Comment

In this blog post, first published in The Conversation, our CEO, Bill Hare, analyses Australia’s federal election campaign and the global warming implications of the policies of the Coalition, Labor, the Greens and the “teal” independents.

Just like most past climate conferences, COP26 delivered a mixed outcome, and people are entitled to feel angry, scared and frustrated at the glacial progress made. Glasgow was the first big test of Paris Agreement’s implementation and in particular its ambition ratchet-up mechanism – and it failed the test. Unpacking what happened at COP26, however, shows that there are grounds for hope.

Whether Earth can stay within 1.5℃ warming involves two distinct questions. First, is it physically, technically and economically feasible, considering the physics of the Earth system and possible rates of societal change? Science indicates the answer is “yes” – although it will be very difficult and the best opportunities for success lie in the past.

Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) – also known as “negative emissions” – is needed to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement. This means that solutions – whether natural or technological – and governance mechanisms will need to be ready for scale-up in the next couple of decades. But who should bear the responsibility for developing and deploying CDR?