Explore summaries and recordings of each webinar from the Oxford Martin School’s seminar series, “Oxford Net Zero: Climate in the Balance”.

click to see the summary and video for each event

• Prof Myles Allen, Kaya Axelsson, Prof Sam Fankhauser & Dr Steve Smith in conversation: “Net zero – why and how?”
• Prof Nathalie Seddon, Dr Cécile Girardin & Dr Steve Smith in conversation: “Value and limits of working with nature to address climate change”
• Prof Nick Eyre and Dr Steve Smith in conversation: “Zero carbon energy systems”
• Prof Cameron Hepburn, Sugandha Srivastav and Dr Steve Smith in conversation: “Sensitive intervention points for Net Zero”
• Tim Kruger & Dr Steve Smith in conversation: “Beyond zero: the role of negative emissions”
• Henry Shue, Javier Lezaun, Thom Wetzer, Lavanya Rajamani and Steve Smith in Conversation: “Climate justice & achieving Net Zero”
• Mike Kendall, Joe Cartwright, Tom Kettlety and Steve Smith in conversation: “Between a rock and a wet place: putting carbon back into geological storage”
• Radhika Khosla, Kaya Axelsson, Nicole Yazon & Steve Smith in Conversation: “Net Zero for Local Communities”
• Tom Hale, Aoife Brophy and Steve Smith in conversation: “The race to zero: action by cities, business and investors”
• Ros Rickaby, Sophie Gill, Roxana Shafiee and Myles Allen in conversation: “CO2 solutions: ocean carbon storage options”

The webinar on Zero Carbon Energy hosted by the Oxford Martin School in the Oxford Net Zero Series and moderated by Dr Steve Smith, highlights pathways for achieving Zero Carbon Energy. In this webinar, Prof Nick Eyre addresses five key questions that need to be answered in the quest to transition to zero carbon energy system:

Why do we want Zero Carbon Energy?

To comply with the Paris Agreement (1.5 degrees or 2 degrees targets), Professor Nick Eyre stated that rapid decarbonization and reaching net zero emissions by mid-century are two pathways for reaching zero carbon energy.

With regards to understanding the relationship between the Paris Agreement and energy, Professor Nick stressed that greenhouse gas emissions from the use of fossil fuel energy is the highest contributor to CO₂ emissions (demonstrated in the figure below).

What does Zero Carbon imply for energy systems?

Professor Eyre further discussed the implication of zero carbon energy systems by emphasizing that fossil fuels dominate the energy system with new renewable energy sources (wind and solar) contributing a very small share of global energy supply. He demonstrates this by explaining a graph from IEA (2020) which reveals the world total energy supply by source from 1990-2018.

While affordable, reliable and modern energy services are basic human needs, Professor Eyre signaled that energy services are crucial for both low and high-income societies. He further stressed that in low-income societies, 750 million people had no access to electricity in 2018 and 2.8 billion people had no access to clean fuels for cooking whereas in high income societies, all basic infrastructure and public services (the health, food system, education etc.) are dependent on reliable energy supplies.  While the aim of Sustainable Development Goal 7 is to get these numbers down to zero, Professor Eyre stressed how challenging this ambition is for the global energy system. He concluded this section by stating that:

‘Stop digging up fossil fuels’ is where we need to end up, but it is not a credible strategy. It is an outcome of systemic change of the way energy services are provided rather than a starting point for analysis.

Moving on, Professor Eyre presented to his audience how the energy transition looks like. He emphasized that reducing energy demand and shifting to renewable energy is the way to go in achieving zero carbon energy. He also mentioned that both energy efficiency improvement and the use of renewable resources points towards increased electrification.

How do we get Zero Carbon Energy Supply?

Although three broad energy supply options were identified (Renewable Energy sources, fossil fuels with CCS and Nuclear Energy), Professor Eyre concentrated on renewable energy as the dominant contributor to zero carbon and discussed the potential of each renewable energy source (below).

Key sources of renewable energy (challenges and opportunities)

• Hydro: Historically important but limited in potential
• Solar: historically expensive but recent dramatic cost reductions
• Wind: very large untapped potential at low cost-large resources base
• Biomass: potentially important and can be stored more easily than most renewables but raises questions about impacts on terrestrial biosphere as well as the food versus fuel debate.

He concluded this section by indicating that Wind and Solar are now the cheapest, large scale low carbon options and increasingly the cheapest of all electricity generation options.

How do we use less and use it more efficiently?

Cullen and Allwood (2011)

Professor Eyre began this section by stating that energy efficiency has contributed the most to mitigation historically and that the current energy system is away from the optimum energy efficiency. He demonstrated from the figure above that; avoidable losses in conversion, improving the broader system and avoidable losses in providing energy services need to be tackled to achieve zero carbon.

He also revealed that addressing energy demand has stronger benefits (synergies) for sustainable development than other categories of climate mitigation options.

What are the key challenges?

The challenge of variability: Solar and wind are viable and electricity systems need to be balanced. The transition to renewables requires the need for flexibility in electricity systems within the shortest possible time.

The challenge of hard-to-decarbonize sectors: Certain fuels can easily get decarbonized by switching to electricity whereas other uses of energy cannot be electrified or only with great difficulty. Hence, new zero carbon vectors are needed.

How do we address these challenges?

Professor Eyre tackled this question using the framework above, he stated that each potential solution faces technical, economic, social and policy challenges which are solvable.

