Volatility in oil prices, mixed with increasingly aggressive legislation that makes fossil fuels less attractive for investors, is driving the transition to a new energy paradigm. Long accused of being too expensive and non-competitive, the global market is finally opening its doors to renewables as an economically viable solution to our climate related predicaments. However, “without shifts in policy there is unlikely to be a clean energy revolution”, explains Shayegh Soheil, scientist at RFF-CMCC European Institute on Economics and the Environment (EIEE), whose recent research paper maps the interaction between market structures and government policies aimed at supporting the transition to clean energy.

Capital markets are shifting and clean power could generate up to 45% of energy by 2024. Policymakers across the globe are backing the transition with measures that range from near-zero interest rates for clean energy developers to Green New Deals that focus on decarbonisation. Not to mention that a Joe Biden presidency, will come with 2 trillion USD investments in decarbonising the US economy.

Furthermore, the strong stimulus measures being put in place to counter the effects of the COVID pandemic are also being deployed with green strings attached. In Europe, around 30% of the 880 billion USD COVID recovery plan is being tied to climate measures. In fact, European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen has confirmed the EU’s goal of cutting greenhouse-gas emissions by 55% over 1990 levels by 2030, indicating that reforming the energy sector is a vital part of this process which will require strong policy efforts.

The role of government policy

Understanding how governments can facilitate the transition is an area of new and intense research. “For any game changer technology, the biggest player is the government because the government doesn’t have to think about cost and benefit in the same way as private investors do. It can instead focus on the long term impact on society. In this sense, the government is solving a different problem from private investors. The private and public have a very different mind-set and the private sector will probably tend to invest in less risky and more mature technologies,” explains Soheil.

New research, published in the Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews journal, indicates that the relationship between clean energy policy choices and the market conditions in which these policies are deployed is extremely important in determining the effectiveness of said policies. “If the government policy is to increase the market share of renewables, then how this broader policy interacts with the market structure (whether it is a regulated, deregulated or semi-regulated market) is extremely important. These policies have to be connected to the kind of market in which you are implementing them. We found that market structure influences the effectiveness of policies”, explains co-author of the paper Soheil.

 — @soheilsh

The two main policies used by governments to encourage renewable energy development can be labelled as Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) and, Feed in Tariff (Fit) which is more popular in European countries. The main difference is that with RPS governments mandate a certain share of the market to be supplied by renewables (for example, setting 50% of the electricity market to be provided by renewables by 2050). On the other hand, with FiT the strategy is more about governments fixing prices which in turn encourages energy producers to enter the market and develop renewable energy.

Soheil explains that, “it is not enough to just think about policy, countries need to consider the market conditions in which they are implementing their strategies. The best match between policy and market conditions is important and market conditions can encourage or discourage certain kinds of policies.”

For example, Germany has used FiT to promote renewable energy and this has attracted a lot of renewable energy generators. Over the last few years, more generators and producers of renewable energy have joined the program which has driven down the price of renewable energy generation below the threshold that the government set in the FiT policy. Since the government has guaranteed a certain price, it has forced it to pay more than it should for the renewable energy being produced. This creates what is known as a financial burden.

Bringing about a 40% reduction in emissions by 2030 requires, for example, that low-emissions sources provide nearly 75% of global electricity generation in 2030 (up from less than 40% in 2019), and that more than 50% of passenger cars sold worldwide in 2030 are electric (from 2.5% in 2019)

International Energy Agency

In contrast, a drawback of RPS is that it doesn’t specify what kind of renewable energy you are favouring which in turn creates competition between renewable energies and therefore more mature sources with lower production costs will have an upper hand, nipping the development of other promising but more expensive technologies in the bud.

Francesco Lamperti, scientist at the European Institute on Economics and the Environment (RFF & CMCC), also believes that “there is strong evidence that lots of technologies in the initial phase are funded with public funds through grants or subsidies. All these public programs that stimulate investments are also capable of creating employment in green jobs which are in turn skilled jobs that generate more productivity. However, these benefits are only visible in the mid to long term. Policies that can support long term investment plans that can direct the transition towards certain technologies and create stable long term conditions so that the private sector can enter when the risks, from a technological point of view, are already absorbed by the public sector. Because the investor that can afford to take on large losses is the state.”

Just as governments are putting together their Covid response strategies there is a unique chance to provide a strategic vision and adequate funds for an energy transition. Governments can spur innovation to provide incentives for consumers and favour action by the private sector. Research such as that led by Soheil can provide invaluable information in determining what kinds of policies to adapt based on the market conditions in which they are being deployed.

The current situation

A special report by The Economist indicates that investment in renewables is still drastically short of where it needs to be to keep temperatures within 2°C of pre-industrial levels. Yearly investment in wind and solar capacity needs to be about 750 billion USD, which amounts to three times recent levels. With strong measures, renewable electricity such as solar and wind could rise from the current 5% of global energy supply to 25% in 2035, and nearly 50% by 2050.

 — @IEABirol

To date, the energy sector remains the largest single emitter of greenhouse gasses due to its reliance on burning coal, natural gas, and oil for electricity and heat. Just as emissions have increased by 40% over the past 30 years, reaching the objectives set out in the 2015 Paris Agreement will require a 90% fall from current levels over the next 30 years. No mean feat, particularly as global population is projected to rise by 2 billion over the same time period and global GDP is expected to triple.

With the world still producing over 4/5 of its energy using fossil fuels, there is a huge opportunity to cut emissions by enacting a paradigm shift in the way we produce energy. Yet the opportunity that is unfolding also comes with huge challenges. Not least of which economically: the International Energy Agency (IEA) claims that this transition will require 1.2 trillion USD of extra annual investment in the power system alone.

The renewable energy market

Newly installed renewable power capacity is increasingly more cost-effective than the cheapest power generation options based on fossil fuels. The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) also confirms this trend in its latest study that shows how more than 50% of renewable capacity added in 2019 had lower electricity generation costs than coal. “New solar and wind projects are undercutting the cheapest of existing coal-fired plants”, outlines the report.

Solar photovoltaics have seen the most pronounced reductions in costs of production over the last decade with an 82% decrease, followed by concentrating solar power (CSP) at 47%, onshore wind at 40% and offshore wind at 29%.

The economic advantages of transitioning to clean energy are huge. “Replacing the costliest 500 gigawatts of coal capacity with solar and wind would cut annual system costs by up to USD 23 billion per year and yield a stimulus worth USD 940 billion, or around 1% of global GDP.”

According to Ramiro Parrado, Scientist at the CMCC’s Economic Analysis of Climate Impact and Policy, “From the point of view of power generation, the costs of renewable energy have been decreasing fast. This has led to an increase in their share of final energy consumption and, at the same time, attracts more investments in the renewable sector. This trend will continue in the future and trigger a transition where the economy will rely much more on renewable energy sources instead of fossil fuels.”

Researchers are increasingly pointing to 2020 as a breakwater moment, the DNV GL’s 2020 energy outlook report (which gives an independent model based forecast of the world’s most likely energy future) reports that 2019 was the peak of the fossil fuel era; and research by the Renewable Energy Agency indicates that renewable energy generation is increasingly competitive and less expensive than fossil fuels.

A fossilized energy system

Over 80% of the global energy supply is currently taken from fossil fuels, which in turn leads to the energy sector being the single largest emitter of greenhouse gasses: around 2/3 of total emissions. Yet the problems related to fossil fuels are not just limited to the effects they have on the environment and our wellbeing, with pollution from their combustion believed to lead to approximately 4 million premature deaths per year (most of which in the developing world’s mega-cities).

Fossil fuels tend to concentrate in specific geographic areas making supply chains vulnerable which leads to political and economic instability. The most well documented example is that of oil, the price of which has varied by over 30% in a 6-month time span 62 times since 1970.

