Why 2030 and 2050 climate goals are problematic

Are overly ambitious net-zero deadlines having an accidentally bad effect and slowing down actual progress? Are these tight timelines helping or hindering actual progress towards #sustainability? While having a goal to strive for is clearly massively important, setting unrealistic deadlines often leads to hasty decisions and poor execution. Are we unintentionally setting ourselves up for failure by aiming for 2030? My perspective is that we should start acknowledging how difficult net-zero actually is to achieve, and start owning our problems, focusing on reducing and eliminating whatever we can and taking responsibility for what remains. The pressure to meet aggressive deadlines seems to have the effect of companies dedicating more resources to marketing their "green" efforts, rather than investing in substantial, transformative change. From my experience, every company I've met that has a 2030 net-zero deadline is significantly lagging in making this goal a reality. It seems the pursuit of positive PR and the promise of "going green" is massively outpacing the actual work required to become truly sustainable. The pressure to meet arbitrary deadlines is forcing many companies to rely heavily on carbon offset programs and as yet unproven/unavailable tech. While these both approaches may somehow strike lucky, they currently lack the scalability or commercial viability to deliver meaningful impact in the timeframe set. Worse still, the frustration from the lack of substantial progress is rapidly eroding the morale of internal teams, leading to cynicism and disengagement (at a time when we need everyone on board). We need to question if these overly ambitious deadlines are truly helping our cause or are they creating more roadblocks. If you do have a 2030 deadline, perhaps it's time to reevaluate it and consider more realistic timelines, allowing for impactful planned change, rather than a frantic race to an unreachable finish line. #netzero2030 #greenwashing #techforgood #scope3

This could be one of the most important papers to be published since James Hansen’s Pipeline paper a year ago. Climate change will continue to get worse for centuries after net-zero is achieved. It had been assumed that net-zero would halt further temperature rise and with it climate impacts, since the relationship between CO2 loading and temperature was thought to be near-linear. The models used to support the IPCC 1.5 special report were based on transient climate states, assumed scenarios and time sampling. They looked at global averages rather than regional effects and stop at 2100. Critically they tended also not to include triggered tipping points. The new paper from Andrew King et al from University of Melbourne but with co-authors from Reading, Seoul and 4 other Australian centres, ran coupled climate models for 1000 years into the future with different net-zero achievement points from 2030 to 2060. SSP5-8.5 was used up to the net-zero point to simplify the experiment but also to clearly illustrate the criticality of reaching net-zero as soon as possible, with as low a starting temperature as possible. In all cases mean surface temperature continued to rise after net-zero, but the later net-zero was achieved, the higher the temperature at the start, the faster the continued rise. All showed considerable slowdown of rise rate, but not uniformity or overall stability. Regional climate change continued, especially in the southern hemisphere with Australia continuing to rise by a further +1C if net-zero is delayed to 2060. The Southern Ocean temperature would also continue to rise significantly with continued reduction in Antarctic Sea Ice. This combination would likely lead to the continued melting of the West Antarctic Ice Shelf. Meanwhile the Arctic sea-ice would stabilise but likely see years of ice-free summer conditions. Rainfall patterns and ENSO change during stabilisation. Weather extremes are locked in, but the relative difference in levels greatly increases with net-zero delay. Even a 5 year delay still has influence 1,000 years into the future. The key takeaway for me is the graph below. Things may continue to get slowly worse even after net-zero, but the point at which it is achieved is critical. We can’t get back to the climate of my youth, but we can control how bad it gets for people born today. The faster we decarbonise, the least bad the future will be, for humanity and nature alike. Story: https://lnkd.in/ev5QK5bg Paper: https://lnkd.in/eaKkeHN7 #climatechange #netzero

As a veteran of the carbon market, this division between removals and avoidance has always bothered me. I understand the ‘safe harbor’ that removals offer buyers, but we should not have one at the expense of the other. This Oxford-led study makes the point that a significant number of national climate plans (about 3/4 of global emissions) are overly reliant on large-scale carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies delivering the goods….that remain largely unproven at scale at this point. The report concludes there a considerable gap between the volume of CDR required to meet international climate targets and the actual policies and resources currently supporting these efforts. This group of Oxford researchers warn us that this over-reliance creates severe risks for failing to achieve climate goals and urges instead rapid emissions reductions and treating carbon removals as a last resort for residual emissions rather than a primary strategy. We can’t mess this up folks. https://lnkd.in/d3Y8TBaS

