Notes #21/2023: Climate ambitions and the consequences of definitions
Notes are just that: Short, informal messages, or brief records of points or ideas written down. The views and opinions expressed in my notes do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of my employer or clients.
Climate ambitions and the consequences of definitions
Many local governments have ambitious climate goals. In the Netherlands, these goals are most often formulated as achieving climate neutrality by a specified year—usually 2050, although some municipalities aim for more ambitious targets. However, only a few of these local governments seem to have made a conscious effort to define and operationalize the concept of climate neutrality. More than once, I have asked my clients in the public sector for their definition, only to receive blank stares or shrugs in response.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines climate neutrality as:
[A] concept of a state in which human activities result in no net effect on the climate system. Achieving such a state would require balancing of residual emissions with emission (carbon dioxide) removal as well as accounting for regional or local biogeophysical effects of human activities that, for example, affect surface albedo or local climate.
As a political scientist by training, I appreciate the abstract but precise wording of the first sentence as well as the rather complex second part. I also enjoy long-winding discussions about definitions and their interpretations in general. Words have meaning and power; words are political. However, in this issue of notes, I will not review definitions of climate neutrality or related concepts like net-zero emissions. Instead, I would like to point out that any definition of a climate ambition has consequences—for the politics and policies of climate and energy transition by local governments and for the programs, projects, efforts, and monitoring in operationalization and implementation.
Some municipalities have defined climate neutrality. The definition I have seen most frequently (small-N) is rather simple: *Net-zero emissions of greenhouse gasses in scope 1 and scope 2. Let’s use this straightforward definition as an example. There are (at least) three elements in this definition that have political and / or operational consequences:
Net zero: This implies that compensating for emissions is possible. Compensation will become a relevant factor for policy and monitoring when emissions are significantly reduced, and the marginal abatement costs (financially and societally) are high. However, compensation is sometimes a subject of debate in the political and social arena already today. Depending on the political leaning of a city council, policymakers might already have to defend or sketch pathways for compensation efforts and technologies, or can justify their inaction by pointing to CCS or other perceived future solutions.
Scope 3: Indirect emissions are not part of this definition. Municipalities have little to no influence on these emissions, which, nonetheless, constitute a significant portion of their total emissions. Besides sustainable procurement policies, the bit of influence they have is through communication aimed at behavior change. Ironically, many (green parties in) city councils do focus particularly on these emissions, for example, by banning marketing in public spaces for fossil fuels—an up-and-coming trend in the Netherlands. This political virtue signaling shifts quite a bit of the limited capacity and means in the administration from strategic planning and implementation to an ad-hoc action mode in which the ratio between reduced emissions and efforts is subpar.
Greenhouse gases: This definition includes all greenhouse gases, with CO2 being by far the most important but not the only greenhouse gas. This is a relevant factor in communication about efforts and in monitoring progress. It is particularly relevant for local governments with emission ratios between the gases being significantly different than the national average. In these cases, it might require tailored policy approaches and different means and expertise. For example, I recently worked on a project for three municipalities, two of which are economically dominated by agriculture, hence have methane emissions well over three times the national average—but neither the policy instruments nor the required knowledge or means to tackle these emissions locally
Side note: An additional challenge in the Netherlands is that the primary monitoring of greenhouse gas emissions through the Klimaatmonitor is of good quality but lags behind by 2-3 years (which can be quite inconvenient for city councilors with 4-year terms) and only extends back to 2010 - far from the baseline, the reference year 1990. While there is data available dating back to 1990, it is derived using a different methodology, is not easily accessible, and often presents a geographical mismatch due to municipal mergers - hence is useless.
The (at least) three aspects of the climate neutrality definition reveal that even a seemingly simple definition with a measurable metric (CO2 equivalents) has implications. The struggle is now arising in municipal offices to establish quantified ambitions for a circular economy, biodiversity, or climate adaptation. The definitions and metrics for these subjects will be considerably more intricate and context-specific, potentially rendering them even more susceptible to consequences in policy and bureaucracy.
We can set ambitious goals, engage in intellectual discussions about definitions, and develop sophisticated monitoring and reporting instruments - all of which are commendable pursuits. The point I make is that ambitions require definitions, and these definitions carry consequences. Policymakers and public sector managers should be mindful of this.