This price instability was once more exposed during the COVID pandemic which has affected the global economy even more than the 2008 financial crisis. A collection of 7 of the world’s most prominent oil producers lost almost 90 billion USD in value of their fossil fuel reserves since the beginning of 2020 as global demand for oil has taken a strong hit. The think tank Carbon Tracker found that Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Total, Chevron, Repsol, Eni and Equinor decreased their oil and gas assets by 87 billion in the last 9 months alone, with 55 billion USD coming in the latest financial quarter.

Their research also indicates that loss in value had already started before the pandemic due to government efforts to cut back on emissions which led to companies indicating they would depend less on oil and gas in the future and shift their focus from the energy sector to the petrochemical and plastics sector.

How has COVID affected the clean energy revolution

The IEA’s World Energy Outlook (WEO) report gives a detailed assessment of the effects of the pandemics on a clean energy transition. According to all scenarios outlined in the WEO, renewables will grow in the coming decades with solar energy becoming the fastest growing source. This is both thanks to favourable policies and advancements in technology that make entry into markets more advantageous.

Solar in particular has seen exceptional cost reductions over the last ten years, making it currently cheaper than most coal or gasfired power plants. In some cases, solar energy has become the cheapest electric energy in the world. In one policy scenario outlined in the WEO, in which Covid-19 is gradually brought under control in 2021 and the global economy returns to pre-crisis levels that same year: “renewable energy generation meets 80% of the growth in global electricity demand to 2030. Hydropower remains the largest renewable source of electricity, but solar is the main driver of growth as it sets new records for deployment each year after 2022, followed by onshore and offshore wind.”

Without shifts in policy there is unlikely to be a clean energy revolution.

Shayegh Soheil

Although established renewables such as wind and solar are showing resilience in the face of the current pandemic there are some who are concerned about the future of less mature technologies that have the potential to become game-changers.

“Due to COVID and the financial costs of recovery programs incurred by governments to help small businesses, families and public health, the support for renewables could decrease. As government subsidies for renewables may decrease due to these other financial commitments, only mature renewables such as solar and wind could survive. This means a possible long delay in commercialization of higher-cost technologies with greater decarbonization potential that are still in research and development phase”, explains Shayegh Soheil, scientist at RFF-CMCC European Institute on Economics and the Environment (EIEE).

Has oil demand reached its peak?

The DNV GL’s 2020 energy outlook predicts that COVID will have a permanent effect on fossil fuels and that 2019 was the year of peak oil demand. BP, one of the UK’s leading oil and gas companies, also forecasts that demand will peak early this decade.

 — @ClimateSolLab

Peak demand will have huge consequences on a financial market that was predicting decades of growth. “Peak demand means overcapacity and low prices, it means stranded assets and stranded companies, it means a restructuring of the old and a bright new world of opportunity for the new. A glance at the underperformance of the energy sector over the last few years shows that investors are well aware of the rising risks,” claims Kingsmill Bond, Energy Strategist for Carbon Tracker.

The International Energy Agency also confirmed a trend of falling demand for the energy sector as a whole in its World Energy Outlook 2020 Report claiming it had shrunk by around 5% in 2020 and an 18% decrease in investment. However, what is interesting when talking about an energy transition is that “the impacts vary by fuel. The estimated falls of 8% in oil demand and 7% in coal use stand in sharp contrast to a slight rise in the contribution of renewables. The reduction in natural gas demand is around 3%, while global electricity demand looks set to be down by a relatively modest 2% for the year.”

 — @DrSimEvans

However, the IEA is slightly less optimistic when it comes to peak demand of oil and links the future of renewables to policy. “The era of growth in global oil demand is predicted to peak within ten years, but the shape of the economic recovery is a key uncertainty.”

A bright future

As everyone is focusing on the immediate impacts of the Covid pandemic it is also important to look at what the long term effects will be. How will this crisis change the next ten years in terms of policymaking? “There has been a paradigm shift and now the issue of global challenges like public health and climate change are intertwined. Even if governments are more constrained financially, there is also a lot more public support for climate related policies,” remarks Soheil who conducted a recent survey on COVID that returned a very interesting and unexpected result: climate change was still the number one worry of many respondents notwithstanding the pandemic.

Maintaining a strong pace of emissions reductions post-2030 will depend on a focus on energy and material efficiency, electrification, and a strong role for low-carbon liquids and gases. “Bringing about a 40% reduction in emissions by 2030 requires, for example, that low-emissions sources provide nearly 75% of global electricity generation in 2030 (up from less than 40% in 2019), and that more than 50% of passenger cars sold worldwide in 2030 are electric (from 2.5% in 2019)”, outlines the IEA.

Promisingly, the current share of renewable energy is better than what most scenarios predicted in 2018, with renewables set to overtake coal as the world’s largest source of power by 2025, outpacing the “accelerated case” set out by the IEA just a year ago. The IEA’s 2018 predictions on solar have also been beaten: with a 40% larger output and 20–50% cheaper cost of generation than previously thought.

With oil producers taking heavy hits and a structural decline in coal use underway there is an unprecedented opportunity. However, achieving net-zero emissions will entail changes in more than just the energy sector.

Originally posted on www.climateforesight.eu by Francesco

Ever since 1995 policymakers, researchers, business leaders, activists and journalists have gathered for the annual end of year climate summit. An opportunity to set the tone for the new year and ensure that climate objectives are on track.

This year public health concerns prevented COP26 from taking place, delaying it to November 2021. However, policymakers are not throwing in the towel when it comes to advancing climate goals, with many countries updating their NDCs and the incumbent US administration vowing to take a leading role as a climate actor.

Notwithstanding the lack of a COP in 2020, leaders have found other ways to convene and discuss climate objectives. On the 12 December, on the fifth anniversary of the Paris accord, the UN, United Kingdom, and France, in partnership with Chile and Italy, co-convened a high-level event to mobilize commitments for addressing the global climate challenge which resulted in 75 countries updating their climate pledges. Although still short of what is needed to meet the Paris agreement objectives it has been heralded as a decisive step in the right direction.

All about the NDCs

The latter half of 2020 has seen a wide array of countries make major improvements to their NDCs. From economic superpowers such as China, that has committed to lower its CO2 emissions per unit of gross domestic product (GDP) by over 65% by 2030 from 2005 levels to the European Union, that has promised to bring down its GHG emissions by at least 55% from 1990 levels by 2030. Not to mention the UK, that has set a goal of reducing GHG emissions at least 68% below 1990 levels by 2030, and Japan and Korea that have also vowed to become carbon neutral by 2050.

 — @COP26

However, the absence of the US and the failure of major economies such as Brazil, Russia, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Mexico to update their commitments in 2020 means that average global temperatures are still on route to warming by around 3ºC above pre-industrial temperatures by 2100. A far greater rise than the Paris agreement’s objective of limiting warming to 1.5–2ºC.

Yet there is a light at the end of the tunnel, not least of which embodied in the prospect of the US returning as a major climate actor, the COVID pandemic having brought science based decision making back into vogue, and recovery packages being linked to sustainable development.

The return of the US

On 4 November, just before Americans set out to vote on their next President, the US officially withdrew from the Paris Agreement, as had been promised by President Donald Trump in the aftermath of his election in 2017.

However, Biden’s victory means that the US will re-join the Paris agreement as soon as he takes office. Biden has promised to support a net-zero-by-2050 target, which, when added to the new European and Chinese pledges, would mean that 45% of global emissions would be cut by 2050.

Biden has been vocal in his climate ambitions and has explicitly linked economic recovery to green recovery: “We’ll do all of this knowing that we have before us an enormous economic opportunity to create jobs and prosperity at home and export clean American-made products around the world […] We’ll elevate the incredible work cities, states and businesses have been doing to help reduce emissions and build a cleaner future. We’ll listen to and engage closely with the activists, including young people, who have continued to sound the alarm and demand change from those in power.”

