Dec 14, 2023 09:26 PM
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03955-x
INTRO: Sultan Al Jaber, the host and president of COP28, this year’s United Nations climate conference, sparked an outcry before the meeting kicked off in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. At an online event on 21 November, he said that there is no science to suggest that a ‘phase out’ of fossil fuels is necessary to restrict global warming to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial temperatures.
Although Al Jaber later tried to defuse the controversy, the episode was a telling prelude to a summit that has been dominated by outdated arguments over what science does — and does not — say about the largest source of humanity’s greenhouse-gas emissions. The event had moved into extra time as this editorial went to press. But it looked very likely that the final agreement would not include language on phasing out fossil fuels. That is more than a missed opportunity. It is dangerous.
The research itself is not the issue. According to the latest estimates, the world would need to eliminate emissions of carbon dioxide in little more than a decade, while also slashing those of methane and other greenhouse gases, to have even a 50% chance of limiting average warming to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels. That equation changes, however, if humans are able to extract CO2 from the atmosphere on an industrial scale. Here lies the crux of the debate.
Estimates from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are often the basis of pledges on achieving ‘net zero’ emissions by mid-century. Less discussed is what comes next: what actual actions should be taken. In nearly all pathways to keeping global warming below 1.5 °C assessed by the IPCC, temperatures temporarily overshoot that goal. It is only through large-scale removal of atmospheric carbon, or through negative emissions, that temperatures are brought back down by the end of the century. The models also show continued use of fossil fuels in some industries, notably aviation, where there are currently few viable alternatives.
This creates wiggle room that many leaders around the world — and particularly those representing countries that rely on fossil fuels to power their economies — are keen to exploit... (MORE - details)
INTRO: Sultan Al Jaber, the host and president of COP28, this year’s United Nations climate conference, sparked an outcry before the meeting kicked off in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. At an online event on 21 November, he said that there is no science to suggest that a ‘phase out’ of fossil fuels is necessary to restrict global warming to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial temperatures.
Although Al Jaber later tried to defuse the controversy, the episode was a telling prelude to a summit that has been dominated by outdated arguments over what science does — and does not — say about the largest source of humanity’s greenhouse-gas emissions. The event had moved into extra time as this editorial went to press. But it looked very likely that the final agreement would not include language on phasing out fossil fuels. That is more than a missed opportunity. It is dangerous.
The research itself is not the issue. According to the latest estimates, the world would need to eliminate emissions of carbon dioxide in little more than a decade, while also slashing those of methane and other greenhouse gases, to have even a 50% chance of limiting average warming to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels. That equation changes, however, if humans are able to extract CO2 from the atmosphere on an industrial scale. Here lies the crux of the debate.
Estimates from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are often the basis of pledges on achieving ‘net zero’ emissions by mid-century. Less discussed is what comes next: what actual actions should be taken. In nearly all pathways to keeping global warming below 1.5 °C assessed by the IPCC, temperatures temporarily overshoot that goal. It is only through large-scale removal of atmospheric carbon, or through negative emissions, that temperatures are brought back down by the end of the century. The models also show continued use of fossil fuels in some industries, notably aviation, where there are currently few viable alternatives.
This creates wiggle room that many leaders around the world — and particularly those representing countries that rely on fossil fuels to power their economies — are keen to exploit... (MORE - details)