In summary, key points from this webinar include:

• Energy services are critical to modern society.
• Energy systems are the main sources of GHGs emissions.
• Delivering net-zero requires energy systems close to zero.
• This implies a systemic change quickly.
• The broad pathway is: improve energy efficiency and switch to renewables
• This seems feasible with high investments and low net-costs.
• Major challenges include: Changing to a system based on viable natural flows and finding new vectors to substitute for natural fuels in some applications.

Video summary coming soon…

“Climate Change is a waste management problem” Tim Kruger explains to provide an understanding of the role of negative emissions in climate politics. For centuries, humanity has used the atmosphere as a dump for its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. With net zero pledges spreading around the world, many are optimistic that this might spell the end of carbon waste in the atmosphere. 

But stopping to produce waste is only a partial answer to waste management problems. Crucial to the solution is cleaning up the atmosphere using negative emissions.

As Tim Kruger puts it in the webinar: “If we want to achieve the 1.5° goal, we really need to get to net zero by 2050. That means very radical reductions in emissions and then the application of what is known as negative emissions, the actual removal of CO2 from the atmosphere to counteract any remaining emissions.”

This webinar ‘Beyond Zero: The role of negative emissions’, the fifth instalment of the Oxford Martin School’s Oxford Net Zero series covered questions such as: What exactly are negative emissions? Why do we need them? How might be problematic and how we can develop and implement them sensibly?

The webinar featured Tim Kruger, Programme Manager of the Oxford Geoengineering Programme as well as founder of the carbon removal start-up Origen Power, and was moderated by Dr Steve Smith, Executive Director of Oxford Net Zero.

Understanding negative emissions

Negative emissions, also referred to as carbon dioxide removal (CDR), are processes in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere and sequestered for long periods of time. 

Generally, negative emissions are distinguished by two categories: natural climate solutions (NCS) and engineered CDR.

The first, NCS, describes actions that increase carbon storage in landscapes across the globe. Common examples are afforestation projects, coastal wetland conservation and regenerative farming. These practices bind carbon from the atmosphere and store it in biomass or soil carbon. 

The second, engineered CDR are man-made and often industrial actions through which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere. Such actions include carbon utilization and direct air capture and generally aim at long-term geological storage of sequestered carbon. 

Hybrid methods also exist, such as bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), in which carbon is sequestered through natural procedures, then burned as biomass for energy production and ultimately captured and stored geologically.

An overview of negative emission technologies, covering the spectrum from NCS (left) over hybrids to engineered CDR (right). Graphic taken from Morrow, D. R., Thompson, M. S., Anderson, A., Batres, M., Buck, H. J., Dooley, K., Geden, O., Ghosh, A., Low, S., Njamnshi, A., Noël, J., Táíwò, O. O., Talati, S., & Wilcox, J. (2020). Principles for Thinking about Carbon Dioxide Removal.

Cleaning up the atmosphere 

Although mitigation strategies are crucial for tackling the climate crisis, negative emissions are the only way to bring the GHG concentration in the atmosphere back down to safe levels. 

“We are currently at about 410 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. Say we want to get to 350 ppm, as the organisation 350.org suggests. If all emissions stop now, it would actually be several centuries before we would get back down to 350 ppm.” Tim Kruger elaborates in reference to a study by Lowe et al.

Negative emissions can play a key role in both cleaning up the atmosphere and recreating safe climatic conditions for life on earth.

A graphic from the UNEP Emission Gap Report 2017, showing our current trajectory (yellow line) and a 2°C compatible trajectory (red line). The blue area below the x-axis indicates the amount of negative emissions necessary for the 2°C trajectory.

A contested framework 

Some environmentalists oppose negative emissions due to their potential for creating a moral hazard. This refers to the possibility that implementing CDR or NSC strategies might undermine the greater will to reduce emissions

“These fears are not baseless”, notes the Oxford-based programmer Tim Kruger. In the past decades, governments and organisations were often unwilling to reduce emissions, and instead promoted negative emissions as an alternative solution to climate change. 

While negative emissions strategies are essential, they cannot supplant the crucial task of lowering our global emissions. For Kruger, the ‘Swedish Model’ – which splits net zero commitments into separate reduction and removal targets – is an exemplary framework that showcases the ability to conduct both emissions reductions and removals while avoiding moral hazard accusations.

Yet beside the moral hazard, there is also a moral opportunity arising with negative emission technologies. “Once we have got ways in which one can safely, robustly and scalably remove CO2 from the atmosphere, we actually create an obligation to do so” argues Tim Kruger in relation to the possibility of holding polluting industries accountable for “cleaning up the mess” that they created.

Governing negative emissions

CDR or NSC are essential parts of not only net-zero strategies but more broadly climate politics. Kruger presents four key tenets for a good net zero governance:

• Sound and thorough criteria:

• • All negative emission technologies should be assessed by and fulfil three central criteria (1) safety – regarding social and ecological side-effects as well as health and well-being; (2) robustness – assessing above all the permanence of carbon removal and storage; and (3) scalability.

• A level playing field:

• • As negative emissions technologies are still in early development phases, governance should aim to incentivise the development of multiple alternative approaches to reaching net-zero.

• Investment Research and Development:

• • With the carbon removal field still in its infancy, policymakers need to invest in the research and development of such technologies. The implementation of pre-commercial procurement can help raise the feasibility and affordability of new technologies. Public procurers can drive innovation from the demand side by acting as technologically demanding customers that buy the development and testing of new solutions. Such strategy was notably used to help kickstart the renewable energy industry.

• Producer Responsibility Obligation:

• • Governments need to ensure that the burden of cost does not fall on tax-payers. Rather, states should implement a producer responsibility obligation similar to the one in place for recycling in the UK. Under the polluter-pays principle, companies responsible for emissions pay for carbon removal. 

