Developed countries ‘denying scale of climate mitigation’

New research focusing on the UK and Sweden, demonstrates just how far even ‘climate progressive’ nations are from meeting our international commitments to avoid dangerous climate change.

The researchers from the University of Manchester concluded that despite the UK and Sweden claiming to have world-leading climate legislation, their planned reductions in emissions will still be two to three times greater than their fair share of a Paris-compliant global carbon budget.

The annual rate that emissions are expected to be cut is less than half of that required, with the scientists suggesting a minimum for the UK of 10 per cent each year, starting in 2020. Similarly, the date of achieving a fully zero-carbon energy system should be around 2035, rather than the UK’s current ‘net-zero’ by 2050 legislation.

The study, led by Professor Kevin Anderson (pictured) from The University of Manchester, is published in the journal Climate Policy.The team of climate scientists asked how close these countries are to meeting the UN’s climate commitments if the ‘safe’ quantity of emissions, the global carbon budget, is shared fairly between ‘developing’ and ‘developed’ countries.

Prof. Anderson, draws a damning conclusion from the research: “Academics have done an excellent job in understanding and communicating climate science, but the same cannot be said in relation to reducing emissions. Here we have collectively denied the necessary scale of mitigation, running scared of calling for fundamental changes to both our energy system and the lifestyles of high-energy users. Our paper brings this failure into sharp focus.”

The Paris Agreement establishes an international covenant to reduce emissions in line with holding the increase in temperature to ‘well below 2°C and to pursue 1.5°C.’ Global modelling studies have repeatedly concluded that such commitments can be delivered through respective national government adjustments to contemporary society, principally price mechanisms driving technical change. However, as emissions have continued to rise, these models have come to increasingly rely on the extensive deployment of highly speculative negative emissions technologies (NETs).

John Broderick, an author from the UK’s Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, commented: “This work makes clear just how important issues of fairness are when dividing the global carbon budget between wealthier and poorer nations. It also draws attention to how a belief in the delivery of untested technologies has undermined the depth of mitigation required today.”

Have your say...

Would you like to write your own Comment?

Your Comment

Your Name*
Please enter Your Name
Email Address*
Please enter an Email Address
Comment Subject*
Please enter a Comment Subject
Please enter your Comments
RefreshPlay AudioHelp
I agree to the terms of use.
Please agree to the terms

There were errors. Please see the messages above.