The global race to remove carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from our atmosphere is in full swing, and the world’s major governments, scientists, and heads of industry all agree that urgent action is necessary to avoid further global warming. But, where does the UK and other big global players currently stand in its efforts towards a low carbon economy? What actions are being taken, and where are we in the race to net zero?
Some of the world’s most renowned nations have laws and policies in place to help tackle climate change. Many are enthusiastic and willing to invest billions of dollars, time, and infrastructure in the race to net zero. But how has each region specifically decided to tackle the climate crisis and have they gone far enough?
What does ‘net zero’ mean?
Net zero means reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as much as possible and balancing out any that remain by removing an equivalent amount.
There are several greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane. CO2 is released in a number of ways, such as when oil, gas, and coal are burned in homes, factories and to power transport. Methane is often produced through agriculture and food waste in landfills. These gases cause global warming by trapping the sun’s energy in what is called the ‘greenhouse effect’ Meanwhile, rapid deforestation across the world means there are fewer trees and plants to absorb CO2.
Under the 2015 Paris Agreement, 197 countries agreed to keep future global temperature rises below 1.5 °C to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Scientists say to achieve this, net zero must be reached by 2050.
But UN Secretary-General António Guterres recently urged all countries to bring forward their net zero targets by a decade after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), made up of the world’s leading climate scientists, set out the final part of its sixth assessment report with a comprehensive review of the climate crisis and came up with one clear message: act now, or it will be too late.
Would net zero mean a complete end to CO2 emissions?
Not all emissions can be reduced to zero, so those that remain have to be compensated for by removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. This is known as “offsetting”. Natural offsetting methods include halting deforestation, planting new trees and restoring peatlands – although there may not be enough space on the planet for the number required.
Carbon capture and storage is another potential solution. This involves using machinery to remove CO2 from the air, then solidifying it and burying it underground or under the sea. However, the technology is still emerging and remains very expensive.
What has the UK pledged to do?
The UK government recently released plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions as part of its strategy to reach net zero by 2050. The strategy, called ‘Powering Up Britain’, focuses on boosting clean energy production and the government says it will reduce the UK’s contribution to global warming and lower electricity prices. However, the plans have been criticised for not going further.
The government was forced to release a new net zero strategy after the High Court ruled that the original plan did not contain enough detail and breached the government’s legal obligations under the Climate Change Act.
The new plan includes measures such as:
- Insulating 300,000 of the UK’s worst insulated homes as part of a £1bn energy efficiency programme
- Aiming to remove between 20m and 30m tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere by 2030
- Providing more than £350m for electric vehicle charging facilities
- Aiming to produce 25% of the UK’s electricity through nuclear power by 2050
- Accelerating the planning process for wind farms and solar energy sites
However, many climate experts have criticised the strategy for lacking significant new policies or extra investment.
What will net zero mean for the inhabitants?
While governments act as the broader lever to direct national change, companies and individuals will also have to play a part to help meet the target.
For individuals, this could include choosing renewable specific energy providers, swapping to an electric vehicle, or replacing existing fossil fuel-based heat sources with heat pumps.
For companies, this means reviewing the entire value chain (from suppliers to customers) for areas to decarbonise, setting targets, and implementing reduction methods such as on-site renewables, operational efficiencies and cleaner supply chains.
What have other countries promised?
Around 140 countries have pledged to reach net zero – covering about 90% of global emissions. However, not all have set 2050 as their goal. Some have a later date.
US Inflation Reduction Act
The US is the second-biggest carbon emitter in the world and in August 2022, President Joe Biden announced and signed into law a green investment package called the Inflation Reduction Act. The act aims to spur investment in green technology in the United States by devoting $369bn in subsidies through grants, loans and tax credits to public and private entities.
During Donald Trump’s presidency, both the EU and the UK government were critical of the US for failing to cooperate in global efforts to meet environmental targets. So why has the EU been so critical of the IRA that is expected to reduce US net greenhouse gas emissions down to 40% below 2005 levels?
