mplex, but the special report on 1.5°C of warming from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change makes a strong case that we are fast approaching such “dangerous interference.” If, in fact, we pass that point, then we will need to begin pulling out more than we are putting in. We will need to achieve net negative emissions.
The international community has articulated numerous long-term stabilization targets, including 2°C and, in the Paris Accord, “well below” 2°C. But looking across the policy and technology landscape, it is clear that our current strategy for climate action is insufficient to achieve those targets. If the true goal is to stabilize concentrations at a level that avoids dangerous interference, then the world needs to commit itself not just to ambitious targets, but ambitious actions, as well.
More Proximate Objectives
Now, these goals can seem daunting—or even downright impossible—given political and economic realities. Obviously, no individual policymaker or nation has direct control over global temperature changes or the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases. There is an essential need for leaders to seek out more proximate targets, commitments, and frameworks that can help the world eventually achieve our loftier goals.
In recent years, leaders have emerged at the national and subnational level. Countries like the United Kingdom and France have substantially reduced their emissions and are looking to build on that progress by committing to net-zero emissions by 2050. The European Union recently announced a goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. In the United States, California and New York now have laws aiming for economy-wide reductions of 80 to 85 percent by 2050, and in New York’s case, net-zero emissions by 2050. Canadian leaders have also announced the goal of achieving a net-zero emissions economy by 2050.
Many of these goals depend on rapid progress in reducing emissions from the power sector. California, which would be the world’s fifth-largest economy if it were its own country, has committed to 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2045, including options like natural gas with carbon capture and storage. A diverse array of other US states, including New York, Washington, Hawaii, and New Mexico have each adopted similar goals.
Widening the Track
These ambitious goals will not be easy to meet, and there has been much discussion about what range of options should be on the table. Should the strategy focus solely on energy efficiency, renewables, and electrification? Or should we pursue a “technology-inclusive” approach, where other technologies are welcome to play a role, whether that’s nuclear energy; fossil fuels with carbon capture, utilization, and storage; or so-called “negative emissions” technologies such as direct air capture or biomass energy with carbon capture and storage?
A technology-inclusive strategy has a number of advantages.
Expanding our solution set makes more ambitious and comprehensive strategies more feasible and cost effective. In addition to renewable power and solutions for long-duration energy storage, moving the global power system to net-zero emissions is also likely to require firm, dispatchable power sources, such as nuclear, and natural gas with carbon capture. Certain transportation emission sources, such as aviation, shipping, and long-haul trucking are hard to electrify, opening an opportunity for net-zero liquid fuels, hydrogen, or other options.
Industrial processes that require very high temperatures or come with process-related emissions require yet another set of solutions—possibly carbon capture and storage, hydrogen, certain advanced nuclear technologies, or other as-yet-undiscovered alternatives. Agriculture, forestry, and other land-use emission sources present a distinct group of challenges; they also present an array of opportunities for emissions offsets through biomass carbon sequestration.
Widening our aperture will allow any effective and safe technology to compete, increase the feasibility of deep reductions, and lower the cost of mee