The 195 parties to the 2015 Paris Agreement are supposedly pursuing efforts to limit average global temperature to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. With such a target established, it is critical that some organization, such as the International Energy Agency (IEA), monitor and publish regular updates on progress toward meeting the goal. In the absence of such updates, interest in the goal could lapse and progress could stall.
Reports by the IEA indicate that policies already undertaken, as well as those announced and planned by governments, will yield temperature increases far in excess of the Paris Agreement goal. Indeed, these policies will rapidly exhaust the remaining emissions budget consistent with limiting global warming to the 1.5°C ceiling.
According to the IEA, “structural changes in the energy sector are now moving fast enough to deliver a peak in oil and gas demand by the end of this decade under today’s policy settings. After the peak, demand is not currently set to decline quickly enough to align with the Paris Agreement and the 1.5°C goal.”
If the 1.5°C goal is proving so hard to reach, should the Paris Agreement be amended to specify a less stringent objective? Is it rational to continue to pursue an unachievable target?
Reference Scenarios
At least by implication, some parties to the Paris Agreement already ignore the target. Reference scenarios published by Opec and by the Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF) project continuously rising worldwide oil and gas consumption in coming decades, with rising CO2 emissions, but the scenarios do not indicate the impact on global temperatures. Yet, all Opec and GECF members have signed the Paris Agreement.
Similarly, the US Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) presents a reference case with continuously rising global oil and gas consumption throughout the forecast period (to 2050). Carbon emissions likewise rise without interruption. The report does not estimate the impact on global warming. Yet, the US is a signatory of the Paris Agreement, thus committed to pursuing the 1.5°C limit. It withdrew from the Paris Agreement in 2017, but again became a Party in 2021.
The Institute of Energy Economics of Japan (IEEJ) likewise publishes scenarios of global energy consumption. Their most recent reference scenario shows oil and gas demand rising continuously through 2050. Global CO2 emissions peak by 2025, but remain approximately at the same level thereafter. The report contains no estimate of the temperature increase associated with its reference scenario. Japan is a signatory to the Paris Agreement.
What are we to make of base case scenarios that ignore climate change impacts? Calculating the impact on global warming from CO2 emissions is not rocket science. The authors of those scenarios certainly know this. By omitting the calculation, are they assuming that the Paris Agreement target will be relaxed or rescinded? Or that the target will simply be forgotten?
Not all energy projections omit climate consequences. In October 2023, consulting firm McKinsey & Co. published a pathway consistent with 1.5°C, as well as four “bottom-up energy transition scenarios.” Additional information on individual energy sectors was provided in January 2024. Each scenario includes implied carbon prices and estimated global average temperature increases.
When compared with the IEA and McKinsey scenarios, the reference scenarios published by Opec, GECF, EIA and IEEJ seem incomplete and irresponsible. Would anyone propose a path to a hiker without warning that the path will lead the hiker over the edge of a cliff?
Weakening Commitments
Other sources yield evidence of weak or weakening commitments to the Paris Agreement target.
-
BloombergNEF, in an April 2024 review of G20 countries’ low-carbon policy regimes, downgraded rankings of the US, EU, UK, Germany and others. Reviewers found that governments had slowed, weakened or backtracked on low-carbon regulations, and postponed implementation of others.
- Energy Intelligence’s recently updated Energy Transition Macro Report sees the transition gradually intensifying on the back of policy and technology supports, but still falling short of the 1.5°C goal. Under the report’s core “Momentum” scenario, temperature rises would remain within 2.5°C. A faster “Velocity” scenario would bring this within 2°C. The report assigns just a 3% probability to the Net-Zero scenario and 1.5°C.
- The European Central Bank recently conducted a survey of lending practices of banks that had joined the Net-Zero Banking Alliance. “Overall, our results cast doubt on the efficacy of voluntary climate commitments for reducing financed emissions, whether through divestment or engagement [and] suggests that voluntary private-sector initiatives may have relatively little impact on decarbonization.”
Given these signs of weak or weakening effort, one is tempted to seek a consensus to relax the 1.5°C target. For those with vested interests in the fossil fuel industry, the temptation to pursue a relaxation must be quite strong. But to what extent should the target ceiling be raised?
Climate Risks
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns: “Risks and projected adverse impacts and related losses and damages from climate change escalate with every increment of global warming (very high confidence).“
For example, warmer temperatures bring, among other dangerous consequences, more frequent heat waves. A study of the recent (late March–early April 2024) exceptional heat in Mali and Burkina Faso indicates that the heat wave was entirely due to global warming. Moreover, a heat wave that would occur once in 200 years today (when average global temperature is 1.2°C above pre-industrial level) will occur once every 20 years if warming reaches 2°C.
Similar calculations can be made of the enhanced probabilities and frequencies of other consequences if one relaxes the 1.5°C target: floods, forest fires, ocean levels, glacial melting, wildlife extinctions, etc. Before concluding that the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C should be relaxed or abandoned, one should consider the consequences. Even a small increase in that ceiling will have serious impacts.
A more responsible step would be to insist that all scenarios, by whomever published, include an estimate of the level of global warming consistent with the scenario. Perhaps also, every scenario should specify the risks and adverse impacts and related losses and damages that are implied by the scenario.
The IEA has warned that “a moment of truth is coming for the oil and gas industry.” Would a responsible physician fail to alert a patient to the potential risks implied by the patient’s current lifestyle?
Nordine Ait-Laoussine is a former Algerian oil minister and John Gault is an independent energy economist based in Switzerland. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors.