The main objection comes from the fact that the tax credits given out by the IRA to green industries are conditional on production and final assembly being based in the US. For the US, the advantages of this approach are clear. But for Europe, many leaders raised concerns that these green subsidies could make the US a leader in green tech at Europe’s expense and help in the race to net zero.
The US IRA is expected to increase battery, solar panel, and wind turbine production in America, creating new factories and millions of new green jobs in the country.
Additionally, it should help the US to drag itself away from energy dependence on China, which owns many critical raw materials necessary for the production of new green technology. The legislation will force producers to rework their supply chains away from China due to requirements for a high percentage of components of these green technologies, in particular lithium-ion batteries, to be made in the US or by a country with which the US has signed a free-trade agreement.
EU Net Zero Industry Act
The EU, the third-biggest emitter of CO2, also has a 2050 net zero target. It recently announced its own green investment package, called the Net Zero Industry Act.
The proposed regulation is a key part of the European Green Deal Industrial Plan — the bloc’s response to the Inflation Reduction Act mentioned above— and aims to ensure that at least 40% of the bloc’s demand for clean tech is made domestically by 2030.
The proposal sets out targets for technologies deemed necessary to decarbonise the bloc’s economy, a move aimed at preventing the EU from deepening its reliance on third countries like China.
Talks on the proposal went down to the wire, as commissioners sought to resolve a fight over whether to include nuclear energy. The final text is ambiguous. Nuclear energy is not included in a list of “strategic net zero technologies” — detailed in an annex to the legal text — that can benefit from faster permitting and easier access to funding.
But elsewhere in the text, a formal definition of net zero technologies includes “advanced technologies to produce energy from nuclear processes with minimal waste from the fuel cycle” and “small modular reactors.”
Among the technologies designated as “strategic” are solar photovoltaic, onshore and offshore wind, battery and storage, heat pumps and geothermal energy, electrolysers and fuel cells, biomethane, carbon capture and storage and grid technologies.
At the same time, the Commission also released its Critical Raw Materials Act proposal — which aims to shore up the bloc’s supply of the critical minerals needed to build green tech — and a proposal for a European Hydrogen Bank, which aims to boost renewable hydrogen production and imports.
China’s plans
China, the globe’s greatest GHG emitter, is aiming to reach net zero emissions by 2060. This will require trillions of dollars to be invested in green and low-carbon industries, and an understanding of the country’s transition pathway.
According to Zhang Xiliang, a carbon neutrality analysis expert from Tsinghua University, China will need to:
- Derive more than 80% of its energy from non-fossil fuels by 2060. This will require coal, oil and gas consumption to peak by 2025, 2030 and 2035 respectively, energy efficiency to continue to improve until 2035, and carbon capture, utilisation and storage to scale up.
- Expand its carbon market to cover 70% of the energy-related carbon emissions.
- Price carbon at least US$10- US$13 per tonne during its 14th five-year plan (between 2021-2025) and at US$100 per tonne by 2050, to encourage emitters to reduce their carbon emissions.
Many Chinese and developing market financial institutions find it difficult to set 2050 net zero targets as their national net zero goal is by 2060 or even later, according to China Green Finance Committee Chairman Ma Jun. As a result, no major Chinese financial institutions have joined the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero.
China’s green finance policies and practices have largely focused on environmental considerations while overlooking social ones. Human rights specialists and investors agreed that to be just, China’s net zero transition must consider social issues and human rights and should include dialogue with people that may be negatively impacted.
What are the problems with the net zero target?
There’s controversy about how some countries might try to reach net zero. For instance, country A might record lower emissions if it shuts down energy-intensive industries such as steel production.
But if country A then imports steel from country B, it’s effectively transferred its carbon emissions to country B instead of reducing the sum total of greenhouse gases. There are schemes that enable rich countries to offset their emissions by paying poorer countries to switch to cleaner fuels.