In summary, negative emissions are not a easy solution to climate change, yet we do need further research and development in this area, as without negative emissions it will not be possible to reach net zero by 2050 and stay below 1.5°C global warming. 

Further Links:

• Webinar on Nature-based Solutions (NbS)

• Webinar on engineered CDR and geological storage

• Article by Professor Duncan McLaren on the ‘Swedish model’ – separate targets for emission reductions and negative emissions

• Article by Steve Smith in response to Duncan McLaren

This webinar featured Oxford academics from the Department of Politics and International Relations, School of Anthropology and Museum Ethnography, and Faculty of Law, including Dr. Henry Shue, Dr. Javier Lezaun, Dr. Thom Wetzer, and Dr. Lavanya Rajamani in discussion with Dr Steve Smith on the justice and distributive aspects of net zero goals. 

Reducing and removing GHG emissions has now become a key cornerstone of climate change policy. 

“But the adoption of the goal of Net Zero carbon emission by 2050 has greatly intensified the significance of the issue of climate justice”, remarked Dr. Henry Shue, Professor Emeritus of International Relations from Oxford University. 

The Challenges of Implementing Global Distributive Justice amongst States

Some countries have emitted more than others. According to the World Resources Institute, the top 10 emitting countries produce more than 68% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

A net zero world implies more than reducing or offsetting GHG emissions, it implies deep reflections on principles of global distributive justice: How should the costs of energy transition be distributed? Who should be compensated as the net losers of climate change? Who should invest the most in adaptation technologies? 

For Oxford professor Shue, wealthy nations need to be at the forefront of these actions. 

“Those with capital need to invest in less wealthy nations’ capacity to build infrastructure that does not depend on fossil fuels”, he explains.

Under the Paris Accord, every country is expected to prepare and communicate a nationally determined contribution (NDC) every five years. NDCs include net zero targets, measures and policies and are the basis for national climate action plans.

Despite those calls for global justice, Professor Rajami argues there needs to be first a better implementation of these NDC in domestic laws. 

“There is a mismatch between the announcement of Net Zero targets in over 120 countries and their anchoring in international law” explains the Oxford law professor. 

“States are not subject to set long-term targets as there is no adequate review mechanism internationally.”

With many NDC long-term goals not embedded within domestic legislation, it becomes hard to evaluate their level of commitment and uphold their accountability. 

International trackers such as the Climate Action Tracker and the #RaceToZero can however be used to potentially measure the transparency of key actors and states. 

But for Professor Rajami, a fundamental way to address this problem of accountability and credibility is having the state develop a sense of ownership in resolving the climate crisis. 

Fairness and equity need to be at the forefront of climate action discussions. 

Getting the Business to Change its Usual 

Similar to states, a record number of corporations pledge to go “net zero” and move to cancel out the carbon emissions they produce. 

Although many are now going green, for financial law professor Wetzer, there is reason to be extremely cautious about net zero optimism. 

Concerned of greenwashing, there are valid reasons to doubt and question the credibility of these commitments. 

“Companies may be acting inconsistently”, explains Wetzer, “Their plans may be ambiguous which makes it challenging for others to track their progress”.  

Non-credible net zero plans have the potential to foster inaction, mislead investors and stakeholders, and create a false sense of security. 

“They should approach net zero targets and commitments as an opportunity to reach Net Zero, not as a way to avoid and create loopholes”, says Professor Wetzer. 

Instead, Wetzer hopes to see realistic plans implemented with intermediate goals based on scientifically sound assumptions. He wants companies to devise transparency plans and credible mechanisms, such as debt instruments. He also encourages companies to use the  Net Zero Climate Tools Library and coordinate with other stakeholders to exchange best practices. 

Moving towards Fairness and Equity 

Lazaun, Director of the Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, emphasizes that equity and justice must be central in the discussion around Greenhouse Gas (GHG) removals.

Only a few countries have the capacity to do so. International cooperation can help support ground-up approaches to GHG removal.  Establishing a global taxonomy of GHG removals can also help create a more nuanced approach in tackling GHG reductions.

Achieving a net zero world thus means not only developing carbon neutral infrastructure or offsetting carbon initiatives. It requires profound reflections on global equity, international cooperation and justice. 

As Shue concluded, “the best hope is that we should pay some attention and to take some care towards those who aren’t here to fight themselves and are at our mercy of what we do.”

Video summary coming soon…

More than half of the world’s global population and 78 percent of the world’s energy consumption takes place in cities (UN Habitat).

Local communities have a particularly important role to play in the net zero transition, developing new models of collective living to both mitigate and adapt to climate change.

In this Oxford Net Zero seminar, hosted by the Oxford Martin School, Professor Steve Smith explores what it means for local communities to set out on a pathway to net zero. Alongside, researchers Kaya Axelsson, Radhika Khosla and Nicole Yazondiscuss what is required to instigate community-wide shifts to low carbon lifestyles, what community stakeholder processes are needed to drive action from the bottom up, and how net zero progress can be best tracked. 

Achieving net zero is a multi-level challenge. Effective action on this issue must address the nodes where individuals, communities, and higher levels of government intersect. 

Net Zero from the ground up 

Under net zero plans, landscapes from coast to coast would be transformed, with vertical gardens lining building walls, electric cars populating the roads, and wind turbines and solar panels generating energy.

‘Cities should seek to be leaders on net zero progress’, explains Net-Zero Policy Engagement Fellow, Axelsson. 

Metropolitains like New York or London are looking to reconfigure their transportation system and reduce their skyscrapers net carbon emission.

