Central Idea

• At the COP28 climate talks in Dubai, discussions have centered on carbon capture and storage (CCS) and carbon-dioxide removal (CDR) technologies.
• The interpretation of ‘abatement’ is crucial in understanding the role and limitations of CCS and CDR in climate action.

Understanding CCS and CDR

• CCS: This involves capturing CO₂ emissions at their source, such as in the fossil fuel industry and industrial processes, and storing them to prevent atmospheric release.
• CDR: Encompasses natural methods like afforestation and technological approaches like direct air capture for absorbing and storing atmospheric CO₂.
• COP28 Discussions: The term “unabated fossil fuels” in the draft texts refers to fossil fuel combustion without CCS. The texts advocate phasing out such fuels and enhancing emission removal technologies.

Scale and Efficacy of CCS and CDR

• IPCC’s AR6 Report: Heavily reliant on CDR for meeting the 1.5 degrees C temperature limit, assuming significant CO₂ sequestration by 2040.
• Challenges: Direct mitigation to reduce emissions is daunting, making CDR crucial.
• CCS Limitations: Effective CCS requires high capture rates, permanent storage, and minimal methane leakage from upstream processes.

Concerns and Implications of CCS and CDR

• Land Use for CDR: Large-scale CDR methods, especially technological ones, require significant land, raising equity, biodiversity, and food security concerns.
• Impact on the Global South: CDR projects in the Global South could infringe on indigenous land rights and compete with agricultural land use.
• Financial and Ethical Questions: The cost and responsibility of implementing CDR at scale raise questions about who should bear these burdens.

Pitfalls of CCS and CDR

• Potential for Increased Emissions: CCS and CDR could inadvertently create leeway for continued or increased greenhouse gas emissions.
• IPCC Emission Scenarios: To limit warming to 1.5 degrees C, significant reductions in coal, oil, and gas use are required by 2050, with or without CCS.
• Gas Emissions Pathways: Higher reliance on CCS and CDR could lead to emission pathways with a greater contribution from gas.

Conclusion

• Critical Decade Ahead: The next decade is pivotal in determining the viability and scalability of CDR methods.
• Balancing Act: While CCS and CDR offer potential solutions for emission reduction, their implementation must be carefully managed to avoid unintended consequences and ensure equitable and effective climate action.
• Future of Climate Negotiations: The discussions and decisions at COP28 regarding CCS and CDR will significantly influence the trajectory of global climate action and the pursuit of the 1.5 degrees C target.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now

Central Idea

• The Dubai Consensus, a significant resolution towards reducing fossil fuel dependency, was adopted in COP 28, Dubai.

Dubai Consensus

• Key Clause: The resolution emphasizes transitioning away from fossil fuels to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, aligning with scientific recommendations to limit global temperature rise.
• Balance between Countries: The text reflects a compromise between developed and developing nations on climate action and responsibility.
• Dilution of Language: Earlier drafts with terms like ‘phase-out’ were softened due to opposition from oil-dependent countries.
• Coal Usage: The final text moderated its stance on coal, crucial for countries like India, calling for a phase-down rather than a rapid phase-out.
• Methane Emissions: The consensus introduces a focus on reducing methane emissions by 2030, a potent greenhouse gas.
• Natural Gas as a ‘Transition Fuel’: The text’s reference to natural gas as a transitional fuel could favor gas-producing countries and overlook the need for developed countries to close the finance gap in climate adaptation.

New Funding Commitments and Future Goals

• Diverse Opinions: While some nations expressed dissatisfaction with the agreement’s scope, others highlighted the lack of financial support for developing countries.
• Financial Pledges: COP 28 saw commitments to the Loss and Damage Fund and pledges to decarbonize the global economy.
• Focus on Renewable Energy: The resolution signals a move towards phasing out fossil fuels and boosting renewable energy and efficiency.

India’s Historical Position on Climate Change

• Emission Statistics: India, a major developing country, has historically contributed 3% of greenhouse gases (1850-2019), compared to higher percentages from the US and EU.
• Per Capita Emissions: India’s per capita emissions are below the global average, but its development needs and population growth have made it the third-largest emitter.
• Balancing Development and Emissions: India has been navigating the pressure to reduce emissions while addressing its developmental needs, particularly its reliance on coal.

