPM C.1.2.WG2, SPM D.1.7. Deep GHG emission reductions by 2030 and 2040 – particularly reductions of methane emissions – lower peak warming, reduce the likelihood of overshooting warming limits and lead to less reliance on net negative CO2 emissions that reverse warming in the latter half of the century.26WG2, SPM C.2.

Global use of coal, oil and gas (without CCS) is reduced by 100%, 60% and 70% respectively by 2050 in pathways that successfully limit warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot.27WG3, SPM C.3.2. If not phased out, existing and planned fossil fuel infrastructure (without CCS) will make limiting warming to 1.5°C impossible.28WG3, SPM B.7

Rapid and deeper near-term GHG emissions reduction through to 2030 will lead to less reliance on carbon dioxide removal (CDR) in the longer term, but it is likely that we will need some CDR to counterbalance residual GHG emissions from hard-to-abate sectors.29WG3, SPM C.2.2, SPM C.3

CDR is not a ‘get out of jail free card’, especially at higher levels of warming because the ability of land and ocean sinks to sequester carbon will be greatly reduced at higher temperatures.30WG1, Figure 7 CDR also has limited ability to preserve existing ecosystems. If temperature rise passes 1.5°C, entire ecosystems will be irreversibly lost (including polar, mountain and coastal ecosystems, and regions that would be affected by ice-sheet and glacier melting),  even if temperatures are later reduced with measures to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.31WG2, SPM B.6.1

Some progress is being made

The WG3 report made it clear that there are mitigation options available in all sectors that could together halve global GHG emissions by 2030.32WG3, SPM C.12.1 Growing numbers of countries have seen the advent of cheap renewables that will power electric vehicles, heat pumps and other smart, emissions-free technologies. 

From 2010–2019, there were sustained decreases in the unit costs of solar energy (85%), wind energy (55%) and lithium-ion batteries (85%), and large increases in their deployment – for example >10x for solar and >100x for electric vehicles (EVs).33WG3, SPM Figure SPM 3 PV, onshore and offshore wind can now compete with fossil fuels on the levelised cost of energy in many places and electricity systems in some countries and regions are already predominantly powered by renewables.34WG3, Figure SPM 3, C.4.3 Large scale battery storage on electricity grids is increasingly viable.35WG3, Chapter 6, Executive summary

Electric vehicles are increasingly competitive against internal combustion engines, and it is the fastest growing segment of the automobile industry, having achieved double-digit market share by 2020 in many countries.36WG3, SPM Table TS.1  Electrification of public transport has been demonstrated as a feasible, scalable and affordable option to decarbonise mass transportation. 

There is also some green shoots evidence of climate policy beginning to have a positive real-world impact on emissions reductions that can be built on, for example:

  • At least 18 countries have now sustained production-based GHG and consumption-based CO2 emissions reductions for longer than 10 years.37WG3, SPM B.3.5
  • By 2020, over 20% of global GHG emissions were covered by carbon taxes or emissions trading systems, although coverage and prices have been insufficient to drive deep reductions.38WG3, SPM B.5.2
  • There are now ‘direct’ climate laws focused on GHG reduction in 56 countries covering 53% of global emission in 2020, and climate litigation is on the rise.39WG3, SPM B.5.2, E3.3
  • 1
    WG1, SPM A.1, WG2, SPM D.5.3.
  • 2
    WG1, SPM1.WG2,SPM B.1.1
  • 3
    WG2,SPM B.1.1
  • 4
    WG2, SPM D.5.3 and WG3, SPM D.1.1
  • 5
    WG3, SPM B.6.WG3, SPM C.1.1.
  • 6
    WG1 Table SPM1, WG3, SPM Table SPM 2
  • 7
    WG2, SPM B.4.3.
  • 8
    WG2, SPM B.4.4.
  • 9
    WG2, SPM B.6.4.
  • 10
    WG3, SPM B.1, Footnote 6WG3, SPM B.1.
  • 11
    WG1, Figure SPM2.WG1 D.1.7, Figure SPM2
  • 12
    WG3, Technical Summary, Figure TS.3.
  • 13
    WG3, Technical Summary, page 23.WG3, SPM B.5.4.
  • 14
    WG3, SPM B.5.4.
  • 15
    WG3, Chapter 15, 15.3.3.
  • 16
    WG3, Chapter 15, 15.1.1.
  • 17
    WG2, Chapter 14, 14.3.1.
  • 18
    WG2, Chapter 14, 14.3.1.
  • 19
    WG3, Technical Summary, page 21.
  • 20
    WG2 SPM B.4.7.
  • 21
    WG3, SPM C.3.2.WG3, SPM C.3.2.
  • 22
    WG3, Chapter 6, Executive summary.
  • 23
    WG3, Chapter 6, Executive summary.
  • 24
    WG3, SPM C.4.1, SPM E.2.2.
  • 25
    WG3, SPM C.1.2.WG2, SPM D.1.7.
  • 26
    WG2, SPM C.2.
  • 27
    WG3, SPM C.3.2.
  • 28
    WG3, SPM B.7
  • 29
    WG3, SPM C.2.2, SPM C.3
  • 30
    WG1, Figure 7
  • 31
    WG2, SPM B.6.1
  • 32
    WG3, SPM C.12.1
  • 33
    WG3, SPM Figure SPM 3
  • 34
    WG3, Figure SPM 3, C.4.3
  • 35
    WG3, Chapter 6, Executive summary
  • 36
    WG3, SPM Table TS.1
  • 37
    WG3, SPM B.3.5
  • 38
    WG3, SPM B.5.2
  • 39
    WG3, SPM B.5.2, E3.3

