Professor Dave Reay Archives

In this video, our Policy Director, Professor Dave Reay, gives context about why it is important to tackle methane emissions and what might be discussed at COP28 with regard to outcomes and actions in relation to the gas.

Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, second only to carbon dioxide for the warming it has caused, contributing both to global warming and poor air quality, and subsequently impacting human health.

There are several challenges to reduce its emissions though, as explained by Professor Reay in the video.

In this video, Professor Dave Reay talks about what he expects from COP28 with regard to commitments from countries around the world that may keep the hope of limiting warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. This would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change, as stated in the Paris Agreement.

Professor Reay considers this to be the most important COP since Paris because it is the first global stocktake on what nations need to do to reach the Paris climate goals.

He speaks about the goals countries should be aiming for:

Tripling renewable energy capacity
Doubling the rate of energy efficiency improvements
A substantive loss and damage fund
A global methane pledge

COP26 and warming below 1.5C

The outcomes from COP26 in Glasgow included some good commitments, for instance with regard to tackling deforestation and reducing methane emissions. For COP27, the world is looking for increased ambition, particularly cutting emissions, but also commitment from all nations on adapting to climate change.

Attention is focused on preventing global average temperatures from increasing 2C or more during this century, with the ambition of keeping warming below 1.5C to avoid extra negative impacts. These goals are part of the Paris Agreement, an international treaty signed at COP21 in Paris.

The level of ambition at COP26 didn’t meet that 1.5C goal. The agreement that came out of COP26, called the Glasgow Climate Pact, was partly focused on achieving more ambitious pledges in the run up to COP27.

The pact called for all nations to define how they are going to tackle climate change in updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), with a deadline of 23 September 2022.

That was a key part of keeping the pressure on and getting us closer to the Paris climate goals. However with the current pledges warming will still be between 2C and 3C globally.

Updated pledges

Since COP26, the war in Ukraine, the cost of living and energy, and the food crisis have undoubtedly affected the level of attention and therefore the ambition of pledges on climate change.

Only a handful of countries out of the nearly 200 who are parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change have updated or produced new pledges on climate.

For instance, we’ve seen increased ambition from Australia and new or updated commitments from South Korea and Indonesia. We’ve seen updates from Brazil, which seem to equate to less action than they were previously taking. Likewise Egypt have updated their commitments, but they don’t seem to correspond to increased action with regard to reducing emissions.

A fair transition for workers

COP27 for Scotland, like previous COPs, undoubtedly will be about enhancing bilateral partnerships, particularly with Middle Eastern and African nations around addressing climate change both through adaptation and mitigation, and how this is delivered while supporting people that will be affected by new measures.

A long-term, ambitious collaboration known as the Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) was launched at COP26 to support South Africa’s decarbonisation and the transitioning of its economy towards renewable energy sources.

The partnership involves the UK, US and the EU working with South Africa to develop long-lasting terms of that transition away from industries with high emissions such as fossil fuel industries, while ensuring that livelihoods and the workforce are supported in that transition.

There are strong analogies with the oil and gas sector here in Scotland as well as many nations around the world.

I believe just transition will be a strong narrative for COP27 and hopefully a really positive outcome in terms of how that model can be expanded to other nations. For instance, Indonesia is very interested in the route towards delivering a fair transition to net-zero emissions and to climate resilience.

Compensation for loss and damage

Loss and damage is the negative impact climate change will have, even after mitigation measures, such as cutting emissions and adapting to higher sea levels and extreme temperatures.

We are already seeing it around the world, so it will be a key part of the COP27 negotiations. Particularly it is important to agree on a financial mechanism to recompense for loss and damage.

Scotland has been closely involved in those discussions and was quite overt at COP26 about the need for more action related to loss and damage.

Warming above 2C

While it is key that pledges by countries around the world help reach the 1.5C target, it is important to recognise that we need to prepare for warming potentially above 2C in terms of global average temperatures.

That adaptation agenda for Scotland, like every nation, is going to be key, including assessing whether we are ready for warming above 2C and if this is embedded in our planning and investment to deliver climate resilience.

Sharing experiences

Some of the solutions for tackling climate change domestically come from learning from other nations. A big aspect for us in Scotland at COP27 is going to be building on our own experiences and sharing good practice.

Scotland has been testing climate change targets across different sectors, but also has faced and faces a lot of challenges in terms of realising those targets. So there is value in sharing good practice, but also lessons learned from facing those barriers.

If COP27 builds a platform for increased ambition in 2023 and progresses discussions on issues such as loss and damage, that will be a positive outcome.

Was COP26 in Glasgow a success?

