Does a change in the ‘global net zero’ language matter?

IF 4.6 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Hannah Parris, A. Anger-Kraavi, G. Peters
{"title":"Does a change in the ‘global net zero’ language matter?","authors":"Hannah Parris, A. Anger-Kraavi, G. Peters","doi":"10.1017/sus.2023.11","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary Changes in language used in long term climate policy can undermine their credibility and discourage climate action. Previous IPCC reports have promoted an idea of reaching ‘global net zero’ (GNZ) emissions by 2050 in order to limit global warming to 1.5 °C. In the latest IPCC Report, this language has been changed. To understand the impact of this change, we survey COP 26 participants to test their willingness to accept a shift in long term policy goals. We find a low tolerance for a change and, indeed, there is substantial finance, business and political effort behind the idea of reaching GNZ by 2050. This suggests that GNZ by 2050 will remain central to climate action. Technical summary Consistency in language in long term policy goals is central to building a (political) constituency in support of the Paris Agreement. Changes in language can undermine policy credibility, and stall effective mitigation action. Recent changes in IPCC language to describe ‘global net zero’ (GNZ) as being reached in the ‘early or mid 2050s’ (AR6 WG1) could risk undermining the substantial cultural, political and financial momentum that has developed behind the interpretation – first developed by the IPCC SR 1.5 °C Report – that GNZ must be reached by 2050. We survey COP 26 participants to test their willingness to accept a shift in policy goals and find a strong preference for a ‘stable’ long term policy target, widely interpreted as reaching ‘GNZ by 2050’, and a rejection of flexibility in long term policy targets, even as new scientific information becomes available. ‘GNZ by 2050’ is no longer a science based target, but has transitioned to a cultural and political metaphor actively used by stakeholders to guide their climate decision making. This makes ‘GNZ by 2050’ no less valid than the original scientific concept. This may stimulate further ‘political calibration’ or between the policy and modelling communities. Social media summary Sig. momentum is behind global net zero by 2050.Will changes in IPCC mitigation language de-rail global climate action?","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Sustainability","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2023.11","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Non-technical summary Changes in language used in long term climate policy can undermine their credibility and discourage climate action. Previous IPCC reports have promoted an idea of reaching ‘global net zero’ (GNZ) emissions by 2050 in order to limit global warming to 1.5 °C. In the latest IPCC Report, this language has been changed. To understand the impact of this change, we survey COP 26 participants to test their willingness to accept a shift in long term policy goals. We find a low tolerance for a change and, indeed, there is substantial finance, business and political effort behind the idea of reaching GNZ by 2050. This suggests that GNZ by 2050 will remain central to climate action. Technical summary Consistency in language in long term policy goals is central to building a (political) constituency in support of the Paris Agreement. Changes in language can undermine policy credibility, and stall effective mitigation action. Recent changes in IPCC language to describe ‘global net zero’ (GNZ) as being reached in the ‘early or mid 2050s’ (AR6 WG1) could risk undermining the substantial cultural, political and financial momentum that has developed behind the interpretation – first developed by the IPCC SR 1.5 °C Report – that GNZ must be reached by 2050. We survey COP 26 participants to test their willingness to accept a shift in policy goals and find a strong preference for a ‘stable’ long term policy target, widely interpreted as reaching ‘GNZ by 2050’, and a rejection of flexibility in long term policy targets, even as new scientific information becomes available. ‘GNZ by 2050’ is no longer a science based target, but has transitioned to a cultural and political metaphor actively used by stakeholders to guide their climate decision making. This makes ‘GNZ by 2050’ no less valid than the original scientific concept. This may stimulate further ‘political calibration’ or between the policy and modelling communities. Social media summary Sig. momentum is behind global net zero by 2050.Will changes in IPCC mitigation language de-rail global climate action?
改变“全球净零排放”的说法重要吗?
长期气候政策中使用的语言的变化会破坏其可信度,阻碍气候行动。IPCC之前的报告提出了到2050年实现“全球净零”排放的想法,以便将全球变暖限制在1.5°C。在最新的IPCC报告中,这种说法有所改变。为了了解这一变化的影响,我们调查了缔约方会议26的参与者,以测试他们接受长期政策目标转变的意愿。我们发现人们对变化的容忍度很低,事实上,在2050年达到GNZ的想法背后,有大量的金融、商业和政治努力。这表明,到2050年,GNZ仍将是气候行动的核心。长期政策目标语言的一致性对于建立支持《巴黎协定》的(政治)选区至关重要。语言的变化会破坏政策的可信度,并阻碍有效的缓解行动。最近,IPCC将“全球净零”(GNZ)描述为“2050年代初或中期”(AR6 WG1)的措辞发生了变化,这可能会破坏在IPCC《1.5°C SR报告》首次提出的必须在2050年之前达到GNZ的解释背后形成的巨大文化、政治和财政势头。我们调查了缔约方会议26的参与者,以测试他们接受政策目标转变的意愿,并发现他们对“稳定的”长期政策目标的强烈偏好,被广泛解释为到2050年达到“全球GNZ”,以及拒绝长期政策目标的灵活性,即使有新的科学信息可用。“到2050年全球GNZ”不再是一个基于科学的目标,而是一种文化和政治隐喻,被利益相关者积极用于指导他们的气候决策。这使得“2050年全球GNZ”的有效性不亚于最初的科学概念。这可能会刺激进一步的“政治校准”或在政策和建模社区之间。到2050年,sigg势头将推动全球净零排放。政府间气候变化专门委员会减缓气候变化措辞的变化会影响全球气候行动吗?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Global Sustainability
Global Sustainability Environmental Science-Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
3.60%
发文量
19
审稿时长
17 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信