 — @JoeBiden

What is more, analysts suggest that this time the Democrats will work to ensure that the Paris ratification is not so easily reversed by a future Republican presidency. Part of the reason why Trump was able to withdraw from the Paris accord was that Obama couldn’t get it approved by Congress and therefore had to use executive orders, which Trump countered with his own executive orders.

Finally, Biden’s climate commitments are not limited to re-entering climate accords but also about mobilising the financial resources necessary to decarbonize the US, linking development with green ideals. Biden has put forward a 2 trillion USD climate solution investment plan that aims to promote clean energy and jobs.

The return of climate change conferences

After a year in which climate change conferences have been postponed, the prospect of them commencing once again puts further wind in the sails of decarbonization plans. Furthermore, the fact that countries have still managed to coordinate and advance climate goals notwithstanding the delay of the COP26, is a testament to the resilience of climate actors.

 — @DamilolaSDG7

Leading up to the COP26 conference in Glasgow next November member states must ensure that all remaining countries update their commitments and develop credible and detailed plans for achieving emissions reductions in the coming decades.

NDCs represent the cornerstone of the Paris agreement and will determine our future climate. With current NDCs projected to lead to around 3ºC warming, it is paramount that all countries step up their game.

Once again, the return of the US can play a pivotal role in encouraging other countries to jump on the bandwagon and not be left behind. Therefore, the 2021 climate summit in Glasgow will probably be the most important climate summit since Paris in 2015, and a crossroads in determining our future.

Encouraging signs

Not just political will and investments but also a decisive turn by the private sector towards green investments in a variety of sectors. Not to mention he energy transition that is currently underway and which could pick up even more steam in 2021.

And it’s not just oil and gas. The business case for decarbonization is growing and includes examples such as the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), which has had its largest ever increase in membership, now reaching almost 1,000 members. Furthermore, major companies such as Apple, the world’s most valuable corporation, have announced plans to implement carbon neutral supply chains and products by 2030.

Volatility in oil prices, mixed with increasingly aggressive legislation that makes fossil fuels less attractive for investors, is driving the transition to a new energy paradigm.

Climate Foresight

With policymakers implementing regulations that encourage corporations to be climate savvy there is hope that 2021 will continue to bring progress in sustainable development. A fundamental part of this is ensuring that the finance world goes green. The Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI), which is the world’s top investor association for sustainable investing, shows a 3.5 times increase since 2019 in climate-related risk disclosures based on the framework of the Task Force on Climate-Related Forces (TCFD).

Once again Europe is trying to lead the way to climate action by engaging in the realm of finance: “by 10 March 2021, a new disclosure regulation applicable to all financial market players will become mandatory as outlined in the European Sustainable Finance Action Plan. With this regulation, ESG concerns will become a central plank for the financial services industry,” explains George Kell in his contribution piece for Forbes magazine.

The return of science

The COVID pandemic has forced global leaders to place greater faith in science-based decision-making processes. In an almost unexpected turn of events this has also brought climate issues into the foreground and the linking of COVID recovery packages to climate-related goals shows that policymakers have recognised and are trying to seize the unique opportunities that have emerged from these difficult times.

The climate crisis is a global challenge, and the science informing solutions will require global coordination that begins with a strong domestic strategy. If 2020 has come with any lessons, it’s that trust in science makes the difference between incalculable human suffering and a future in which we thrive.

The Scientific American

The pandemic has not weakened decarbonization efforts but to the contrary, it has fuelled them. It has brought facts into the foreground, spurred policymakers to rely on science in their decision-making processes and influenced public perceptions of long term risks. Carrying this momentum into 2021 can mark a much-needed turning point in contrasting climate change.

In a world where organizers are having to re-think in-person meetings, the UN Climate Dialogues seek to bring Parties and stakeholders together in new and innovative ways so as to build momentum for upcoming climate negotiations. Hidden in this challenge is a new opportunity: “Digitalising climate summits can represent a first step towards a more inclusive and accessible model of cooperation on climate change”, explains CMCC researcher Elisa Calliari.

The Covid pandemic has forced the world to adopt unprecedented health and safety measures that, amongst other things, have altered the way large multilateral negotiations take place. Although in-person meetings throughout 2020 were all but impossible, momentum for lowering emissions and increasing ambition in the struggle against climate change has kept going. Not least of which through virtual meetings such as the UNFCCC’s June momentum for Climate Change conference which was conducted entirely online. Setting an important precedent for the digitalization of climate dialogues.

More recently, the Race-to-Zero November Dialogues saw Parties and stakeholders convene online to discuss progress with regards to a zero-carbon emissions future and, a few weeks later, the UNFCCC Climate Dialogues took place from 23 Nov — Dec 4 (also online), with the purpose of further advancing climate negotiations due to the postponement of COP26. These climate dialogues are setting the stage for the Ambition Summit and the Anniversary of the Paris Agreement on 12 December with negotiators managing to meet notwithstanding the lack of face-to-face interactions.

Although it goes without saying that digitalization cannot replace in-person negotiations in the long run, the climate dialogues have allowed for the development of a new set of tools that will continue to be useful in future multilateral processes. Not least of which due to the ability of digitalization to create a more inclusive and transparent space where the UNFCCC process can unfold.

 — @UNFCCC

“The digital transformation induced by the pandemic might force us to re-think the way climate diplomacy works, rather than simply providing a temporary fix before going back to business-as-usual. The digital transformation can provide an unprecedented opportunity to open up the UNFCCC process and make it transparent and accessible to everyone”, explains CMCC researcher in the Risk Assessment and Adaptation Strategies division, Elisa Calliari who has attended multiple COPs as an observer since 2014.

In fact, during the closing session of the Climate Dialogues some Parties took the time to express their belief that the digital format of the conference had actually further democratized the UNFCCC process. Janine Felson, Chair of AOSIS stated that: “Let’s look at the positives of the virtual dialogue. It has really democratized the process. We’ve been able to reach so many more than we would have been able to had we just been locked inside of conference rooms. We need to take the positives and move on from there.”

Not just digitalization

Earlier in 2020 Calliari had joined fellow CMCC researcher Jaroslav Mysiak and UCL researcher Lisa Vanhala in writing a correspondence piece that discussed the development of a “Digital Climate Summit to maintain Paris Agreement ambition“. Something that materialised in June with the “June Momentum for Climate Change“, the UNFCCC’s solution to continuing work through virtual meetings which allowed Parties and other stakeholders to engage in dialogue and share information so as to maintain momentum and assess climate action progress.

In fact, digitalization can become more than a short term solution to the restrictions imposed by Covid. It can also serve as a platform where researchers, civil society representatives, governments and international organizations learn from each other and expand their networks, adding to the rich programme of side events that come with each COP.

Acting against climate change should be everybody’s affair. Digitalising climate summits can represent a first step towards a more inclusive and accessible model of cooperation on climate change.

Elisa Calliari

Although moving in-person conferences online is certainly feasible from a technological point of view, and necessary in the short term, it cannot be considered a long term solution. Rather it should be used as a complement to in-person meetings that allows for more ample participation. In fact, research indicates that face-to-face participation is fundamental towards negotiation processes.

“The digital divide between developed and developing countries can result in an additional source of power asymmetry within the UNFCCC process. Moreover, as some commentators have noted, there are issues of real-time translation into the six UN languages and the fact that the physical aspects of a negotiation — body language, interpersonal bonding, the mood of the room — greatly affect its outcomes,” explains Calliari, Mysiak and Vanhala in their Nature Climate Change correspondence piece.