For Axelsson, building a greener world implies a close consultation with citizens and an openness to a diversity of approaches to policy-making, as well as social and infrastructure change.

Drawing on her experience in Oxford’s plan for a net zero transport system, Axelsson describes the importance of consulting students and residents with disabilities who were to be particularly impacted by this plan. 

‘It is inspiring to see how much more of an inclusive and politically robust process you can develop as part of your net zero strategy if you involve people from the outset’, Axelsson says. 

Successful local net zero policies depend on the support and consultation of constituents, stakeholders, community members, supply chain actors. 

Adopting a Green Lifestyle

According to the 2020 UNEP Emissions Gap Report, 2/3 of greenhouse gas emissions are connected to household consumption.

‘The role of lifestyles is one we might underestimate but it is actually necessary as a component to meeting our global emissions reduction targets’, explains Professor Khosla, research Director of the Oxford India Centre for Sustainable Development. 

Adopting low carbon lifestyles is a necessary condition for developing net zero communities. As can be seen in the following graphic, there are myriad ways to avoid high carbon actions. 

Source: UNEP Gap Report, 2020

Together, residential, food and mobility represent 20% to a household’s carbon emission. Individuals and families can easily reduce their habits by changing their diet, reducing their usage of planes, or even using renewable energy for their heating.

But for the Oxford-based professor, the responsibility for shifting to low carbon lifestyles lies within the wealthier population. 

Source: UNEP Gap Report, 2020

As illustrated in this graphic, the richest 1% of people, including the wealthiest people in low- and middle-income countries, would need to reduce their per capita emissions by 30 per cent to meet targets for 1.5 degrees of warming by 2030. 

In contrast, the poorest 50% could triple their per capita emissions before reaching the same target. 

‘Transformative change will require us to find moments of disruption when norms and actions can be shifted toward the net zero future that we’d like’, Khosla asserts.

City-wide emissions reductions 

Over the years, cities have become leading centers for major net zero policy innovation. 

According to Energy consultant Yazon, many United States cities are actually outpacing states in terms of emissions reductions. The majority of these emissions reductions can be attributed to greening of the electrical grid. 

‘Cities are leading by example’, says Yazon. She points to their efforts for net zero emissions in their municipal buildings and transport operations; their usage of ‘soft’ measures like benchmarking to pave the way for more stringent decarbonization measures; and their planning authority to incentivize green building codes and renewable energy installation.

But for Yazon, improvement is still needed. Part of the answer lies into bringing data into climate action policies. 

Early claims of progress in local emissions reduction have been made through decarbonisation of energy sources, which is a change that often occurs outside of a city or town’s jurisdiction. Far more substantial change is needed across the very infrastructure of many cities and towns to meet net zero targets. 

‘Cities are very wary of evaluating their policies because it can be a little awkward when policies are put in place but results are not being seen’, the Energy consultant explains. 

She recommends municipal leaders to incentivize transparency around emissions data for local governments and develop more robust ways to connect policy evaluations to existing emissions inventories.

Through the various contributions of Kaya Axelsson, Radhika Khosla and Nicole Yazon, this webinar highlighted the importance of listening, consultation, and collaboration in any net zero strategy. 

‘People who feel they are not being justly recognized in the planning process – those are the ones we need to listen to’, Axelsson emphasizes. “Having a process for making sure that plans can be adapted is all part of it.”

More fundamentally, it brings back the continued need for an equity framing in the race to net zero. 

Video summary coming soon…

Video summary coming soon…

Video summary coming soon…

A guide to nature-based approaches to climate mitigation, and useful tools for policy and business. 

The International Union Conservation of Nature defines nature-based solutions (NbS) as “actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural or modified ecosystems”. 

For Professor Nathalie Seddon and Dr Cécile Girardin from the Nature-based Solutions Initiative, these have the immense potential to address climate mitigation, adaptation and biodiversity loss. 

The compelling webinar Value and limits of working with nature to address climate change hosted by the Oxford Martin School and moderated by Dr Steve Smith, sheds light on some of the intricacies of NbS to reach a net zero world. 

Alongside Oxford Professor Nathalie Seddon and Dr Cécile Girardin, this webinar explores the ways in which NbS can be implemented and applied in a warming world. 

Professor Seddon, director of the Nature-based Solutions Initiative, presents the ebbs and flows of NbS with biodiversity and human well-being. NbS can help human and non-human ecosystems mitigate and adapt to climate change. Image from Smith et al (2021)

Implementing science-based NbS 

The large majority of mitigation services that NbS provides come from protecting intact ecosystems, preventing their degradation, and better management of working lands. Examples include protecting intact lands, enhancing sinks and restoring forests and wetland ecosystems. 

Griscom et al. 2017 explore how land-based mitigation and adaptation measures reduce 10 gigatons of CO2 emissions per year. This in turn helps prevent further global warming.

NbS can help reduce peak warming up to 0.1 degrees if warming peaks at 1.5 degrees in 2050, or 0.3 degrees if it peaks at 2 degrees by 2075. 

Prioritising NbS helps with not only the sustainability of ecosystems, but also the economic well-being of cities and governments. 

Important economic returns can be yielded especially in a world disrupted by a health crisis, explains Professor Seddon. According to the World Economic Forum’s New Nature Economy report, nature-based strategies could foster 400 million jobs and $10 trillion per year globally.

“You can see that the contribution of natural climate solutions is very time-sensitive” explains Dr Girardin. The bottomline is clear: “we need to deploy nature-based solutions now to maximise their mitigation benefit later.”

