The Times Australia
The Times World News

.

Australia's refusal to sign a global methane pledge exposes flaws in the term 'net-zero'

  • Written by Mark Howden, Director, ANU Institute for Climate, Energy and Disaster Solutions, Australian National University
Australia's refusal to sign a global methane pledge exposes flaws in the term 'net-zero'

At the United Nations climate summit in Glasgow, more than 90 nations signed[1] a global pledge led by the United States and United Kingdom to cut methane emissions. However, Australia was not among them.

China, Russia, India and Iran also declined to sign the pledge, which aims to slash methane emissions by 30% before 2030.

Methane is emitted in coal and gas production, from livestock and other agricultural activity, and when organic waste breaks down in landfill.

Almost half of Australia’s annual methane emissions come from the agriculture sector. Defending the federal government’s decision, Energy and Emissions Reduction Minister Angus Taylor said[2] Australia had pledged net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and would not set specific targets for each sector.

Days out from COP26, National Party leader Barnaby Joyce had claimed signing the pledge would be a disaster for coal mining and agriculture, saying[3] “the only way you can get your 30% by 2030 reduction in methane on 2020 levels would be to grab a rifle and go out and start shooting your cattle”.

Australia’s position on the pledge is inconsistent with methane reductions the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says are required to keep Earth below 1.5℃ warming this century.

The debate also highlights how the shorthand phrase “net-zero emissions” conceals and distorts the real challenges in avoiding dangerous climate change.

It focuses attention on the wrong time frame for action – the next decade[4] is far more important for climate action than 2050. It also addresses the means of action – emissions reduction – rather than the desired goal, which is to avoid dangerous climate change.

And importantly, simply through delaying action, the world could feasibly reduce emissions to net-zero by 2050, but still fail to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement – keeping average global temperature rise below either 1.5℃ or 2℃ this century.

Read more: COP26: a global methane pledge is great – but only if it doesn't distract us from CO₂ cuts[5]

man at lecture with flag on blue background
The Morrison government has refused to sign a global methane pledge. Ian Forsyth/AP

Net-zero is both too much, and not enough

The IPCC report[6] released in August painted a clear picture of how different trajectories for various greenhouse gases translate to global temperature increases.

Carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions last a very long time in the atmosphere so they accumulate. Consequently, net CO₂ emissions need to decline sharply as soon as possible if we’re to limit temperatures to 1.5℃ or 2℃ above pre-industrial levels.

However, CO₂ emissions not only need to reach net-zero – the IPCC says CO₂ emissions need to go “net-negative”. This will require a massive scaling up of methods and technologies to remove existing CO₂ in the atmosphere.

In other words, when it comes to CO₂, net-zero is not enough. It is a way point, not the end point.

So how do we remove CO₂ from the atmosphere? Some methods, such as mass tree planting, are already widely implemented. Some are difficult to implement[7] at scale, such as substantial increases in soil carbon.

Others are in the exploratory stages including incorporating captured CO₂ into building products[8] and high-value materials[9] or in the ocean[10].

Each option has advantages, disadvantages and limits. The “net-zero by 2050” terminology obscures this complexity. It also conceals the need for crucial discussions about feasibility, governance and support for research and development that’s needed now.

Meanwhile, the situation is quite different for shorter-lived gases such as methane and nitrous oxide. In those cases, going all the way to net-zero is not needed to meet the Paris goals.

According to the IPCC report, an illustrative scenario consistent with 1.5℃ warming would involve methane emission reductions of about 30% by 2030, 50% by 2050 and just over 60% by 2100.

This is consistent with the global methane pledge signed at COP26 overnight. For nitrous oxide, the illustrative reductions would be about 30% by 2050.

So, for methane and nitrous oxide, net-zero is too much.

Read more: Monday's IPCC report is a really big deal for climate change. So what is it? And why should we trust it?[11] Targets based on science It should be noted, to keep temperature rise to 1.5℃, there are many possible combinations of emission-reduction trajectories for various greenhouse gases. The extent to which CO₂, methane or nitrous oxide is reduced is interchangeable and the final mix will be a function of political decisions. A clear and integrated assessment of the economic, environmental and social consequences of different emission-reduction pathways is needed to inform those decisions. Without that, inefficient and inequitable economic responses may result. For example, methane (from livestock[12]) and nitrous oxide (from fertiliser use[13]) make up a high proportion of agriculture emissions. But options for completely stopping these emissions are limited. Farmers could offset their emissions by planting trees or rehabilitating vegetation on their properties to increase carbon stores. But this would prevent them from selling those emissions reductions on carbon markets, thus removing a potential source of farm income. So an economy-wide target of net-zero for all key greenhouse gases might mean agriculture must make far more effort in emissions reduction, at much greater cost, than other sectors which largely emit CO₂ and where decarbonisation options are more readily available. sunset on farm with cattle and trees
Methane represents a large part of agriculture emissions. Shutterstock

New Zealand has recognised this, and treats agricultural emissions separately[14].

Carving agriculture out of national emissions-reduction goals would place a greater requirement to act onto other sectors. For example, emission reductions in the transport sector may have to be greater than otherwise, to compensate for the lack of progress in agriculture.

