午夜福利1000集合

THE lockdowns imposed in many countries in response to the coronavirus have caused a dramatic reduction in our carbon emissions. But there is already that this won鈥檛 last. So how can governments build on this moment, as they plan for economic recovery, to make progress towards net-zero targets?

Corinne Le Qu茅r茅 has a few ideas. A French-Canadian climate scientist at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK, she is an expert on the policies required to meet those targets and an advisor to the UK and French governments, both of whom have committed to reach net zero by 2050.

Le Qu茅r茅 is also a leading authority on the carbon cycle, with a particular interest in what will become of natural carbon sinks, such as forests and oceans, in a warming world. Earlier this year, she was awarded the Dr. A. H. Heineken Prize for Environmental Sciences, the Netherlands鈥檚 most prestigious international science award.

Adam Vaughan: What do you expect will happen to global carbon dioxide emissions this year?

Corinne Le Qu茅r茅: Over the past decade, emissions had been going up about 1 per cent per year. Since March, with the confinement and the restraints on travel, there has been a really big effect. Our estimates suggest a reduction in emissions of between 4 and 7 per cent this year. This is huge. What鈥檚 going to happen after that depends on how we鈥檙e going to approach the economic recovery. In 2009, during the financial crash, emissions dropped 1.4 per cent. They then grew more than 5 per cent in 2010, which brought us exactly back to where we were 鈥� square one 鈥� like nothing had happened. There is a big risk for that now as well.

Which way do you think the post-coronavirus economic recovery will go?

It could be that governments do exactly what they know best, like build roads and finance the big carbon-emitting industries. But there is an opportunity to invest in the green economy now because renewable energy is a lot cheaper than in 2010 and we have all the knowledge required to make the batteries that can store that energy. Will that happen? Possibly in the UK. I would say even probably in Europe. It鈥檚 not a given, but the signs are reasonably good. Whether it will happen worldwide is a bigger question. It鈥檚 a little bit early to say.

What lessons, if any, does the covid-19 crisis hold for our efforts to avoid dangerous warming?

Well, first to take risks seriously 鈥� and the fact that we鈥檙e very vulnerable. The UK is vulnerable because we have so many inequalities in society, and you can see how the crisis hits poor people harder. We have to rebuild society in a way that makes it a lot more resilient to climate-related events. I think what鈥檚 happening also reveals that behavioural change is not enough. The vast majority of emissions remain, and the only way to reduce those is with structural changes to economies and industries.

In terms of cutting emissions, what are some of the things that we have been doing during lockdown that might be worth continuing?

When we go back to work, it is going to be problematic because social distancing is difficult on public transport. We have to instead encourage those who can work at home to do so, and to get as many people as possible who can鈥檛 to cycle or walk to work. Electric bikes are increasingly affordable, which opens the possibility of cycling from suburbs in a way that didn鈥檛 exist before.

What about flying?

Aviation has always been very problematic for climate change. There鈥檚 no credible way to have net-zero emissions by 2050 and aviation as it was before covid-19, and the industry didn鈥檛 engage at the right level on cutting emissions. Before this crisis, the push was for bigger airports and so on. Now, with covid-19, the number of flights has been cut by 75 to 80 per cent. It is going to be years before they can even think about going back to the passenger levels they had just a few months ago.

So now we have the opportunity to ask: what is an appropriate number of flights? We could have some leverage, too. The aviation sector has had exonerations for taxes that were completely unjustified. They haven鈥檛 had the net-zero target, which is also unjustified. So I think these are the two levers governments can use when awarding recovery packages to aviation companies.

What should governments be doing to take advantage of the opportunities at the moment to rethink economies and societies?

Government investments post-coronavirus should focus on those actions that both support workers and enable the structural changes needed to deliver net-zero emissions, so we are more resilient in the future. In terms of investments, these should include support for the full electrification of transport, massive renovations of buildings and tree-planting and restoration of natural habitats. Actions that lock us into fossil fuels, such as building roads, should clearly be avoided.

In the UK, how big is the gap between the government鈥檚 legislation targeting net-zero emissions by 2050 and the policies required to get us there?

The UK has been very successful in the power sector, moving out of coal in particular by taxing it and providing subsidies to renewables. But the UK has been behind on strategies and implementation to move forward on buildings, transport and agriculture. The government has recently published a road transport decarbonisation strategy, which had some really good points in it. So there are things in the making, but we are not there at the moment. When you look at what the UK has delivered, it鈥檚 not been enough.

What policies must the UK implement to stand a chance of hitting net zero by 2050?