IPCC Sixth Assessment Report: Mitigation of climate change

by Leave a Comment

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has released the third of its four-part, Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) in April 2022. The Working Group III (AR6 WGIII) report is the most comprehensive review of how we can mitigate climate change since the 5th assessment (AR5) in 2014, and the IPCC’s three recent special reports (SR1.5 in 2018 and the 2019 SRCCL and SROCC). 1WGIII will be third of  four separate reports published in the AR6 cycle. ‘The Physical Science Basis’ which detailed the current state of the climate was published on 9 August 2021 and the second report ‘impacts, adaptation and vulnerability’ was released in March 2022.

The report has been ratified after a plenary negotiation in which governments formally approved the summary for policymakers, ensuring high credibility in both science and policy communities. The report covers a broad spectrum of topics, from mitigation pathways and in-depth sectoral analysis to finance, international cooperation, net-zero and carbon dioxide removal. For the first time in IPCC history, chapters dedicated to technology, innovation and demand-side measures are included.

This briefing covers some of the major developments in our knowledge of mitigation since the IPCC’s AR5 was published in 2014. Today, mitigation literature largely reflects the 2015 Paris Agreement, increasing net-zero commitments and the growing need for action from non-governmental stakeholders including businesses, industry and financial institutions.

1. Since AR5 greenhouse gas emissions have continued to climb

We are nowhere near on track to achieve the Paris targets of keeping warming below 2°C, and ideally 1.5°C. Current national climate plans (NDCs) will see us warm by about 2.7°C this century, or possibly even higher 2These numbers are based on pre-Glasgow estimates. If you add all pre-Glasgow net-zero pledges to the NDCs this brings the world on track for 2.2°C, according to UNEP (or about 2.1°C in IEA assessments), page 12, section 7 of the 2021 Emissions Gap Executive Summary..  If CO2 emissions continue at current rates, we will exhaust the remaining 1.5°C carbon budget in the early 2030s 3Most recent estimates show that only 440 Gt CO2 is left from 2020 to stand even a 50% chance of 1.5°C. Global emissions were over 40 Gt CO2 in 2019, and if annual emissions are similar in the next decade it will be used up in the 2030s.. The energy infrastructure from planned and current fossil fuels alone commits us to about 846 GtCO2 (more than double what’s left in our 1.5°C carbon budget) and every year we add more carbon-intensive infrastructure than we decommission. 

Of the greenhouse gases (GHGs), CO2 causes most warming due to its high concentration and long lifetime in the atmosphere. Despite efforts to reduce emissions, our burning of fossil fuels adds more CO2 to the atmosphere, pushing the cumulative atmospheric concentration to unsustainable highs. Between 1850-2019, coal, oil and gas accounted for ~66% of cumulative CO2 emissions, with land-use change responsible for about 32%. 

But since AR5, there has been greater recognition of increasing emissions of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). Both are potent GHGs that trap about 34 and 300 times more heat than CO2 respectively (over a 100 year period). Methane is responsible for almost a quarter of human-caused warming to date, and concentrations are increasing faster now than at any time since the 1980s. Today, methane emissions are two-and-a-half times above pre-industrial levels. The AR6 WGI SPM authors emphasised that “strong, rapid and sustained reductions” in methane emissions would have the dual impact of limiting “the warming effect resulting from declining aerosol pollution” and improving air quality.

Between 2008-2017, agriculture and waste contributed most to the rise, followed by the fossil fuel industry. However, estimating by exactly how much, and from where, methane emissions are increasing is a topic of continued research and debate. For example, some researchers have found that the role of North American shale gas (so called “fracking”) has been significantly underestimated in calculating the global methane emissions. 

Emissions of N2O have risen 20% from pre-industrial levels, with the fastest growth observed in the last 50 years, mainly due to nitrogen additions to croplands through fertilisers. 

In 2018, global GHG emissions were about 57% higher than in 1990 and about 43% higher than in 2000. Emissions continued to rise in 2019, when they reached about 59 GtCO2e. But in 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic led to a historical large drop in CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry. During the height of global lockdowns, daily emissions dropped by 17% compared to 2019, levels not seen since 2006, and people around the world were allowed a short respite from deadly air pollution. Since then, emissions have rebounded, and were the highest yet last year. However, research has shown that rebuilding the economy in a more green, sustainable, just and climate-centred way represents a far greater opportunity than the short, lockdown-triggered emissions break, which will have little impact in the long run.

