A new Earth Commission report, published in the Lancet identifies a path for prosperity if economic systems and technologies are transformed and critical resources more fairly used, managed and shared. Our Head of Research Programmes, Luke Williams reflects on its findings and why supercharging natural pathways to greenhouse gas removal has the potential to address several critical planetary boundaries.
For some time now the world has been focused on preventing global temperatures rising above 1.5 °C, and arguments have mostly been on the possibility of managing this ambitious task. Perhaps 2 °C is more realistic. What about 3 or 4 °C, which is where the current efforts may land us in 2100 and beyond?
This new report, a mammoth undertaking, has instead suggested that even 1.5 °C is not a realistic proposition for many on the planet. Though the authors note that 1.5 °C would probably represent a safe planetary boundary that we should not exceed, if we were to consider the impact of the changing climate upon the world’s poorest and least responsible, then it would be just to consider 1.0 °C as the most appropriate target. Crucially, they also consider the impact of raising global standards so that the bare minimum of energy, water and food are provided to all, a stark contrast to reality today.
Of the eight Earth-system boundaries investigated, seven have already been exceeded globally and the eighth, air pollution, has been exceeded at local level. This is unlikely to be surprising to many but illustrates the widespread nature of the challenges that exist today. I will focus mostly on the climate boundary as it is most relevant to CTRF’s work.
Building on a substantial body of work the authors articulate:
- The current planetary boundaries
- The current global position/most recently available data
- The predicted 2050 position based upon expected demographic changes
- The impact of providing basic needs to those who currently do not have access to them, including water, food, energy and infrastructure
It is this last point which is most striking for me, especially so as the report does not examine the effects of reducing those who have the highest water, food, energy and infrastructure usage. For most of the planetary boundaries there is a relatively limited impact (<5%) taking these additional needs into account, but for climate, there’s a much more significant impact (25%).
Given that a target of 1.5 °C for the climate Earth-system boundary does not prevent wide-spread and significant harm to current generations – much less future ones – as anyone reading the news lately will appreciate, this leads to a presumption of 1 °C as the just target.
Where does CTRF enter this complex and multifaceted picture? Greenhouse gas removals are frequently misunderstood, either being considered a future problem to consider, or hailed as the answer to all of our climate problems and a reason not to decarbonise. Both approaches are incorrect. If we take the authors’ indications that 1 °C is the just limit to global warming, then we are already in overshoot territory, and therefore no amount of decarbonisation can revert the situation back to where we need to be. This means that greenhouse gas removals are necessary.
That being said, decarbonisation now becomes even more critical. Every effort needs to be made to reduce emissions. It is incumbent upon us all to consider the impacts that we are having on greenhouse gas emissions, but particularly upon those who are having the greatest impact on the increase. The justice perspective raised in this report is undeniable. Challenging though it is, access to basic needs has to be improved whilst emissions are reduced.
But is this the only perspective? I would argue that it isn’t. With CTRF’s focus on biological routes to greenhouse gas removal, there are several other planetary boundaries which can be improved at the same time. Several, such as nutrient cycles, water and the biosphere, are inextricably tied to the agricultural system. Therefore using the agricultural system as a vector for carbon removals, which would also tend to improve agricultural yields by improving photosynthesis and/or improving soil quality. With enhanced yields there is less of a demand for synthetic fertiliser, reducing the amount of nitrogen applied to fields, and thereby reducing the amount of nitrogen which runs off the fields into the watercourses. Fertiliser production is also energy intensive, meaning there are multiple levels of benefit, and this is simply one route.
Being time limited and with such large challenges to solve, it is necessary to consider options for win-win scenarios, and using a biological route to greenhouse gas removals – not just carbon dioxide – is precisely an example of the areas which should be examined fully. The problem currently is that there is no single route to scaling up greenhouse gas removals. To stand any significant chance of having a large enough impact by 2050, solutions need to be invested in now. This doesn’t mean investment in years to decades, it means that investment is required immediately. With the aim of developing a $1 trillion industry by 2050, this provides an indication of the ambition.
Reports such as these can provoke despair, or they can be used as a launchpad for doing the necessary work. There is a strong role for governments, philanthropy, and business to intercede collectively to solve these surmountable challenges. A public-private-philanthropic partnership of sufficient scale can reach the solutions that we need.
Greenhouse gas removals are not a panacea, answering all of humanity’s ills. But they are the route to net zero emissions. The only route to net negative emissions. The only route to restoring the atmosphere to a pre-industrial age. The only route to climate hope rather than climate despair.
Find the full report here: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(24)00042-1/fulltext