By Somit Dasgupta
When it comes to international warming, it is not just carbon dioxide (CO2) that we speak about, but we also consist of other greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as methane, nitrous oxide and a handful of fluorinated gases. If we add up all GHGs in terms of their prospective to make the planet warmer, no doubt CO2 is the most dominant, estimated at about 76%. While CO2 can stay in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, the lifespan of gases such as methane is about 12 years and that of nitrous oxide is about 114 years. Fluorinated gases can survive for more than 250 years in the atmosphere.
Since the CO2 is the most dominant, when we speak of climate transform difficulties, we have a tendency to speak of CO2 only. Besides, the estimates of CO2 are more precise and up to date when compared to other GHGs. The International Energy Agency (IEA) maintains detailed information on CO2 emissions on a countrywide/sector basis which are reasonably up to date as figures for 2019 for most nations are currently out there on their web-site. According to the IEA, the G20 nations collectively accounted for 85% of the CO2 emissions for 2019, and this figure was essentially about 92% in 1990. If we look at person nation CO2 emissions for 2019 (2018 for some nations because 2019 was not out there), it ranged from 171 MTCO2e (Argentina) to 9,802 MTCO2e (China). There are only 5 nations whose yearly CO2 emissions are more than 1,000 MTCO2e, and these are China (9,802), the USA (4,766), India (2,309), Russia (1,587) and Japan (1,066). These 5 nations account for pretty much 70% of the emissions from G20 nations, and about 58% of the world’s emissions.
Much of the climate transform debate, having said that, is about which parameter to use—the absolute emissions or per capita emissions, because it has various implications for various nations. In terms of per capita, amongst the G20 nations, Australia and Canada emerge as the nations with the highest figure (about 15.3 tCO2), whereas India has the lowest per capita emission (1.7 tCO2). With a per capita world typical of 4.4 tCO2, there are only 5 G20 nations whose emissions are much less than this (Argentina, Brazil, India, Indonesia and Mexico).
How significant a nation is about its carbon emissions can be judged by what are the targets it has kept for itself in its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). The NDCs have been to be filed by all nations who are party to the Paris Agreement of 2015 which would cite the methods the nation proposes to take to tackle international warming. The NDCs are also supposed to be revised each 5 years, bringing in stiffer targets. While about 191 NDCs have been filed following the Paris Agreement, the next round was due in 2020 but has gotten delayed for the reason that of the pandemic. It would be intriguing to note that only eight nations have filed their second NDCs and the only G20 nation to have accomplished so is Argentina. The other nations that have filed are Grenada, Marshall Islands, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, Suriname, Tonga and the UAE.
Many of the G20 nations, having said that, have filed what is termed as an updated version of the very first NDC. What is the distinction amongst the updated version of the very first NDC and the second NDC is not clarified by the UNFCCC, the UN entity developed to monitor climate transform. A fast reading of the updated version of the NDCs does not genuinely inspire self-confidence as to irrespective of whether we are genuinely significant about international warming. While some nations/regions have introduced stiffer targets (like Brazil, the EU and the UK), several other people have created no adjustments in their targets (like Australia, Japan, Mexico, Canada and Russia). The remaining G20 nations have not even created any fresh NDC document till now, which contains China, the US and India.
The most up-to-date buzzword for climate transform difficulties is ‘net zero’. Simply place, it implies that what ever carbon footprints that one is placing into the atmosphere is getting neutralised by carbon sinks which absorb CO2 (the instance getting afforestation) or getting sucked out and stored (the instance being the carbon capture, utilisation and storage technologies, or CCUS). Several G20 nations have announced their intention to turn net zero by 2050/2060. While some have currently passed laws to this impact (like the UK and France), there are other people who have proposed legislations (like the EU, Canada and South Korea). Then there are other people who have quoted about their wish to turn net zero by 2050/2060 in some policy document (like China, Germany, Japan and the US), and lastly there are the ones who have not however provided any indication of turning net zero (India getting one such instance).
The race to net zero by 2050/2060 has place a lot of stress on India to declare equivalent ambitions. There are, of course, differing views on this. Some really feel that it would be not possible for India to turn net zero by 2050/2060, whereas some other people really feel that it is at least technically feasible. While no judgement is getting passed irrespective of whether India can do it or not, some details want to be highlighted. First, just before turning net zero, one has to attain the peak emission level, and several of the G20 nations (13 of them) reached their peak lengthy back (ranging from 1990 to 2017). G20 nations that are however to peak consist of India, China, Australia, Indonesia and Mexico. South Korea peaked in 2018 and, therefore, it is also early to say something. Second, just for the reason that quite a few nations have declared their ambition of turning net zero does not imply that they are effectively on their way to attain this. The truth is that the NDCs which exist as on date clearly fall quick of all that is essential to be accomplished to turn net zero. In truth, it is mentioned that, barring India, all the other NDCs are not even 2-degree-Celsius-compliant, what to speak of 1.5-degree Celsius.
To conclude, it would be irrational to anticipate all the nations to attain net zero level of emissions by 2050/2060 provided the truth that they are at various points of financial improvement with a big population not getting access to simple power requirements. This is not to recommend that nations like India really should do absolutely nothing. We have to hold striving on how to cut down our dependence on fossil fuels and work on other places like minimizing our power intensity and discover possibilities of adopting storage technologies and material reuse. We would also want to concentrate on our renewable capacity addition targets and guarantee that these targets are essentially met. It is no secret that we seem to be slipping in meeting our target of getting a renewable capacity of 175 GW by 2022.
The author is senior going to fellow, ICRIER, and former member (Economic & Commercial), CEA