Digitalization can provide new formats, that maintain political momentum for climate action while ensuring participation from business, research and civil society. Where actions that do not need to be negotiated by Parties can be discussed in a virtual space, even making climate negotiations more open and transparent.

Climate dialogues maintain momentum

The most recent set of virtual meetings, the UN Climate Dialogues, involved over 80 virtual events and provided a platform for countries and other stakeholders to showcase progress made in 2020 and exchange views and ideas on mandated work for COP26.

 — @UNFCCC

The UN Climate Dialogues format involved meetings and events by the constituted bodies, informal consultations by the Presiding Officers with Parties, and a series of technical workshops and information events on matters related to the work of the governing and subsidiary bodies. Events ranged from discussions on Ocean and Climate Change Dialogue to consider how to strengthen adaptation and mitigation action, to technical dialogue on common time frames for nationally determined contributions.

Marianne Karlsen, Chair of the body that provides advice on implementation to the COP, believes that, with over 8000 attendees and 3100 delegates: “It is encouraging to see those impressive figures, which reflect the high interest of our partners to continue to engage in the climate change multilateral process, and of the wider public to stay informed and willing to participate in the fight against climate change.”

Mr. Tosi Mpanu Mpanu, Chair of the subsidiary body that provides technical and scientific advice to the COP, expressed his belief that the virtual meetings have helped keep ambition high and that the meetings had a “catalyzing effect [and] we are confident that the constituted bodies are now in a better position to advance the work in 2021 in accordance with their mandates in these action areas.”

 — @UNFCCC

Parties and stakeholders came together to discuss a vast array of topics, including emission reductions, adapting to the effects of climate change, the provision of finance for climate action, technology cooperation, gender and capacity building. The COP25 president, Minister Carolina Schmidt from Chile, explained that: “Although negotiations will have to wait, these virtual talks are a substantive contribution to our common understanding in a wide range of crucial issues.”

The Climate Dialogues have shown that parties are willing to engage in the virtual space and continue to step up climate ambition. They have also revealed the potential for digitalization to facilitate preparatory work for the Climate Ambition Summit on 12 December, COP26 and beyond.

Originaly posted by Francesco on https://www.climateforesight.eu/global-policy/digitalization-and-climate-dialogues-help-build-momentum/

Just last year Britain enshrined net zero emissions by 2050 as a legally binding target and since then many have questioned how this will be achieved. The new ten-point plan aims to provide the framework for this transition and adds Britain to the list of countries currently seeking to improve their climate ambition and link “green” with “growth”.

“Now is the time to plan for a green recovery with high-skilled jobs that give people the satisfaction of knowing they are helping to make the country cleaner, greener and more beautiful”, outlined Boris Johnson in his official communication of Britain’s ten-point plan for a Green Industrial Revolution.

The plan sets aside 12bn of government investment, with the hope that the funds and policy shifts help mobilise three times this figure in private sector investments that could generate and support up to 250,000 green jobs. As the country continues to struggle with the implications of COVID it is no coincidence that the ten-point plan is so closely linked to economic recovery and the creation of new jobs and opportunities.

Now is the time to plan for a green recovery with high-skilled jobs that give people the satisfaction of knowing they are helping to make the country cleaner, greener and more beautiful. Boris Johnson

Johnson’s communication of the plan goes to great pains to paint a rosy picture of British towns powered by hydrogen and British electric cars and batteries built on home soil. However, skeptics are not only pointing to a lack of a clear plan on how to deliver on these promises, but also that the plan itself is insufficient towards meeting the net-zero emissions by 2050 target set out by the UK government last year.

Will it be enough?

According to analysis by the Economist the plan itself is “probably not enough to get Britain to net-zero greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050 […] The Climate Change Committee, an independent body, told MPs in the summer that the country was off-track. Electricity, industry and farming have become much greener since the 1990s, but buildings and vehicles have not.”

 — @DrSimEvans

The Financial Times states that “The government estimates the plan will save more than 180m tonnes of CO2 emissions during the 2023 to 2032 period, which is slightly more than half the UK’s annual emissions right now”, and therefore not sufficient towards meeting climate pledges; and according to Carbon Brief’s policy editor Simon Evans, although the new announcement is substantial, it won’t be enough to get the UK to net-zero by 2050. A major issue of contention revolves around the government funds that are being made available for the Green Revolution. Although the government statement declares that 12 billion GBP will be invested in the transition analysts indicated that this is including past investments and that new funds are actually a lot smaller.

The Guardian quotes a government spokesman as saying that “Of the £12bn, £3bn of it is brand-new investment.” The consequences of this lack of funds are explained by Sir David King, a former government chief scientist and chair of the Centre for Climate Repair at Cambridge University, who claims that: “[This] is nowhere near enough either to manage the commitment to net zero emissions by 2050 or to provide a safe future.”

However, the ten-point plan does also state that most of the funding necessary for green growth will come from the private sector and that government funding is only meant to kickstart those sectors that need an initial push in the right direction. Chris Stark, the chief executive of the Committee on Climate Change, pointed out on Twitter: “Private offshore wind investment alone would dwarf the £12bn … Majority will be private investment, with some public investment alongside.”

 — @ChiefExecCCC

In fact, The Daily Mail posits that reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 will require 1 trillion GBP — a figure that was first claimed by former chancellor Philip Hammond when critiquing ideas of a Green Industrial revolution last year.

Chris Stark took the time to clarify the scale of investment needed and where it would come from: “No — it won’t cost £1trillion. Such a misleading figure, so it’s time to put it to bed. And there’s a lot more than £4bn of investment taking place as a result of this package. We’ll have more on this on December 9th. It’s going to be one of the major themes of our next report.”

This plan can be a global template for delivering net zero emissions in ways that creates jobs and preserve our lifestyles.

Boris Johnson

Keith Anderson, the chief executive of Scottish Power, echoed these views by explaining to the Guardian that: “I don’t think the government needs to spend huge amounts of taxpayer money,” he told the Guardian. “If we have a proper policy framework and investment frameworks then money will flow into the system quite readily. Take the offshore wind sector, for example: the government stated an ambition, set up its [contracts for difference] mechanism, and this has created a self-perpetuating industrial success story. We are starting to see the same thing in electric vehicles where costs are beginning to come down.”

What does the plan include?

One of the main new aspects of the plan set out by the government is the 2030 ban on new petrol/diesel car sales. The previous target for this ban was 2040 and therefore marks a significant increase in ambition that brings the UK to the forefront of electric car promotion.

However, to date only 6.6% of new cars sold in Britain are battery-powered and another 5.5% are plug-in hybrids — a technology that will be allowed until 2035.

Professor Peter Wells, director of the Centre for Automotive Industry Research at Cardiff University, New York Times that “without additional government help, without additional companies coming in, the UK automotive industry is going to struggle to survive the transition to electric vehicles”. The paper noted that “Britain’s departure from the European Union has already caused investment in the auto industry to plummet”. At the same time the Governmt’s plan intends to promote electric car production in the UK by setting aside “nearly £500m to be spent in the next four years” for the creation of the UK’s first battery gigafactory.

The other major news emerging from the plan regards the energy sector and in particular nuclear and hydrogen. For nuclear energy, the plan sets aside a fund of £525m “to help develop large and smaller-scale nuclear plants, and research and develop new advanced modular reactors”, without outlining a specific roadmap. Similarly, for hydrogen there will be “up to £500m” of which £240m will be allocated towards enhancing capacity of hydrogen to 5GW by 2030. Hydrogen power will be used for homes and cooking “starting with a hydrogen neighbourhood in 2023, moving to a hydrogen village by 2025, with an aim for a hydrogen town — equivalent to tens of thousands of homes — before the end of the decade”.

 — @BorisJohnson

With hydrogen in particular it is clear that the government is attempting to prop up gamechanger technologies that are still very much in the development phase and will require support and trials to meet their potential.

