By Zerin Osho
Earlier this year, the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre published its latest annual report, the Global Climate and Energy Outlook (GECO) 2024, which calls for urgent, accelerated climate action in 2025. It reveals that the G20 — comprising the world’s largest economies — are not on track to achieve the aim of restricting global warming to “well below” 2 °C by the end of the century. Clearly, something is amiss in our current approach to measuring and tackling climate impacts.
For decades, global bodies have focused, rightly, on decarbonisation. But have we, in our efforts to only focus on the marathon of decarbonisation, forgotten the need to ensure the world is insulated from the risks of global warming from non-carbon dioxide (CO2) pollutants, especially in the shorter term? Yes, CO2 remains the most common greenhouse gas (GHG); however, it also has the weakest warming effect per tonne compared to other non-CO2 gases. Furthermore, the potency of GHGs gets measured in terms of CO2 equivalency (CO2e), conventionally calculated over a 100-year timeframe (the rationale being that most GHGs last a century or longer in the atmosphere). This follows the Global Warming Potential-100 model (GWP-100) of gauging potency. But for other “short-lived climate pollutants” (SLCPs) or non-CO2 gases like methane, the equation changes drastically. Methane, an SLCP with a 12-year lifespan, has more potency than CO2 in the shorter term. It is about 80 times more potent over 20 years and up to 150 times more potent in its initial year of emission. When we calculate the warming effect of a tonne of methane by comparing it to that of a tonne of carbon dioxide over 100 years, the resulting equivalency seems much lesser (about 27-30 times more potent over a 100-year period). The damage it does in the present to lives and livelihoods in the process is not factored in accurately.
Similarly, other SLCPs like tropospheric ozone can be up to 3,000 times more potent a global warming agent than CO2, and black carbon up to 52,000 times. Tropospheric ozone and black carbon, combined with methane and hydrofluorocarbons, are responsible for almost 45% of the current anthropogenic global warming. SLCPs have shorter lifespans in the atmosphere and it’s challenging to use the GWP-100 model to estimate their true impact.
Thus, the challenge before us is an insufficient model of climate accounting that excludes many crucial emissions from the equation. This impedes the process of setting effective climate targets for countries and companies. Consequently, it stymies our efforts to curb present warming in a timely manner. This is a serious challenge at a time when, globally, the carbon market and Article 6 negotiations are underway.
Rethinking measurements
What is the solution? A model which recognises the need to measure emissions on a varying timescale, beyond the GWP-100 model and specific to pollutants’ lifespans: an accounting methodology based on radiative forcing (RF). RF refers to the metric which gauges Earth’s energy balance. Simply put, it is the difference between the amount of incoming energy from the sun and outgoing radiation from the Earth. The differential amount is the energy or excess heat trapped on Earth. It is a significantly more effective and holistic system of climate accounting as it looks beyond the prism of CO2 and includes SLCPs in addition to non-emission climate forcers. Crucially, RF factors in the individual lifespans of pollutants while calculating their potency — it doesn’t just use false equivalencies with CO2 and a 100-year period. It also recognises the value of co-benefits that result from addressing a range of pollutants, not just CO2. Moreover, RF is in sync with the existing Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s methodologies.
India and the CBAM
The RF model thus holds value for carbon markets in general and particularly for India as it progresses closer toward building a framework for an effective India Carbon Market (ICM) by 2026. While in contrast to the European Union (EU) the ecosystem of carbon credits is at a nascent stage in India, it also means a cleaner slate for India upon which it can draw the blueprint of a responsive market. Because it is a holistic system which incorporates the impact of GHGs in addition to CO2, it means more volume of credits based on different pollutants can be generated. This is particularly beneficial for India, a “supplier” of credits in international markets and potentially a supplier of higher-grade offsets if adopted.
As the EU prepares to launch its Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) to ensure equity in competition, it is expected to cost India about 0.05% of its GDP. If India strengthens the scientific and climate impact foundation of its carbon price domestically, these losses could be substantially offset. As the country finalises the contours of its carbon market, there is merit in exploring RF for pan-India adoption sooner than later.
The writer is Director, India Program, Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development.
Disclaimer: Views expressed are personal and do not reflect the official position or policy of FinancialExpress.com. Reproducing this content without permission is prohibited.