After the facts and the effects, the solutions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published, Monday, April 4, the third and final part of its sixth report on climate change. This time around, the scientists, who had already handed in their papers on the physical evolution of the climate and its effects on human societies and biodiversity, assessed how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions – “mitigation “, in IPCC jargon.
>> Follow the latest reactions to this new report in our live
Over the period 2010-2019, these greenhouse gas emissions, produced by our daily activities, continued to increase. This growth slowed down slightly, from +2.3% to +1.3% per year. To keep global warming well below 2°C, these emissions must have decreased by 27 to 43% in 2030 and by 63 to 84% in 2050. Concretely, they must peak in three years. “The decisions we make today can ensure a livable future”commented Hoesung Lee, the president of the UN body. “We have the tools and the know-how to limit global warming”according to him.
Franceinfo has been able to consult the “summary for decision-makers” of this report and presents the main lessons to you.
Inaction costs more than the necessary investments
The IPCC experts first point out that “the benefits of scenarios to limit warming to 2°C outweigh the costs of mitigation measures [des émissions]”. Concretely, the necessary investments would cost less than the economic damage caused by the climate crisis. “This is an extremely robust conclusion. Reducing our emissions is an investment that, in the long term, is worth it”advances to franceinfo Céline Guivarch, director of research at the International Center for Research on the Environment and Development (Cired) and co-author of group 3 of the IPCC.
The IPCC adds that “the cost of several low-carbon technologies has fallen continuously since 2010”. Experts cite solar energy, the cost of which fell by 85% between 2010 and 2019, wind power (–55%) and lithium-ion batteries (–85%).
A toolbox, sector by sector
The report is very clear: all scenarios limiting warming to 1.5°C or 2°C “imply rapid, deep and mostly immediate greenhouse gas reductions across all sectors”. If the IPCC scientists note some progress, the current commitments of the States, which are not even kept, lead to warming well beyond 1.5°C during this century (+3.2°C ). For the vice-president of group 3 of the IPCC, Priyadarshi Shukla, “the right measures, infrastructures and technologies” can “to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 to 70% by 2050”. Here are the solutions evaluated, sector by sector, to correct the situation.
Energy production (about 34% of global emissions). In this sector, which corresponds mainly to the production of electricity, the consumption of coal, oil and gas must decrease respectively by 95%, 60% and 45% in 2050 compared to 2019. This requires a “major transition” with “the deployment of low-emission energy sources” such as wind, solar, hydro or nuclear. On this point, the IPCC notes that many low-carbon technologies “showed many improvements since the previous report, in terms of cost, performance and deployment”.
Co-author of the report and director of Cired, Franck Lecocq also insists on the fact that the fossil infrastructures currently being built will produce more greenhouse gases than what is needed to limit global warming: “Achieving these objectives therefore means closing these plants prematurely, this is an extremely strong message. A fortiori, any new construction makes it even more difficult to achieve this objective.” It also means not exploiting all known coal or oil reserves.
Industry (about 24%). Achieving net zero emissions in this sector is a “challenge”but it’s “feasible”, estimates the IPCC. Scientists talk about coordinated actions “throughout the value chain”for “use materials more efficiently, reuse and recycle them, reduce waste”. “These options have the potential to be used more in industrial practice and require greater attention from industrial policies”note the authors of the text.
Agriculture, forestry and land use (about 22%). This sector is crucial, because it can participate, beyond its own emission reductions, in the capture of carbon emitted by others. There is additionally “full of country-specific opportunities to deliver co-benefits (such as the preservation of biodiversity, ecosystem services and way of life) and to avoid risks (for example, by adapting to climate change)”.
It goes through the “preservation, better management and restoration of forests and other ecosystems, such as coastal marshes, peatlands, savannahs and grasslands”, sustainable crop and livestock management. Consumers are not forgotten, since the transition to diets richer in plants and with less meat is listed as a solution to reduce emissions from the sector.
Transport (about 15%). In this sector, the leading emitter in France, the IPCC lists several options: reduction of the demand for transport (teleworking, less urban sprawl), transfer to less polluting modes (public transport), active modes (cycling, walking) with investments (cycle paths, sidewalks), electrification of vehicles (less polluting than thermal ones over their entire life cycle) and biofuels (even if the latter present risks of conflict on land use with food). These mitigation measures would also have various other benefits, including “improving air quality, health, equitable access to transport, reducing traffic jams and the demand for materials”they note.
Buildings (about 6%). Cities and urban areas provide “meaningful opportunities” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This must include “the reduction or change in the consumption of energy and materials”, “electrification” and increasing the city’s capacity to capture and store carbon (with green spaces, for example).
Carbon capture, essential but far from sufficient
To limit warming to 1.5°C compared to the pre-industrial era, the world must reach carbon neutrality by 2050 (2070 for a limitation of warming to 2°C), recalls the IPCC. To do this, in addition to reducing our emissions, “the deployment of carbon dioxide capture devices, to offset residual emissions, is inevitable”, they write. These residual emissions, which are difficult to eliminate, come from sectors such as agriculture (methane emitted by ruminants, for example) or aviation.
The IPCC envisages as solutions the development of natural carbon sinks, thanks to reforestation and changes in soil practices, as well as artificial solutions (not yet mature) for the capture and storage of CO2. “However, this is not to say that we can continue to emit greenhouse gases. The lower the residual emissions, the less negative emissions we need to offset them”emphasizes Céline Guivarch.
Emissions (and solutions) unequally distributed
“Emissions have increased in most parts of the world, but are unevenly distributed”, recalls the IPCC in this third part. The experts support their statements with this infographic on cumulative emissions since 1850. Even today, the least developed countries total emissions per capita “much lower” (1.7 tonnes of CO2 per year) than the world average (6.9 tonnes). “Globally, the richest 10% of households account for between 36 and 45% of emissions”add the authors.
/2022/04/04/php20SUUg.png)
Faced with this observation, the IPCC experts emphasize that the solutions to be provided to the climate crisis are not the same. “Individuals of high socio-economic status contribute disproportionately to emissions and have greater reduction potential”, underline the experts. Overall, they establish that a “Accelerated financial support from developed countries to developing countries is a key enabler to scale up mitigation actions and address inequalities” and face “to its economic vulnerability to climate change for developing countries”.
Funding too low
To carry out this transition, significant funding is needed. Today, notes the IPCC, “private and public financial flows towards fossil fuels are always greater than those for adaptation and mitigation of climate change”. According to the scientists’ calculations, annual funding for the 2020s should be “three to six times higher than current levels” to meet the objectives of the Paris Agreement. “Despite momentum and commitments, real progress has been slow”notes Raphaël Jachnik, co-author of the report and political analyst at the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development).