Z-factor of the climate crisis

Abstract

The world faces twin problems of climate crisis and injustice. Countries in the global North have far exceeded their fair share in the global carbon budget, while countries in the South are well below their fair share. A simple solution would be for the North to absorb its excess emissions through net-negative emissions, which we call Z-factor. However, given the current technology, this is not possible. If the South bears the burden of adjustment by absorbing the excess emissions, it will perpetuate injustice. But if the South gets a right to burn its fair share, it would undermine the fight against the climate crisis. We argue that addressing these two issues is not mutually exclusive. If the North funds both the green path of declining emissions and the carbon removal process in the South while achieving decarbonization at the earliest, we can reach global net zero (GNZ) ahead of the current nationally determined commitments (NDCs). Nations that have exceeded their fair share will pay for their own and surplus nations’ (mostly in the South) decarbonization based on both current stock and prospective flows of overshoots. Deficit countries (in terms of carbon budget) cannot move into surplus, but high flows in the surplus camp may flip to the deficit side. After this flip, they too must start paying for their deficits, ensuring justice in a dynamic sense. There should be a base price for the accumulated Z-factor deficit nations pay, but it can be staggered over the decarbonization period. Future overshoot emissions should have a gradually increasing price to force decarbonization and limit the climate crisis. To make this work, we need an international carbon fund (ICF) to act as an arbiter and have the final say. Leaving this job to the markets is too risky.

Keywords:

• Carbon fund
• climate crisis
• environmental injustice
• global net zero
• Z factor

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 The lower and the higher range shown here represent this budget with 83% and 17% probability respectively.

2 One can replicate the same theoretical exercise with the 1.5^°C.

3 Our attention was drawn to this information by Nagraj Adve, a climate change activist and researcher based in India.

4 The BRICS bloc consists of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, and does not include the new members.

5 Fanning and Hickel (2023) discuss this in detail and use different benchmark years to calculate the fair share carbon budget.

6 At any rate a technological solution, even if it were to exist, would be way expensive. Apart from that there are sustainability issues involved with such technical solutions, foremost among those is the fact that it may lead to unbridled emissions because people would assume it is all going to be absorbed. Moreover, the material throughput that this binge consumption would result in may push the planetary boundaries to unsustainable levels.