2. Without a drastic boost in climate ambition, our hopes of  achieving the Paris Goals of 1.5°C and 2°C without “overshoot” are out of reach

We are increasingly likely to “overshoot” average global temperatures of 1.5°C and 2°C (meaning that global average temperature temporarily (on order of decades) exceeds the temperature target before reducing again. This can only occur if atmospheric GHG concentrations are lowered – and this is through carbon dioxide removal (CDR), which is by no means a given (see below)). Growing research shows that, for the same end of century temperature increase, overshooting is likely to lead to more climate damages (some of which are irreversible) – like biodiversity loss and extreme weather – than if we get there with no overshoot 4Zickfeld, K. and Herrington, T., 2015. and; Ricke, Katharine L., and Caldeira, K., 2014 and; Tachiiri, K., Hajima, T. and Kawamiya, M., 2019.. 

Delaying mitigation means we will have to cut more emissions each year to stay Paris-aligned by 2030. We already knew the dangers of delayed mitigation in 2014, when the IPCC stated that scenarios with high emissions through to 2030 would have higher long-term economic costs, and would “substantially increase the difficulty of the transition” and “narrow the range of options consistent with… 2°C”. Today, average annual emissions cuts needed to stay below 1.5°C are four times higher than they would have been if collective mitigation and ambition started in 2010, according to UNEP. This highlights the need to act fast.

Investment levels are also nowhere near to what we need to stay Paris aligned. The 2015 Paris Agreement recognised the key role finance plays in both mitigation and adaptation – it placed investors and financial commitments centre stage for climate policy and action. However, climate finance has only increased slightly since AR5, reaching about USD 579 billion in 2018/2017. This is about ten times less than the estimated USD 6.3 trillion needed every year by 2030 to stay Paris aligned. 

Since AR5, the split between public and private climate finance has remained relatively stable (about 44% public and 56% private in 2018). Private finance has, however, outpaced public finance in the energy sector, and increasingly so in transport, reflecting a more mature renewable energy market and the fact that projects are now perceived to be less risky. The private sector is expressing increasing concern over the risks of climate impacts, but climate-related financial risks remain underestimated by financial institutions and decision makers 5Some disclosure measures, like the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosure (TCFD) may also be largely ineffective, as the assumption that transparency will automatically lead investors to ‘rationally’ respond by moving climate finance from high- to low-carbon assets could be oversimplified..

3. The richest 1% emit more than twice the poorest 50%

Since AR5, there has been increased interest in the ‘national responsibility’ for climate change, as well as the links to other sustainability, development and social issues. The US is responsible for about 20% of cumulative historical emissions, followed by China, Russia, Brazil and Indonesia. Just looking at national emissions does not, however, complete the picture, as the unequal size, wealth and carbon intensity of populations need to be factored in. Looking at emissions relative to population size, developing countries tend to have lower per-capita emissions and, if emissions are normalised to population, China, Brazil and Indonesia do not even make the top 20. 

The richest 1% worldwide emit more than twice the combined share of the poorest 50%, according to UNEP. Activities that emit a lot, but only benefit a few, include flying and driving SUVs. For example, if emissions from SUVs were counted as a nation, it would rank 7th in the world. As COVID-19 caused carbon emissions to fall last year, the SUV sector continued to see emissions rise. In 2018, only 2% to 4% of people got on an international flight, and 1% of the global population are responsible for about half of CO2 emitted from all commercial flights. The aviation industry is responsible for 2.4% of global emission, as such these 1% users could be contributing about 450 million tonnes of CO2 each year – about the same as South Africa’s annual emissions. 

Research, including last month’s landmark AR6 WGII report, shows that climate change affects people differently by gender, race and ethnicity, and these all link to economic vulnerability. Marginalised groups have less access to energy, and use less. For example, women’s carbon footprints are generally lower than men’s, mostly due to reduced meat consumption and driving, though this varies across nations 6See reference 1, 2 and 3. But, even though women generally emit less, their inclusion in policy making can lead to better climate policy. Climate groups are now recognising that disadvantage is the result of many interacting systems of oppression.

4. But there is hope: since AR5 national and corporate net-zero commitments have exploded and renewable energy has continued to outperform forecasts

Since AR5, there has been a substantial growth in climate policy, legislation and treaties at both international, national and sub-national levels. Most importantly, in 2015, the Paris Agreement was signed. The Paris Agreement Article 4 seeks to achieve a “balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases”, which can be interpreted as net zero greenhouse gas emissions (not just CO2). Renewable energy has also continued to massively outperform forecasts, making it a post-AR5 success story. Just in 2020, the amount of new renewable electricity capacity added rose by 45% to 280 gigawatts, the largest year-on-year increase since 1999 (more in box below), while costs have fallen sharply in that time. And, more recently, the concept of ‘net-zero’ entered the policy arena in full force. 

