A Summary Of The IPCC Report - Mitigation Of Climate Change 2022

This body of work picks up from the previous working group II report. Its focus is on mitigation. This part of the AR6 series takes place in an environment of new climate policies and agreements, changing international landscape governing climate i.e. the UN Climate Change, Paris Agreement and Kyoto Protocol. There is also a sizeable increase in the role on non-state actors and increasing links between mitigation, adaptation and sustainable development. Notably, this document takes into consideration socio-economic factors in mitigation.

Emissions of greenhouse gases have risen since 2010 to 2020, and collectively greenhouse gases amounts have increased in the air since 1850. Carbon dioxide is the highest, followed by methane and fluorinated gases. In fact, all classes of ghgs (greenhouse gases) have recorded increases.

The carbon budget left to hit 1.5 degrees of warming is 500GtCo2 equivalent (gigatonnes of carbon dioxide) with 50% probability, from 2020 going forward. The budget left for 2 degrees is 1150 GtCo2 with a 67% probability. Only a fifth of the total carbon budget is left, 80% has been used.

Emissions of carbon across all sectors have increased with energy at 34%, industry at 24%, AFOLU[1] recording 22%, transport (15 %) and buildings (6%). Improving utilization of energy has reduced emissions but the impact lessened by the accrued amounts of rising ghgs from economic activity. Cities and urban areas record an ever rising share of emissions, at 72% of global total in 2020, though energy intensity is going down. Developed countries have the highest per capita emissions and least developed countries (LDCs, 0.4%), small island states (SIDS, 0.5%) recording the least emissions from fossil fuel and industry use.

A tenth (10%) of households with highest per capita emissions contribute 34-45% of household emissions from consumption on a global scale while half (50%) of global households at the bottom contribute only 13-15%. 18 countries have managed to cut emissions and keep them low consistently.

Low emission technologies have grown consistently with costs dropping since 2010. Solar is down by 85%, wind by 55% while lithium ion batteries have decreased in cost by 85%. Uptake of these technologies is still not consistently universal on a planet-wide scale.

It’s important and possible to reduce energy poverty and increase energy access without increasing emissions.

Comprehensive and increasing knowledge of climate action has led to governance and policy geared towards low emissions technologies.

Use of digitalization for example remote sensing, artificial intelligence and robotics help in energy management but can have negative effects such as on labour movements and electronic waste.

The climate pacts to date (Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement) have gone a long way to slow growth of emissions which would have happened without these agreements. They have given a framework for climate mitigation on which basis local and national governments have initiated climate action.

Laws and policy have grown. 56 countries matching 53% of global emissions now have strong mitigation laws in place. Carbon taxes and emission trading schemes now cover a quarter of all emissions and this is growing.

Policy on reducing deforestation, promoting energy efficiency and increased use of clean technology are some of the ways emissions have been avoided.

A natural ecosystem (Aimee/iwaria)

In terms of finance, climate finance increased between 2013-2019 but growth slackened in 2018. Majority is towards mitigation, but is unevenly distributed and concentrated in certain regions. Fossil fuels still receive more money than climate action but on the other hand green markets on green bonds, environmental, social and governance (ESG) and sustainable finance have all increased.

As of 2020, collective assessment of all NDCs[2] showed that we will reach 1.5 degrees of warming. In fact overshooting this will happen. Keeping warming beneath 2 degrees requires strong and concerted mitigation policies to be undertaken in actual sense. There exists a gap between what NDCs suggest and action being taken on the ground. Rapid emissions cuts can bring back the temperatures beneath 1.5 degrees.

Currently, all fossil fuel infrastructure present and future will definitely cause a rise of beyond 2 degrees. It is therefore prudent to abandon and stop investing in fossil fuel industry, employ more carbon capture and storage, stop building new fossil fuel plants and use more renewables.

For now, emissions have to peak between 2020 and 2025, and afterwards up to 2050, deep and sustained reductions in emissions in order to keep within 1.5 degrees. If stronger than current laws are not effected beyond 2020, temperatures will hit 3.2 degrees by 2100. In 2021 at COP26, assessments done showed a rise of 2.8 degrees by century end.

Reaching net zero emissions by 2050 on a planet-wide scale will stop warming at 1.5 degrees with little to zero overshoot while reaching the same in 2070s will stop warming at 2 degrees. However, this will require net negative technologies which absorb carbon emissions from the air and store them away elsewhere. It also needs deep and sustained emission reductions by 2030.

Future warming related to other greenhouse gases will also require reductions in same and cuts in aerosols and ozone precursors.

To attain required mitigation levels, all sectors need to cut emissions, electrification has to be done on a very wide scale, energy efficiency optimized, greater uptake of renewable energies and use of carbon capture and storage (CCS).

