Latest news with #climateadvocacy
ABC News
2 days ago
- Business
- ABC News
Climate stability will require carbon removal on a large scale — are the existing methods up to the task? - ABC Religion & Ethics
If countries are to meet the Paris Agreement goal of holding 'the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels' and pursing efforts 'to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels', we're now told that reducing greenhouse gas emissions alone will be insufficient. Given our energy needs and the time it will take to transition to fully renewable sources of energy, Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) will also be needed, on a large scale. But there is considerable scepticism about CDR. In May, power company EnergyAustralia apologised to its customers after settling a Federal Court case launched by advocacy group Parents for Climate. In a statement published as part of the settlement, the company said: 'Burning fossil fuels creates greenhouse gas emissions that are not prevented or undone by carbon offsets.' There are several reasons why that might be true. One that critics frequently cite comes from the fact that the removals certified by carbon offsets can't be guaranteed to last as long as the emissions they are supposed to offset. Is this a good reason for dismissing CDR? CO₂ removal methods and the risk of reversal Broadly speaking, there are two types of CDR methods. 'Nature-based methods' use natural processes — like photosynthesis — to trap CO₂ in ecosystems such as forests, wetlands and farmlands. 'Engineered' methods, on the other hand, typically use advanced technology to capture CO₂ directly from the atmosphere or industrial sites. Both of these methods have drawn criticism. Some argue against investing in new carbon capture methods due to their high costs and technological uncertainties. Others argue that the benefits of nature-based solutions are profoundly limited, not least because of the short time horizon over which forests and other natural sinks can store carbon. The critics of nature-based methods are on to something. If the core idea of net zero emissions is balancing greenhouse gas additions and removals, we need the removals to last as long as the additions. However, the CO₂ we release today can persist in the atmosphere for centuries or even millennia. In contrast, many nature-based methods, like planting trees, might only store carbon for a few decades. This criticism highlights a genuine concern: merely planting a tree cannot be considered a valid offset if it eventually releases its absorbed CO₂ back into the atmosphere when it dies. This carries a 'reversal risk' — a risk that CO₂, once stored, will be re-released. However, while reversal risk is undoubtedly important, this doesn't mean that nature-based methods should be dismissed — instead, it means that they need to be managed well. Individual trees die, but provided a forest is properly maintained and managed over the long term, it can still act as a carbon sink. It's the continuous, deliberate maintenance of forests that ensures carbon is consistently captured, even if individual trees within the ecosystem die and are replaced. Additionally, reversal risk is not exclusive to nature-based methods. Engineered carbon removal methods and novel storage technologies also carry their own reversal risks. Storage facilities could fail, or novel technologies might prove less effective or reliable than initially expected. Investing all our resources in engineered CDR is problematic for another reason. Keeping within the 2°C carbon budget requires increasing the use of CDR now — and these technologies are not, even on an optimistic picture, going to be available at the scale required soon enough. Rather than being taken as grounds for dismissing these different CDR methods, we think these criticisms support a different conclusion. Each method on its own faces a serious problem — but they can complement each other, when used together. We must combine them strategically, using the strengths of each to offset the weaknesses of the other. Nature-based methods, if employed sensibly, offer the rapid, large-scale deployment that is needed now to help reduce peak global temperatures and slow warming trends. Engineered solutions, coming on stream later, have the potential for more secure long-term removals. These technologies, once fully developed, offer the prospect of more stable CO₂ storage options, significantly reducing the risk of reversal. What climate mitigation requires A number of companies recently announced they are leaving the Australian government's Climate Active carbon credit scheme amid concerns about its integrity. Some critics of carbon credit markets suggest that they operate simply as a way of allowing companies to buy the illusion of climate action, while continuing with business as usual. However, if the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is right, we will need emission reductions to be accompanied by CDR into the foreseeable future, and we will need well-functioning carbon markets to deliver it. Stabilising the consequences of human activity on the climate will require reducing emissions — but alongside this, it will also require both nature-based and engineered methods of CDR, situated within a well-governed carbon credit market. Christian Barry is Director of the Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University. Garrett Cullity is Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Centre for Moral, Social and Political Theory at the Australian National University Together with a team of international climate scientists and policymakers, they are authors of a new paper discussing these themes at greater length, 'Considering Durability in Carbon Dioxide Removal Strategies for Climate Change Mitigation', forthcoming in Climate Policy.