In 2014, the IPCC was not directly using net-zero language, but concluded that limiting the cumulative emissions of GHGs to zero was key to stopping climate change. In 2018, the IPCC outlined that to limit warming to 1.5°C, CO2 emissions would need to fall by about 45% in 2030 (relative to 2010 levels), and global net-zero had to be reached around 2050. WG1 of AR6 (released in August 2021) outlined the need not only for a cut in CO2 emissions, but also strong reductions in other GHGs 7IPCC AR6 WGI D.1. In 2019, the UK became the first G7 economy to legislate for net-zero. Today, 136 countries with 85% of the world’s population, covering 88% of global emissions have set net zero targets, although the targets and timing of how they are delivered remain under criticism for being too vague. This 2021 paper sets out ways that governments could begin to add clarity and accountability; issues considered key to delivering net zero GHG emissions, in pursuit of the Paris targets.

What does achieving net-zero actually look like?

There are many scenarios assessing how we can get to net-zero, and we await the IPCC’s assessment to get an up-to-date, global view. However, some of the key points likely to appear are summarised here. 

Achieving the Paris goals requires rapid mitigation across the full range of GHGs. Scientists have shown that, even if CO2 emissions are Paris-aligned, ignoring methane emissions will lead to overshooting the Paris agreed temperature goals, while abating N2O emissions would help achieve the temperature targets as well as a suite of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). 

Renewable electrification is key. A consistent success story since AR5 is the rapid deployment and falling costs of Renewable Energy (RE), such as solar, wind and batteries, which have massively outpaced and exceeded the expert expectations outlined in AR5. But we still need to ramp up. The amount of solar PV and wind deployment has to be twice what has already been announced globally to stay on a 1.5°C trajectory, according to the IEA. We also need to boost funding to clean energy solutions, as many of the technologies needed for hard-to-abate sectors are still in development and annual investment into clean energy needs to triple to USD 3.6 trillion through 2030. 

Fossil fuel use needs to decline dramatically. Global coal emissions needed to have peaked in 2020, and all coal-fired power plants need to be shut by 2040 at the latest, a Climate Analytics analysis based on the IPCC’s 2018 report shows. For OECD nations, all coal use should be phased out by 2031. This was echoed by the IEA in 2021 – it concluded that for net-zero, all unabated coal and oil power plants need to be phased out by 2040. Increasing energy efficiency is also key. In the IEA’s net-zero compliant scenario, the energy intensity of the global economy decreases by 4% a year between 2020 and 2030 – more than double the average rate of the last decade.  

Some degree of carbon removal is needed. Net-zero is achieved when the emissions going into the atmosphere are balanced by those removed. It is possible to achieve global net-zero while still allowing for emissions in some sectors – as long as these ‘hard to abate’ emissions are also being removed and permanently stored. Methods of removal range from enhancing natural carbon drawdown through reforestation, restoration and the protection of nature, to ‘negative emissions technology’ like direct air capture (DAC) and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). In the last few years, more attention has been paid to the ‘net’ part of net-zero, as pretty much all published scenarios that bring us within 1.5°C or 2.0°C rely on some form of CDR. 

Transforming the Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) sector is crucial. Today, it accounts for nearly a quarter of global GHG emissions and sectoral emissions have been climbing in recent years. Livestock production and rice cultivation are the main culprits. The sector is also a carbon sink, as plants and biomass draw CO2 from the atmosphere when they grow. Transforming the sector can both reduce emissions – for example, by changing farming and livestock methods – as well as remove emissions from the atmosphere, including measures like planting more (and protecting existing) forests. However, reforestation and better land management alone will not be enough. Some estimates suggest that transforming the AFOLU sector could at most account for 30% of the mitigation needed to stay below 1.5°C. However, the recent hype that planting trees and investing in land can solve the climate crisis is risking delayed mitigation and greenwashing.

Urban planning needs to consider carbon emissions from the get go. The current scale and speed of urbanisation is unprecedented in human history, and since AR5 it has become even more clear that urban areas contribute the majority (about 70%) of the global footprint, posing an enormous challenge for climate mitigation. New urban planning presents a unique opportunity to reduce carbon lock-in. 

Many more aspects of mitigation and gaps in our knowledge will be explored by the IPCC in this report. For example, the IPCC will dedicate a chapter to demand-side mitigation for the first time, which will explore how behaviour and lifestyle changes can reduce emissions, like shifts in diets, transport, buildings and the efficient use of materials and energy. In general, scientists agree that systemic infrastructural and behavioral change will be part of the transition to a low-carbon society, but the feasibility and mitigation potential of demand-side measures remain a knowledge gap.

5. Looking ahead, transparency is key

Net-zero targets should not be seen as end-points, but rather as milestones on the path to negative emissions, milestones that require detailed roadmaps as well as short-term goals. NGOs, scientists and the public continue to demand mitigation plans and net-zero targets that are clear and transparent, asking policymakers, businesses and financiers to clarify the scope, fairness and approach to decarbonisation. 

Over the past years, integrated assessment models (IAMs) have been a critical tool for climate policymakers, but they have also come under intense scrutiny due to issues like the huge reliance on CDR, especially BECCS, in many scenarios. However, over reliance on IAMs have been criticised given its opaque design and economic assumptions which can result in modelling outcomes that overemphasise CDR. 

