By Somit Dasgupta
The existing pandemic that has witnessed falling GDP all more than the globe in 2020 (with the exception of China) has had one positive impact, and that is falling carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The Climate Transparency Report (CTR) published in November 2020 stated that the GDP of G20 nations is projected to lower by about 4% in 2020, which will lead to a lower in power-associated CO2 emissions by about 7.5%.
A equivalent sentiment was expressed in the IEA’s World Economic Outlook (2020) which pointed out that CO2 emissions will fall by 7% in 2020. The fall in demand for fuels would, on the other hand, differ, becoming 8% for oil, 7% for coal and 3% for organic gas. Generation from renewable sources, on the contrary, will register an boost. The G20 nations, incidentally, account for about 85% of the world’s GDP and 80% of CO2 emissions and, as a result, any analyses produced on the basis of G20 information is a great approximation of what is taking place in the globe.
The fall in CO2 emissions, of course, will be a short-term phase and appears to have bottomed-out currently in nations like China, these have currently exceeded the pre-pandemic levels. According to the CTR, the reality that 30% of the stimulus offered by many governments immediately after the pandemic was concentrated in power-intensive industries basically helped in a sharp boost in emissions.
In a longer time horizon, as a result, the globe continues on its suicidal development path, emitting about 36 Gt (2019) of CO2 every single year only on account of fossil fuel burning. The current announcement produced by the impending administration in the US to re-join the Paris Agreement has, of course, rekindled some hope. Considering the reality that the US is the second biggest emitter (5.4 Gt in 2018) and the biggest in cumulative terms (about 400 Gt, becoming 25% of the world’s total), its exclusion from the Paris Agreement would imply a positive failure of the climate transform movement.
There are research which show that to limit our temperature rise to 1.5-degree Celsius by 2100 compared to pre-industrial instances, we must have no more than 430 ppm of CO2 concentration, and the corresponding figure for a 2-degree Celsius rise is 450 ppm. Considering the reality that we are currently at about 412 ppm in 2019 and adding about 2 ppm every year (based on a rise of about .6% per year in the course of the final decade), one has only about 10-20 year window to stem the rot. These figures are, on the other hand, indicative considering the fact that there are quite a few estimates and there is wide divergence among them.
More than one hundred nations have announced their intention to attain the net zero stage, to be attained by 2050. China has announced that it will be net zero by 2060. Bhutan and Surinam, incidentally, are two nations that are currently net zero. Many cities and large corporations as well have announced that they would turn net zero in the years to come. However, the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) submitted by the nations are not in sync with net zero status. Practically all of them will want to be revised.
In reality, as of now, the INDCs—assuming that all the targets will be met—will nonetheless lead to a rise in temperature of about 3-degree Celsius. The CTR had categorised the INDCs of all the nations into separate buckets of becoming ‘critically insufficient’, ‘highly insufficient’, ‘insufficient’ and ‘2oC compatible’. India is the only nation that was identified to be ‘2oC compatible’ and all other nations are ‘insufficient’ of varying degrees. To give a couple of examples, Russia and the US are ‘critically insufficient’ China and Japan are ‘highly insufficient’ whereas Australia, Brazil, Canada and the EU are ‘insufficient’.
The methodology followed for this categorisation is exceptionally complicated and can’t be elaborated in this write-up. It is reported that 71 nations (such as 27 nations of the EU) representing 28.3% of international emissions have submitted new or updated INDCs. In addition, there are about 82 nations representing 32.7% of international emissions who have stated their intention to boost ambition or action (not submitted as however) in new or updated INDCs.
There are a lot of nations, such as India, who have not pointed out something however with regards to revised INDCs. According to the Paris Agreement, all nations are anticipated to revise their INDCs every single 5 years, introducing stiffer targets progressively.
India’s INDC target had stated that its emissions intensity (i.e. CO2 emissions per unit of GDP) will be 33-35% decrease in 2030 compared to the 2005 figure, and also that India’s energy producing capacity (and not generation) from non-fossil sources will be 40% of the total capacity. India is properly on its way to meet its INDC target considering the fact that the second Biennial Update Report of 2018 (providing information till 2014) mentions that 21% reduction in emissions intensity has currently been accomplished more than the period 2005-14 (as against a target of 33-35% reduction more than the period 2005-30).
India’s renewable capacity addition has genuinely picked up post-2015, so if one was to measure reduction in emissions intensity now, we would most likely locate a substantial reduction considering the fact that the final assessment working with information for 2014. On the generation capacity from non-fossil fuels, we have currently reached a figure of about 38% and this is only going to get far better more than time. So the initial impression one gets is, possibly, the target was as well soft and that we could have completed far better regardless of the reality that India is the only nation which has been observed as ‘2oC compatible’. This is one thing we can preserve in thoughts though fixing our revised targets in the next INDC which was due in 2020.
So what must be our revised INDC target? Obviously, it has to be stiffer than the existing targets in accordance with the Paris Agreement, but it is not the intention of this write-up to quantify what the target must be. India will want to continue working with emissions intensity as the selected parameter (as against absolute reduction in emissions) considering the fact that this would acknowledge the reality that offered India’s level of improvement, absolute emissions will rise till we are at par with created nations.
China, incidentally, is a further nation which utilized emissions intensity as the selected parameter. Most of the other nations, such as the EU, Australia, Russia and the US speak of absolute reduction in emissions. On the concern of laying a target for renewables, we want to transform our strategy and use ‘generation’ as the parameter alternatively of ‘capacity’.
The trouble is that considering the fact that the utilisation of renewable capacity is significantly decrease than traditional capacity, working with generation figures will give a far better concept of renewable penetration. A solar or wind generation plant may well use 20% to 35% of the capacity, but a coal-based plant can conveniently operate at 85%. Just to give an instance, although our renewable capacity is just about 24%, in terms of generation its contribution is only about 10%.
So, all eyes are now for the revised INDC of India which may well be released just just before COP 26, to be held in Glasgow towards the finish of this year.
The author is former member, CEA, and presently senior going to fellow, ICRIER. Views are private