Although NbS can prevent further warming in this century, they cannot be effective mitigation or adaptation tactics if we overshoot 1.5 degrees of warming: “the potential can only be achieved in tandem with the decarbonisation of the global economy at unprecedented rates” stressed Dr Girardin.

This is because, otherwise “warming will turn ecosystems into net sources of CO2”, as Dr Girardin makes clear.

For nature-based solutions to be effective, comprehensive strategies must be implemented now. 

Moving beyond planting trees 

“We can’t just focus on trees. Trees in themselves are not an ecosystem- a resilient ecosystem is an intact ecosystem that is composed of biodiversity and a range of trophic levels. It’s the whole system… Similarly, we can’t just focus on forests” emphasized Dr Girardin.

Professor Seddon further explains that afforestation and tree-planting “distract from the urgent need to protect intact ecosystems… and they can often critically threaten important habitats… it’s a problem for carbon, it’s a problem for biodiversity and it really is a problem for people. Good nature-based solutions are with, by and for Indigenous peoples and local communities.” 

“To qualify as an NbS, an action must sustainably provide one or more benefits for people (such as reducing flood risk or storing carbon) while causing no loss of biodiversity or ecological integrity (or preferably a gain) compared to the pre‐intervention state”, explains Professor Sheddon and her colleagues in their latest paper Getting the message right on nature‐based solutions to climate change.

Regarding offsetting, Dr Girardin posits that it is not enough for companies, cities and governments to create their net-zero pledges with NbS offsetting strategies. With the carbon market booming, such strategies could amount to greenwashing. They also mask the pressing need to phase fossil fuels out. 

Professor Seddon concludes that “Nature-based solutions are an important part of the climate solution but are not a substitute for a rapid phase out of fossil fuels and must ot under any circumstances delay action to decarbonise our economies.”  

Key takeaways

For Professor Seddon and Dr Girardin, centering NbS measures on offsetting carbon could mean their ultimate failure. Implementation of NbS that only takes into account carbon benefits tends to sacrifice benefits such as biodiversity, rights of local communities and equity. 

Comprehensive nature-based solutions are thus needed to respond to the environmental breakdown. Moving beyond their carbon-related services means unpacking the wide-ranging benefits provided by ecosystems. For Professor Seddon a good way to start is to look at their adaptation and mitigation benefits.  

Where do we go from here?

The Nature-Based Solutions Initiative has developed both an evidence platform and a set of guidelines for decision-makers in the run up to COP26. These are important tools for anyone considering Nature-based Solutions. With the voluntary offsetting market poorly regulated, a big challenge for COP26 will be to ensure measurement and reporting are strengthened.

With people and biodiversity in its center, NbS have the potential to foster sustainable and successful interventions in an increasingly precarious world. 

Guidelines for good, sustainable and ethical NbS:

• Four guidelines for Nature-based Solutions from the Nature-based Solutions Initiative
  • For a more justification of the guidelines, see “Getting the message right on nature‐based solutions to climate change”
• Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions from the IUCN
• The Oxford Principles for Net Zero Aligned Carbon Offsetting from the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment 
• Professor Seddon’s “Why efforts to address climate change through nature-based solutions must support both biodiversity and people” is a fundamental read 

Guides for investors 

• Securing Climate Benefit: A Guide to Using Carbon Offsets from the Stockholm Environment Institute & Greenhouse Gas Management Institute
• Investment tools for the forestry sector from the UN’s Principles of Responsible Investment
• Natural climate solutions: the business perspective from the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and Nature4Climate
• Consultation: Nature and Net Zero from the World Economic Forum

The webinar on Zero Carbon Energy hosted by the Oxford Martin School in the Oxford Net Zero Series and moderated by Dr Steve Smith, highlights pathways for achieving Zero Carbon Energy. In this webinar, Prof Nick Eyre addresses five key questions that need to be answered in the quest to transition to zero carbon energy system:

Why do we want Zero Carbon Energy?

To comply with the Paris Agreement (1.5 degrees or 2 degrees targets), Professor Nick Eyre stated that rapid decarbonization and reaching net zero emissions by mid-century are two pathways for reaching zero carbon energy.

With regards to understanding the relationship between the Paris Agreement and energy, Professor Nick stressed that greenhouse gas emissions from the use of fossil fuel energy is the highest contributor to CO₂ emissions (demonstrated in the figure below).

What does Zero Carbon imply for energy systems?

Professor Eyre further discussed the implication of zero carbon energy systems by emphasizing that fossil fuels dominate the energy system with new renewable energy sources (wind and solar) contributing a very small share of global energy supply. He demonstrates this by explaining a graph from IEA (2020) which reveals the world total energy supply by source from 1990-2018.

While affordable, reliable and modern energy services are basic human needs, Professor Eyre signaled that energy services are crucial for both low and high-income societies. He further stressed that in low-income societies, 750 million people had no access to electricity in 2018 and 2.8 billion people had no access to clean fuels for cooking whereas in high income societies, all basic infrastructure and public services (the health, food system, education etc.) are dependent on reliable energy supplies.  While the aim of Sustainable Development Goal 7 is to get these numbers down to zero, Professor Eyre stressed how challenging this ambition is for the global energy system. He concluded this section by stating that:

‘Stop digging up fossil fuels’ is where we need to end up, but it is not a credible strategy. It is an outcome of systemic change of the way energy services are provided rather than a starting point for analysis.

Moving on, Professor Eyre presented to his audience how the energy transition looks like. He emphasized that reducing energy demand and shifting to renewable energy is the way to go in achieving zero carbon energy. He also mentioned that both energy efficiency improvement and the use of renewable resources points towards increased electrification.