In a 2020 paper, the co-chairs of the upcoming WGIII report outlined how the IPCC has taken steps to increase transparency this time around. They said the new report will contain some notable criticisms of IAMs, including the uncertainties, CDR and limits to land. It is, however, important to note that the IPCC itself is not advocating for any scenarios, including those with large amounts of CDR. Instead, the IPCC findings are a reflection of the state of climate modelling, as well as previous emissions pathways and scenario research.

Is it possible to stay Paris aligned without carbon removal?

Many of the scenarios used in earlier IPCC reports (including the special report on 1.5C) relied heavily on negative emissions in the second half of the century. Modelled negative emissions were primarily achieved by inputting a large amount of BECCS and/or forest protection/planting in the future scenarios. 

The numbers for future CDR are often huge, though they vary across models and scenarios. For example, in the IPCC’s special report on 1.5°C, the cumulative carbon removal needed by the end of the century was estimated to be somewhere between 100 and 1000 billion tonnes of CO2. For perspective, we emit more than 40 billion tonnes a year now, so even in the very lowest scenario we would have to remove more than two years’ worth of global CO2 emissions. 

Academics and NGOs have also pointed to the fact that all methods of carbon removal come with side effects and trade-offs that are context and method dependent – such as the huge land areas needed for BECCS, or energy requirements for Direct Air Capture with Carbon Storage (DACCS) (a technology  which some scientist predict could remove tens of GtCO2 by the end of century). Land-based carbon removals also come with other trade-offs, such as increased competition for agricultural land and disruption of biodiversity. There has also recently been an increased recognition that unrealistically high carbon removal projections could be encouraging delayed action and greenwashing. 

In this report, the IPCC intends to explain the limitations and trade-offs of carbon removal carefully, while assessing the amount of CDR in many of the scenarios. There has also been a new wave of scientific literature looking at how to achieve the Paris goals with no carbon removal whatsoever. These pathways show us that net-zero without the ‘net’ (let’s call it ‘true zero’) requires much more rapid transformations of the energy system and larger near-term emissions cuts. These scenarios also lead to multiple other benefits (so-called ‘co-benefits’) like avoiding drastic land-use change, as well as benefiting food systems, biodiversity and the environment in the long-term.

6. Further reading and academic papers

1. Since AR5 greenhouse gas emissions have continued to climb

Explainers and reports 

Selected academic research studies and reviews  

2. A lack of ambitious mitigation has made us increasingly likely to ‘overshoot’ the Paris Goals of 1.5°C and 2°C.

Explainers and reports 

Selected academic research studies and reviews  

3. The richest 1% emit more than twice the poorest 50% 

Explainers and reports 

Selected academic research studies and reviews  

4. But there is hope: since AR5 national and corporate net-zero commitments have exploded and renewable energy has continued to outperform forecasts

Explainers and reports 

Selected academic research studies and reviews  

5. Looking ahead, transparency is key  

Explainers and reports 

Selected academic research studies and reviews  

  • 1
    WGIII will be third of  four separate reports published in the AR6 cycle. ‘The Physical Science Basis’ which detailed the current state of the climate was published on 9 August 2021 and the second report ‘impacts, adaptation and vulnerability’ was released in March 2022.
  • 2
    These numbers are based on pre-Glasgow estimates. If you add all pre-Glasgow net-zero pledges to the NDCs this brings the world on track for 2.2°C, according to UNEP (or about 2.1°C in IEA assessments), page 12, section 7 of the 2021 Emissions Gap Executive Summary.
  • 3
    Most recent estimates show that only 440 Gt CO2 is left from 2020 to stand even a 50% chance of 1.5°C. Global emissions were over 40 Gt CO2 in 2019, and if annual emissions are similar in the next decade it will be used up in the 2030s.
  • 4
    Zickfeld, K. and Herrington, T., 2015. and; Ricke, Katharine L., and Caldeira, K., 2014 and; Tachiiri, K., Hajima, T. and Kawamiya, M., 2019.
  • 5
    Some disclosure measures, like the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosure (TCFD) may also be largely ineffective, as the assumption that transparency will automatically lead investors to ‘rationally’ respond by moving climate finance from high- to low-carbon assets could be oversimplified.
  • 6
    See reference 1, 2 and 3
  • 7
    IPCC AR6 WGI D.1

IPCC WGIII report: Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS)

by Leave a Comment

This briefing summarises the main insights in the IPCC Working Group III report on Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS). The focus is on potential and feasibility of BECCS in climate mitigation, rather than the broader bioenergy sustainability topics.

Key points

  • BECCS can help to mitigate climate change, but it is not a silver bullet solution.
  • BECCS could have positive impacts, but there are many uncertainties, particularly when considering environmental and socio-economic issues.
  • BECCS is one of the heavily relied upon CDR methods used in climate models, but an area twice the size of Egypt could be needed to deploy BECCS in 2100 in pathways limiting warming to 1.5°C. Very large scale deployment would threaten food production and security, and damage ecosystems.
  • Delaying mitigation would put a lot of pressure on CDR, requiring large-scale deployment of BECCS to reduce the temperature overshoot, causing substantial land use change. Earlier mitigation would be essential to reduce the pressure on land and its associated impacts.

