9273629397759992 OP t1_j7gmbpj wrote
Plain language summary:
A new study shows that current policies are not enough to phase out coal and reach net-zero emissions by 2050. The study suggests that additional strong policies such as carbon pricing and coal mining phase-outs are needed in order to achieve a global coal exit. It also shows that China has the opportunity to dominate the renewable energy market if it phases out coal soon, but if it doesn't, it could delay the renewable energy breakthrough worldwide. The scientists also find that the Powering Past Coal Alliance may lead to a rebound in coal use globally due to market effects, and that the greatest risk to the coal exit movement may be from free-riding sectors in member countries. Finally, the study suggests that the G20 phase-out of international public finance for coal projects may be able to provide some political momentum for the Alliance.
grundar t1_j7gvwks wrote
> A new study shows that current policies are not enough to phase out coal and reach net-zero emissions by 2050.
Note that this is not entirely surprising, as event the lowest-emission IPCC pathway does not reach net zero by 2050 (p.13) That scenario -- SSP1-1.9 -- has an expected max warming of 1.6C (p.14), falling to 1.4C by 2100.
So while it's certainly worth pushing for coal to be phased out earlier (the reduced carbon emissions and the reduced air pollution will each prevent enormous suffering) and for pushing for net zero ASAP, there is a large difference between "we will not meet a target that is more ambitious than even the most ambitious one considered by the IPCC" and "we're fucked".
In particular, the IEA expects CO2 emissions to fall 15-20% by 2030, putting the world roughly in line with the IPCC's SSP1-2.6 pathway which projects an estimated 1.8C of warming, in line with Climate Action Tracker's policy-based estimate.
Less warming would absolutely be better, of course, but it's worth recognizing there are more than just the two extremes in the space of possible futures.
Sol3dweller t1_j7jurx7 wrote
The study mainly points out that the coal-exit goal of the "Power Past Coal Alliance" isn't sufficient in itself. It needs to be accompanied by other policies:
>These odds would improve if norms around sustainable growth or carbon pricing prevail instead71,72. Additionally, PPCA members can still galvanize Paris-aligned coal-exit momentum by immediately confronting freeriding sectors and ramping-up VRE, electrification and technological (and financial) transfers to freerider nations. > >Recent literature highlights the importance of complementing demand-side antifossil initiatives with supply-side actions73,74,75, for example, mining or export restrictions. This counteracts price depression and leakage, increasing phase-out policies’ self-propagation potential. Given geographical variance in coal quality and trade, however, policy efficacy depends upon the specific adopters. Crucially, the largest anticipated coal consumers in 2045—China, India and ASEAN members (Fig. 2c)—can each sustain self-sufficient coal supplies.
>Those coal-rich developing nations also exhibit the highest path-dependence of accession probability to near-term decisions. Most glaringly, China falls below the 50% threshold and Indonesia below 5% in brown scenarios. Additionally, we observe that several highly probable OECD coalition members install new coal plants in brown and neutral COVID recoveries. PPCA accession then forces a sudden exodus of unamortized capital from 2025 to 2030. Thus, to preserve the health of their economy45, citizens46, grid81 and credibility, OECD governments must cancel all coal projects.
Discount_gentleman t1_j7hu29z wrote
It doesn't help that the US is increasingly militaristic toward China, and has an agressive policy of preventing Chinese technological and economic advancement, particularly by denying them advanced microchips.
[deleted] t1_j7go35i wrote
[deleted]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments