The pace of emission reduction

By now, it’s clear that the climate crisis urgently needs to be tackled to avert catastrophe. Now we turn to what can be done to tackle it.

In this video, climate researcher and course author Dr Jefim Vogel discusses basic approaches for limiting climate change and explores what pace of emission reductions is needed in different countries to meet international climate targets and fairness principles.

Whilst the video focuses on limiting climate change, it’s also important to protect societies from the impacts already underway. These will worsen even in the best-case scenarios since emissions can’t be entirely eliminated immediately, even if the political will was there. Adaptation measures, like flood defences, irrigation systems and warning systems, are essential for building resilience (our capacity to withstand shocks and disasters). However, some adaptation strategies, like using air conditioning to cope with extreme heat, can increase energy use (and thus, emissions), while others, like agroecology, can both reduce emissions and improve resilience.

However, without rapid emission reductions, the scale and severity of climate impacts could surpass the limits of what societies can effectively adapt to (Felgenhauer, 2015). So, while adaptation is essential, rapidly cutting emissions remains the only reliable way to avert climate catastrophe.

Rapid emission reductions are also a matter of fairness, as you see in the video.

How quickly different countries should cut their emissions, depends on what we consider to be fair, and perspectives on this vary.

Perhaps the simplest approach is the principle of equality, allowing each country an equal per-person share of the remaining carbon budget. However, this approach doesn’t account for how countries differ in their responsibility for climate change, ability to adapt and vulnerability to climate impacts.

Weaker fairness principles would promote continued disparities, suggesting that countries that had higher emissions per-person in the past should also be allowed to emit more in the future, and thus get a larger per-person share of the carbon budget.

Stronger fairness principles account for historical emissions, technological capacity, or development needs. Global South countries receive larger shares to meet basic needs and Global North countries get smaller shares to reflect past emissions and greater capacity to change their technology or infrastructure.

Under weaker fairness principles, different countries would reduce their emissions at similar rates, regardless of their very different per-capita emissions, responsibilities and capabilities. By contrast, stronger fairness principles demand that wealthy countries reduce their emissions much faster than less wealthy countries. Stronger fairness principles also entail that Global North countries provide technology and financial support to Global South countries. This supports their emission reductions and adaptation measures and compensates for the loss and damages the Global South has suffered because of the emissions of the Global North.

Have your say

Now we would like to hear about your perspective.

• What do you think would be fair in terms of emission reductions and sharing the remaining global carbon budget?
• Which fairness principles do you think countries should follow?

Share and discuss your responses with other learners in the Comments section.