Bioenergy and BECCS: The basics

Bioenergy refers to energy products, such as fuels or electricity, that come from organic sources (e.g. waste, wood or crops). 1 Chapter 7, p. 77 It is often promoted as a ‘climate neutral’ solution, as in theory these organic sources only release the carbon dioxide (CO2) they had already absorbed when burnt. But, this characterisation depends on many assumptions, such as the type of feedstock used. Bioenergy could also help deliver other mitigation options, such as carbon sequestration from integrating trees into crop systems (e.g. agroforestry) that provide the feedstock for bioenergy.

When combined with carbon capture and storage (CCS), bioenergy is seen as a carbon dioxide removal (CDR) option. This is because the CO2 emitted is then captured and stored in geological, terrestrial, or ocean reservoirs, or in manufactured products. BECCS may also reduce net GHG emissions by displacing the use of fossil fuels with renewable biomass in the production of heat, electricity and fuels. 2Chapter 7, p. 77, Chapter 6. p.93

Benefits and risks of BECCS

The IPCC is careful when talking about BECCS. It stresses that it is a crucial CDR option, but its potential depends on many social and environmental considerations (e.g. the choice of feedstock, management practice, and deployment strategy and scale). The report does not assess all these options in-depth.

BECCS could have positive impacts, the IPCC says. But only if some strategies are followed to enhance its benefits, such as adopting management practices that protect carbon stocks. 3 Chapter 7, p.81 The use of feedstocks that do not need land (e.g. municipal organic waste or harvest residues) could also provide bioenergy at a significant, but limited, scale. 4 Chapter 7, p.78, Chapter 6, p. 40 These can reduce negative impacts associated with land use. Selecting crops that can produce both protein feed and biofuels could also reduce pressure to convert lands. 5Chapter 12, p. 103 Some technologies could generate co-benefits, such as anaerobic digestion of organic waste and wastewater, and those that convert indigestible biomass like algae into food and feed. 6Chapter 12, p. 103

If BECCS is poorly planned, however, it can “have adverse socio-economic and environmental impacts, including on biodiversity, food and water security, local livelihoods and on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, especially if implemented at large scales and where land tenure is insecure”. 7 SPM, p.47 Major scale-up of bioenergy production, for example, will need more than wastes/residues and cultivation on marginal lands. This will require more land and water, harming biodiversity and, potentially harming food security. Thus, “bioenergy systems may fail to deliver near-zero emissions depending on operating conditions and regional contexts”. 8Chapter 6, p.42

The IPCC says “it is therefore not possible to precisely determine the scale of bioenergy and BECCS deployment at which negative impacts outweigh benefits”. 9Chapter 7, p.77-78 “As a result, bioenergy carbon neutrality is debated… and the lifecycle emissions of BECCS remain uncertain and will depend on how effectively bioenergy conversion processes are optimised”. 10Chapter 6, p.42 The future of BECCS also depends on the roll-out of CCS technologies, it adds. 11Chapter 7, p.96 and chapter 7 , p. 6

Mitigation potential of BECCS

Bioenergy and BECCS can represent an important share of the total mitigation potential, the IPCC says, but conclusions on how big a share vary due to the large diversity of studies and their assumptions about where and how BECCS is deployed (e.g. the associated land use). 12Chapter 7, p.7 13Chapter 7, p.79 The IPCC concludes that:

  • The range of recent estimates for the technical bioenergy potential when constrained by food security and environmental considerations is 5–50EJ/yr by 2050 for bioenergy that uses residues for feedstocks, and 50–250 EJ/yr by 2050 for a dedicated biomass production system. 14Chapter 7, p.6 For context, 250 EJ/yr is equivalent to 20%–30% of global primary energy demand.
  • The global technical CDR potential for BECCS by 2050 (i.e. considering only the technical capture of CO2 and storage underground) is estimated at 0.5-11.3 billion tonnes of CO2 a year (GtCO2 a year). 15Excluding economic costs and/or sustainability concerns 16Chapter 12, p. 55.”These potentials do not include avoided emissions resulting from the use of heat, electricity and/or fuels provided by the BECCS system”. But, when considering cost effectiveness (less than USD100 per tonne of CO2-eq), the potential is reduced to 0.2- 9.9 GtCO2 a year. 17Chapter, 7, p.45 Currently, only 40 million tonnes of CO2 is captured a year via CCS, meaning we would need nearly a 150-fold increase in CCS capacity for this amount of BECCS. Moreover, most of the captured carbon today is used for enhanced oil recovery (EOR), rather than permanent geological storage. This undermines emissions cuts as emissions from burning recovered oil could more than offset the benefits of capturing the carbon dioxide in the first place, by a factor of up to three.

Therefore, the IPCC urges caution about these estimates as they reflect only biophysical and technological conditions. These estimates can be reduced when factoring in economic, environmental, socio cultural and institutional constraints. For example, the mitigation effect of BECCS could be reduced if models start to include the diminishing ability of land to remove CO2 from the atmosphere due to future climate change.

