In Short : Exercise caution, as not all carbon reductions are equivalent. Variations in methodologies, accuracy, and offsets can impact the effectiveness of carbon reduction initiatives. Discernment is crucial to ensure meaningful contributions to sustainability.
In Detail : COP28 is now over. The commitments from the conference primarily call for a reduction of carbon emissions by limiting fossil fuel usage today or capturing emitted carbon tomorrow. But those two approaches are not one and the same.
As the year comes to a close, environmental advocates and policymakers are mulling over the series of agreements that came to fruition during the COP28 conference in Dubai, UAEUAE +0.9%. The deals establish a commitment to “phase down” the use of fossil fuels as opposed to a commitment to “phase out” fossil fuel use. The agreements also allow for the use of removal technologies to support the phase out. More specifically, the agreement allows nations to achieve the impact of their phase out by emitting carbon and later recapturing it versus not emitting the carbon from fossil fuel usage in the first place.
Reaction to the agreement has been mixed. The climate activist community has, predictably, focused on the failure to commit to a full phase-out. A more mixed reaction comes from the academic and policy-making community. Consider the reflection from Professor Rod Bellamy, a climate and society lecturer at the University of Manchester: “This historic agreement is testament to the voluntary architecture of the Paris Agreement, which has made tackling climate change much more effective and easier to agree upon … What we’re going to need now is rapid but responsible implementation of options for reducing emissions.” In other words, while a commitment to reduce fossil fuel usage and associated emissions is phenomenal, we still need to rapidly act to actually reduce those emissions.
The word rapid warrants a deeper dive. As climate activists and scientists continue to warn, if policymakers and governmental leaders are to implement policies in line with the 2-degree goal, it would mean that emissions reductions targets would need to be achieved sooner rather than later. Delaying reductions would mean more carbon in the air to impact climate. A ton of carbon emissions released into the atmosphere today and captured later causes more damage than not releasing that ton in the first place. While this concept may be intuitive, there is a principle that formally defines it — the Time Value of Carbon.
The Time Value of Carbon is a theory that states a ton of carbon (or greenhouse gas) eliminated today is worth more than allowing it to be released into the atmosphere today and capturing it with emerging technologies, or some other offsets, later in time. The term worth here means the avoiding of climate change and other negative impacts from carbon emissions. Why is it more beneficial to avoid emitting the proverbial ton of carbon in the first place? First, the ton of carbon that is released (for later capture) has impacts once it is released. It has an incremental impact on climate as we know, and there is the so-called domino effect that this incremental ton of emissions would have. More specifically, the more carbon released into the air negatively impacts climate change, and that creates a feedback loop which releases more carbon due to phenomena like melting permafrost, dying forests and wildfires. That ton of carbon, which would be recaptured later, has already created a marginal impact that would not have happened if the carbon had not been released in the first place, in theory. Finally, there is the risk of actually achieving the target. Releasing the incremental ton of carbon today and delaying its recapture does not guarantee its recapture. Policymakers could change, agreements could be reset and costs could become too exorbitant. Also, as the carbon content of the atmosphere grows, those offsetting or sequestration goals could also become more unrealistic. For example, experts have estimated that 200 billion more trees would need to be planted to offset (or sequester) the carbon already emitted for American energy demand. Such an approach is not realistic, per an evaluation from MIT’s Climate Portal. Imagine how that target would increase as we delay emissions reductions in expectation of future sequestration.
But there is a stark reality to the climate agreement. A phase out would mean we eliminate all fossil fuel usage — a reality that seems unattainable given global population growth and increased energy demands. The U.S. Energy Information Association estimates energy generated from fossil fuels will still be at least 50% of total energy generation by 2050 — even in the most optimistic scenario — although the carbon intensity of each unit of energy produced would be lower than present day. The finance sector seems to realize this as well; global investment into coal, oil and natural gas are on the incline. This is happening after initial declines in natural gas and oil investments over a seven-year time horizon, per the 2023 World Energy Outlook report from the International Energy Agency.
In closing, COP28 did provide headway along the difficult journey of achieving the goal to cutting emissions commensurate with limiting global temperature rise to two degrees celsius. But there are two inescapable realities between which this deal tries to exist: Limiting emissions now is very difficult given our energy demands, but delaying the removal of those emissions from the atmosphere tomorrow could have impacts we would not experience had we not allowed the emissions in the first place. And that phenomenon may have results we cannot understand until it is too late.