🇬🇧 The carbon neutrality objective for 2050 in danger
Is the carbon neutrality objective for 2050 still viable?
Dear friends,
The following article has been translated from the original text in French “L’objectif de neutralité carbone pour 2050 en péril” by Google. Please share your comments.
The carbon neutrality objective for 2050 in danger
Is the carbon neutrality objective for 2050 still viable?
OCT 8, 2023
The signing of the Paris Agreement by 175 countries on April 22, 2016 marked a turning point in global awareness of climate change. This is the first international treaty that legally binds signatory countries in their preservation of the environment. With the ambition of limiting warming to 1.5°C compared to pre-industrial levels , article 4 specifies that the signatories undertake to “make reductions (…) so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by anthropogenic sources and absorptions by greenhouse gas sinks”.
As carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main source of greenhouse gases , causing global warming, states are promising to develop carbon sinks to absorb it. This Agreement was ratified by the European Union on October 5, 2016 and resulted in several European laws, the last of which was voted by the European Parliament on June 30, 2021. Article 20 of this law states very clearly that “solutions based on CO2 capture and storage technologies (…) can play a role in decarbonization , in particular for the mitigation of process emissions in industry”.
READ ALSO / THE PARADOXES OF THE ENERGY CHALLENGE
In France, the National Low-Carbon Strategy voted in 2015 and updated during the summer of 2022 states that it wants to “increase and secure carbon sinks, that is to say natural ecosystems and processes and materials capable of capturing a significant quantity of CO2: (…) carbon capture and storage technologies”. This Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) strategy is also confirmed by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in September 2020 and by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) in its report of 2022 for decision-makers (AR6 WG3 section C11).
A damning study
This technology consists of capturing carbon dioxide directly emitted by industrial sites , such as cement plants, steelworks or power plants, to prevent its release into the air. The gas is liquefied then compressed and then injected into the geological layers of the ground or into the seas. The process was developed in the 1970s by oil companies to facilitate the extraction of oil… and to dilute the CO2 with the oil to increase sales volume. However, it is expensive (nearly two thirds of the price of a tonne of CO2) and it consumes energy (up to 20% of the site's electricity consumption in addition). For these two reasons, oil companies stopped using it… before the climate emergency and scientific consensus came to justify its strategic interest.
In Norway, two gas extraction sites operated by the oil company Equinor are used to store carbon and are regularly highlighted. The first, Sleipner , started in 1996 and stored more than 19 million tonnes of CO2. The second, Snøhvit , was opened in 2008 for storage of more than 7 million tonnes . These two sites have accumulated 26 million tonnes of CO2 and serve as a reference for other storage projects around the world. However, the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis ) published a damning study this summer on these two sites. Three years after the start of Sleipner , the CO2 left its geological storage layer to rise in another layer more on the surface and unknown to engineers. Without it, the gas would have been released into the air. In Snøhvit , the storage capacity of the geological layer had been estimated at 18 years. However, after eighteen months, gas began to escape into the atmosphere. Poorly understood by engineers, the storage capacity was in reality only six months!
“In summary: the technique is unstable, expensive, ineffective and there is no guarantee that the CO2 will remain in the same place in the soil.”
Briefly, the study concludes that each storage site is unique in the world and that CO2 can move into the ground without possible anticipation, even the most modern technology is far from infallible. Substitution plans and heavy monitoring procedures are therefore essential during the decades following the cessation of filling… But costs are exploding. Worse still: while CO2 represents on average 10 to 15% of power plant emissions, CCS only really captures less than 70%, contrary to the 90% communicated by manufacturers. In summary: the technique is unstable, expensive, ineffective and there is no guarantee that the CO2 will remain in the same place in the soil. In response, the scientific community sadly distinguished itself by denigrating the author of this study, without responding in substance.
However, the question of the consequences in the event of a leak arises. There is no documentation on the subject. However, Cameroon has experienced two natural disasters of massive release of CO2 present in lakes, the best known of which is that of the Nyos volcanic crater lake . The cause has not been established and several hypotheses still remain. During the evening of August 21, 1986, an event caused the waters of the lake to mix, releasing 100,000 to 300,000 tons of CO2 which were held in the depths. The eruption projected the gas into the air, which fell in a bell shape within a radius of 25 km around the lake. Around 3,000 livestock and 1,740 people were found dead from asphyxiation. Vegetation was destroyed and soils polluted by acid. Survivors suffered injuries, burns, breathing difficulties and paralysis.
Objectives called into question
What are the storage objectives recommended by scientists? The IEA has published an agenda to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 . By combining a reduction in CO2 emissions with a gradual increase in carbon storage, the agency plans to start storing 4 Gigatons of CO2 each year from 2035 to reach 7.6 GtCO2 per year in 2050. In 2021, the The IEA has calculated that global human activity has released 36.3 billion tonnes of CO2 (36.3 GtCO2). According to Global carbon project (GCP), the oceans absorbed approximately 10.5 GtCO2 and the soils approximately 11.4 GtCO2, for a total of 21.9 Gt. Among the remaining 14.4 Gt, the Global CCS Institute measured, for its share, that only 42.5 million tonnes were caught this year. A drop of water.
READ ALSO / LET’S STOP CONTRIBUTING GROWTH AND CLIMATE
What choices are available to us? The scientific consensus is pushing to radically reduce our emissions, up to 1.4 GtCO2 per year for the GCP (this is half of what the European Union emitted in 2021!). In addition, several hundred capture and storage plants would need to be deployed. The IEA states this very clearly: “Without carbon storage, neutrality will be virtually impossible to achieve”. The IPCC agrees: “The deployment of carbon dioxide elimination solutions (…) is inevitable if we want to achieve net zero CO2 emissions” . However, the IEEFA study demonstrated the instability and dangerousness of the CCS technique. The Lake Nyos disaster is food for thought regarding the health consequences. This completely calls into question the carbon neutrality objective for 2050.
“This is a major civilizational change. But how much effort are we willing to make for the future of our children?”
Another solution would be to simply stop our emissions by leaving the industrial era that began in 1850, to let nature do its work . If this option seems unrealistic, we could however consider a hybrid solution which would be to protect the essential sectors of nations (food, health, education, research, security, etc.) while ensuring not to exceed half of the absorption capacity of the nations. natural carbon sinks, or 10 GtCO2 according to 2021 figures. This would bring us back to the level of emissions measured in 1962 (9.75 Gt). The excess CO2 contained in the atmosphere would then be absorbed in around twenty years, with an absorption capacity equal to 2021. Colossal efforts will have to be made to support populations working outside essential sectors, for professional retraining and geographic mobility.
This is a major civilizational change. But how much effort are we willing to make for the future of our children? The question remains.
Media: La Revue des Deux Mondes
Number: Online
Date: 2023/10/09