How do we get Zero Carbon Energy Supply?

Although three broad energy supply options were identified (Renewable Energy sources, fossil fuels with CCS and Nuclear Energy), Professor Eyre concentrated on renewable energy as the dominant contributor to zero carbon and discussed the potential of each renewable energy source (below).

Key sources of renewable energy (challenges and opportunities)

• Hydro: Historically important but limited in potential
• Solar: historically expensive but recent dramatic cost reductions
• Wind: very large untapped potential at low cost-large resources base
• Biomass: potentially important and can be stored more easily than most renewables but raises questions about impacts on terrestrial biosphere as well as the food versus fuel debate.

He concluded this section by indicating that Wind and Solar are now the cheapest, large scale low carbon options and increasingly the cheapest of all electricity generation options.

How do we use less and use it more efficiently?

Cullen and Allwood (2011)

Professor Eyre began this section by stating that energy efficiency has contributed the most to mitigation historically and that the current energy system is away from the optimum energy efficiency. He demonstrated from the figure above that; avoidable losses in conversion, improving the broader system and avoidable losses in providing energy services need to be tackled to achieve zero carbon.

He also revealed that addressing energy demand has stronger benefits (synergies) for sustainable development than other categories of climate mitigation options.

What are the key challenges?

The challenge of variability: Solar and wind are viable and electricity systems need to be balanced. The transition to renewables requires the need for flexibility in electricity systems within the shortest possible time.

The challenge of hard-to-decarbonize sectors: Certain fuels can easily get decarbonized by switching to electricity whereas other uses of energy cannot be electrified or only with great difficulty. Hence, new zero carbon vectors are needed.

How do we address these challenges?

Professor Eyre tackled this question using the framework above, he stated that each potential solution faces technical, economic, social and policy challenges which are solvable.

In summary, key points from this webinar include:

• Energy services are critical to modern society.
• Energy systems are the main sources of GHGs emissions.
• Delivering net-zero requires energy systems close to zero.
• This implies a systemic change quickly.
• The broad pathway is: improve energy efficiency and switch to renewables
• This seems feasible with high investments and low net-costs.
• Major challenges include: Changing to a system based on viable natural flows and finding new vectors to substitute for natural fuels in some applications.

Video summary coming soon…

“Climate Change is a waste management problem” Tim Kruger explains to provide an understanding of the role of negative emissions in climate politics. For centuries, humanity has used the atmosphere as a dump for its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. With net zero pledges spreading around the world, many are optimistic that this might spell the end of carbon waste in the atmosphere. 

But stopping to produce waste is only a partial answer to waste management problems. Crucial to the solution is cleaning up the atmosphere using negative emissions.

As Tim Kruger puts it in the webinar: “If we want to achieve the 1.5° goal, we really need to get to net zero by 2050. That means very radical reductions in emissions and then the application of what is known as negative emissions, the actual removal of CO2 from the atmosphere to counteract any remaining emissions.”

This webinar ‘Beyond Zero: The role of negative emissions’, the fifth instalment of the Oxford Martin School’s Oxford Net Zero series covered questions such as: What exactly are negative emissions? Why do we need them? How might be problematic and how we can develop and implement them sensibly?

The webinar featured Tim Kruger, Programme Manager of the Oxford Geoengineering Programme as well as founder of the carbon removal start-up Origen Power, and was moderated by Dr Steve Smith, Executive Director of Oxford Net Zero.

Understanding negative emissions

Negative emissions, also referred to as carbon dioxide removal (CDR), are processes in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere and sequestered for long periods of time. 

Generally, negative emissions are distinguished by two categories: natural climate solutions (NCS) and engineered CDR.

The first, NCS, describes actions that increase carbon storage in landscapes across the globe. Common examples are afforestation projects, coastal wetland conservation and regenerative farming. These practices bind carbon from the atmosphere and store it in biomass or soil carbon. 

The second, engineered CDR are man-made and often industrial actions through which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere. Such actions include carbon utilization and direct air capture and generally aim at long-term geological storage of sequestered carbon. 

Hybrid methods also exist, such as bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), in which carbon is sequestered through natural procedures, then burned as biomass for energy production and ultimately captured and stored geologically.

An overview of negative emission technologies, covering the spectrum from NCS (left) over hybrids to engineered CDR (right). Graphic taken from Morrow, D. R., Thompson, M. S., Anderson, A., Batres, M., Buck, H. J., Dooley, K., Geden, O., Ghosh, A., Low, S., Njamnshi, A., Noël, J., Táíwò, O. O., Talati, S., & Wilcox, J. (2020). Principles for Thinking about Carbon Dioxide Removal.

Cleaning up the atmosphere 

Although mitigation strategies are crucial for tackling the climate crisis, negative emissions are the only way to bring the GHG concentration in the atmosphere back down to safe levels. 

“We are currently at about 410 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. Say we want to get to 350 ppm, as the organisation 350.org suggests. If all emissions stop now, it would actually be several centuries before we would get back down to 350 ppm.” Tim Kruger elaborates in reference to a study by Lowe et al.

Negative emissions can play a key role in both cleaning up the atmosphere and recreating safe climatic conditions for life on earth.

A graphic from the UNEP Emission Gap Report 2017, showing our current trajectory (yellow line) and a 2°C compatible trajectory (red line). The blue area below the x-axis indicates the amount of negative emissions necessary for the 2°C trajectory.