Two-thirds of UK emissions are due to transport, buildings (mainly heating) and industry. Government departments should have ambitious implementation strategies in each of these sectors. One thing that has worked well in the UK is the clear signal the government has provided to move away from coal power generation and to phase out petrol and diesel cars from, currently, 2035 and gas boilers in new homes from 2025. These announcements need to be accompanied by a clear trajectory, with support to develop skills and supply chains, ensure performance and compliance and an appropriate carbon price on the use of fossil fuels. The UK also urgently needs to grow and manage its woodland so biomass can play its important role, and to develop carbon capture and storage, which will be a key asset in the transition to a zero-carbon economy.

You are an expert on the global carbon cycle. How has our understanding of where our CO₂ emissions end up improved over the years?

We have two sources of emissions 鈥� fossil fuels and land use change 鈥� and three places where those emissions end up 鈥� the carbon sinks of the atmosphere, land and ocean. If we had perfect knowledge and perfect data, then the five terms would add up to exactly zero every year 鈥� and, of course, they don鈥檛. We call this mismatch the carbon budget imbalance: it鈥檚 really like a quantitative measure of the things we don鈥檛 know. The cutting-edge research is to find out what is behind that.

Any working hypotheses?

It鈥檚 likely to come from either the ocean sink or the land sink or both, rather than the emissions, because the structure of this imbalance hasn鈥檛 changed in 60 years and the emissions have quadrupled. If it came from some uncertainty in the emissions, then it would have been a lot smaller at the beginning of the time series and bigger now, and it鈥檚 not. A possible explanation is that most models don鈥檛 have nitrogen limitation, where lack of nitrogen impairs plant growth and therefore how much CO₂ they absorb.

Overall, what is happening to our natural carbon sinks?

The weakening of the Amazon rainforest as a sink is really, really scary. We need the carbon sinks to become stronger to help us in the management of this decarbonisation process. To achieve net zero, we need to have bigger carbon sinks. That鈥檚 because most activities that emit CO₂ can be cut down to zero, but not all. Agriculture or aviation can鈥檛 be, for example, at least not with foreseeable technologies. We need to be able to offset those emissions by actively removing CO₂ from the atmosphere, creating anthropogenic carbon sinks that go beyond the natural carbon sinks that already exist.

The simplest way to create a carbon sink is by planting trees. The trees store carbon in their branches and roots, and with time, the soil carbon also builds up. We need to increase the forest cover enough that we build up that carbon biomass, and this offsets the emissions we cannot bring down to absolute zero.

You previously instigated an annual effort to keep track of global emissions. To what extent can we trust emissions data from governments?

鈥淭here is no way to have net-zero emissions and aviation as it was before covid-19鈥�

Governments鈥� reports to the United Nations are also scrutinised, checked by independent experts and validated by a team of experts at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the UN wing that deals with international climate actions. The issue is that, for the moment, only a subset of countries does this. Under the Paris Agreement, all countries will need to report, but it will take some time to scale up.

Isn鈥檛 it critical that we have some independent measure of carbon emissions to track countries鈥� progress under the Paris climate deal and hold them to account?

Absolutely. We now have satellite data, which measures vertical columns of CO₂ in the atmosphere above a given location. But we have to be realistic about what these observations will be able to do. I think, at least in the next 10 years, the best case would be to raise questions about the accuracy of emissions reports.

One of the big messages that the public picked out of the UN climate science panel鈥檚 special report in 2018 was that there are 鈥�12 years to save the world鈥�, to ensure global warming doesn鈥檛 exceed the target limit of 1.5掳颁. How helpful was that?

I didn鈥檛 find it super helpful. What are you going to do in 10 years鈥� time? You鈥檙e just going to hope people will have forgotten you鈥檝e ever said that. I understand that it gave a sense of urgency that wasn鈥檛 there before, but it鈥檚 not 12 years anymore. I鈥檓 going to work on climate change all my life. If we miss the 1.5掳颁 target, then I will fight for 1.6掳C or 1.8掳C, and if we miss the 2掳C target, I will fight for 2.4掳C. So for me, the fight is permanent. The lower the level we鈥檙e fighting for, the better it is. There are some degrees of warming I don鈥檛 even want to think about.

You said at a talk two years ago that before you die, you think you will live in a world where people no longer eat animals and can breathe clean air in the middle of cities. Do you still think that鈥檚 the case?

The state of the science is clear. We have the Paris Agreement. We鈥檝e had all the youth coming up and saying 鈥渨e want a better world鈥�. We鈥檙e not over the big polluting phase, but we鈥檝e progressed in our thinking enormously. There is no real obstacle other than within ourselves.