CRISIS CHECK

USATODAYSPECIALEDITION

pump out more than 120 percent more fossil fuels than needed to meet the Paris Climate Agreement . The report says that to meet the Paris goals, countries would need to reduce fossil fuel production by 6 percent a year over the coming decade.

“Five years since the adoption of the Paris Agreement, the world is still far from meeting its climate goals,” Inger Andersen, executive director of the United Nations Environment Program , says in the report.

“This year’s devastating forest fires, floods and droughts and other unfolding extreme weather events serve as powerful reminders for why we must succeed in tackling the climate crisis,” she says.

Former President Donald Trump formally withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Agreement last November, but President Joe Biden signed an executive order to rejoin the accord Jan. 20, his first day in office.

The report measures the gap between Paris Agreement goals and countries’ planned production of coal, oil and gas. Burning those fossil fuels produces emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that cause global warming.

Instead of reducing production, many countries are projecting an average annual increase of 2 percent, which by 2030 would result in more than double the production needed to reach the 1.5-degree Celsius limit set by the Paris Agreement.

“The research is abundantly clear that we face severe climate disruption if countries continue to produce fossil fuels at current levels, let alone at their planned increases,” says Michael Lazarus, a lead author on the report and director of the Stockholm Environment Institute’s U.S. Center . “The research is similarly clear on the solution: government policies that decrease both the demand and supply for fossil fuels and support communities currently dependent on them.”

Experts agree that the longer countries burn fossil fuels, the more warming will be “locked in” as emissions stay in the atmosphere for years or even decades.

Even though the U.S. is undergoing a major shift away from coal — production estimates are dropping by 103 million tons a year compared with 2019 estimates — these decreases are offset by large increases in projected oil and gas production.

As for the coronavirus pandemic, the report says COVID-19 stimulus and recovery money has been disproportionately allocated to fossil fuel development rather than boosting the clean energy industry. As of 2020, the G-20, comprised of leading wealthy and developing nations, had committed approximately $83 billion more to fossil fuel production and related activities than for clean fuels.

Like many sectors, oil and gas have been affected considerably by the pandemic, but the production drop is probably temporary unless countries and industry players change their ways.

“This report is a vivid reminder that we are far off track for averting the worst impacts of climate change,” says Steven Nadel, executive director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy . “We can and must use less fossil fuels, not more.”

A separate U.N. report released last September indicates that climate change has not stopped because of COVID-19. Emissions are heading in the direction of pre-pandemic levels following a temporary decline caused by the lockdown and economic slowdown, the report says. The burning of fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal produce greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide and methane, which are responsible for global warming.

“Greenhouse gas concentrations — which are already at their highest levels in 3 million years — have continued to rise,” World Meteorological Organization Secretary-General Petteri Taalas notes in a statement.

“This has been an unprecedented year for people and the planet. The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted lives worldwide. At the same time, the heating of our planet and climate disruption have continued apace,” U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres says in a foreword to the report.

FOSSIL FUEL PRODUCTION DROPPED 7%

IN 2020

SOURCE: United Nations Environment Program (due to pandemic; might not be sustained) OVERVIEW

THE G-20 COMMITTED $150B

TO CLEAN FUELS DURING PANDEMIC

SOURCE: United Nations Environment Program

USATODAYSPECIALEDITION

GETTY IMAGES

USATODAYSPECIALEDITION

OVERVIEW

USATODAYSPECIALEDITION

It All Adds Up

Experts explain the math behind net zero carbon emissions

By Frank Jordans and Seth Borenstein

ORE THAN 100

MCOUNTRIES — responsible for about two-thirds of the world’s heat-trapping gases — have announced plans to cut their greenhouse gas emissions to net zero in coming decades to help curb human-induced climate change.

The target has also been embraced by companies, states and cities wanting to help stop the planet from getting too hot for human comfort . China made a splash last September promising carbon neutrality by 2060 , and President Joe Biden has promised America will be there by 2050 .

But what does net zero mean? WHY NET ZERO?

Carbon dioxide, the main heat-trapping gas, is produced by animals, including humans, when they breathe and is absorbed by plants and the oceans. But the burning of coal, oil and natural gas since the late 19th century has far outstripped what plants and the oceans can remove from the air.

The Paris Agreement stipulates that global warming needs to be kept below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit), ideally no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit), by the end of the century compared with the pre-industrial level. But the Earth has already warmed 1.2 degrees Celsius (2.2 Fahrenheit), so countries want to prevent a few tenths of a degree of further warming. The way to do that is to reduce the amount of carbon being added to the atmosphere by 2050, scientists say. ZERO MEANS ADDITION AND SUBTRACTION

It will be next to impossible for the world to wean itself off all fossil fuels because they are used in products such as plastics and in aviation, meaning some emissions of greenhouse gases likely will continue, says climate scientist Zeke Hausfather of the Breakthrough Institute , an environmental research center located in Oakland, Calif.

The math is simple for reaching net zero. If you are adding to pollution, you also need to subtract an equal amount.

Almost all natural solutions rely heavily on planting forests. But when trees are cut or burned down, the carbon dioxide they absorbed is released again. “To have a good net zero you should not rely too much on forests,” says Niklas Höhne of the New Climate Institute in Germany.

That leaves technological remedies. Direct air capture sucks carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to bury underground. It’s expensive and only being done on an extremely small scale.

NOT ALL ZEROS ARE EQUAL

Some governments have interpreted net zero to mean cutting back only on carbon dioxide emissions. While carbon dioxide is the main global-warming greenhouse gas, others such as methane also contribute. So instead of going carbon neutral, experts recommend that countries aim to become “climate neutral.” They also argue that countries should take responsibility for emissions from international shipping and air travel which, though technically outside their borders, still needs to be counted.

Governments have yet to agree on how to ensure the integrity of international markets that will be used to offset emissions caused in one country against carbon captured elsewhere. Preventing offsets from being counted twice will be key to the integrity of such a system and the global effort to curb emissions.

GETTY IMAGES

Frank Jordans and Seth Borenstein write for The Associated Press.

USATODAYSPECIALEDITION