The role of BECCS in mitigation pathways

There has been “fervent debate” on the use of bioenergy with CCS in mitigation scenarios. 18Chapter 3.2.2 Reliance on it has been criticised for causing biodiversity loss, undermining food security, creating uncertain storage potential, excessive water use as well as creating the potential for temperature overshoot. 19Chapter 3, box 3.4 The overall land for bioenergy production is modelled to take place in tropical regions, where croplands for bioenergy displace land for food production (cropland and pasture) and other natural land. For example, in the 1.5°C mitigation pathway in Asia, bioenergy and forested areas together increase by about 2.1 million square kilometres – an area the size of Saudi Arabia – between 2020 and 2100, mostly at the cost of cropland and pasture. 20Chapter 7, figure 7.14 BECCS is also typically associated with delayed emissions reduction in the near-term. 21Chapter 3, box 3.4

Among CDR methods, BECCS is one the most common in climate models (i.e. integrated assessment models, or IAMs) to limit temperature rise to 2°C or lower. 22Afforestation and reforestation is also widely used. See here for more info. Currently, few models represent other options, such as biochar or soil carbon sequestration. In fact, all illustrative mitigation pathways (IMPs) from the WG3 report primarily BECCS (for comparison with other land CDR options and discussion of BECCS in models, see here).

Across the scenarios reviewed by the IPCC, in those likely to limit warming to 2°C or lower, the cumulative volumes of BECCS reach 328 (median values) GtCO2  respectively for the 2020-2100 period. Translated to annual volumes, the IPCC sees BECCS removing about 2.75 GtCO2 a year. 23 Chapter 12, p. 40 To put this into perspective, scientists predict that up to 10 GtCO2 will need to be removed annually to reach global emissions targets by 2050.

Many IAM pathways include large increases in cropland area to supply biomass for bioenergy and BECCS, with 199 (56-482) million hectares in 2100 in pathways limiting warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot. 24Chapter 3, p.6 To put this into perspective, 102 million hectares of land – an area the size of Egypt – have been converted to cropland since the start of the 21st century. 

Delaying mitigation would increase pressure on land because it would require large-scale deployment of CDR in the second half of the century to reduce temperature overshoot. The main CDR measures are BECCS and afforestation and reforestation because climate models use these measures as proxies for land-based mitigation. This will cause substantial land use change in 2050. Early mitigation reduces the amount of land required for this, though at the cost of larger land use transitions earlier in the century. Earlier action could also reduce climate impacts on agriculture and other land-mitigation options. 25Chapter 3, p.66

  • 1
     Chapter 7, p. 77
  • 2
    Chapter 7, p. 77, Chapter 6. p.93
  • 3
     Chapter 7, p.81
  • 4
     Chapter 7, p.78, Chapter 6, p. 40
  • 5
    Chapter 12, p. 103
  • 6
    Chapter 12, p. 103
  • 7
     SPM, p.47
  • 8
    Chapter 6, p.42
  • 9
    Chapter 7, p.77-78
  • 10
    Chapter 6, p.42
  • 11
    Chapter 7, p.96 and chapter 7 , p. 6
  • 12
    Chapter 7, p.7
  • 13
    Chapter 7, p.79
  • 14
    Chapter 7, p.6
  • 15
    Excluding economic costs and/or sustainability concerns
  • 16
    Chapter 12, p. 55.”These potentials do not include avoided emissions resulting from the use of heat, electricity and/or fuels provided by the BECCS system”.
  • 17
    Chapter, 7, p.45
  • 18
    Chapter 3.2.2
  • 19
    Chapter 3, box 3.4
  • 20
    Chapter 7, figure 7.14
  • 21
    Chapter 3, box 3.4
  • 22
    Afforestation and reforestation is also widely used. See here for more info.
  • 23
     Chapter 12, p. 40
  • 24
    Chapter 3, p.6
  • 25
    Chapter 3, p.66

Reducing methane emissions is key to the climate fight

by Leave a Comment

With the upcoming IPCC WGI report set to include a chapter on short-lived climate forcers for the first time, this briefing asks why are methane emissions so important to climate change?

Human greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are driving climate change. Since the pre-industrial period, these emissions have caused all of the earth’s observed warming, with carbon dioxide (CO2) responsible for the majority of it. After CO2, methane (CH4) is the biggest contributor to climate change. The new IPCC report (working group 1 of AR6) is likely to focus on the role of methane in driving climate change. 

Methane emissions are a huge problem because while the gas only stays in the atmosphere for about nine years, it has 28 times more warming power than carbon dioxide over 100 years. Methane concentrations are increasing faster now than at any time since the 1980s, reaching more than two-and-a-half times pre-industrial levels. This is well above the safe limits outlined by the IPCC in AR5. Methane is now responsible for almost a quarter of warming, bringing us closer to breaching the 1.5°C temperature target. Cutting human-caused methane emissions is one of the most cost-effective ways to rapidly reduce the rate of warming and limit temperature rise to 1.5°C.

What are the key emitting sectors and mitigation opportunities?