This also includes plans to further develop Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) which is described as a necessary technology to meet climate objectives. With regards to CCS the UK is looking to become “a world-leader in technology to capture and store harmful emissions away from the atmosphere”, with a target of removing 10 megatonnes of CO2 (MtCO2) by 2030.

In light of Britain hosting the next COP in Glasgow in 2021, the ten-point plan marks a significant shift in government policy and shows Johnson’s intention to place himself as a standard-bearer of environmental policy. This also comes at a pivotal moment as the government is due release an energy white paper which will give more substance to the 10-point plan and bring forth future legislation. Although there seems to be a lack of a clear roadmap this is just a first step in the right direction.

Rising sea levels is one of the risks that people most commonly associate with global warming, with more than 600 million people (around 10% of the world’s population) living in coastal areas that are less than 10 meters above sea level. A heating world leads to thermal expansion of water (water expands as it gets warmer) and land-based ice melting, which in turn brings our oceans to eat up more and more land. Finding solutions to this problem is a complex issue that requires researchers and policymakers to look at the broader picture when addressing both adaptation and mitigation measures.

“What we need is a cross-sectoral approach that faces and solves problems related to sea level rise with a systemic vision of risks that then shares possible actions between different actors. Paradoxically, if I implement adaptation actions these same actions could then create problems elsewhere and therefore lead to maladaptation,” explains CMCC researcher Silvia Torresan, whose research at the CMCC focuses on impacts, risks and vulnerability related to climate change.

Considering multiple types of hazards reduces the likelihood that risk reduction efforts targeting one type of hazard will increase exposure and vulnerability to other hazards, in the present and future.

IPCC, Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

“Rising sea levels can lead not only to loss of beaches, land and coastal ecosystems but also problems related to salt water intrusion into freshwater aquifers and an increase in flooding due to sea surges with significant impacts on coastal cities. Furthermore, there could be a degradation of ocean ecosystems due to changes in temperature, salinity, ph levels and other biogeochemical properties of water,” She continues.

The importance of using a multi-risk approach

Evaluating risk depends on an analysis of hazard (how much sea levels will rise), exposure (who and what will be affected) and vulnerability (who and what is particularly exposed to the effects).

Therefore, the threats presented by rising sea levels must be evaluated against the specific circumstances of each area. For instance, many coastal zones are also experiencing increasing anthropic pressures linked with socio-economic development (e.g. overfishing, tourism, port activities, industrialization) and land use changes (e.g. urbanization) that compound the risks derived from rising sea levels.

Understanding how different land and sea-based drivers — natural and anthropic — shape the evolution of coastal zones at different spatial and temporal scales, and what solutions could be implemented to reduce vulnerability and mitigate environmental and socio-economic risks is of paramount importance to unlock sustainable development pathways.

Silvia Torresan, CMCC Foundation

With fellow researchers, Torresan is working on bringing this approach into policymaking, by applying a multi-criteria methodology to support the analysis and prioritization of risk management measures aimed at enhancing resilience towards climate change-related extreme events for the Metropolitan city of Venice in Northern Italy with the Savemedcoast2 project. By providing stakeholders with information on climate risks this then helped them identify the most imminent hazards and impacts.

What does this mean for policy decisions?

When talking about sea level rise, accurate predictions are fundamental for both mitigation and adaptation policies. For mitigation, knowing that different emissions pathways will have a direct effect on future sea levels can act as an added incentive for reducing emissions. For adaptation, accurate predictions and a multi-risk approach can make all the difference when choosing what strategies to adopt and where and when to apply them.

“Different scenarios, when analysed one by one, lead to a specific prioritisation of the set of risk management measures; while, when the scenarios are analysed together, the prioritisation of the same measures can be totally different. The necessity to adopt a multi-hazard approach to disaster risk management and climate change adaptation is confirmed by these outcomes developed in the Metropolitan city of Venice using a bottom-up approach with a strong stakeholders involvement in the frame of the BRIDGE project. Implementing measures strongly oriented to cope with single hazard could lead to an increase of a risk towards other kind of hazards,” explains Anna Sperotto, scientist that at CMCC Foundation who focuses her research on Risk Assessment and Adaptation Strategies.

Furthermore, processes leading to adaptation are far more effective when they are inclusive: involving actors covering different sectors, stages and domains of risks and resilience management to ensure that the needs and perspectives of minority groups are also taken into account. In this way, different system connections and interdependencies are fully understood. Finally, increasing the awareness and knowledge of specific groups of the population to climatic phenomena also makes them more supportive of adaptation policies.

This is fundamental when talking about coastal planning around the world and not just in Venice. Moderate future scenarios indicate that by 2050 the homes of 150 million people could find themselves permanently below the high-tide line. And this is accounting for stability in the Antarctic. If on the other hand an Antarctic instability outlook is assumed then a total of 300 million people are considered as currently living on land that is at risk.

But how can governments plan for these changes? Scientists are working to assist them by providing reliable and accurate information.

How much will they rise?

Since 1880 global mean sea levels have risen by 21–24 cm, with a 3.6 millimetre rise per year between 2006–2015, which is more than twice as much as the average for the rest of the 20th century (1.4 millimetres per year). As ocean and land temperatures continue to increase scientists are certain that sea levels will continue to rise. However, the extent of this increment is still up for debate.

One source of uncertainty is the contribution of the Antarctic ice sheet. New evidence published in the journal Nature suggests that melting ice in the Antarctic alone could raise sea levels by 2.5 metres in a 2ºC warming scenario: “The ice sheet’s temperature sensitivity is 1.3 metres of sea-level equivalent per ºC of warming up to 2ºC above pre-industrial levels […] if the Paris Agreement is not met, Antarctica’s long-term sea-level contribution will dramatically increase and exceed that of all other sources”.

But it’s not just about Antarctica. Another peer-reviewed paper, also published in the journal Nature, predicts that anthropic emissions over the coming decades could lead to a greater rise in sea levels than previously envisioned, exposing over 300 million people’s homes to flooding and leaving over 200 million people’s homes permanently below the high tide line by 2100.

According to the IPCC SROCC by the end of the century, average global sea levels will rise by a minimum of 0.29 and a maximum of 1.1 metres, depending on the amount of greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere. “Even if we manage to reduce emissions in line with the Paris Agreement objectives, sea levels will still rise between 28 and 60 centimetres by the end of the century. For this reason, it is important to act both in terms of mitigation and adaptation”, explains Torresan.

 — @IPCC_CH

How do scientists calculate sea level rise?

The reason we are seeing updated figures and at times contrasting predictions has to do with the way in which sea level rise is calculated and the myriad of factors that must be taken into account.

There are two main ways of calculating rising sea levels. The first is through the use of tide gauges that, for over a century, have been used for measuring daily high and low tides across the globe. The other method involves satellite altimeters (utilising both radar and laser technology) that can map ocean depth more accurately. Using a mixture of these tools, scientists determine how oceans are changing over time.

However, to understand where and when sea level rise will impact specific areas and communities scientists must also collect accurate readings of land elevation against which to compare their data.

“Not only are sea levels rising but there are also vertical movements in land, due to both the movement of tectonic plates and land subsidence. Whereas for the movement of tectonic plates we do have some data on a national and global scale, land subsidence has to be calculated at a local level with precise measurements that are hard to apply on a broad scale,” explains Torresan.

Furthermore, the presence of anthropic activities can influence both land subsidence and the effects of sea level rise (for instance dams can prevent flooding from rising sea levels) leading to inaccurate data on inundation estimates, particularly in heavily developed coastal areas.

Measuring land elevation

The most commonly used instrument for evaluating land elevation in the United States is the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM). However, it is prone to overestimations averaging around 4.7 metres in low-elevation coastal areas with high population density, such as Boston, Miami and New York.

