Professor Myles Allen CBE FRS

Abstract:

The vast majority of agri-food climate-based sustainability analyses use global warming potential (GWP₁₀₀) as an impact assessment, usually in isolation; however, in recent years, discussions have criticised the 'across-the-board' application of GWP₁₀₀ in Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs), particularly of food systems which generate large amounts of methane (CH₄) and considered whether reporting additional and/or alternative metrics may be more applicable to certain circumstances or research questions (e.g. Global Temperature Change Potential (GTP)). This paper reports a largescale sensitivity analysis using a pasture-based beef production system (a high producer of CH₄ emissions) as an exemplar to compare various climatatic impact assessments: CO₂-equivalents using GWP₁₀₀ and GTP₁₀₀, and 'CO₂-warming-equivalents' using 'GWP Star', or GWP*. The inventory for this system was compiled using data from the UK Research and Innovation National Capability, the North Wyke Farm Platform, in Devon, SW England. LCAs can have an important bearing on: (i) policymakers' decisions; (ii) farmer management decisions; (iii) consumers' purchasing habits; and (iv) wider perceptions of whether certain activities can be considered 'sustainable' or not; it is, therefore, the responsibility of LCA practitioners and scientists to ensure that subjective decisions are tested as robustly as possible through appropriate sensitivity and uncertainty analyses. We demonstrate herein that the choice of climate impact assessment has dramatic effects on interpretation, with GWP₁₀₀ and GTP₁₀₀ producing substantially different results due to their different treatments of CH₄ in the context of carbon dioxide (CO₂) equivalents. Given its dynamic nature and previously proven strong correspondence with climate models, out of the three assessments covered, GWP* provides the most complete coverage of the temporal evolution of temperature change for different greenhouse gas emissions. We extend previous discussions on the limitations of static emission metrics and encourage LCA practitioners to consider due care and attention where additional information or dynamic approaches may prove superior, scientifically speaking, particularly in cases of decision support.

Abstract:

<jats:p>Abstract. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessments are the trusted source of scientific evidence for climate negotiations taking place under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), including the first global stocktake under the Paris Agreement that will conclude at COP28 in December 2023. Evidence-based decision-making needs to be informed by up-to-date and timely information on key indicators of the state of the climate system and of the human influence on the global climate system. However, successive IPCC reports are published at intervals of 5–10 years, creating potential for an information gap between report cycles. We follow methods as close as possible to those used in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) Working Group One (WGI) report. We compile monitoring datasets to produce estimates for key climate indicators related to forcing of the climate system: emissions of greenhouse gases and short-lived climate forcers, greenhouse gas concentrations, radiative forcing, surface temperature changes, the Earth's energy imbalance, warming attributed to human activities, the remaining carbon budget, and estimates of global temperature extremes. The purpose of this effort, grounded in an open data, open science approach, is to make annually updated reliable global climate indicators available in the public domain (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8000192, Smith et al., 2023a). As they are traceable to IPCC report methods, they can be trusted by all parties involved in UNFCCC negotiations and help convey wider understanding of the latest knowledge of the climate system and its direction of travel. The indicators show that human-induced warming reached 1.14 [0.9 to 1.4] ∘C averaged over the 2013–2022 decade and 1.26 [1.0 to 1.6] ∘C in 2022. Over the 2013–2022 period, human-induced warming has been increasing at an unprecedented rate of over 0.2 ∘C per decade. This high rate of warming is caused by a combination of greenhouse gas emissions being at an all-time high of 54 ± 5.3 GtCO2e over the last decade, as well as reductions in the strength of aerosol cooling. Despite this, there is evidence that increases in greenhouse gas emissions have slowed, and depending on societal choices, a continued series of these annual updates over the critical 2020s decade could track a change of direction for human influence on climate. </jats:p>

Abstract:

The deployment of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) needs to be scaled up to achieve net zero emission pledges. In this paper we survey the policy mechanisms currently in place globally to incentivise CDR, together with an estimate of what different mechanisms are paying per tonne of CDR, and how those costs are currently distributed. Incentive structures are grouped into three structures, market-based, public procurement, and fiscal mechanisms. We find the majority of mechanisms currently in operation are underresourced and pay too little to enable a portfolio of CDR that could support achievement of net zero. The majority of mechanisms are concentrated in market-based and fiscal structures, specifically carbon markets and subsidies. While not primarily motivated by CDR, mechanisms tend to support established afforestation and soil carbon sequestration methods. Mechanisms for geological CDR remain largely underdeveloped relative to the requirements of modelled net zero scenarios. Commercialisation pathways for CDR require suitable policies and markets throughout the projects development cycle. Discussion and investment in CDR has tended to focus on technology development. Our findings suggest that an equal or greater emphasis on policy innovation may be required if future requirements for CDR are to be met. This study can further support research and policy on the identification of incentive gaps and realistic potential for CDR globally.

Abstract:

Energy policy faces a triple challenge: increasing resilience and guaranteeing the security of supply of both fossil and non-fossil energy, minimising the impact on consumer energy prices, and retaining consistency with Paris Agreement climate goals. High prices and producer rents, however, also present an opportunity: to open a conversation about applying the principle of extended producer responsibility (EPR) to fossil fuels. We demonstrate that this could deconflict energy security and climate policy at an affordable cost by stopping fossil fuels from causing further global warming. Implementing EPR through a combination of geological CO₂ storage and nature-based solutions can deliver net zero at comparable or lower costs than conventional scenarios driven with a global carbon price and subject to constraints on CO₂ storage deployment. It would also mean that the principal beneficiary of high fossil fuel prices, the fossil fuel industry itself, plays its part in addressing the climate challenge while reducing the risk of asset stranding.