[ad_1]
It is rare in the world that any environmental protection concept can develop as rapidly as efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero.
A fringe concept six years ago, it has quickly become mainstream to the extent that 60% Of countries now have some kind of net zero goal, and Investors Managed nearly 3.7 billion USD/ton At least 20% Among the 2,000 largest listed companies. The International Energy Agency warned in a staggering net zero report today that if global warming is to remain below 1.5 degrees Celsius, all new oil, gas and coal projects and exploration must be stopped.
However, for many companies, the eagerness to net zero seems to be an imminent car accident. When the green technologies they need are still in their infancy, these groups are under increasing pressure to require them to be environmentally and financially sustainable. The government’s policy support is negligible, and a few influential but little-knowledge referees are assessing its progress.
Consider what the executives of American and European companies have said at the climate business conferences in recent weeks under the rules of Chatham House.
“Our customers include local governments that have declared a climate emergency and hope to be carbon neutral by 2030,” a construction group manager said at a gathering last month. “Our director said,’OK, we need to reduce emissions’.”
But when the company researched how to do this, it found that it would cost more than $2 million to purchase cleaner hydrogen fuel equipment for just one of its smaller factories.
An executive from a manufacturing company who has just made a net-zero commitment said his company is relying on a technological breakthrough, hoping to replace its mainly fossil-fuel furnace with a clean kit a few years from now.
He said that the price of the first furnace is likely to be “approximately twice” the normal price, and his business is lucky. It is based in Europe, where the government provides funding for green industrial innovation. There are not too many companies. For them and many others, carbon offset seems to be the simplest solution.
Voluntary compensation schemes allow companies to replace coal-fired power plants by planting carbon-absorbing trees or building wind farms, effectively paying others for emissions to solve the emissions problem.
The plan has existed for decades, but Learn Shows that too many measures did not result in additional emission reductions. Not all offsets are meaningless, but they are not satisfactory substitutes. They can meet the unprecedented large amount of emissions needed to achieve the safest global temperature target in the Paris climate agreement this decade and next. Reduction.
Regrettably, interest in offsets is growing along with the zero net goal.
A food company executive predicted: “We will be eager to find the most credible certificate.”
This craze is conflicting with investors’ demands for scientifically sound climate targets, rather than vaguely promises to make a difference in the future.
Enter science-based goals initiative, This is a plan set up in 2015 by four sustainability groups to verify and review the company’s climate goals. This has become an increasingly important benchmark for investors trying to measure business climate plans. More than 1,420 companies have joined the program, and in March alone, more than 90 companies have joined the program. Three times last year Average monthly rate.
For a long time, the plan’s position on offsetting has been clear: companies must set targets based on reducing their own and/or supply chain emissions. The offset cannot be used to circumvent this requirement.
There is no doubt that it needs work. Too many companies’ net zero goals are too vague and out of reach. There is a trace of green rinsing.
However, it is still shocking that a handful of NGOs are effectively setting the rules for the largest economic transformation known in the world. It may also be unfair to force a company to reshape its business model before implementing all the building blocks required for transformation. But they are.
So what should the company do?
First, stop lobbying against tougher climate action. The delay caused the problem in the first place. Instead, industry alliances are established to urge broader system changes, whether it is government support for green innovation or policies that make existing clean technologies cheaper.
Finally, resist offsetting and accept the reality of the 21st century: the urgency of reducing emissions is urgent and will only increase in the coming decades.
[ad_2]
Source link