The zero-carbon target required months and months of tough, detailed negotiations. Inevitably, the language of the agreement was larded up to reflect everyone’s concerns. Here it is, replete with all its clauses and subclauses:
In order to achieve the long-term temperature goal set out in Article 2, Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that peaking will take longer for developing country Parties, and to undertake rapid reductions thereafter in accordance with best available science, so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century, on the basis of equity, and in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty.
Each of those 478 clauses was lawyered to death, yielding a thicket of diplomat-ese. So let’s break it down.
- “In order to achieve the long-term temperature goal set out in Article 2” — this acknowledges that in order to reach the 2 degree target (or, uh, avoid it), global carbon emissions are going to have to zero out, as quickly as possible. Zero serves two.
- “Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that peaking will take longer for developing country Parties” — this combines two important aspects of international global negotiations that were previously thought to be irreconcilable. First is an admission that time is short, there’s not much left of our “carbon budget,” and all countries (rich and poor alike) need to be planning for a peak in emissions. Second is an echo of “common but differentiated responsibilities,” acknowledging that developing countries like India, Brazil, Vietnam, etc. will need more time to peak than wealthier countries.
- “and to undertake rapid reductions thereafter in accordance with best available science” — “best available science” means that targets and goals should be recalibrated as new science comes in.
- “so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases” — this is the key bit. A global “balance” between greenhouse gas emissions and greenhouse gas sinks (like forests, which absorb carbon dioxide) is another way of saying zero net greenhouse gas emissions; anthropogenic (human-caused) emissions and sinks balance out. That’s how zero is phrased in the agreement. It leaves open the possibility, badly needed for any hope of hitting, er, avoiding 2 degrees, of substantial “negative emissions” technologies (like carbon sequestration) later in the century, enough to balance out some remaining emission sources.
- “in the second half of this century” — this leaves a wide swath of room between 2050, when climate hawks would like to zero out emissions, and 2100, when oil-producing nations would likely prefer. And of course there’s huge dispute over how fast emissions feasibly can be phased out, so this wide latitude avoids committing nations to anything that may turn out to be impracticable.
- “on the basis of equity, and in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty” — another acknowledgement that poorer countries need help moving onto a path of clean development that enables them to lift their citizens out of poverty without committing the world to irreversible damages.
Zero beats two
The headline is that we’re headed for carbon zero. It sends a clear signal to investors that each new long-term fossil fuel investment, each new mine, well, pipeline, coal plant, or export terminal, is riskier than the last. There’s still a lot we don’t know about the transition to a zero (net) carbon world, to say the least. We don’t know exactly how long it will take or how much it will cost. We don’t know exactly what variety of energy sources will drive it.
But the unanimous agreement in Paris declares that it is underway, and inevitable. We are heading for zero, slowly pulling the wires out of the ticking time bomb, aiming for a civilization that’s built for the long haul. That’s a clearer goal, and a more hopeful and inspiring vision of the future, than avoiding 2 degrees.
For the full piece, see David Roberts at Vox.