Are we kidding ourselves about the viability of the 2015 Paris agreement? I was struck by the clarity and detail of this article. Its authors seem to conclude that, indeed, we are. We know what to do to achieve the 1.5 degree rise in temperatures pre-industrial level: cut down drastically on fossil fuels, accelerate with renewable energy and tackle over production/consumption. But we are not on track. This article should be a wake-up call for any one thinking of himself/herself as a responsible leader: 1. The majority of countries and companies are unable to meet their net zero pledges (e.g., Amazon has been outright bumped out of the SBTi Corporate Net Zero Standard) because no one is really prepared to do quickly what this demands. Fossil fuels still supply 80% of the world's energy. The Paris agreement should be producing a reduction of 50% of greenhouse gas emissions; yet, in 2023, emissions reached an all-time high, despite the tremendous progress of renewables. 2. Overshoot thinking is toxic: despite some potential, carbon capture technologies will not be scaled in time and at sufficient scale to mitigate later in the century the ever-increasing amount of CO2 we emit at current rates of growth today. Solar radiation modification, refreezing the Arctic, large scale biomass are unproven science fiction which often entail multiple collateral damage on nature. 3. Climate change is not linear: timelines like 2030 and 2050 are dis-empowering at best and misleading at worst. Declining nature and biodiversity (natural carbon sinks) compound the cumulative effect of rising emissions. Altogether, that may suddenly accelerate climate change through tipping points, much earlier than 2050. It's good leadership to be cautious, rather than pretend that technology will necessarily save us. We as citizens, have to make changes too. For example, can we still afford to buy this next jacket or fly at the other end of the planet for a week of family pleasure? As an executive education teacher, I feel it is my responsibility in class to not dilute what is happening. Yes, the green transition is happening and there are business opportunities. But the message that systemic change has to happen in the short term needs also to be heard. https://lnkd.in/ehrkXr69 IMD, James Dyke, Wolfgang Knorr, The Conversation US #imdimpact, #climatechange #sustainability

45 key climate indicators assessed 45 key climate indicators off-track This is the alarming finding from the latest State of Climate Action report From World Resources Institute, ClimateWorks Foundation, Bezos Earth Fund, Climate Analytics, and other partners. Out of 45 key indicators across sectors from energy to land use, none are on track to meet 2030 targets aligned with 1.5°C. -6 indicators show “promising” progress. -29 are well below the required pace. -5 are actually moving in the wrong direction. Some bright spots remind us what alignment can achieve: ☀️ Solar is now the fastest-growing power source in history. 💰 Private climate finance has surged, moving from “well off track” to “off track.” ⚗️ Emerging technologies like green hydrogen are seeing encouraging gains. But these positives are overshadowed by the slowdowns and setbacks: 🚗 Electric vehicle growth has decelerated as the only previously “on track” indicator is now off track. 🌲 Deforestation and coal phase-outs remain stubbornly stagnant. 🔥 Each year of delay means the slope to 2030 becomes even steeper. To realign with 1.5°C, progress must accelerate dramatically: -Deforestation decline: 9× faster -Gas phase-out: 7× faster -Climate finance growth: 4× faster My takeaway: We are well past the point of incremental progress. We need systems change to decarbonize and keep warming within safe limits. Reports are already saying 1.5 C may be going up in smoke. Exponential shifts can feel extreme, but so is the situation. We must be prepared for the mounting physical and transition risks in this volatile world. Check out the full report here: https://lnkd.in/eyrVv53t #climate #climateaction #decarbonization #netzero #cop30

💀10,000 companies now have science-based targets. But how many are “zombie” targets that will be withdrawn before 2030? The Science Based Targets initiative has just passed a major milestone. 10,000 companies worldwide now have validated science-based targets. It’s a strong signal that science-based climate action is advancing. But validation is only the starting point. For companies that set 2030 as their near-term target year, the window for making rapid and deep emissions reductions is closing fast. It's likely that many companies already know their 2030 targets are unachievable. These are zombie targets. If the decarbonisation plan no longer adds up, then maintaining a science-based target risks misleading investors, customers and other stakeholders. But withdrawing a target is not cost-free. It carries reputational consequences that many companies are keen to avoid. When Air New Zealand withdrew its 2030 target in 2024, the reaction was immediate. Critics called it backsliding, others praised the airline’s integrity. Air New Zealand cited global delays in the delivery of fuel-efficient aircraft, the scarcity and high cost of sustainable aviation fuel, and a lack of regulatory support. The airline remained committed to net zero by 2050 and replaced its 2030 target with a less ambitious one. For many companies in hard-to-abate sectors like aviation, the problem isn't ambition, it's feasibility. The path to 1.5°C is constrained by factors they can’t control. I support the SBTi and celebrate their milestone. But we should also encourage companies to be transparent about whether their 2030 targets remain credible, even when doing so carries reputational risk. Zombie targets mislead investors and customers, erode trust, and ultimately slow the real-world progress needed for the global transition to net zero.