But is isolating agriculture from emission reductions necessary? A recent study[15] assessed new emission reduction options for livestock, including several approaches that together may reduce emissions at the rate required by the methane pledge. They involve more efficient production, technological advances, changes in demand for livestock-related products and land-based carbon storage.

These are approaches already being adopted by industry groups[16] and farmers[17].

Towards ‘Paris-aligned’

Targets for methane and nitrous oxide reductions should be set using the IPCC science – and don’t have to be set at net-zero. That would leave sectors emitting these gases with a feasible (but still challenging) pathway to reducing emissions in line with the Paris goals.

And where appropriate, we should start describing effective climate action as being “Paris-aligned”. Clearly, over-use of the term “net-zero emissions” misdirects attention from where it’s needed.

Read more: The clock is ticking on net-zero, farmers must not get a free pass[18]

References

  1. ^ signed (theconversation.com)
  2. ^ said (www.smh.com.au)
  3. ^ saying (www.reuters.com)
  4. ^ next decade (theconversation.com)
  5. ^ COP26: a global methane pledge is great – but only if it doesn't distract us from CO₂ cuts (theconversation.com)
  6. ^ report (www.ipcc.ch)
  7. ^ difficult to implement (theconversation.com)
  8. ^ building products (www.themandarin.com.au)
  9. ^ high-value materials (www.co2value.eu)
  10. ^ the ocean (www.wri.org)
  11. ^ Monday's IPCC report is a really big deal for climate change. So what is it? And why should we trust it? (theconversation.com)
  12. ^ from livestock (www.mla.com.au)
  13. ^ fertiliser use (blog.csiro.au)
  14. ^ separately (www.theguardian.com)
  15. ^ recent study (doi.org)
  16. ^ industry groups (www.mla.com.au)
  17. ^ farmers (farmersforclimateaction.org.au)
  18. ^ The clock is ticking on net-zero, farmers must not get a free pass (theconversation.com)

Read more https://theconversation.com/australias-refusal-to-sign-a-global-methane-pledge-exposes-flaws-in-the-term-net-zero-170944

Times Magazine

Building a Strong Online Presence with Katoomba Web Design

Katoomba web design is more than just creating a website that looks good—it’s about building an online presence that reflects your brand, engages your audience, and drives results. For local businesses in the Blue Mountains, a well-designed website a...

September Sunset Polo

International Polo Tour To Bridge Historic Sport, Life-Changing Philanthropy, and Breath-Taking Beauty On Saturday, September 6th, history will be made as the International Polo Tour (IPT), a sports leader headquartered here in South Florida...

5 Ways Microsoft Fabric Simplifies Your Data Analytics Workflow

In today's data-driven world, businesses are constantly seeking ways to streamline their data analytics processes. The sheer volume and complexity of data can be overwhelming, often leading to bottlenecks and inefficiencies. Enter the innovative da...

7 Questions to Ask Before You Sign IT Support Companies in Sydney

Choosing an IT partner can feel like buying an insurance policy you hope you never need. The right choice keeps your team productive, your data safe, and your budget predictable. The wrong choice shows up as slow tickets, surprise bills, and risky sh...

Choosing the Right Legal Aid Lawyer in Sutherland Shire: Key Considerations

Legal aid services play an essential role in ensuring access to justice for all. For people in the Sutherland Shire who may not have the financial means to pay for private legal assistance, legal aid ensures that everyone has access to representa...

Watercolor vs. Oil vs. Digital: Which Medium Fits Your Pet's Personality?

When it comes to immortalizing your pet’s unique personality in art, choosing the right medium is essential. Each artistic medium, whether watercolor, oil, or digital, has distinct qualities that can bring out the spirit of your furry friend in dif...

The Times Features

NSW has a new fashion sector strategy – but a sustainable industry needs a federally legislated response

The New South Wales government recently announced the launch of the NSW Fashion Sector Strategy, 2025–28[1]. The strategy, developed in partnership with the Australian Fashion ...

From Garden to Gift: Why Roses Make the Perfect Present

Think back to the last time you gave or received flowers. Chances are, roses were part of the bunch, or maybe they were the whole bunch.   Roses tend to leave an impression. Even ...

Do I have insomnia? 5 reasons why you might not

Even a single night of sleep trouble can feel distressing and lonely. You toss and turn, stare at the ceiling, and wonder how you’ll cope tomorrow. No wonder many people star...

Wedding Photography Trends You Need to Know (Before You Regret Your Album)

Your wedding album should be a timeless keepsake, not something you cringe at years later. Trends may come and go, but choosing the right wedding photography approach ensures your ...

Can you say no to your doctor using an AI scribe?

Doctors’ offices were once private. But increasingly, artificial intelligence (AI) scribes (also known as digital scribes) are listening in. These tools can record and trans...

There’s a new vaccine for pneumococcal disease in Australia. Here’s what to know

The Australian government announced last week there’s a new vaccine[1] for pneumococcal disease on the National Immunisation Program for all children. This vaccine replaces pr...