It has always been difficult to translate complex climate science into a language that people can understand. At different times, the goal of different climate policies is to keep the average global temperature to 2 ° C or 1.5 ° C, or increase the specific emission rate by one year. Net zero targets are the latest attempt to ease climate change.
In the second half of this century, the Paris Agreement called for a balance between greenhouse gas emissions, such as cars and factories, to emit emissions, such as forest and carbon capture technology. One report Government Panel on Climate ChangeLinn After examining how global warming could be limited by 1.5 ° C in 2018, the international community has called for zero zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050.
In this way, it is important to plan efforts to address climate change. More than 30 countries have net zero targets set by law and existing policies, and more than 120 countries are negotiating on their own. Net Zero Targets. Some of these targets will cover all greenhouse gas emissions, others will only contain carbon dioxide, and most will be set by 2050.
As scholars and consultants on climate law and policy, we support the idea of gradually reducing global emissions to zero. However, setting the stage for a zero-sum discussion does not address the issue of justice in all countries, important differences in national climate policy, or the credibility of their promises.
Same goal, different ways
There are fears that the call for global emissions to reach zero zero by 2050 will be shifted to a clear zero by 2050 targets. In recent months from America And UK And Secretary-General of the United Nations He pointed out that the net zero emissions, which are in line with the global reach of carbon zero by 2050, are an important criterion for judging the economic prospects of major economies.
However, what each country should do depends on the speed at which other countries reach zero. So how should the relative speed of change be determined by the international community? Here, the Paris Agreement provides some guidelines. He realizes that in developing countries, emissions will take longer because tackling poverty is a daunting challenge. Countries all over the world must reach zero zero carbon emissions in order to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050.
The Paris Agreement makes sense. It would not be fair to ask a country like India to have a net zero at the same time as the UK. India has not yet reached the peak of its release and is currently releasing it Less than half The global average emissions per capita, while the UK reached its highest domestic output and emissions two decades ago. Stay above the global average.
The Paris Agreement also requires developing countries to provide financial or green technology support to accelerate the transition. Net zero targets are a powerful way to show common ground among nations. But maintaining that sense of belonging requires that these goals be aligned with the demands of climate justice.
This will not only be more equitable, but will result in smarter politics and increase opportunities for real action. The Paris Agreement breaks down a long-standing political crisis by allowing each country to develop its own national contribution to reducing global emissions. Adjust the climate policy to increase the call for homeowners. In countries like the UK, it aims to achieve zero zero emissions as soon as possible High support. Political support in other countries may require climate change to be included in other goals.
It is found in South Africa Which hinders equality And unemployment has stopped By the end of 2020, 43%. Reduction emissions can only continue during the transition from a coal-based economy to low-emission jobs.
In India too, entrepreneurship is paramount. Environmental concerns such as environmental pollution and inequitable energy supply. This could take steps to address these development challenges and prevent the future economy from being shut down by high-carbon energy sources.
Both South Africa and India’s domestic priorities can be translated over time to achieve clear zero emissions. But that connection between domestic development narratives and international obligations must be taken into account. Instead of a single net zero transition, there should be more space for climate change and more for different national contexts.
Net zero targets must be credible in order to make sense – long-term statements of purpose are not sufficient. Doing more, is important in advance. Leaders have recently promised to take action by 2030, one step in the right direction. These statements must be included in the Paris Agreement process to ensure accountability. Equally important is to solve the often neglected “net” in zero. National plans to avoid emissions should not be overconfident. Any statement based on the purchase of a credit card from other countries must be credible.
Net zero may be an important consideration for climate action. But it should not be a group of tyrants who want to force all nations on the same path. Instead, we only want credibility to net zero transitions.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. The facts and opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of knews.uk and knews.uk does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.