India’s Commitments and Challenges

• Net Zero by 2070: India has committed to achieving a net-zero state by 2070, alongside expanding its renewable energy capacity.
• Glasgow COP 2021 Agreement: Under pressure, India agreed to a ‘phase-down’ of coal use, highlighting the need for equitable treatment of all fossil fuels, including oil and gas.
• Import Dependency: As a net importer of oil and gas, India has raised concerns about the focus on coal while other fossil fuels remain under-addressed.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now

Central Idea

• At the COP28 climate summit on November 6, 63 countries, including the US, Canada, and Kenya, signed the world’s first pledge to reduce cooling emissions.

Global Cooling Pledge

• Term: This pledge aims to cut cooling emissions by at least 68% by 2050, addressing a significant source of greenhouse gases.
• Current Contribution to Global Emissions: Cooling emissions, primarily from refrigerants and cooling energy, currently constitute 7% of global greenhouse gases.
• Projected Increase: These emissions are expected to triple by 2050 due to rising global temperatures and increased demand for cooling appliances like ACs and refrigerators.

Role of Refrigerants in Global Warming

• Transition from CFCs to HFCs and HCFCs: Initially, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were used in cooling appliances but were phased out by the 1987 Montreal Protocol due to ozone depletion concerns. They were replaced by hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs).
• Greenhouse Gas Potency: Although HFCs and HCFCs don’t harm the ozone layer, they are potent greenhouse gases, with some forms like HFC-134a having a global warming potential 3,400 times that of CO2.

Sources and Effects of HFC and HCFC Emissions

• Leakage from Appliances: These gases often leak from damaged appliances or car air conditioning systems, especially at the end of their life cycle.
• Contribution to Warming: The leakage of these gases contributes significantly to global warming, with the Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC) highlighting their potency.

Challenge of Cooling Energy

• Electricity for Cooling: A significant portion of cooling emissions comes from the electricity used to power cooling appliances.
• Fossil Fuel Dependence: Much of this electricity is generated from fossil fuels, particularly in developing countries, contributing to climate change.

Vicious Cycle of Cooling Demand and Global Warming

• Feedback Loop: Rising global temperatures increase the demand for cooling, which in turn contributes to more warming.
• Growing Cooling Device Market: The number of cooling devices is expected to rise from 3.6 billion to 9.5 billion by 2050, with a potential need for 14 billion devices if cooling access is expanded globally.

Solutions and Strategies

• Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol: Over 150 countries agreed in 2016 to reduce HFC consumption by 80% by 2047, potentially avoiding over 0.4 degrees Celsius of global warming by 2100.
• Promoting Climate-Friendly Refrigerants: The use of natural refrigerants with lower or zero global warming potential is being encouraged.
• Proper Disposal and Management: Effective management and disposal of refrigerants could significantly reduce CO2 emissions.
• Alternative Cooling Methods: Focusing on building designs that reduce the need for air conditioners, such as improved insulation and ventilation, is crucial.

Conclusion

• The Global Cooling Pledge represents a significant step in addressing a key contributor to climate change.
• This initiative underscores the need for global cooperation in combating the escalating challenges posed by climate change.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now

Central Idea

• The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) met in Nairobi for its third round of negotiations under the UN Environment Programme.

About Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC)

• INC is a committee that aims to develop a legally binding international instrument to end plastic pollution by 2025, as mandated by UNEA Resolution 5/14.
• It began working in November 2022 at Punta del Este, Uruguay (INC-1).
• The second meeting (INC-2) took place in May-June, 2023 at Paris, France.
• INC is scheduled to complete its work by the end of 2024.

Overview of INC-3

• Event: The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) met in Nairobi for its third round of negotiations under the United Nations Environment Programme.
• Objective: To develop an international legally binding instrument to end plastic pollution worldwide, as mandated by UNEA Resolution 5/14.
• Deadline: The INC is tasked with delivering a global plastics treaty by 2025.

Significance of INC-3

• Critical Stage: INC-3 was pivotal in negotiating the ‘zero draft’ text, which offered various options for core obligations and control measures.
• Progress: Compared to INC-2 in Paris, INC-3 made substantive discussions on the treaty’s content.

Key Aspects of the ‘Zero Draft’

• Initial Strength: The zero draft proposed strong options for a legally binding treaty.
• Dilution of Obligations: During negotiations, member states weakened core obligations, especially on primary polymer production, chemicals of concern, and trade.
• Controversial Elements: The draft faced controversy over its scope and objectives, particularly regarding the production of primary polymers and lifecycle definitions.