A new tool developed by Climate Central manages to lower inaccuracies when measuring land elevation to less than 6.35 centimetres. The tool called CoastalDEM reveals that in fact many of the worlds coastal areas are a lot lower than previously thought, therefore increasing the number of people that are predicted to be affected by rising sea levels. The coastal risk screening tool uses improved elevation data to provide forecasts of coastal flooding depending on different scenarios and allows anyone to create customizable and localised maps, analysing risks over time and in any given area.

Using the CoastalDEM tool researchers have found that hundreds of millions of people more than previously thought could be affected by rising sea levels. In particular, coastal Asia is vulnerable and research also indicates that in the US “sea-level rise this century may induce large-scale migration away from unprotected coastlines, redistributing population density across the country and putting great pressure on inland areas”.

The number of vulnerable provinces as well as the magnitude of vulnerability are expected to increase in the future due to the worsening of climate, environmental, and socio-economic conditions.

Elisa Furlan, Climate risk, impact and vulnerability assessment scientist at the Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change.

“I am very sensitive to this issue since I live in a very fragile coastal environment that is highly vulnerable to climate change, the city of Venice and its lagoon”, explains Torresan. “However, it is important to point out that the climate central instrument doesn’t factor in dams in the Venice area so although the tool can increase awareness it doesn’t give an accurate prediction. This instrument gives a screening that identifies which areas will be more vulnerable, you cannot however use its outputs to plan in the region. To do this you need more precise and higher resolution data.”

Implementing a multi-risk approach

A new paper on risks associated with extreme sea level scenarios in Italy and how both natural and human drivers lead to both risks and vulnerability in coastal areas seeks to provide integrated knowledge and data with information on exposure and vulnerability. “We developed an improved vulnerability index that is able to represent both the overall vulnerability level of the coasts as well as disentangle the multiple dimensions of coastal vulnerability [so as to] better investigate the interconnections of climatic hazards with temporal changes in social and economic systems, as well as their relationship with the surrounding environment”, explains Elisa Furlan, impact and vulnerability assessment scientist at the Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change and main author of the paper that is yet to be published.

Of particular significance is the paper’s choice to focus on the national scale so as to support policymakers by providing them with a “big vulnerability picture of Italian coasts as a whole and the vulnerability condition of individual coastal provinces. This wider spatial perspective, allows for identifying hotspot vulnerable provinces deserving prior attention and requiring more local-scale assessments to support ad hoc decision making”, continues Furlan. The paper may well be the first attempt at applying a Coastal Vulnerability Index for the entire Italian coast as opposed to focusing on more localized coastal areas.

Results indicate that “the number of vulnerable provinces, as well as the magnitude of vulnerability, are expected to increase in the future due to the worsening of climate, environmental, and socio-economic conditions (e.g. land use variations and increase of the elderly population).” By using a multi-risk approach and providing a national-scale picture of vulnerability the paper can therefore facilitate integrated coastal zone management and support climate adaptation planning that is timely and effective.

Originally posted on www.climateforesight.eu

Japan was subject to intense criticism in the early months of 2020 for its failure to update its NDCs. Since then the country has stepped up its rhetoric the new prime ministers, Yoshihide Suga, used his first Diet policy speech to announce Japan’s intention to go climate neutral by 2050, joining an exclusive club of around 30 other countries and regions (including the EU) that have set the net zero target by 2050.

Response to global warming is no longer a constraint on economic growth. We need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Japan to net zero by 2050, that is, carbon neutral by 2050, and aim to achieve a decarbonized society […] fundamentally shift the long-standing policy on coal-fired power generation.

Yoshihide Suga

What is more, South Korea followed suit just a few days later, giving sustenance to the proposal put forward by President Moon’s ruling party before April’s national assembly. In his policy speech, President Moon promised to “actively respond” to the climate emergency and “achieve carbon neutrality by 2050”.

Japan and South Korea’s pledges come just weeks after China promised to reach net zero emissions by 2060, a sign that the tide may be changing in Asia. However, now that the net zero club is growing in membership, the real question is how will these countries achieve their goals?

 — @antonioguterres

Japan’s net zero pledge

As the world’s third largest economy and fifth emitter, the importance of Japan’s climate pledge cannot be understated. In the past Japan had not made a formal commitment to carbon neutrality and had failed to include targets in its “Long-term Strategy under the Paris Agreement”. Therefore, this new promise marks a significant shift from the policies of Suga’s predecessor, Shinzo Abe.

However, although national policymakers have been slow to step up their game, local governments and businesses have already been propelling japan’s climate efforts. Many companies involved in the Japan Climate Initiative (JCI) and local government municipalities that account for over half of the island nation’s population had already committed to net zero emissions by 2050 before Suga made his speech. In fact, the JCI believes that it was pressure from these non-state actors, as well as international pressure, that led to Suga’s stance on climate policy.

What needs to be done

The big question being asked by onlookers is how will a country that relies so heavily on coal for its energy generation manage to achieve this goal. According to Teruyuki Ohno, Executive Director at the Renewable Energy Institute (REI), “In order for today’s 2050 Carbon Neutral Declaration to really strengthen Japan’s climate actions, it is necessary to significantly strengthen the GHG reduction target for 2030, and to completely phase out coal-fired power generation including those which have been called ‘high efficiency’. As research by the Renewable Energy Institute has revealed, the key to policy shifts is to supply 45% of electricity from renewable energy by 2030.”

Such a significant shift to renewable energy is not wholly impossible. Although Japan has been lambasted for having a low share of renewable energy generation compared to other large economies recent data indicates that things are changing. Also due to a decrease in demand for energy due to the COVID pandemic Japan has already reached its 2030 target of 23% renewable energy generation. However, for this share of the energy market to increase to 45%, there will be a need to invest large sums in the development of renewable energy resources in Hokkaido, Tohoku, and other regions, as well as the construction of a core transmission network and simplifying access to the grid, which has been one of the determining factors in keeping renewable energy generation low in Japan.

The REI is particularly active and vocal about efforts to create an energy strategy that can achieve a decarbonized society in Japan. REI are focusing on solar PV and onshore/offshore wind power as the solutions to Japan’s clean energy future. However, another key player in Japan’s clean energy future could be nuclear power generation. Due to Japan’s troubled history with nuclear energy, this remains a hotly contested and controversial topic and there is much uncertainty around how Suga’s government will engage with nuclear energy and how important it will become in ensuring their net zero pledge.

A Japan with net zero GHG emissions is not only decarbonized, it is a country with much higher energy self-sufficiency and much greater energy security that does not need to import fossil fuels at a cost of over 10 trillion yen a year.

Renewable Energy Institute of Japan

Finally, a major tool being used by countries across the globe to stimulate climate policy is linking COVID recovery packages to carbon neutral development. In Japan, this link remains uncertain as less than 0.2% of recovery funds have been associated with climate projects (compared to around 30% in the EU). Ensuring that COVID recovery and an energy transition are linked can provide a boost towards creating net zero emissions by 2050.

Japan needs a roadmap

Although Suga’s speech has led to optimism there is also a lot of scepticism due to the lack of a concrete roadmap. According to Takejiro Sueyoshi, the representative of Japan Climate Initiative, “We believe that the government have responded to the pioneering efforts of a wide range of these non-state actors. This is an important step, but the problem is yet to come. Not only does the government need to set a goal for 30 years from now, it must set a concrete roadmap and immediately strengthen its actions, aiming for significant reductions by 2030. Again, We urge the government to reinforce its NDC and raise its greenhouse gas emission reduction targets by 2030.”