A contested framework 

Some environmentalists oppose negative emissions due to their potential for creating a moral hazard. This refers to the possibility that implementing CDR or NSC strategies might undermine the greater will to reduce emissions

“These fears are not baseless”, notes the Oxford-based programmer Tim Kruger. In the past decades, governments and organisations were often unwilling to reduce emissions, and instead promoted negative emissions as an alternative solution to climate change. 

While negative emissions strategies are essential, they cannot supplant the crucial task of lowering our global emissions. For Kruger, the ‘Swedish Model’ – which splits net zero commitments into separate reduction and removal targets – is an exemplary framework that showcases the ability to conduct both emissions reductions and removals while avoiding moral hazard accusations.

Yet beside the moral hazard, there is also a moral opportunity arising with negative emission technologies. “Once we have got ways in which one can safely, robustly and scalably remove CO2 from the atmosphere, we actually create an obligation to do so” argues Tim Kruger in relation to the possibility of holding polluting industries accountable for “cleaning up the mess” that they created.

Governing negative emissions

CDR or NSC are essential parts of not only net-zero strategies but more broadly climate politics. Kruger presents four key tenets for a good net zero governance:

• Sound and thorough criteria:

• • All negative emission technologies should be assessed by and fulfil three central criteria (1) safety – regarding social and ecological side-effects as well as health and well-being; (2) robustness – assessing above all the permanence of carbon removal and storage; and (3) scalability.

• A level playing field:

• • As negative emissions technologies are still in early development phases, governance should aim to incentivise the development of multiple alternative approaches to reaching net-zero.

• Investment Research and Development:

• • With the carbon removal field still in its infancy, policymakers need to invest in the research and development of such technologies. The implementation of pre-commercial procurement can help raise the feasibility and affordability of new technologies. Public procurers can drive innovation from the demand side by acting as technologically demanding customers that buy the development and testing of new solutions. Such strategy was notably used to help kickstart the renewable energy industry.

• Producer Responsibility Obligation:

• • Governments need to ensure that the burden of cost does not fall on tax-payers. Rather, states should implement a producer responsibility obligation similar to the one in place for recycling in the UK. Under the polluter-pays principle, companies responsible for emissions pay for carbon removal. 

In summary, negative emissions are not a easy solution to climate change, yet we do need further research and development in this area, as without negative emissions it will not be possible to reach net zero by 2050 and stay below 1.5°C global warming. 

Further Links:

• Webinar on Nature-based Solutions (NbS)

• Webinar on engineered CDR and geological storage

• Article by Professor Duncan McLaren on the ‘Swedish model’ – separate targets for emission reductions and negative emissions

• Article by Steve Smith in response to Duncan McLaren

This webinar featured Oxford academics from the Department of Politics and International Relations, School of Anthropology and Museum Ethnography, and Faculty of Law, including Dr. Henry Shue, Dr. Javier Lezaun, Dr. Thom Wetzer, and Dr. Lavanya Rajamani in discussion with Dr Steve Smith on the justice and distributive aspects of net zero goals. 

Reducing and removing GHG emissions has now become a key cornerstone of climate change policy. 

“But the adoption of the goal of Net Zero carbon emission by 2050 has greatly intensified the significance of the issue of climate justice”, remarked Dr. Henry Shue, Professor Emeritus of International Relations from Oxford University. 

The Challenges of Implementing Global Distributive Justice amongst States

Some countries have emitted more than others. According to the World Resources Institute, the top 10 emitting countries produce more than 68% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

A net zero world implies more than reducing or offsetting GHG emissions, it implies deep reflections on principles of global distributive justice: How should the costs of energy transition be distributed? Who should be compensated as the net losers of climate change? Who should invest the most in adaptation technologies? 

For Oxford professor Shue, wealthy nations need to be at the forefront of these actions. 

“Those with capital need to invest in less wealthy nations’ capacity to build infrastructure that does not depend on fossil fuels”, he explains.

Under the Paris Accord, every country is expected to prepare and communicate a nationally determined contribution (NDC) every five years. NDCs include net zero targets, measures and policies and are the basis for national climate action plans.

Despite those calls for global justice, Professor Rajami argues there needs to be first a better implementation of these NDC in domestic laws. 

“There is a mismatch between the announcement of Net Zero targets in over 120 countries and their anchoring in international law” explains the Oxford law professor. 

“States are not subject to set long-term targets as there is no adequate review mechanism internationally.”

With many NDC long-term goals not embedded within domestic legislation, it becomes hard to evaluate their level of commitment and uphold their accountability. 

International trackers such as the Climate Action Tracker and the #RaceToZero can however be used to potentially measure the transparency of key actors and states. 

But for Professor Rajami, a fundamental way to address this problem of accountability and credibility is having the state develop a sense of ownership in resolving the climate crisis. 

Fairness and equity need to be at the forefront of climate action discussions. 

Getting the Business to Change its Usual 

Similar to states, a record number of corporations pledge to go “net zero” and move to cancel out the carbon emissions they produce. 

Although many are now going green, for financial law professor Wetzer, there is reason to be extremely cautious about net zero optimism. 

Concerned of greenwashing, there are valid reasons to doubt and question the credibility of these commitments. 

“Companies may be acting inconsistently”, explains Wetzer, “Their plans may be ambiguous which makes it challenging for others to track their progress”.  

Non-credible net zero plans have the potential to foster inaction, mislead investors and stakeholders, and create a false sense of security. 

“They should approach net zero targets and commitments as an opportunity to reach Net Zero, not as a way to avoid and create loopholes”, says Professor Wetzer. 

