EurActiv Logo
EU news & policy debates
- across languages -
Click here for EU news »
EurActiv.com Network

BROWSE ALL SECTIONS

PwC report argues for unprecedented CO2 cuts by 2050

Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Published 05 November 2012, updated 14 December 2012

The world will have to cut the rate of carbon emissions by an unprecedented rate to 2050 to stop global temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius this century, a report released by PwC on Monday (5 November) showed.

PwC's annual Low Carbon Economy Index report examined the progress of developed and emerging economies towards reducing their carbon intensity, or their emissions per unit of gross domestic product.

Global temperatures have already risen by about 0.8 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times. Almost 200 nations agreed in 2010 at United Nations climate talks to limit the rise to below 2 degrees C (3.6 Fahrenheit) to avoid dangerous impacts from climate change.

Carbon intensity will have to be cut by over 5% a year to achieve that goal, the study said. That compares with an annual rate of 0.8% from 2000 to 2011.

"Because of this slow start, global carbon intensity now needs to be cut by an average of 5.1% a year from now to 2050. This rate of reduction has not been achieved in any of the past 50 years," it added.

Climate scientists have warned that the chance of limiting the rise to below 2C is getting smaller.

Global carbon emissions went up over 3% in 2011 to a record high, according to the International Energy Agency.

Slow progress

Even if the 5% rate is achievable in the long term, decarbonisation will not be ramped up immediately, meaning that future cuts would have to be far more.

"Even doubling our current rate of decarbonisation would still lead to emissions consistent with 6C warming by the end of the century," said Leo Johnson, PwC partner for sustainability and climate change.

"To give ourselves a more than 50% chance of avoiding 2C will require a six-fold improvement in our rate of decarbonisation."

EU countries lead global ranking

According to the study, European Union countries had the highest rates of decarbonisation, with Britain, France and Germany all cutting carbon intensity by over 6% in 2010-2011.

"The irony is that a key reason for lower energy use was the milder winter in the region. Both the UK and France also witnessed increased generation in low-emissions nuclear power, whereas Germany's exit from nuclear is reflected in its relatively lesser decline in emissions," PwC said.

The United States experienced a 3.5% decrease in carbon intensity in 2011, mostly due to a shift to shale gas from coal in its fuel mix and more efficient vehicles.

Decarbonisation in China and India in the last decade seems to have stalled, while Australia's carbon intensity grew by 6.7% last year and Japan's was up 0.8%.

Although major economies have promised to cut carbon dioxide emissions, the pledges combined are insufficient to meet the 2C target, PwC said.

It questioned whether some of the pledges can be met due to economic pressures.

Nations will meet in Qatar at the end of this month for the next round of U.N. climate talks when they are supposed to discuss ways of ramping up their climate targets.

EurActiv.com with Reuters

COMMENTS

  • Norwegian climate scentist Ole Humlum shows that there is no discernible problem with carbon emissions. It goes away, absorbs by nature and does NOT drive temperature.
    It is the other way around, temperature governs the amount of atmospheric CO2!

    Why keep up this charade of climate change alarmism? Why keep lying about the facts?
    Why?
    Why?
    Why?

    By :
    Mats Jangdal
    - Posted on :
    05/11/2012
  • Oh, and the link Humlums work.
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658?v=s5

    By :
    Mats Jangdal
    - Posted on :
    05/11/2012
  • This is a well thought out paper presented by PWC and very commendable.

    The doubters in the issues that surround the needs will always submit to King Coal and Emperer Oil and bury their heads in the sannds of the deserts.

    The time period between actions and responses in the Climate Balance is long. I would agree with the notion that PWC are right but make it 15% or higher. It is too late to wait.

    By :
    Gerry Murphy
    - Posted on :
    05/11/2012
  • Mr Murphy, So everything that can go wrong will go wrong? I believe your comment just did.

    When there is no certain knowledge of how the climate works, any rash action may cause more problems than it solves. It most likely, according to "murhpy's law", will be counterproductive.

    The rising numbers of scientific works that reveal our minuscule knowledge about the climate is humbling for all and any thinking rational human being. But you propose a full speed ahead into the mist, with a recipe for economic and societal melt down?
    Hoorah! We will all go together when we go!

    By :
    Mats Jangdal
    - Posted on :
    05/11/2012
  • I spy with my little eye: a troll! Don't feed the trolls!

    I agree Mr Murphy, the paper is not bad. If even the consultants are getting concerned then it is time for the politicos to pull their fingers out. Interesting point on de-carb being stalled in China, I notice the Chinese are making the same mistake as the Euros (let's not talk about the Americans) and are both expanding their car market and buying increasing numbers of gas guzzlers (which of course means more oil imports).

    By :
    Mike Parr
    - Posted on :
    05/11/2012
  • Parr for the course. PwC is (in)famous for their scams and swindles, from ripping off Willie Nelson to corporate fraud. Trust'em? Not within spittin' distance!

    Make the effort of reading science papers from the guys who actually are scientists and not just compiled sales arguments from the junk bonds vendors.

    By :
    Mats Jangdal
    - Posted on :
    05/11/2012
  • M. Jangdall,

    For Your information, I do "make the effort to read papers from the guys who actually are scientists". Only from the abstract of the one you are refering to, one could tell that either you did not read it yourself, either your did not understant it all. In both case, you should therefore refrain from commenting it.

    Regards,

    Philippe Cornélis

    By :
    Philippe Cornélis
    - Posted on :
    07/11/2012
  • M. Cornelis,
    What is it about Humlum's work that you find still motivating alarmism?

    By :
    Mats Jangdal
    - Posted on :
    07/11/2012
  • To be more precise. What is it in the conclusion of the abstract that you do not find contradicting the alarmist position of the IPCC?:
    We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.

    CO2 LAGS the temperature, it does not LEAD the temperature! The IPCC has got their pants on backwards.

    By :
    Mats Jangdal
    - Posted on :
    07/11/2012
Background: 

The scientific consensus that humans are responsible for global warming is now compelling with over 90% probability, according to the latest conclusions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a UN-backed scientific body.

But uncertainties remain surrounding the extent of future temperature rises and the effects they will have on the earth’s complex ecosystem. 

>> Read EurActiv's LinksDossier: Science of climate change

More on this topic

More in this section

Advertising

Videos

Climate & Environment News

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Climate & Environment Promoted

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Advertising

Advertising