Common question: “Companies continue reporting strong progress toward their Scope 1 + 2 targets. Maybe addressing climate change isn’t actually as difficult as we thought?” Reality: A large share of that progress has come from reducing Scope 2 emissions. Relative to most operational decarbonization challenges, Scope 2 is comparatively straightforward. Companies can materially reduce emissions rapidly by matching electricity consumption with energy attribute certificates through utility contracts, power purchase agreements (PPAs), or unbundled certificate purchases. Scope 1 is fundamentally different (putting renewable natural gas certificates aside). Reducing direct fossil fuel and high-GWP refrigerant use in operations requires engineering redesign, infrastructure upgrades, capital investment, operational planning, and often years of implementation work. Progress is naturally slower and significantly more complex. Thermo Fisher’s data is a useful example of this dynamic: 🔹 Scope 2 represented more than half of the company’s base year emissions. Strategically, this means a 50% Scope 1 + 2 reduction target could theoretically be achieved with no reduction in Scope 1 emissions. 🔹 By 2025, the company reported a 41% reduction from its 2018 base year putting it on pace to achieve its 2030 target ahead of schedule, despite Scope 1 emissions increasing from the base year. 🔹 Scope 1 emissions peaked in 2023, while fossil fuel usage flattened after the company implemented its net-zero capital guidance restricting investment in fossil fuel assets (with some exceptions). The driver for that governance was the company’s 2050 net-zero commitment rather than the near-term Scope 1 + 2 target. The takeaway: 1️⃣ Combined Scope 1 + 2 targets can be insufficient to create the business case for transitioning away from operational fossil fuel use — particularly in industries where Scope 2 dominates the emissions profile. 2️⃣ SBTi’s proposed move to separate Scope 1 and Scope 2 targets is intended to address this issue by forcing organizations to develop credible plans not only for renewable electricity procurement, but also for the much harder challenge: operational fossil fuel transition. 3️⃣ We may start seeing fewer “ahead of schedule” progress announcements and more honest discussions about the engineering, financial, and operational challenges involved in reducing Scope 1 emissions.

Ørsted was lauded as the exemplar of new energy. Then it wrote off over $7 billion and trashed shareholder value by over ~70%. It is now sadly cutting a quarter of its workforce. TotalEnergies, with 34GW of low carbon energy included in its integrated business, delivered over 12% return on capital over the same period. Pure play renewables was heralded, but are integrated energy models better? I have been asked a lot lately about legacy oil and gas majors dropping targets and pivoting back to fossil fuels. At Shell, we used scenario-thinking to challenge our emissions targets, and check resilience. bp admitted it went "too far, too fast" and TotalEnergies just dropped its net zero by 2050 target. None of these companies stopped investing in renewable energy. The French spent $3.5 billion last year. They also recently announced an Asian-focused JV with the UAE's Masdar aiming to double its 3GW of clean power to 6GW by 2030. To be fair: Ørsted was also caught out by going too far, too fast. They relied too much on near-zero interest rates and a cost of capital for energy transition funding that simply evaporated. It was ironic that this darling of new energy had to call in Andy Brown, a Shell veteran, to take the hard decisions to fix the mess. Offshore wind in countries like Denmark and the UK remains a valuable, secure energy resource. The same is true for the US, despite short-term political resistance. But the numbers have to work commercially across scenarios. I have written a few posts about how to use scenarios, but they get fewer readers... TotalEnergies dropped net zero by 2050, due to legal distractions and Brussels regulators dithering over what 1.5ºC compatibility actually means. The truth is that the EU's own Copernicus satellites show that global temperature average has already crossed 1.5°C. Professor Sir Jim Skea always cautioned me that we should not get too anchored on this temperature. It was the least-bad goal. This goal overshoot was always going to happen. There continues to be delusion about the likely scale of overshoot and denial that 1.5ºC is long gone (until we invest properly in carbon removals). Carbon removals are already essential to bend the curve down but green lobbies and activists still argue against CCUS. So when people ask me about energy company climate ambitions, I explain that they have resilient plans for different scenarios. Shell has delivered on the resilient targets set when I was closely involved. We also resisted "doing a BP" - style over substance. However, the more important answer I give is that the oil super majors are no longer dominated by oil or gas alone. Their integrated energy models do offer better returns on capital from legacy oil, gas and chemicals, which sustains investment in integrated power growth businesses. More on these topics with personal insights linked in comments below. Read my Responsible Energy articles to save your future self from an Ørsted or BP fiasco.

‘Net-zero’ targets neither feasible nor realistic! After two centuries of rising global carbon emissions, the goal of zero carbon by 2050 faces significant economic, political and practical obstacles. Severing modern civilization’s reliance on fossil fuels may be a desirable long-term goal but it simply cannot be accomplished either rapidly or inexpensively. According to a new study published by the Fraser Institute, despite international agreements, significant government spending and regulations, and some technological progress, the world's dependence on fossil fuels has been steadily and significantly increasing over the past three decades. By 2023, global fossil fuel consumption was 55 per cent higher than in 1997. The share of fossil fuels in global energy consumption has only slightly decreased, dropping from nearly 86 per cent in 1997 to approximately 82 per cent in 2022. Viewed through a historical lens, this sluggish pace of change is not surprising. The first global energy transition, from traditional biomass fuels (wood, charcoal, straw) to fossil fuels, started more than two centuries ago and unfolded gradually. Coal only surpassed global wood consumption in 1900; crude oil surpassed coal only in the mid-1960s; and natural gas has yet to surpass crude oil. Even today, this transition remains incomplete, as billions of people still rely on traditional biomass energy for cooking and heating. https://lnkd.in/gVKQdxbM