According to WWF Japan a concrete roadmap in Japan to achieve the net zero by 2050 goal would require four main steps: raise the emission reduction target for 2030 to 45% or more and submit it to the Paris Agreement as a new NDC; work on the revision of the 2030 energy mix as a measure to embody the 2050 zero emission target; introduce effective policies such as an emissions trading system that leads to decarbonization and enactment of basic law for global warming countermeasures; and finally clearly link climate change measures with economic recovery measures from the COVID pandemic.

The domino effect

Just days after Japan’s new commitment South Korea also moved in the same direction. This is significant as South Korea currently relies on coal for over 40% of its energy generation and renewables make up less than 6% of its energy mix. President Moon announced that the countries Green New Deal would end their reliance on coal and bring a shift towards renewables with a multibillion-dollar plan to invest in green infrastructure, clean energy and electric vehicles. This will also involve putting an end to financing overseas coal plants, implementing a carbon tax and lowering industrial carbon emissions.

Although it may be too early to talk about a global domino effect, particularly as the outcome of the US elections is still in doubt, the decisions of these Asian superpowers are already having significant effects regionally. One country that is looking at Japan’s new approach to coal with a worried eye is Australia. Japan is Australia’s largest purchaser of coal. In fact, about ⅓ of Australia’s coal is exported to Japan which has now vowed to end all coal imports within the next ten years.

Just as Austalia’s coal industry will feel the impact of Japans policy decisions so will other countries. Whether this will lead to a domino effect towards carbon neutral future remains to be seen.

In 1907 Leo Baekeland invented Bakelite, the first fully synthetic and mass-produced plastic. From then on this revolutionary material has continued to play an ever-larger role in our daily lives. Plastics have challenged and conquered the supremacy of a wide range of traditional materials, becoming ubiquitous in modern-day society. However, in recent times environmental concerns are starting to make the future of plastics ever more uncertain.

Plastics have not always been associated with pollution and environmental harm. They proved to be a lifesaver for a long list of materials that were being put under increasing pressure due to growing demand. Ivory from elephants, shell from the hawksbill turtle, and even horn from cattle were all natural plastics that were under threat and thrown a lifeline with the invention of plastic.

Particularly in the post-WWII era, plastics were seen as a semi-utopian material: an infinite, inexpensive and sanitary substance that could be moulded into any given shape depending on requirements. The fact that plastics are created following four basic steps: acquirement of raw material, synthesizing a basic polymer, compounding the polymer into a usable fraction, and finally, moulding or shaping the plastic meant they presented virtually endless possibilities.

Yet problems were already on the horizon. The issue of pollution and plastic waste showing up in our air, oceans, rivers and mountains became irrefutable by the 70s and 80s and led governments across the world to begin passing legislation on production, use and disposal.

Plastic production continues to grow

In 2018, approximately 359 million metric tons of plastics were produced worldwide. The International Energy Agency (IEA) also predicts that plastic production will continue to grow in the next twenty years, indicating that it could reach 540 million metric tonnes by 2040. Similarly, large oil producers also believe that the production of plastics will form an ever larger part of their business.

Hand in hand with the growth in demand and supply has been an insatiable increase in the market value of plastics, which is forecasted to grow from 523 billion U.S. dollars in 2018 to more than 750 billion U.S. dollars in 2027.

Oil producers betting big on plastics

Since COVID-19, global demand for gasoline and jet fuel has taken a strong hit. This fall in demand is expected to continue as governments attempt to regulate CO2 emissions, invest in renewables and seize this opportunity to make true to environmental commitments.

In light of this trend, the oil industry is starting to change its focus and predicts a bright future for the petrochemical industry due to the expectation that there will be an ever-increasing demand for plastics. Companies such as EXXon Mobile and Shell are investing millions in increasing their productive capacities, claiming that the plastics industry will maintain the rate of growth it has shown since 2010, namely 4%. Growth at this rate would mean doubling of demand in as little as 18 to 24 years.

Currently, only around 9% of extracted oil is used to make plastics. However, based on growth projections the IEA expects plastics to account for around 45% of total oil demand growth, becoming the largest single driver. According to research by Carbon Tracker, ExxonMobil has invested 20 billion USD in new facilities in the U.S. and the industry as a whole is forecasted to spend 400 billion USD on new plants and equipment, resulting in 80 megatonnes of new plastic production capacity.

The future of plastics is uncertain

Yet not all is as certain as it seems. The petrochemical industry is already facing overcapacity problems as many countries are saturated with plastics and are cutting down on their consumption. Another major issue is the unwillingness of countries to continue acting as dumping grounds for plastic waste.

It is simply delusional for the plastics industry to imagine that it can double its carbon emissions at the same time as the rest of the world is trying to cut them to zero

Kingsmill Bond, Energy Strategist at Carbon Tracker

A recent investigation by the New York Times reveals how the world’s foremost chemical makers and fossil fuel companies are lobbying to ensure that US trade negotiations with Kenya make the African nation revert its strict limits on plastics and return to importing plastic waste. “We anticipate that Kenya could serve in the future as a hub for supplying U.S.-made chemicals and plastics to other markets in Africa through this trade agreement,” stated Ed Brzytwa, the director of international trade for the American Chemistry Council, in an April 28 letter to the Office of the United States Trade Representative.

In 2019 Kenya was one of over 180 countries that opted to sign the Basel Convention Plastic Waste Amendments in an effort to further legislate and curb plastic waste imports, something that the chemical industry actively worked against. The restrictions included putting a complete ban on the US, which hasn’t ratified the Basel Convention, from sending waste to Basel member nations.

In contrast to the oil industry’s rosy growth predictions, a Carbon Tracker report highlights how increasing government regulations and new technologies that boost recycling and reduce plastic use will actually lead to plastics production peaking in 2027. The report states that the transition from a linear model of plastic production and consumption will be replaced by a circular approach as governments act to reach the climate targets set out in the Paris Agreement.

All about legislation

Governments are using five key tools to regulate plastics: taxation, design rules, bans, targets, and infrastructure. Combined with a 4% drop in demand for plastics in 2020, due to COVID-19, policymakers now have more manoeuvring space than ever before.

Some of the most recent and noteworthy examples include the EU’s July 2020 proposed 800 trillion euro tax on unrecycled waste plastic and China’s comparable regulatory push which has included banning certain types of plastics. Not to mention China’s decision to close down a significant part of its industry for importing and processing plastic waste — which was the largest in the world.

As governments act, major companies are put under pressure. In 2019 a list of large multinational corporations such as Coca-Cola, Unilever, Nestlé and Carrefour pledged to disclose their annual plastic packaging volumes in a shed water moment for transparency around the use of plastics.

 — @CarbonBubble

“Remove the plastic pillar holding up the future of the oil industry, and the whole narrative of rising oil demand collapses”, claims Kingsmill Bond, Carbon Tracker Energy Strategist and lead author of the Breaking the Plastic’s Wave report.

As countries try to curb their CO2 emissions plastics will inevitably take a hit. When plastics are produced they release CO2 throughout their value chain: from the extraction of oil and manufacturing to when they are burnt, landfilled or recycled. Research even indicates that plastics release about twice as much CO2 as producing a tonne of oil.

“It is simply delusional for the plastics industry to imagine that it can double its carbon emissions at the same time as the rest of the world is trying to cut them to zero,” concludes Kingsmill Bond.

While dealing with the short-term challenges related to the current crisis, the world is looking ahead to the long-term challenges to follow, including climate change. The innovation needed today to decarbonise our world brings unprecedented opportunities for economies and societies. However, finding the right recipes for single problems is not enough: innovation must lead to systemic change. We asked Kirsten Dunlop, CEO at EIT Climate-KIC — a Knowledge and Innovation Community working to accelerate the transition to a zero-carbon, climate-resilient society — how today’s actions can drive the shift we need, especially in Europe.

How can the response to the COVID-19 crisis be used to shape more sustainable systems, and to avoid going back to business-as-usual?

