The Paris Agreement’s long-term goal of keeping global warming below 2 degrees Celsius is a huge challenge. We need to vastly lower the greenhouse gas emissions and the carbon dioxide (CO2) produced by the most energy-intensive industries, as soon as possible.
As per a new study, the cement, steel, iron, and chemicals industries, are responsible for approximately 20 % of worldwide CO2 emissions. Reducing these emissions is essential, and we need a plan to stick with it.
Here is what you need to know.
Industries Are Shaping Earth’s Future
According to a new study led by the International Energy Agency, industries are currently triggering the worst-case scenario.
Only the cement industry, for instance, released approximately half of the emissions due to the decomposition of limestone into CO2 and lime. And that’s not all.
Study insights
A major change to 0 carbon energy sources such as wind-powered or solar electricity could significantly reduce CO2 emissions in the power area, and there’s still a catch. The reason?
Apparently, there are no easy substitutes for emissions-intensive industrial activities.
So, the team used an improved variant of the MIT Economic Projection and Policy Analysis (EPPA) model that shows various industrial CSS tech options. Then, it evaluated the long-term environmental, and economic effects of CCS deployment based on a climate policy pointed at topping the growth in average global surface temperature at 2 degrees Celsius over the preindustrial levels.
The results are genuinely intriguing.
Findings
The results showed that the worldwide costs of adopting the 2 degrees Celsius policy are more than 12 % in 2075 and 71 % in 2100.
The researchers stated that industrial CCS triggers a permanent rise in the production and consumption of energy-intensive goods.
“As the technology advances, our modelling approach offers decision-makers a pathway for projecting the deployment of industrial CCS across industries and regions,” explained Sergey Paltsev, the lead author of the study.
The researchers also explained that any changes would not happen without substantial, ongoing funding.
