A recent estimate suggests that reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 95% by 2022 could take 11 high-income countries more than 200 years.
According to a study published in the journal The Lancet Planetary Health, if current trends continue, these countries will emit 27 times their fair share of the 1.5 degrees Celsius carbon limit. The amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) that can be released with a 50% likelihood of keeping global warming below 1.5°C is known as the fair share in carbon budgets.
Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom are the 11 high-income nations.
Therefore, green growth is not happening and seems unattainable for high-income nations. Researchers from the Universities of Leeds and Barcelona concluded in their report that the Paris Agreement’s pledges to fairness and climate change are at odds with the high-income countries’ ongoing pursuit of economic growth.
A pact known as the Paris Agreement was signed by 196 nations with the goals of “limiting the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels” and “the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels.”
Scientists have cautioned that decoupling must happen quickly enough to cut emissions in line with the Paris Agreement before green growth can take place. Decoupling is defined as a reduction in CO2 emissions per GDP unit, according to the study.
The study’s lead author, Jefim Vogel of the University of Leeds, stated in a statement that “economic growth in high-income countries is not green.”
It’s a formula for climate collapse and more climate injustice, he continued.
“It is misleading and basically greenwashing to refer to such incredibly insufficient emission reductions as ‘green growth,” Jefim Vogel added.
First, 11 counties were identified by the researchers as having accomplished “absolute decoupling,” or lowering CO2 emissions as GDP increased between 2013 and 2019. They did this by gathering data on GDP from the World Bank and Global Carbon Project statistics on CO2 emissions.
The “business-as-usual” emission reduction rates in each nation were compared to the “Paris-compliant” rates required to meet their “fair share” of the corresponding global carbon budget.
According to the analysis, none of the 11 high-income nations that have “decoupled” their emissions from growth have managed to reduce their emissions in a way that aligns with the objectives of the Paris Agreement.
Furthermore, it will probably take these 11 nations between 73 and 369 years—or, on average, 223 years—to cut their respective 2022 emissions by 95%. Up to five times and 162 times (on average, 27 times) of their respective fair shares of the 1.5°C global carbon budget that remain after 2022 would be consumed by them.
Between 2013 and 2019, these industrialised nations reduced their emissions by an average of 1.6% per year, compared to the 30% annual reduction required by 2025 to ensure they did not exceed their fair share of the global carbon budget set at 1.5°C.
The researchers advise wealthy nations to adopt a “post-growth” strategy to achieve the Paris Agreement’s justice principles and climate commitments.
The researchers define post-growth as fairly lowering carbon or energy-intensive and unnecessary forms of production and consumption, enhancing provisioning systems, and switching to low-carbon, low-energy substitutes for necessities.
Vogel clarified that shifting from economic development to post-growth is fundamentally different from a recession in that it does not include pain or the loss of livelihoods.
He continued, saying that post-growth measures, like universal access to cheap housing and high-quality public services, can safeguard and enhance livelihoods and well-being in the absence of economic growth. These policies include worktime reduction, living wages, a minimum income guarantee, and public employment guarantees.
Will Energiewende Fail?
Introduced in 2000 by the coalition of Social Democrats and Greens (1998–2005), Energiewende became the blueprint for Germany’s ambitious energy policy goals towards “an environmentally sound, reliable and affordable energy supply.”
Energiewende was first used in a publication of the German Institute of Applied Ecology in the 1980s. It described how growth could be decoupled from energy consumption and offered an alternative to “Limits of Growth,” published in 1972 by the Club of Rome.
With its energy policy statement in September 20103 and the resolutions on accelerating the energy transition in summer 2011, it entered first national and then international policy discourses. The goals are based on a paper published by the government in 2007. Priority measures include the expansion of renewable energy, decentralised power generation, intensified development of electricity grids, and higher energy efficiency.
Germany was the global leader in luxury vehicles and industrial gear for most of this century, exporting so much that half the economy operated on exports.
As other European countries sunk in debt, jobs were plentiful, the government’s finances expanded, and books were published about what Germany could teach other countries.
No more. Germany is the world’s worst-performing major industrialised economy, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and European Union (EU) anticipate it to shrink in 2024.
After Russia invaded Ukraine and lost Moscow’s cheap natural gas, Germany’s energy-intensive businesses, Europe’s manufacturing powerhouse, were shocked.
The startling underperformance of Europe’s largest economy has sparked criticism, hand-wringing, and strategy debate.
German chemical manufacturer Evonik Industries AG CEO Christian Kullmann warned of “deindustrialisation” as rising energy costs and government inaction on other chronic issues threaten to transfer new facilities and high-paying jobs elsewhere.
Energiewende objectives seem impossible, especially since Germany, a global economic powerhouse, generates barely 30% of its energy internally. Germany’s export-oriented industry relies heavily on imported raw materials. Due to energy-intensive sectors and low natural resources, the country imported 98% of its mineral oil, 92% of its gas, and 93% of its hard coal to produce its total energy in 2016, a historic fact. The first nuclear power plant opened in 1961, offering a solution for national security and stable electricity for a booming industry. The Fukushima nuclear plant tragedy buried this technology’s future.
Global trends appear to be reversing. The Global Coal Exit List reports over 400 enterprises planning to expand their coal operations. Over 1,600 coal plants and units are planned or under construction in 62 countries. Over 42% of the world’s coal capacity would grow with these new plants. Similar trends are seen with nuclear energy. Around 440 nuclear power reactors operate in 30 nations, while 50 are under development in 13 countries, including China, India, UAE, and Russia.10 Most reactors are planned in Asia, where economies are developing and electricity demand is rising. Over 160 power reactors are ordered or planned, and 300 more are proposed.