Methane emissions come from natural sources, such as wetlands, but more than half of total global methane emissions come from human activities. Three sectors – agriculture (40% of human-caused emissions), fossil fuels (35%) and waste (20%) account for the majority of human methane emissions. Almost a third (32%) of agricultural methane emissions come from livestock production 1 Estimating methane emissions is an ongoing topic of research, particular in the livestock sector as the amount of methane emitted depends on many factors, such as the number of animals or the type of feed consumed.. Oil and gas extraction, processing and distribution account for 23% of methane emissions in the fossil fuel sector and coal mining accounts for 12% of emissions. Landfills and wastewater comprise 20% of methane emissions in the waste sector. 

Many cost-effective mitigation measures are readily available, such as reducing emissions that escape  along the natural gas supply-chain, better treatment of solid waste, and improving livestock and crop management (see table below for some examples). Mitigation options across the three sectors represent some of the best levers to reduce warming and its climate impacts over the next 30 years. In particular, the fossil fuel industry has the greatest potential for methane cuts by 2030, according to the UN – up to 80% of oil and gas measures and up to 98% of coal measures could be implemented at negative or low cost. But action across all three sectors is needed to ensure emissions are in line with 1.5ºC. All together, cutting methane  in those three sectors could reduce human methane emissions by 45% by 2030. This would avoid nearly 0.3°C of global warming by the 2040s, helping to keep temperatures below 1.5ºC while preventing 255,000 premature deaths and 26 million tonnes of crop losses globally.

Policy measures to reduce methane emissions in top three emitting sectors
Source: Global Methane Assessment, 2021; IPCC SRCCL report 2019 – chapter 6.

Methane and Agriculture: An overlooked problem

Most methane emissions (32%) from agriculture come from raising livestock via enteric fermentation – a ruminant animal’s natural digestive process – and manure. Other key agricultural sources are landfills, waste and rice cultivation. The upcoming IPCC AR6 report is expected to confirm the link between livestock production and increased methane emissions. 

While countries recognise agriculture as a source of methane emissions, most do not take concrete action to cut them. In fact, methane emissions from agriculture are expected to continue to grow as demand for meat increases, particularly in low and middle-income countries. 
Given agriculture’s huge footprint, actions to reduce methane emissions in the sector are key for reaching climate targets. A robust evidence base indicates that reduced food waste and loss, improved livestock management, and eating fewer animal products could reduce emissions by 65–80 million tonnes a year over the next few decades 2In the livestock sector, options differ between production systems. For example, improving management via feed additives, vaccines can reduce enteric fermentation in more intensive systems, such as dairy in the US. Manure management is more applicable in farms where manure can be easily collected, such as in smallholder, mixed crop-livestock systems.. Widespread adoption of such measures could bring anthropogenic methane emissions in line with those in 1.5ºC scenarios. But, governments should carefully choose policies because some models show that achieving very low emissions per kilogram of protein involves large-scale industrialised agriculture. This is problematic as adopting industrial agriculture methods come with many social and environmental impacts that are not captured in models and can increase GHG emissions. If these were accounted for, industrial agriculture would put the 1.5ºC target out of reach. Farming systems that shift away from industrial agriculture, such as agroforestry and organic farming, not only help to reduce emissions of all GHG, but also improve farmers’ livelihoods, food security and biodiversity.

What have governments done to reduce methane emissions?

Now more than ever, global action on methane emissions is needed. But governments have often failed to cut emissions, partly due to a lack of reliable emissions data and reporting from the industries themselves. Meanwhile, countries’ climate targets – known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs) – only address methane in general terms, without a clear target or strategies to reduce emissions. Only nine of the 174 countries that have submitted NDCs set a separate target for methane emissions. Lack of measurable targets to abate methane emissions is apparent especially in the agricultural sector. Close to 80% of countries (148 out of 189) that have submitted NDCs include agriculture, but NDC targets are vague. Most (128 out of 148 countries or 86%) include the sector in overall economic or broader targets and do not elaborate on concrete actions to reduce emissions from farming. Very few also set targets in relation to other parts of the food system that emit methane, such as adopting sustainable diets. As a result, the potential to reduce global emissions of methane remains largely untapped.

Decarbonisation strategies without methane-specific policies are insufficient to keep warming below 1.5ºC . These strategies – which target carbon dioxide –  only achieve about 30% of the methane reductions needed over the next 30 years in a 2ºC scenario, for example. Moreover, cutting methane emissions now is more cost effective as mitigation costs increase with delayed action. If countries abate methane emissions by 2030, costs could be less than USD 600 per tonne of methane, especially in the waste and coal sectors in most regions. In 2050, costs could be roughly 50% higher than 2030. At the same time, without relying on future, massive-scale deployment of unproven carbon removal technologies, expansion of natural gas infrastructure and current levels of livestock farming is incompatible with keeping warming to 1.5°C.

Resources

  • 1
     Estimating methane emissions is an ongoing topic of research, particular in the livestock sector as the amount of methane emitted depends on many factors, such as the number of animals or the type of feed consumed.
  • 2
    In the livestock sector, options differ between production systems. For example, improving management via feed additives, vaccines can reduce enteric fermentation in more intensive systems, such as dairy in the US. Manure management is more applicable in farms where manure can be easily collected, such as in smallholder, mixed crop-livestock systems.

Follow Us