In the energy sector, this looks like cutting fossil fuel use, use of clean energy, electrification, synthetic fuels and biofuels – green hydrogen, energy conservation and efficiency, CCS etc. In order to keep within the two temperature targets (1.5 and 2 degrees) a considerable number of fossil fuels assets will have to be stranded and a lot of fossil fuels left unused. Methane will also have to be cut.

CCS with available storage (in geological, terrestrial or ocean reservoirs) can help lengthen use of fossil fuel assets. However CCS faces significant challenges in socio-economic acceptability, environmental concerns, cost and unevenly distributed storage capacities globally.

In industry (cement, steel, plastic, chemicals) emissions have gone up. A lot of innovative mitigation methods exist but these have not yet been deployed in large scale. Material efficiency, electrification, circular material flow, use of CCS and low emissions energy such as ammonia, hydrogen and other synthetic fuels are some of the solutions. Plastic recycling and more climate centered laws have helped somewhat.

Cities need climate centered urban planning. This includes a network of green spaces i.e. curated green vegetation, climate proofing, durable but dynamic infrastructure, green roofs and urban gardens, urban agriculture, solar lighting and energy efficiency etc.

For buildings, construction should be undertaken using environmentally friendly materials, retrofitting older buildings, energy efficiency and better design.

The transport industry needs more electric vehicles, green electricity, walkways and cycling paths, improved public transport systems. The shipping and aviation industries can use synthetic fuels e.g. hydrogen and ammonia. This sector can be decarbonized along with the energy sector.

For the AFOLU sector, improved forest management, decreased deforestation, soil carbon management, agroforestry, restoration of wetlands, changes in animal feed and pivoting toward plant based diets can help reduce emissions.

In this particular area, there are other co-benefits such as reduced air pollution, safeguarding biodiversity, ensuring food and water security, cultural and spiritual wellbeing and more economic output.

Such measures need to be globally spread out but specialized and adapted to the needs of a given locality.

It is necessary to influence wide and far reaching behavioral change in human society because consumption and production patterns are a big cause of climate change. People consume and waste far too much energy, plastic, food and in general overexploit the environment and tax its capacity to regenerate and self-sustain.

This reform can be actualized through educational campaigns and awareness and training initiatives, both large and small scale. Behavioral change can help cut emissions quick and fast.

Now, carbon dioxide removal (CDR) will have to be employed for hard to abate sectors like cement and steel industries. CDR includes soil carbon management, reforestation, BECCS[3], DACCS[4], ocean alkanization, blue carbon management and agroforestry among others. In whole, CDR can be biological, geochemical or chemical.

The methods employed will depend on a variety of factors e.g. social acceptability, cost and availability of storage space.

CDR cannot be used alone or as a substitute for mitigation. It is combined with rapid, sustained and deep cuts in emissions.

Limiting warming to within 1.5 degrees will increase economic output and global GDP. However higher warming stresses the global economy, leads to downturns and lowers GDP.

Adaptation and mitigation undertaken in the context of sustainable development yields more positive results than when done individually. Efforts towards this must be inclusive, bearing in mind human rights especially those of indigenous peoples, local communities, marginalized groups, gender and social equity and be climate just.

In this manner, they will work towards achievement of sustainable development goals and yield multiple benefits related to the positive effect of climate well-being on economic sectors, communities and the environment.

Conversely when carried out without consultation, some measures like bioenergy crops can harm communities and ecosystems.

Some positive measures e.g. green roofs, renewable energy and natural parks can help reduce climate effects such as flooding and both produce and lower the cost of energy. They also promote mental wellbeing and physical health.

Generally “green mitigation” measures i.e. involving nature, are more socially acceptable.

It is important to ensure mitigation and adaptation do not worsen inequality in the context of different social and national circumstances. Such should also ensure a just transition.

For mitigation to succeed, there needs to be increased finance and more even distribution and clear access to resources. It’s also determined by institutional, technical and technological capacity.

Strong but fair climate laws are needed and implementation carried out quickly. Mitigation efforts need to be cross-sectoral involving a wide array of sectors and inclusive consultation.

Climate governance needs to be strengthened at local and global scales.

The role of non-state actors is increasingly becoming paramount. Civil society, private sector, community and faith based organizations, local communities, sub-national governments and the rest have crucial climate input.

We need international and transnational cooperation, and more economy wide climate action. Economic instruments such as carbon taxes and markets should be used more.

Finance still needs to be channeled more towards developing countries who are least responsible for climate change but need to develop in a green manner.

Of course, trainings and climate education, and national policies should be used more and be aligned towards climate change mitigation.

---

[1] Agriculture, Forestry And Land Use

[2] Nationally Determined Contributions

[3] Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage

[4] Direct air with carbon capture and storage