One of the most important things to come out of the COVID-19 crisis has been a much more extensive awareness and understanding of how many things in our lives are deeply interconnected, of what the notion of system and systemic means, even if it’s not explicitly named as such in our discussion or in the news coverage of the pandemic.

People have begun to realise the implications of a connected world: supermarkets running out of supplies, and the possibility that entire value chains are disrupted during a crisis like COVID-19 and that it could even take months before things get back to normal, if ever. This realisation gives us ground on which to build more sustainable and resilient systems.

We have also seen the emergence of new kinds of solidarity, from people continuing to pay their cleaners while asking them not to work, to neighbourhoods and communities helping each other while in lockdown at home, and artists performing on the streets to keep people entertained. At the heart of these behaviours is an emergent appreciation for the ‘common good’, which sometimes involves deliberate shifts in individual action for the good of the community.

Ultimately, greater awareness and mindset shifts are the foundational elements we need to sustain transformation to address climate change, which is fundamentally a transformation of ourselves and of our notions of the self in relation to each other and the planet.

If you pay attention to human and human planetary health together, you will get net benefits across the whole. I think that is the thing that a pandemic-induced crisis — something that disconnects and isolates humans from each other — has made desirable and possible.

We’re already seeing the nascent effects of such transformations with a number of changes once thought to be impossible in the short-term. Cities like Madrid or Amsterdam for instance are introducing regulations to hold the ground that has been achieved by the disruption of COVID-19, to keep cars out of the city, and turn community moments of solidarity into lasting community wellbeing.

The COVID-19 response has also heightened government awareness and understanding of the need to rewild landscapes and the urban environment. Scientific studies have already proven the link between deforestation and increased risk of infectious disease transmitted between humans and other animals, also called zoonosis, like the coronavirus. Preventing deforestation and maintaining healthy biodiversity can reduce these risks. It also brings new opportunities for future jobs that are at the nexus of human and planetary health.

Rewilding a city, for instance, can re-introduce the benefits of biodiversity and better air quality, and introduce nature-based solutions to waste management and low emissions energy sources. It can also create a set of jobs in community gardens, urban farming and green spaces that are hard to automate, as well as a set of common spaces that contribute to social, emotional and physical wellbeing, reducing healthcare costs and introducing a set of benefits associated with community cohesion. Innovative design in shared ownership and citizen participation in such spaces can enhance and complement inclusive approaches to building retrofits, energy generation and so on. In other words, it is possible to create a system of effects with, at its core, the beginning of a realisation that if you pay attention to human and human planetary health together, you will get net benefits across the whole. I think that is the thing that a pandemic-induced crisis — something that disconnects and isolates humans from each other — has made desirable and possible.

What impact could this crisis have on European innovation policies?

If you had a tagline for what you should be doing with European innovation, it’s ‘innovation as if the future mattered’, and innovation for the generations that are not yet in power.

We are about to spend more money than the world has ever spent at any one point in its time. Not only is that unprecedented, but it is all debt, which means that we’re going to be paying it back for decades. And it is the generations that have been mobilising on the streets to ask for action who are going to be paying it back, not the people who are currently in power. That ought to have an extraordinary difference on European innovation policies.

Sadly, there’s a disconnect between a political will to focus on green recovery and a ground up fear-driven response to invest in quick reconstruction — the so-called ‘grey recovery’.

Democracy risks becoming one of the sacrificial victims of such crises, and of responses to climate change that come too little too late.

What is positive in the shaping of European innovation policy post-COVID-19 is the desire to recognise the need for a shift, and build on the direction laid out in the European Green Deal. And what is happening as a result of the COVID-19 crisis is a much greater focus on the use of public funding to accelerate and develop the deployment of innovations on the ground together with a recognition that ‘deployment’ is not simply a second order downstream effect; it is also a place of co-creation and ideation, ingenuity and invention.

Another impact of this crisis on European innovation policy is a confirmation of the need for systemic change. There is a real call for the research and innovation space to be significantly more cognizant of the need to have innovations connect, and for them to connect to notions of social change and political, economic, and social and cultural identity. The crisis has reinforced the extent to which European innovation policy not only calls for systemic effects but acknowledges the need to create an enabling environment for that. This is evident already in the consultation phase for the European Green Deal Pilot call.

An organisation like EIT Climate-KIC is trying to achieve exactly this: to structure public and private support for innovation through portfolios of deliberately chosen solutions that work across technology, policy, finance, and citizen engagement, and test diverse approaches simultaneously, so that we can generate options for the transformation of whole systems and value chains in cities, in agriculture and in industry — in the future of work and life.

The world is looking for new solutions to new health, economic, societal, and environmental problems. It is clear like never before that sustainability has many interconnected dimensions. How is the innovation landscape already changing to address the need for facing these multifaced challenges?

There is a greater understanding today of the need for radical collaborations, which I believe is desperately needed. I see a shift in what has been a very siloed and patterned landscape of individual organisations working on climate, trying to maximise individual funding streams and distinctive spaces for action, that are now sharing and learning from one another, and looking for ways in which they might act together.

The same thing is happening across the political spectrum in Europe, where conservative city governments are acting on issues that would normally have been the platform of left and green parties. This is very important because I think democracy risks becoming one of the sacrificial victims of such crises, and of responses to climate change that come too little too late.

There is also a call for a much more concerted effort to do more about citizen engagement: to connect the idea of Europe to its people and the idea of agile responses to threat and crisis to the imagination of people on the street, residents of European cities and landscapes, as something that is also part of the identity and strength of Europe. The Climate Pact and the work that is going into public consultations are great examples of this effort.

Are there existing, crisis-relevant innovations that are promising to play a role in the field of climate innovation?

A very relevant lesson for the climate innovation field comes from humanitarian responses to crisis. We are learning from the experience of humanitarian response to see crisis response as a moment and a context in which resilience can be built and held. EIT Climate-KIC is working on this for example with the Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre which helps to reduce the impacts of climate change on vulnerable people. We see a growing opportunity and need for climate innovation initiatives to design solutions and initiatives further upstream of crisis to achieve significant differences in prevention and resilience.

The impact of the COVID crisis on ways of working has completely reframed what we thought possible and we can build on this to enable and accelerate a more sustainable future of work.

Another promising innovation is the work on nature-based solutions drawing on biomimicry. We’re starting to really pay attention to what the natural world and the environment can teach us about resilience, about community responses, and about living in very different inherently sustainable ways.

The last and perhaps most obvious example is the extent to which people have shifted almost overnight from face-to-face working and meeting to virtual working, meeting and thinking. We no longer talk about virtual meeting using one single channel of technology but are now using four or five different technologies simultaneously to create an effective virtual environment. The impact of the COVID crisis on ways of working has completely reframed what we thought possible and we can build on this to enable and accelerate a more sustainable future of work.

There is a possibility that COVID-19 may not be the biggest crisis of our lifetimes but the first of multiple large-scale crises in our lifetimes

What do you think the innovation community should focus on when designing a COVID-19 response that helps society to mitigate and adapt to climate change?

My biggest concern is that we still tend to assume that climate change is about finding and implementing the right solutions: energy substitution, waste management, housing retrofit, infrastructure and construction, land management etc. While I hope it doesn’t happen, there is a possibility that COVID-19 may not be the biggest crisis of our lifetimes but the first of multiple large-scale crises in our lifetimes. In that context, I believe that the most important thing we can and should focus on is on building a capability for resilience and renewal at all levels: from individuals and small social units, to collective, organisational, institutional, city-wide, region-wide or nation-wide.

For me, if the research and innovation community meets the climate community and they work together, grounding their collective understanding in the fact that ultimately what needs to shift is human behaviour and human perception — then they will have accomplished something valuable. Because from this, a capability for resilience and renewal is made possible.