Instead, Wetzer hopes to see realistic plans implemented with intermediate goals based on scientifically sound assumptions. He wants companies to devise transparency plans and credible mechanisms, such as debt instruments. He also encourages companies to use the  Net Zero Climate Tools Library and coordinate with other stakeholders to exchange best practices. 

Moving towards Fairness and Equity 

Lazaun, Director of the Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, emphasizes that equity and justice must be central in the discussion around Greenhouse Gas (GHG) removals.

Only a few countries have the capacity to do so. International cooperation can help support ground-up approaches to GHG removal.  Establishing a global taxonomy of GHG removals can also help create a more nuanced approach in tackling GHG reductions.

Achieving a net zero world thus means not only developing carbon neutral infrastructure or offsetting carbon initiatives. It requires profound reflections on global equity, international cooperation and justice. 

As Shue concluded, “the best hope is that we should pay some attention and to take some care towards those who aren’t here to fight themselves and are at our mercy of what we do.”

Video summary coming soon…

More than half of the world’s global population and 78 percent of the world’s energy consumption takes place in cities (UN Habitat).

Local communities have a particularly important role to play in the net zero transition, developing new models of collective living to both mitigate and adapt to climate change.

In this Oxford Net Zero seminar, hosted by the Oxford Martin School, Professor Steve Smith explores what it means for local communities to set out on a pathway to net zero. Alongside, researchers Kaya Axelsson, Radhika Khosla and Nicole Yazondiscuss what is required to instigate community-wide shifts to low carbon lifestyles, what community stakeholder processes are needed to drive action from the bottom up, and how net zero progress can be best tracked. 

Achieving net zero is a multi-level challenge. Effective action on this issue must address the nodes where individuals, communities, and higher levels of government intersect. 

Net Zero from the ground up 

Under net zero plans, landscapes from coast to coast would be transformed, with vertical gardens lining building walls, electric cars populating the roads, and wind turbines and solar panels generating energy.

‘Cities should seek to be leaders on net zero progress’, explains Net-Zero Policy Engagement Fellow, Axelsson. 

Metropolitains like New York or London are looking to reconfigure their transportation system and reduce their skyscrapers net carbon emission.

For Axelsson, building a greener world implies a close consultation with citizens and an openness to a diversity of approaches to policy-making, as well as social and infrastructure change.

Drawing on her experience in Oxford’s plan for a net zero transport system, Axelsson describes the importance of consulting students and residents with disabilities who were to be particularly impacted by this plan. 

‘It is inspiring to see how much more of an inclusive and politically robust process you can develop as part of your net zero strategy if you involve people from the outset’, Axelsson says. 

Successful local net zero policies depend on the support and consultation of constituents, stakeholders, community members, supply chain actors. 

Adopting a Green Lifestyle

According to the 2020 UNEP Emissions Gap Report, 2/3 of greenhouse gas emissions are connected to household consumption.

‘The role of lifestyles is one we might underestimate but it is actually necessary as a component to meeting our global emissions reduction targets’, explains Professor Khosla, research Director of the Oxford India Centre for Sustainable Development. 

Adopting low carbon lifestyles is a necessary condition for developing net zero communities. As can be seen in the following graphic, there are myriad ways to avoid high carbon actions. 

Source: UNEP Gap Report, 2020

Together, residential, food and mobility represent 20% to a household’s carbon emission. Individuals and families can easily reduce their habits by changing their diet, reducing their usage of planes, or even using renewable energy for their heating.

But for the Oxford-based professor, the responsibility for shifting to low carbon lifestyles lies within the wealthier population. 

Source: UNEP Gap Report, 2020

As illustrated in this graphic, the richest 1% of people, including the wealthiest people in low- and middle-income countries, would need to reduce their per capita emissions by 30 per cent to meet targets for 1.5 degrees of warming by 2030. 

In contrast, the poorest 50% could triple their per capita emissions before reaching the same target. 

‘Transformative change will require us to find moments of disruption when norms and actions can be shifted toward the net zero future that we’d like’, Khosla asserts.

City-wide emissions reductions 

Over the years, cities have become leading centers for major net zero policy innovation. 

According to Energy consultant Yazon, many United States cities are actually outpacing states in terms of emissions reductions. The majority of these emissions reductions can be attributed to greening of the electrical grid. 

‘Cities are leading by example’, says Yazon. She points to their efforts for net zero emissions in their municipal buildings and transport operations; their usage of ‘soft’ measures like benchmarking to pave the way for more stringent decarbonization measures; and their planning authority to incentivize green building codes and renewable energy installation.

But for Yazon, improvement is still needed. Part of the answer lies into bringing data into climate action policies. 

Early claims of progress in local emissions reduction have been made through decarbonisation of energy sources, which is a change that often occurs outside of a city or town’s jurisdiction. Far more substantial change is needed across the very infrastructure of many cities and towns to meet net zero targets. 

‘Cities are very wary of evaluating their policies because it can be a little awkward when policies are put in place but results are not being seen’, the Energy consultant explains. 

She recommends municipal leaders to incentivize transparency around emissions data for local governments and develop more robust ways to connect policy evaluations to existing emissions inventories.

Through the various contributions of Kaya Axelsson, Radhika Khosla and Nicole Yazon, this webinar highlighted the importance of listening, consultation, and collaboration in any net zero strategy. 

‘People who feel they are not being justly recognized in the planning process – those are the ones we need to listen to’, Axelsson emphasizes. “Having a process for making sure that plans can be adapted is all part of it.”

More fundamentally, it brings back the continued need for an equity framing in the race to net zero. 

Video summary coming soon…

Video summary coming soon…