1.5°C is missing? Call the COPs!

Approx. 4 min read

The 27th United Nations Climate Change Conference or Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) has just finished in Sharm el-Sheikh, in Egypt. You can see why they shorten it to COP. Unfortunately, most of the early noise that came out of the events, negotiations and debates of COP 27 claimed that there is now no credible pathway to limit anthropogenic-driven global warming by 1.5°C or less.  

No.  

Credible.  

Pathway.  

Those are not our words – they are the words of the UN itself. The Economist ran a special report entitled ‘Say goodbye to 1.5°C’ at the start of the month. There is growing consensus amongst scientists, reporters and (sadly) only a minority of politicians, that with the current policies, pledges and transition plans in place, there is no way we will reach our 1.5°C goal set out in the Paris Agreement of 2015.  

The UN has also stated that we have “wasted a year” on climate action and made no real progress over the last 12 months. It certainly has not been the easiest geopolitical landscape for positive climate action, with the global energy crisis, war in Ukraine, high inflation rates and unstable governance. Frustratingly, many people have used the conflict in Ukraine in particular to stir up energy security and energy sovereignty concerns to try and justify continued investment into fossil fuel exploration and production. 

For example, the UK has announced that it will be awarding up to 100 new licences for companies to explore sites for oil and gas in the North Sea. It seems a strange decision to make under the pressure of the current energy crisis, especially since the average time from awarding an exploration licence to having an operational site that is producing oil and gas is 20 years. It is an even stranger decision if you have been listening to the warnings from the International Energy Agency (IEA): that there should be no exploration for new oil and gas fields if we are to hit our 1.5°C goal. Not even one. 

What is more insidious is the plans that the oil and gas majors have been cooking up, using the energy crisis as a shield to deflect challenges. Bear in mind of what the IEA has warned us when you read the next sentence. The fossil fuel industry’s short-term expansion plans involve starting new oil and gas projects that will produce greenhouse gases equivalent to a decade’s worth of CO2 emissions from China, the world’s biggest polluter. Earlier this year, the Guardian did a special exposé on so-called ‘carbon bombs’: new oil and gas projects that will result in at least a billion tonnes of CO2 emissions over their lifetimes. They identified 195 of them. Clearly the messaging from the UN, the IPCC, the IEA, scientists from all over the world, and billions of civilians has not sunk in for those working the fossil fuel industry, who are ploughing on full steam ahead with new oil and gas projects. 

As you can see, current policy ambition is nowhere near the 1.5°C pathway. Global emissions need to start falling, and fast! Taken from Climate Action Tracker, November 2022. Available at: https://climateactiontracker.org/global/temperatures/

So, we’re not going to reduce emissions fast enough and will probably smash through the 1.5°C goal. What can we do? Is all hope lost? 

No, we should keep on trying to make our world leaders accountable for their actions (the next goal is 1.6°C and not 3°C), demanding change and at the same time develop and upscale carbon removal technologies. 

 We were warned that carbon removal technologies should only be the last resort and that all focus needs to be on reducing emissions. That is still true today, however we have run out of time to reduce global emissions fast enough. The remaining carbon budget – the amount of greenhouse gases we can emit before we reach 1.5°C of warming – is getting smaller and smaller. Therefore, we need to start actively and permanently scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere alongside reducing emissions to stand any chance of clawing back the 1.5°C goal. Estimates are that we will need around 15Gt of CO2 removed annually to reach Net Zero by 2050. 

So, what carbon removal technologies can we use? 

Well, we could plant trees? Unfortunatey there isn’t enough space available on land to decrease emissions enough with just trees. What about direct air capture? The technology is expensive (both in terms of money and energy) and not yet scalable. I know, carbon capture and storage! Firstly, this only stops emissions at source – it does not actively remove emissions from the atmosphere. Secondly, it may be used to justify the extended use of fossil fuels.  

What about doing something with the ocean? After all, it covers over two thirds of the planet’s surface and already naturally sequesters one third of all CO2 emissions.  

Now we’re talking! 

That is why Seafields is working to scale up to remove 1 billion tonnes of CO2 per year through growing Sargassum seaweed, processing it to extract valuable products (e.g. nutrients) and then sinking it to the deep ocean, and locking away the carbon over a very long timescale. Sagassum is free floating, so requires no complicated aquaculture infrastructure like kelp. It requires no freshwater, no artificial fertilizer and it does not compete with coastal or land use. All it needs to grow is sunshine, nutrients from the seawater and lots of CO2 from the air above it. The seaweed can be grown, harvested, processed, baled and sunk in-situ the open ocean. What’s not to like? 

We should point out that the scale of the challenge is not lost on us. We are working tirelessly to develop our understanding of the science and engineering of large scale Sargassum farming and utilization. For instance, all off-shore activities are exposed to rough seas and storms, meaning that we will require several proofs of concept and engineering developments before we can deploy at large scale.  

Hopefully, though, through our research and testing we will ultimately be able to put a sizeable and sustained dent in global emissions using the mightily powerful Sargassum seaweed. 

All hope is not lost.  

Aiming to sequester 1Gt CO2

Now, this is not to say that other carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies do not have their place. We need every available CDR technology we can get, as long as they are effective and scalable. Collaboration in this space is key. That is why initiatives such as the Carbon Dioxide Removal Mission Launchpad are so important. 

The CDR Launchpad is a coalition of 23 countries and the European Commission (on behalf of the European Union) who have agreed to work together to accelerate the advancement of technologies that remove CO2 directly from the air, by investing in demonstration projects and sharing data and experiences. You can read more about it here. 

Let’s hope that some progressive policy advancements come out of the dying embers of COP27 – fingers crossed!