The carbon clock is ticking, from carbon neutral to net-zero and counterfactual thinking
Issue No3
In this issue we explore why there are only 7 years and 64 days left to keep global warming below 1.5°C and much more:
What is net-zero and why it is important
Knowledge snack: The difference between carbon neutral and net-zero
How they do it: Reaching a corporate climate protection plan
Best picks: “Business is screwed” and counterfactual thinking
Future fantasy: Human photosynthesis - fed by the sun
Thank you for reading!
The carbon clock is ticking: Not many years are left to achieve net-zero emissions
The climate clock displays 7 years 64 days as of today. This is the time left to achieve net-zero and to take all man-made greenhouse gas emissions back from the atmosphere thereafter. The main article in bullet points:
Our atmosphere can absorb another 301 Gt of CO2 before we can no longer limit global warming to 1.5°C. At current emission levels we’ll be there in 7 years.
To limit global warming to 2°C the budget is at 1’051 Gt of CO2. At current emission levels we have 25 years left to exhaust it.
1.5°C or 2°C, 7 or 25 years - it will get warmer in any case, but the differences in consequences can be dramatic and if we cross the budget we risk famines, streams of refugees and conflicts.
More and more countries, cities and companies are now announcing their climate targets to become carbon neutral or reach net-zero emissions.
Carbon neutral is compensating by funding CO2 reduction elsewhere (offsetting) and net-zero is funding the removal through negative emission technologies.
For reductions, emissions are often divided into scopes: 1, 2 (reducing emissions from direct operations and energy sources) and 3 (reducing emissions in the value chain).
The bucket is almost full. According to the MCC in 2017 we had another 420 Gt of CO2 to pump into the atmosphere to stay on track with limiting global warming to 1.5°C. With annual global CO2-emissions of ~40 Gt we are now at 301 Gt and have, as mentioned, about 7 years to exhaust the remaining carbon budget . The global carbon project is a bit more optimistic. In their 2019 conclusion we have 9% of the budget left and another 10 years at current emissions as shown in the following graph.
The more emissions are stored in the atmosphere, the longer it takes for them to be removed again (more on space and volume in a future issue). For now we are still filling up the bucket, where in theory we should be reducing CO2-emissions drastically to stop climate change, stabilize global temperature and prevent irreversible climate damages. What are these damages? Relative to the achievement of the temperature targets, here are examples of three scenarios for 2050:
Target 1.5°C achieved: The world would still be hotter than it is now.
Target 2°C achieved: Developed nations would have constructed storm-surge barriers to keep out the sea and erected border walls to keep out refugees. And according to the World Resources Institute, the difference between reaching the 1.5°C or 2°C target will be quite dramatic.
Targets failed: On top of the previous consequences, global warming could produce conflict, within and between poor and rich nations.
Society, politics and businesses seem to have understood the situation. Countries, cities and companies are announcing their climate targets. “We aim to have CO2 emissions peak before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality before 2060” said China's President Xi Jinping just recently. In January, Microsoft announced it would be carbon-negative in 2030, meaning from then on it will remove more CO2 than it will produce and thereby neutralize all direct and electricity emissions since it was founded 1975 by 2050. Companies from all industries are joining forces to save the planet. Even multinational oil and gas company BP declared its ambition to become a net-zero company by 2050. So far, over 1000 companies have signed the Science Based Target initiative and even more have joined the We Mean Business Coalition.
Knowledge snack: The difference between carbon neutral and net-zero
The term “net-zero” has more and more replaced “carbon neutral” in public discourse since the Paris Agreement in 2015. The basic difference between the two:
Carbon neutral refers to the effort of a certain entity (e.g. a company) to achieve emission neutrality through carbon offsetting and reduction. For each ton emitted into the atmosphere, a ton is avoided elsewhere.
Net-zero emissions is the overall approach to balance out the total amount of CO2 released to the atmosphere by taking it out again. For each ton emitted, a ton needs to be removed again through negative emission technologies.
Industry players advocate to move from carbon neutral to net-zero.
To reduce emissions, businesses can divide their footprint into scope 1, 2 and 3. Scope 1 and 2 reductions (reducing emissions from direct operations and energy sources) are simpler to implement. Nevertheless, scope 3 (reducing emissions in the value chain) often represents the largest reduction opportunity.
A particularly bold example for avoiding emissions has just been demonstrated by Apple. The company decided to remove headphones and chargers from their new iPhone boxes because customers supposedly already have them. These changes allow Apple to cut annually 2 million tons of CO2 emissions in their supply and logistics chain.
