As we hope to have more commitments and announcements, it is essential to start the discussion on the road that will be taken towards Net-Zero. It goes without saying that the journey to destination Net-Zero is made up of many small milestones. The way forward is to combine two approaches; the first to stop/reduce GHG emissions and the second to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. The vital factor is the balance between the two streams towards the Net-Zero.
Let's take up the GHG reduction plans; we need to break the target to various sectors. It is essential to realize that there will be some low-hanging fruits and there will be some that will remain beyond reach. It is essential to start the policy directions at the earliest in some sectors as it will take time for transformations to happen in energy systems or land use that will result in desired outcomes. It is also essential in this planning process to take note that the bottom-up approach has not worked in the past. If we wait for each sector to submit its contribution voluntarily, it is not going to work. For instance, as has been analyzed by a number of research agencies, the ensemble of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) never really added up for the target reduction of 1.5 C as planned.
Climate Change is a global issue, it does not matter where emission reductions are achieved, and hence the solutions can transcend across the world. The option of cross-boundary collaborations and market mechanisms will have to be evolved even in these dynamics as the world trade is still dispersed around the globe.
A systems perspective is critical in road map planning. The policies and actions in one area should not unlock challenges in other dimensions of sustainable development. The overreliance in some dimensions can result in new challenges and will not be a sustainable solution. For ex., the targets around biofuels need to be evaluated against the impacts of land-use change and resulting food security and biodiversity challenges. A life cycle approach to the alternatives planned will be very useful. Even the variable renewable energy sources across the day or season need systemic planning with grid balance and storage.
As we plan the mitigation journey, we need to design systems keeping in mind the adaptation requirements resulting from the intensification of impacts. The first case of bankruptcy quoting climate change as reason is a concrete illustration. There is no switch to reverse the direction. Even the most ambitious and rapid achievement of Net-Zero will still result in further warming in the coming decades.
Now speaking about removing CO2 from the atmosphere. The negative emission route through carbon sequestration needs to be balanced well with the mitigation targets. Unlike emissions prevented, the removal and locking in forests, soil and other forms have a risk of leakage. To add to that, the offset through sequestration will require land. This will mean more competition for available land. Increased focus in this sphere will also have an impact on biodiversity if not appropriately planned. We have already heard the news of increased green cover but with decreased biodiversity. Afforestation needs to take a landscape approach than of monoculture plantation. The cost dynamics might show negative emission routes more favorable than mitigation, but if we take this path, it will reduce our focus on the mitigation actions. In the process, we might be replacing near-future emission reduction with distant future emission increase. The offset should not be seen as a legitimisation to continued emissions.