Financial Mechanism Discussions

• Proposals: The draft included options like a plastic-pollution fee and reducing financial flow into high carbon footprint projects.
• Opposition: Some countries, particularly those with vested economic interests, opposed these financial provisions.

Trade in Plastics

• Trade Restrictions: The treaty aims to address gaps left by the Basel Convention, but faced opposition regarding trade restrictions.
• Misinterpretation of WTO Rules: Some countries misconstrued WTO rules to oppose trade restrictions, despite legal allowances for health and environmental protection.

Challenges in Negotiations

• Advocacy for Strong Provisions: African countries and Small-Island Developing States advocated for binding provisions, representing marginalized voices and emphasizing human rights and public health.
• Rules of Procedure: INC-2’s unresolved debate on rules of procedure continued, affecting decision-making at INC-3.
• Industry Influence: The presence of industry lobbyists indicated significant industry influence on the negotiations.
• Stalling Tactics: Some countries used stalling and blocking tactics, delaying progress and expanding the draft text with national interest-driven changes.

Outcomes and Takeaways from INC-3

• Lack of Consensus: The meeting ended without consensus on intersessional work, hindering progress towards INC-4.
• Exposure of Opposition: INC-3 highlighted the countries and industries opposed to a strong binding treaty.
• Future Challenges: The lack of mandate adoption for the first draft development indicates significant challenges ahead in achieving a robust and effective global treaty on plastic pollution.

Conclusion

• INC-3’s outcomes underscore the complexities and challenges in formulating a global treaty on plastic pollution.
• The divergent interests of member states, influenced by economic and industry considerations, pose significant hurdles.
• The upcoming negotiations will be crucial in balancing these interests with the urgent need for effective global action to tackle the plastic pollution crisis.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now

Central Idea

• A recent report published by the OECD reveals that economically developed countries failed to fulfill their commitment to jointly mobilize $100 billion per year for climate mitigation and adaptation in developing countries in 2021, missing the 2020 deadline.
• The report’s findings have significant implications for the upcoming COP 28 climate talks in the United Arab Emirates, where climate finance is expected to be a contentious issue.

Key Findings of the OECD Report

• Shortfall in Climate Finance: Developed countries mobilized $89.6 billion in climate finance in 2021, falling short of the $100 billion target.
• Decline in Adaptation Finance: The report highlights a 14% decrease in financing for climate adaptation in 2021 compared to the previous year.

Significance of the OECD Report

• Representation of Developed Nations: The OECD consists of affluent countries such as the U.S., the U.K., Germany, France, Switzerland, and Canada, providing insights into their climate finance priorities before the COP 28 talks.
• COP 26 Pledge: The report follows a commitment by developed nations at COP 26 in 2020 to double adaptation finance and acknowledges their failure to meet the $100 billion goal on time.

Issues related to Climate Finance Accountability

• Composition of Climate Finance: The report reveals that a significant portion of public climate financing comes in the form of loans, raising concerns about debt stress in developing countries.
• Loan Classification: The report’s treatment of loans without considering grant equivalents can exacerbate the burden on poorer nations, as loans may require repayment with interest.
• ‘Additionality’: The UNFCCC mandates that developed countries provide “new and additional” financial resources for climate purposes, preventing the diversion of funds from other essential sectors like healthcare.
• Lack of Defined Criteria: Developed countries have resisted efforts to establish a clear definition of climate finance, allowing ambiguity in classifying various types of funding.
• Double-Counting: Some developed countries have been accused of double-counting development aid as climate finance, leading to the misallocation of resources.

Climate Finance Needs and Future Projections

• The OECD report suggests that $100 billion was likely met in 2022, but this data remains preliminary and unverified.
• Developing countries are projected to require approximately $1 trillion annually for climate investments by 2025, escalating to $2.4 trillion per year from 2026 to 2030, highlighting the inadequacy of the $100 billion goal.

Conclusion

• The OECD report on climate finance underscores the gap between promises made by developed nations and their actual contributions.
• Issues of loan classification, additionality, and a lack of clear criteria for climate finance need to be addressed for greater transparency and accountability.
• As developing countries face growing climate-related challenges, public funding from governments and multilateral development banks remains crucial to meeting their needs.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now