countries to reduce deforestation and encourage forest preservation. Under any global scenario that gets the world to 1.5oC, McKinsey point out in their “Climate math” report that a minimum 77% of deforestation’s current emissions need to be abated by 2030.26 This level of reduction will need to be funded by those who can afford it and who cannot necessarily get to “Net-Zero” without purchasing offsets.
Different approaches to financing the emissions gap will affect countries’ nationally determined contributions in different ways. Instead of purchasing carbon credits, a city could create quantifiable projects themselves (think urban tree plantings within the city boundary) or investments in negative emissions technologies, to remove carbon dioxide from the air. While these emissions-reduction activities could appeal to that city more than purchasing carbon credits – especially as the former has many spillover community benefits – they might not be captured in the relevant nation’s nationally determined contribution as part of the Paris Agreement, and therefore would not contribute to global carbon budget accounting. For a city to be liveable and also truly “Net-Zero” under the definition of the Paris Agreement, I would encourage a blend of the two approaches: creating and funding high-quality, verifiable in-boundary (“on-site”) credits and blending that with UNFCCC-registered credits that are part of the global carbon budget and transfer funds to the countries and communities to abate the vast majority of deforestation emissions within the decade, while avoiding the purchase of non-Paris-Agreement-compliant outside-boundary carbon credits. Most importantly, the city should say explicitly to what extent it is relying on carbon credits and external investments, to what standards these credits are verified, and to what extent its actions affect a relevant nationally determined contribution.
“Cumulative”: What Does This Mean?
Now for a suggestion for cities to truly lead on climate. City leaders could, and one might argue should, account for all the carbon their city has sent into the atmosphere up to the point they reach “net-zero” emissions and then beyond. First-principles logic supports this. If a customer kept going to their favourite store and leaving with goods without paying, then started paying for goods after a certain number of visits, the shopkeeper would reasonably expect the customer to settle their old tab at some point. Only then would the shopkeeper be paid in full. On Earth, scientists track the response of the world’s natural systems to historic emissions. In the couple of centuries since the industrial revolution, cities have been emitting GHGs at vastly different scales and increasing at different rates. Even fully scoped, science-based, Paris-Agreement-compliant emissions reductions that start today would not eliminate that historical debt.
A fourth descriptor – “Cumulative” – would strengthen the definition of “Net-Zero”. It would also encourage cities in developed nations to fund the just transition to a sustainable future; not with unlimited liability but instead surrounded by some rational boundaries. These cities could calculate their historic emissions “debt” and fund carbon credits at a significant scale to help the less wealthy preserve the natural resources on which we all depend. Entities could also invest in carbon removal (just at a significantly higher cost per ton than preserving developing-countries’ forests). The key is to calculate how many tonnes of emissions long-term emitters have produced before they achieve net-zero emissions for the first time, and to purchase carbon credits to settle the full tab for the city up to that point.
The issue is not just theoretical. Carbon dioxide and some other GHGs, once emitted, remain in the atmosphere for over 100 years. The vast majority of global GHG emissions occurred within the last 80 years. For GHGs like carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, HFC-23, and sulphur hexafluoride, most of the molecules ever emitted by human activity are still up there, trapping the sun’s energy and warming the planet. Like a debt owed to a shopkeeper, nothing substitutes for repayment. Box 1.1 highlights the activity at Microsoft as perhaps a model a city could adopt.
Box 1.1 Case study: If Microsoft was a city – a best-practice model?
Microsoft’s definition and target of “carbon negativity by 2030”27 harmonizes with the approach just outlined. Planners and evaluators can use the four descriptors to discuss, applaud, and challenge their statement.
Fully Scoped: Microsoft has defined its responsibility across scopes 1, 2 and 3 (complete with a jargon-light explainer video). The inclusion of scope 3 emissions sets Microsoft apart. Typical of companies with a complex product range and large reach, its direct emissions are dwarfed by those from its supply chain and its products in consumer use and disposal.
Science-Based: Microsoft’s historic commitment to reducing what it calls “operational carbon emissions” runs across several years with reference to peer-reviewed science.
Paris-Agreement-Compliant: Microsoft has correctly spotted that historical carbon credits available for purchase have not been issued by nations themselves, nor tied to independent assessments of any nation’s carbon budget as part of the Paris Agreement. Microsoft seems to view sparing trees as secondary to planting new ones and appears to conclude that investing in expensive technologies for reduction and removal is preferable to transferring wealth to developing countries to prevent deforestation. In fact, preventing deforestation and preserving existing forest cover is crucial to achieving Paris Agreement goals.28 Despite Microsoft’s current view on forest carbon with which I would disagree, the company has stated its case clearly and left its options open for future changes in direction.
Cumulative: Most resonant and forward-thinking, Microsoft is pledging to account for all previous emissions by 2050. This is a significant challenge from a 45-year-old technology company to older industrials and younger tech companies alike. Putting it into practice can create methodologies, develop staff experience, and potentially define a new space for intellectual and investment growth.
Microsoft’s approach is one of the first corporate examples to have thoughtfully addressed all four criteria for a comprehensive “Net-Zero” strategy. It sets a new bar for companies of any age. Which city could be first to do the same?
From Bold Leadership Goals to System Change
To achieve bold, clear climate goals while managing all the other priorities of the complex modern city, we need leaders that are truly connected: to themselves; to the team around them; to their communities and stakeholders; and to an awareness and appreciation of the entire complex system they are trying to manage and change.
There are many cautionary tales of unintended consequences of trying to do the right thing but in the wrong way – parachuting cats into Borneo in the 1950s is still one of the easiest and quickest to illustrate the point (Figure 1.7).29 Our leaders need to be able to have a curiosity for the potential consequences – both intended and potentially unintended – of various actions by actors within a system and be able to map causal loops before they act.
Figure 1.7 Cats being parachuted into Borneo in the 1950s. (Source: U.S. Air Force / Staff Sgt. Manuel J. Martinez.)
Too often, leaders also try to change a system in a harmful or less-effective way because of their own perspective. Being aware of the “ladder of inference” is powerful (Figure 1.8).30 The flow of our thoughts may build from the bottom of the ladder upwards, but it is vital to realize how our inherent subjectivity filters
