IEA’s Net Zero by 2050

This is the real deal – a comprehensive vision for net zero. It is 1.5-degree aligned, and it’s based on mostly reasonable assumptions compared to scenarios analysed by the IPCC, and does not gamble our future on risky technologies. The IEA shows us not only that it is achievable, but also that it’s desirable, boosting jobs and growth. They have pledged to include the net zero scenario in future work. The IEA says it’s a pathway, not the pathway. The IEA is also working to make sure this is the must-read document in the build-up to COP26: their “Summary for Policymakers” shows this is not just a modelling exercise, but a call to action.

The IEA shows that at the heart of this is a one-off 15-20-year spending spree to convert the world to 100% clean electricity. Half of the CO2 cuts this decade are from the power sector; and the power sector collapses from the biggest-emitting sector in 2020, to the only zero-emissions sector in 2040. The IEA shows investment in electricity generation will need to rise to $1.6 trillion per year by 2030 – double what the world spent on all fossil investment last decade. They say “as the electricity sector becomes cleaner, electrification emerges as a crucial economy-wide tool for reducing emissions”. The IEA recommends governments set dates to get to 100% clean power: 2035 for OECD countries, and 2040 for the rest of the world. Finally, the IEA shows inefficient coal power plants need to close by 2030. Of the new clean electricity generation from now to 2040, an impressive 75% is from solar and wind alone. However, the IEA lags compared to other models, in that it relies less on electrification in the longer term and relies more on CCS and bioenergy. Despite this, IEA scenarios in the report show that wind and solar could form an even higher proportion of overall energy consumption, at the expense of CCS and bioenergy, if wind and solar become even cheaper and ubiquitous than they model.

The IEA shows it needs everyone to make this happen. They highlight “the transition is for and about the people”. A lot of government policies are needed, say the IEA, so public support is paramount. Also the public are asked to make smart consumer choices; change in behaviour is less important in the way IEA have modelled emissions (the IEA estimates the “consumer choices” will contribute 55% of emissions reductions, compared to 4% for “behavioural changes”, although they highlight behaviour changes as a key uncertainty). By definition of it being a global study, it relies on every country doing its part. It needs international cooperation; the IEA mentions international assistance for developing countries. It will create net new jobs, but some jobs will cease to exist, so policies must be “people-centred” and “just”. It will also require huge amounts of human brainpower to spur innovation; 80% of the CO2 cuts this decade are from “technologies in the market”, but over half of CO2 cuts after 2030 are from “technologies under development”.

The IEA boldly states “there is no need for investment in new fossil fuel supply in our net zero”. It carries on: “Beyond projects already committed as of 2021, there are no new oil and gas fields approved for development in our pathway, and no new coal mines or mine extensions are required”. This is new, because by 2050 it assumes less fossil use than most IPCC scenarios. The IEA stops short of recommending to stop new fossil investment, or to saying that new fossil investment would undermine clean investment.