Evrim Yazgin
Cosmos science journalist
Scientists and policy experts are warning that, in the urgent struggle to reduce greenhouse gas emissions which are driving climate change, there needs to be an eye cast on the social impact of “green” and “sustainable” initiatives. Otherwise, they say, we run the risk of ignoring the problem.
Who bears the most responsibility?
Experts warn that global governments are on track to exceed the Paris Agreement of limiting warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
Burning fossil fuels, such as coal and gas, releases CO2 and other molecules into the atmosphere which trap heat close to the Earth’s surface, resulting in a greenhouse effect, warming the planet. This human-induced climate change is leading to ocean acidification, rising sea levels, more extreme weather events, and is even a risk to health.
The Paris Agreement requires greenhouse gas emissions peak before 2025 and drop by 43% by 2030.
Some researchers have suggested that a “net-zero carbon debt” should be applied to assess which groups are responsible for overshooting the goals of the Paris Agreement. A framework for this is detailed in a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
“As we near the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C limit, the question is not just about when we will exceed it, but also how we collectively deal with the consequences in the subsequent period,” says lead author Setu Pelz, a researcher at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, based in Austria. “To guide efforts that minimise overshoot and establish who should pay for harms caused during this period, we measure who is responsible and to what extent under a range of scenarios and approaches.”
“Our findings reveal how the lack of global cooperation prolongs climate harms,” the authors of the paper write. “Moreover, they show how responsibilities persist beyond budget exhaustion, informing the need for increased international support, ambitious mitigation targets, and reparative measures for those most affected.”
The research highlights the disproportionate effects of climate change on younger generations and regions which have contributed less to emissions.
Example: E-fuels for aviation
Global aviation is responsible for about 2.4% of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions – about the same as the historic emissions of Canada. The mix of gases produced by aeroplanes translates to about 4% of human-induced global warming.
An increasing role is being played by private aviation.
Small reductions of global aviation – as little as 2.5% – could lead to future contributions of aviation to global warming being halted, according to one study. There is also research into carbon-neutral fuels for aeroplanes.
The European Union (EU) even has a roadmap for sustainable aviation fuels. They say these synthetic “eco-fuels” or “e-fuels” will make up 2% of the supply in Europe by 2025, rising to 6% in 2030 and reaching 70% by 2050.
Recent research has shown improvements in the process for making carbon-neutral aeroplane fuel. But even this is likely not enough according to some experts.
Other experts warn that the focus on e-fuels highlights a major disparity in the way that people of different socioeconomic backgrounds are treated in the energy market.
This “energy injustice” means poorer people who need energy for every day life are priced out of being able to use energy while corporations can use their resources and direct link to governments to make the most of energy subsidies and “green energy” initiatives.
Unequal approach harms the most vulnerable
New research published in the Climate Policy journal, for example, explains that working-class and poor people are disproportionately affected by energy tax policies during the transition to renewable sources for aviation.
The paper focuses on the EU’s energy policies.
The wealthiest 1% of the EU’s population is responsible for 66% of the distance currently travelled by air, while air travel is almost non-existent for the poorest 50% and limited for the bottom 90% of EU citizens.
In fact, this is a global phenomenon. Estimates vary, but research suggests that about 90% of the world’s population does not fly in a given year. And frequent flying is restricted to the wealthiest.
The Climate Policy findings indicate that the bottom 90% of people in the EU emit less than 0.1 tonne of CO2 equivalent emissions per person, per year. Meanwhile the top 1% emit about 20 tons per person/year.
On the other hand, electricity costs for primary needs such as heating and lighting is up to 3 times more expensive than electricity for long-distance travel.
Electricity serving household and local mobility needs cost about A$341 per MWh (Australian dollars per megawatt-hour) – or €194 per MWh. Meanwhile, e-fuel for aviation costs just A$115 per MWh, or €65.5 per MWh.
EU tax policies accounted for A$211/MWh (€120/MWh) of this cost in the case of household and local mobility fuel needs but only A$19.70/MWh (€11.2/MWh) in the case of aviation.
“As e-fuel, along with other energy carriers based on electricity, is still within its infancy, it’s time for policy-makers to address the potential social injustices which may arise when formulating e-fuel policies,” says author Jean-Baptiste Jarin, an expert on decarbonisation from the University of Pau and the Adour Region in France.
“Electricity for basic needs such as heating or cooking benefits everyone but using it for air mobility mostly benefits the upper classes.”
“And that is what I find most worrying about the findings from within my paper, that, essentially, low carbon policies could foster energy injustice to people across society,” Jarin adds.
“Sadly, a massive production of e-fuel – especially when dedicated to aviation – could mean that tax inequalities, along with volume inequalities, spread the gap between the very wealthiest and the rest. That is why policy makers need to pay close attention.
“In the Global South, but also within the EU, during winters of 2022 and 2023, electricity bills were so high in most EU countries that people had to – and even were asked to by some – reduce heating and other appliances consumptions.”
A collective approach
A chemical engineer at the University of Sydney’s Institute for Sustainable Futures in Australia, Maartje Feenstra, agrees that there is discrepancy between household users and industry.
“In general, industrial users use electricity that is less expensive than what households use. There’s an interaction there with politics and keeping the industry there. So that’s a difficult topic, of course, with all kinds of different aspects of that problem,” Feenstra tells Cosmos.
“The technical challenge for the aviation industry is that the renewable fuels are more expensive than the normal fuel set. So, they’re the only sustainable solution we have, but they’re also a factor 2 to 6 more expensive than our conventional fossil fuel-based fuels.”
University of Adelaide researcher and global expert on energy policy. Tracey Dodd, emphasises the importance of collective action to reduce carbon emissions, rather than individually-based solutions which can result in ordinary people feeling “flight shame” – the guilt caused by being a passenger on a CO2 emitting aircraft.
“We have to have what we call a “just transition” [to clean energy sources],” she says. “I think that it’s really hard. You want to make sure that that we’re doing this in a way that is economically sensitive, and that it’s not going to price certain people out of the market to fly, or price certain people out of the market of things like flowers or coffee that we ship.
“Any policy can have an unintended or intended consequence.”
