Oxford Net Zero’s Post

📘 Optimal Climate Policy with Negative Emissions Hot of the press. Paper by #EDHECRiskClimate's Scientific Director Professor Riccardo Rebonato, alongside Research Directors Dherminder Kainth & Dominic O'Kane, and Associate Researcher Lionel Melin, has been featured in the Special Issue on the Impacts of Climate Change on Economics, Finance, and Insurance of the prestigious International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance. Using a modification of the DICE model, the authors analyse the optimal use of emissions abatement and removal as policy responses to climate change. After calibrating the marginal costs of abatement and CO2 removal to the latest scientific information, they find that carbon removal must play a very important role in an optimal policy. If this policy is followed, they find that the Paris-Agreement 1.5-2 C warming by 2100 target is not just aspirational, but optimal. Key Takeaways: ✔️ Net-Negative Emissions: The research emphasizes that an optimal policy should aim for net-negative, not just net-zero emissions, highlighting the vital role of active CO2 removal. ✔️ Economic Implications: Achieving these targets will require significant economic and sectoral shifts, with the carbon removal industry needing to expand dramatically. ✔️ Policy Considerations: The study also cautions against the risk of moral hazard, where slowing abatement efforts might not be offset by sufficient carbon removal, advocating for maintaining current emission targets while scaling up carbon removal initiatives. The paper is free-to-read at this link :https://lnkd.in/grMrWu78. #ClimateChange #GlobalWarming #NegativeEmissionsTechnologies #IntegratedAssessmentModels #IJTAF

🌍 Reflecting on the Nature Magazine article, it’s clear that while the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) aims to ensure high integrity in climate actions, its stringent rules can inadvertently slow climate finance and emission reductions. Excluding offsets and carbon-dioxide removal (CDR) in the near term limits resources for regions less capable of immediate action. This increases reliance on future CDR, paradoxically heightening global climate risks. The Global North, responsible for most emissions, must rethink these policies to empower the Global South and accelerate climate solutions. The "Science-Based Targets Miss the Mark" article is a profound piece that highlights three essential points: - Misrepresentation of Science: the article argues that current SBTs often simplify complex scientific findings, leading to inefficiency and inequity. - Narrow and Arbitrary Rules: the use of restrictive rules limits the effectiveness and ambition of targets. - Inequitable Effort Sharing: the current model favours high-emission entities, often from developed countries, creating an uneven burden-sharing that undermines global climate goals. The SBTi framework is ultimately a Global North perspective, which bears significant responsibility for the climate crisis and holds 80% of the emission reduction target under the Paris Agreement. It’s time we listen to the Global South, which will be the main emitter for future carbon credits and the enabler from a supply point of view for the Paris Agreement to be functional. #CarbonMarkets #ClimateAction #Sustainability #GlobalSouth #ParisAgreement #fairness ALLCOT ALLCOT IO For more insights, read the full articles https://lnkd.in/et83SJFG

Came across this interesting research in @science into the climate policies that have achieved major emissions reductions over the last twenty years. A timely release given where we are on the run up to COP 29 and the work countries are doing now on NDCs 3.0. The key points I took out 👇 but more importantly the link to the full article to have a read yourself. Researchers analysed global evidence of 1500 climate policies implemented between 1998 and 2022 across 41 countries from six continents. In that time 63 - yes 63 - successful policy interventions were found with total emission reductions between 0.6 billion and 1.8 billion metric tonnes. The study found that policy combinations—rather than standalone initiatives—proved most successful in cutting emissions. The findings also highlight though, the importance of sector specific policy approaches, of economic development to the mix of policy effectiveness and ultimately, and least surprising, the level of increase in effective policy measures needed to cut emissions fast enough. There is no one size fits all approach - read the full article here https://lnkd.in/eWNhVRFC #climateaction