In all our organizations we should now wonder what are the chargers and headphones or even better: how we can reduce emissions without limiting customer benefits? Because the carbon clock is ticking and acting on climate change is not an option. Surely, the entities who figure out how to improve will come out of these uncertain times with a headstart.
The “How they do it” section explores how businesses are tackling climate change
How they do it: “Sustainability and economic success go hand in hand”
Life science and pharmaceutical company Bayer is aiming to become carbon neutral in its own operations by 2030. This August the Science Based Targets initiative approved that Bayer’s climate protection plan is in line with keeping warming to 1.5 °C. Bayer’s Head of Ecological Footprint, Delf Bintakies, provides insights on the plan.
How confident is Bayer to reach its targets?
Delf Bintakies: We are very confident to reach our plan. We will regularly map out our progress in achieving these climate protection targets in its annual report and sustainability report. The Science Based Targets initiative will also review compliance on a yearly basis.
What are the uncertainties related to the climate protection plan? What will Bayer do to address these issues?
Delf Bintakies: Addressing Scope 3 emissions is a challenge. A special challenge is to find scalable solutions to work with multiple thousands of suppliers. Additionally the majority of emissions is related to earlier stages in the supply chain that are not direct suppliers of us. Bayer has joined forces with other companies in the initiative “Together for Sustainability” to enhance the approach. Industry collaborations are essential to achieve impact.
How will Bayer measure and monitor the emissions?
Delf Bintakies: Bayer already has an established measurement of our emissions that is reported on an annual frequency in our Sustainability report. These numbers are validated and audited in a similar way as our financial figures. Even more details are provided in our participation of the CDP benchmark where we received the highest rating last year with an A-Rating.
How does Bayer deal with conflicts of interest (e.g. decisions between cost and ecology)?
Delf Bintakies: Last year we announced that sustainability is one of our key pillars of our group strategy. We understand sustainability as an impact generator which means that sustainability is not a nice to have, it is an essential part of our strategy and we want to earn money with sustainable business models. Sustainability and economic success go hand in hand. Therefore, the sustainability goals have become part of the long-term managerial compensation model.
Further insights on how the company aims to achieve the targets can be found in this article.
The “Best picks” section presents selected articles, podcast and videos
Best picks: “Business is screwed” and counterfactual thinking
“Business is screwed if we don't fix climate change"
"I think business should fix capitalism." says economists Rebecca Henderson in her TED Countdown speech and provides four pillars of change:
1. Build a business that can set the right price and still be profitable.
2. Persuade your competitors to do the same thing.
3. Make sure that investors understand there's money to be made.
4. Push governments to put the right price into law so that bottom-feeders can't survive.
Climate change and counterfactual thinking
Counterfactual thinking is basically what we do after something bad happened. We come up with countless ideas how it could have been prevented from happening. Your favourite team lost, your phone screen cracked or worse, you got into a car accident? How could you have prevented it? Stay home, different route, go slower. This podcast and transcript of a conversation explores how counterfactual thinking could make it easier for us humans to act on something that’s happening slowly and distantly. What if it already happened? What should we have done to prevent it? That’s what we should probably do now.
The “Future fantasy” section provides a fictional short story
Future fantasy: Fed by the sun
After humans acknowledged that they are playing a role in climate change in the beginning of the century, they tried to get it under control. Numbers soon showed the measures are not working and by mid-century it was clear that limiting global warming failed. At this time also 9 billion people had to be fed, but fruitless or entirely eliminated harvests broke the supply chains. Many farmers had already been replaced by companies. They explored all kinds of alternative locations and methods: indoor, underground and vertical farming, but none of them prove efficient enough. Hunger is starting to spread out. Depleting reserves and long waiting lines in front of stores increase tensions. Local and global conflicts are on the doorstep. But a field is already looking at the problem from a different angle: the human body. The idea of human photosynthesis seems to have its breakthrough. First humans with implanted “solar” panels all over their body have gone without eating since last Wednesday, October 28 2065. This feels like the death of restaurants and the digestive system. We might be at the beginning of making more use of the abundance of sunlight.
In the next issue
From global to product carbon tracking, we will be looking at tools to analyze carbon emissions. Nasa has a satellite in space to observe the carbon cycle. The image below show higher and lower than average atmospheric CO2 levels (A. Eldering et al., 2017).
Besides the main story, a Knowledge snack, How they do it, Best picks and another future fantasy will wait for you. If you want to receive the next issue, signup before October 30 and receive a 30% discount on a yearly subscription. Together we can help reverse climate change.