Japan Times
18-05-2025
- Business
- Japan Times
A 26-year-old asked to help shape Japan's climate goals has a warning
A 26-year-old solar executive who jolted Japan's government by making a rare public criticism of the nation's climate policies is urging others to keep pressing legislators to show more ambition. Shota Ikeda was among 20 outside experts asked to contribute to a process that saw the nation's Cabinet approve plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 60% by 2035 from 2013 levels, a goal seen by analysts and campaigners as falling short of required action. Ikeda had called for emissions reductions of at least 75% to be considered and sharply criticized the consultation as discouraging genuine debate in a nation that remains among the world's largest polluters. "It's important to continue speaking up,' said Ikeda, president of renewable energy firm Hachidori Solar, which provides rooftop solar panels to households. "It's all over if we stop calling things out — we need to keep talking about how things should be.' Japan's annual emissions fell about 4% in the 12 months through March 2024 to a record low, amid a slowdown in manufacturing and weaker energy consumption, according to government data published last month. Even so, that rate of decline is seen by climate analysts as too slow to enable the nation to meet an ambition of hitting net zero by midcentury. Advocates for faster climate action argue Japan remains overly reliant on a potential revival of nuclear power to displace fossil fuels and reduce pollution levels. They also criticize the nation, like some other developed countries, for measuring cuts against a year during which emissions were elevated — in this case 2013, when atomic power plants remained shuttered following the 2011 Fukushima meltdown. "I was asked for my frank opinions, but I'm skeptical,' Ikeda told a session of the expert committee in November, addressing a group of bureaucrats and academics in a staid government conference room. He wondered if "these meetings are all for show,' Ikeda told his fellow participants. The panel was convened by the Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. Japan's government insists its emissions-cutting pathway is ambitious and consistent with efforts to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Outside experts, including Ikeda, debated proposals for 10 hours across three sessions and committee members "agreed that next pathways had been thoroughly discussed in the meetings,' the economy ministry said in a statement. Ikeda said his initial attempt in October to call for steeper emissions cutting was blocked because his opinion was considered "out of step,' and that his proposals then met a muted reaction when he finally addressed the panel. "I called out that something was wrong, but looking around everyone was calm,' said Ikeda. "I was sad that something important about the future was being decided by these people.' Government officials said Ikeda wasn't delayed in setting out his view, and instead had been asked to present during a session with an agenda more in line with his remarks. Climate activists argue Japan's climate goals are too weak, and have criticized the process used to develop targets. | Bloomberg Japan's emissions trajectory has been influenced by expert scientific and technical panels for decades, though the practice of using consultative bodies has faced criticism as ineffective and often unrepresentative of the country's society. The panels haven't been a place for "fruitful discussions' but rather for making minor adjustments to targets proposed by government officials, said Erik Goto, a researcher with the Tokyo-based Renewable Energy Institute, a nonprofit that advocates for the use of clean energy. "There is this tactic of pushing through already decided, already agreed upon on numbers,' he said. A study of participants on 15 consultative bodies on Japan's energy policy found the majority were in their 50s to 70s, that men on average accounted for 75% of the membership of each panel, and that many were associated with power-intensive industries, Climate Integrate, a think tank that advocates for decarbonization, said in an April 2024 report. "Substantive consideration' was given to Japan's revised climate target by stakeholders including NGOs, labor unions, industry, academics and local authorities, the government said in its Nationally Determined Contribution document lodged with the United Nations. Japan is one of only 21 of the 195 Paris Agreement signatories to have submitted an updated plan in line with the accord, U.N. data shows. Ikeda said he had worried during the consultation process that bureaucrats were too willing to endorse weak climate goals, rather than fully consider alternatives. "Have they imagined what 2050 might look like for their children and grandchildren,' he said. "I wanted to ask them if they were really thinking about the younger generations.' Japan's environment ministry conceded at a December meeting that the government's proposed 2035 targets — circulated only toward the end of a previous session, and with little time left for debate — had been presented too hastily. "I think it's difficult to claim that there was enough discussion,' Masako Konishi, an expert director at the WWF Japan and a member of the consultation committee, said at the time. Attention was paid "to the balance of expertise, age groups, and gender,' and to ensure committee members included specialists in energy and finance who had familiarity with environmental issues,' the environment ministry said in a statement. "We had intensive discussions, received various opinions, and then took into account public comments and other factors when formulating the plan, so we believe that we have proceeded with the process while holding as careful discussions as possible.' To encourage reforms, voters should follow Ikeda's lead in publicly criticizing the system of devising climate policy, said Seita Emori, a professor at the Institute for Future Initiatives at the University of Tokyo, and a former member of an expert committee that debated Japan's previous 2030 climate target. "It may be necessary to make politicians think that issues like these will affect votes,' Emori said. "What happened this time around may just be a ripple, but people will need to continue raising their voices at various opportunities so that change can take place."