🌏Here's an article in Newsroom, supporting the Climate Cooperation mindset we outline in a recent seminar and research paper (see the seminar and research details here https://lnkd.in/gbCyWGEz). 🤟🏼Thanks to the author for the positive comments about us and our research. Some quotes: 🧠"Motu, the economic and public policy research institute...recently held a webinar titled Think globally, act Cooperatively: Progressing Offshore Mitigation for Aotearoa New Zealand. Their work has considerable international standing and their research analyses this issue from multiple aspects. 🍃The paper that preceded the webinar opens with a bias that confounds the minister’s stance. Its lead paragraph says the paper aims to show how we could work with other countries “to accelerate global climate progress, by funding offshore mitigation to help meet (our) 2030 target … The world is off track to prevent dangerous climate change”... 🌍...We have to use whatever are the most efficient means to reduce emissions...Three-quarters of the potential for cost-effective mitigation lies in the developing world but these countries currently lack the capability of implementing such changes. Yet historically they have contributed least to the problem... 🤝🏼... Let’s overcome the divide on offshore mitigation, Motu proposes, by seeing it as an opportunity for Climate Cooperation and use it to complement, not displace, ambitious domestic strategies." #ClimateCooperation #OffshoreMitigation #ClimateChange #ClimateResearch #ClimateAction

This is a great initiative, but I truly can't help but wonder: "monitoring whole-of-economy progress towards emissions reduction targets" - how is this going to be possible without first enacting a major reform of the extremely weird multi-year delay in state-level emissions data being released in Australia? Right now, the most recent data for NSW emissions you can source is FY22, that is, from the 1st of July 2021 to the 30th of June 2022. That's 744 days prior to the days of this post...... The most recent data at the country level covers up to the 1st of March 2024, 134 days ago. Holding the federal government accountable on its emissions data is only possible due to the recency of this release schedule! https://lnkd.in/dRiwitgv State level data: https://lnkd.in/dWG-NNxf

While it's not surprising that carbon credits dominating the posts on the #SBTi research papers released yesterday, don't sleep on the #scope3 research paper which, in my opinion, is much more interesting. It provides some potential paths forward that, if adopted in a final net zero standard revision, have the potential to spark innovation in how companies take action and track progress on climate risk reduction in their value chain. Looking forward to seeing companies dive into this and give their inputs.

Corporate climate action is imperative to meeting our global climate goals – we simply will not meet the Paris Agreement without real economy-wide decarbonization driven by action, investment, and innovation in the private sector. Science Based Targets initiative's monitoring report shows that companies representing 39% of the global market cap in 2023 have validated science-based emissions reduction targets or commitments to set targets. We applaud SBTi’s commitment to updating the Corporate Net-Zero Standard to help companies drive meaningful reductions and achieve their targets, particularly around scope 3 emissions. Learn more:  https://lnkd.in/epK7JC6C

As predicted, perhaps, but somewhat the continuous challenge for policymakers, this paper shows the multi-measure impact from policies to reduce emissions. Thanks Sarah Lewin for the heads up, an interesting read.

Voluntary corporate emissions targets have become a staple in the business world’s response to climate change, mirroring national commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, a recent perspective paper published in Science by an international research team led by Utrecht University, including experts from Imperial College London, questions the sufficiency of these targets in driving genuine environmental change and supporting emerging green technologies. Have you read the new research? https://lnkd.in/dq_JTmqs

NSW now has an independent group of experts tracking the accountability of the state against its net zero commitments. The Net Zero Commission will fulfil several key functions including: - monitoring whole-of-economy progress towards the emissions reduction targets and adaptation objectives; - providing independent, expert advice on opportunities for NSW to effectively address climate change; - to educate and inform the NSW Government, businesses, organisations, and individuals on ways to promote action to address climate change. My view is there’s certainly an opportunity here for something similar to ensure we are making the most of the opportunities we have in front of us, providing clarity and certainty to industry about how all the ‘bits’ of the net zero puzzle will fit together and, critically, making sure we avoid the potential maladaptation our current approach risks. Simple or siloed responses that continue to prioritise BAU just are just not going to be enough to deliver either net zero commitments or climate resilient communities and environments. Planning is central to so many of the shifts we need to see and that means the lack of progress can be frustrating. PIA has previously called for a comprehensive audit of how our planning system (and associated systems) is tracking against best practice in climate responses. We know that industry is crying out for a roadmap to ‘net zero buildings’ - which covers things beyond our planing system - think trades training, retrofits etc. We need whole-of-government cut through if we are going to meet this challenge….perhaps not dissimilar to the sudden urgency with which our affordability challenge is now being tackled? Something like NSW has implemented might be a good place to start…