However, some climate scientists worry such arrangements could let wealthier nations avoid reducing their own fossil fuel usage, and it’s hard to know whether initiatives funded to offset emissions elsewhere represent the actual carbon reductions advertised.
Is the World on track to reach net zero emissions on time?
In short, no. Despite the enormous benefits of climate action to date, progress is happening far too slowly for the world to hold the temperature rise to 1.5 °C. The UN finds that climate policies currently in place point to a 2.8 °C temperature rise by the end of the century.
What needs to happen to achieve net zero emissions?
To achieve net zero emissions, rapid transformation will be required across all global systems — from how we power our economies, to how we transport people and goods and feed a growing population.
For example, in pathways to 1.5 °C, zero-carbon sources will need to supply 98%-100% of electricity by 2050. Energy efficiency and fuel-switching measures are critical for reducing emissions from transportation. Improving the efficiency of food production, changing dietary choices, restoring degraded lands and reducing food loss and waste also have significant potential to reduce emissions.
Additionally, action must be taken to reverse course in cases where change is at a standstill or headed in the wrong direction entirely. For instance, efforts to phase out unabated coal remain well off-track and must decline six times faster by 2030. The world also needs to halt deforestation and increase tree cover gain two times faster by 2030.
It is critical that the structural and economic transition toward net zero is approached in a just manner, especially for workers tied to high-carbon industries. Indeed, the costs and benefits of transitioning to a net-zero emissions economy must be distributed equitably.
The good news is that most of the technologies needed to unlock net zero are already available and increasingly cost-competitive with high-carbon alternatives. Solar and wind now provide the cheapest power available for most of the world. Markets are waking up to these opportunities and to the risks of a high-carbon economy, and they are shifting accordingly.
Investments in carbon removal techniques are also necessary. The different pathways assessed by the IPCC to achieve 1.5 °C all rely on carbon removal to some extent. Removing CO2 from the atmosphere will compensate for emissions from sectors in which the race to net zero emissions is more difficult, such as aviation or cement production.
Will the globe hit net zero targets?
Global momentum for setting net zero targets is growing quickly, with key economies like China, the United States, India and the European Union articulating such commitments. Bhutan was the first country to set a net-zero target in 2015. Now over 90 countries, representing nearly 80% of global emissions, are covered by a net-zero target.
Climate Watch’s Net-Zero Tracker shows how these targets were set, such as through nationally determined contributions (NDCs), long-term low GHG emissions development strategies (long-term strategies), domestic laws, policies, or high-level political pledges from heads of state or other cabinet members.
The tracker includes information on the scope of national net zero targets, providing details about the GHGs and sectors covered by each, the extent to which the target relies on international offsets and more.
Are current targets going far enough?
The real challenge remains the high-emitting countries. High emitters have no time left before they must rapidly reduce emissions, and they also cannot ignore the tail end of their emissions. By tackling all emissions, they would pay the learning-curve costs for solutions that would eventually trickle down to the poor, including carbon capture and sequestration, direct air capture, green hydrogen, and so on.
The biggest problem isn’t the ambition to come to zero, but how we’re planning to get there. Most people understand climate change and want to avoid catastrophic outcomes that come with it, but are they willing to shift their lifestyles and spending patterns? Unless we are cautious in accounting norms, we risk greenwashing, especially given how many Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) funds are currently set up.
The third-largest emitter, India, has currently pledged net zero by 2070 and the largest emitter China is aiming for 2060, showing the lack of unity on what the deadline should be to reach this critical target. Everyone must reach zero — but the focus should also be on what we’re doing in the short term. India should focus on peaking coal and decarbonising its electricity sector. Normalised for scale, it already has the most ambitious renewable energy targets in the world for 2030.
Net zero pledges should be enhanced with details and given tight accounting norms, and high emitters should face stricter norms and earlier timelines. As they accelerate their reductions, innovation and finance should flow to low emitters, and all countries can become even more ambitious in lowering their cumulative emissions. A focus on the area under the curve can also make the global race to net zero more equitable.
