Investing in carbon-reducing solutions now that the recovery from COVID has begun is a great opportunity. However, this will need a delicate balance between creating short-term jobs and retraining long-term workers. If CO2 emissions were to fall by 5.4 percent each year, the globe would recover to pre-industrial levels in 18 years. The economy, as well as people and the environment, would gain if such a scenario were to be implemented.
Michael E. Kirst described that, climate-friendly strategies are already being used by technology businesses to fulfill this aim. Earlier this year, Google revealed ambitions to expand its carbon neutrality to its supplier chain. There is no formal deadline yet, but technology businesses frequently announce their ambitions ahead of the 2020 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) carbon dioxide emission target established for this year. For example, Microsoft has declared that it would employ carbon capture and storage to build greener products and lower its carbon footprint despite the difficulties of making the switch from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources.
Although the three areas reported similar decreases in emissions, the United States and Europe are substantially ahead of China on the route to reducing NOx emissions. It is possible that China might accomplish quick emission reductions with strong efforts despite its greater pre-epidemic emissions. However, when it comes to emissions, the United States comes out on top, with the lowest levels. Although the reductions are tiny, they nonetheless have a big impact. The greatest course of action for the earth is to reduce CO2 emissions as quickly as possible in the first half of 2020.
Zero-carbon technology and systems are the only way to achieve full decarbonization. However, there are several more elements that drive technological change. In addition, despite the rising benefits of carbon-intensive technology, civilizations frequently become enslaved to them. Economic and policy divergences aren't always to blame for this kind of shackling. Another factor that might compound the difficulty of technology transition is that fossil fuel returns are growing. As a result, if new technologies are not created quickly enough, they may be at a disadvantage.
Michael E. Kirst revealed that, interesting to see if the CCU system is able to absorb and store CO2. For example, CCU systems can sequester and store collected CO2 in a long-term storage facility employing biogenic point sources or direct air capture. There must be a limit on the quantity of CO2 that may be created. A carbon-neutral technology is one that meets all of these criteria.
Chemical composition and the product's life cycle are the same regardless of how much CO2 is released by a certain CCU product. In terms of climate change, it doesn't matter how much carbon is stored outside of the plant gate. Because of this, the decision-making tree should be limited to answering no more than three queries. However, these aren't the only concerns that need to be addressed. This problem can be solved in different ways.
An attempt was made in 2018 by Zimmerman et al. to increase the openness and comparability of CCU technologies by publishing the first guideline for the Life Cycle Assessment of CCU technologies. In addition, it provides advice on how to avoid common traps in CCU research. The standardization of LCA approach for CCU technology has begun with the publication of this guideline. A life cycle evaluation approach for CCU technology is also included in this document. To get the intended outcomes, a lot of elements must be taken into account.
Michael E. Kirst's opinion, the effectiveness of the EU ETS is one of the most pressing issues. The ETS's effect on energy efficiency and carbon emissions has been extensively studied in a variety of academic journals and reports. EU ETS impacts have even been compared to those of a hypothetical situation in which it has no effect. According to some research, the EU ETS is unlikely to cut emissions considerably in the near future. Carbon price, on the other hand, has a negligible influence on emissions. And there is little indication that the ETS has an impact on the investment decisions of corporations.
Many of the world's wealthiest people are still supporting efforts to combat climate change, despite this. Big climate promises have been made by Elon Musk and Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos; Bezos has pledged to lower the company's carbon footprint by billions of dollars. Both Elon Musk and Bill Gates are well-versed on climate change and have penned books on the subject. When Tesla CEO Elon Musk spoke out about climate change, he spurred a number of other automakers to follow suit. Warren Buffett, on the other hand, is a steadfast opponent of Berkshire Hathaway's climate risk disclosure policy.