After over-time negotiations the Glasgow Climate Pact was agreed on Saturday 13 November. But can the outcome of the two-week gathering be hailed as a success? Our directors Prof Dave Reay and Prof Pete Smith offer their take-aways from the talks, concluding that the assessment really depends which parts of the agreement – or not – you focus on.

Welcome agreements

COP26 saw notable successes in terms of agreement on the ‘rule book’ that underpins the Paris Agreement. Through the so-called ‘Paris Rule Book’, covering issues such as the transparency and consistency of reporting, common time frames and, crucially, carbon trading, COP26 delivered some major successes. For all the justified chagrin that mitigation commitments by individual nations still don’t equate to sufficient global action, having a robust ‘Paris Rule Book’ that actually allows assessment of success (and failure) down to national and sub-national scales is crucial. Agreement on transparency, such as how and when emissions, finance and adaptation actions in each country are reported, was therefore a major win for the Glasgow COP – as ever, ‘You can’t manage what you don’t measure’.

Likewise, agreement on how emissions reductions can be traded at national and sub-national levels was a big step forward in terms of opening up financial flows for projects, and (mostly) dealing with gaping double-counting loopholes. These loopholes, such as selling credits to someone else while still claiming the same reductions yourself, could have badly undermined many of the commitments made before and during COP26.

Other notable steps forward included the pledge by more than 100 national leaders to stop deforestation and begin restoring the world’s forests by 2030, and the Global Methane Pledge which aims to limit methane emissions by 30% compared with 2020 levels.

That India has set a net zero by 2070 and the agreement to support South Africa to transition away from coal are both very welcome developments. The latter may be expanded to other developing countries shortly. There is also the new US-China cooperation on climate change which in the next few years may help deliver important short term actions.

The Glasgow Climate Pact

The Glasgow Climate Pact – the final cover text for COP26 – was itself a step forward in terms of areas such as:

ramped up finance for adaptation, a push for increased national commitments in 2022;
agreement that countries must come back every year with updates on their ambition;
overt acknowledgement (though no mechanism to address it) of the ‘loss & damage’ already occurring, and which will occur in the future; and
the widely reported ‘phase down’ of coal.

The emphasis on ‘just transition’ is to be found several times in the COP26 outcomes and was brought into a stark light by the commitment of the US and others to support the transition away from coal in South Africa. Internationally, safeguarding against negative impacts arising from the Paris Climate Goals – such as risks to livelihoods in high carbon industries – will become an ever-more pressing issue.

Addressing this globally, through so-called ‘Response Measures’ like international finance, is important, but even more important is the domestic response and the embedding of just transition principles into national targets and actions. Ultimately, it is a make-or-break issue for the sustainability of national and sub-national efforts on climate change, and is therefore fundamental to the Paris Climate Goals as a whole.

Nowhere near enough

However, the progress made was nowhere near enough, and ultimately COP26 fell well short of delivering the national commitments that would together limit warming globally to 1.5°C.

It is inexcusable that the $100 billion per year promised by rich nations to poorer countries in 2009 has not yet been delivered, and will not be until 2023.

Likewise, while it is good news that China has a target of net zero by 2060, it is disappointing that the country didn’t announce any new ambition at COP26.

Australia’s ambition on climate action, meanwhile, is simply woeful.

Delivering in Scotland

Closer to home we see the same picture of notable successes and significant shortcomings:

The launch of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance (led by Denmark and Costa Rica) is a big step forward, but it is disappointing that neither Scotland nor the UK have signed up. We have to stop burning fossil fuels as quickly as possible. Global governments subsidising fossil fuel production and consumption to the tune of $420 billion per year makes absolutely no sense, and firmly moves us in the wrong directly. Scotland, and other oil producers, should be investing in ensuring a just transition away for oil and gas – providing new opportunities and retraining of workers in the industry to enable them to contribute to the net-zero transition.

However, it is worth celebrating that Scotland is ahead of the global curve when it comes to grappling with exactly this challenge of a just transition.

For Scotland, like all nations, the full implications of COP26 will play out in the coming months and years. Our domestic climate targets, actions and progress continue to receive a huge amount of attention from other countries, states, cities and institutions – sharing our successes, as well as our failures, in the transition to net zero represents a vital leadership role for Scotland internationally.

So, was COP26 in Glasgow a success? Yes, if you regard a major steps forward on a basket of key climate issues as success. However, if you were looking for the giant leap forward required to limit warming to 1.5°C, then it has to be a resounding no.

Watch Dave Reay’s evidence to the Scottish Parliament on COP26 outcomes

Green Recovery is a term used by many governments, including the Scottish Government, to describe the organising principle in effectively responding to the challenges from the Covid-19 crisis – impacting across society and the economy in addition to the immediate health threat.

In June 2020 the Scottish Parliament’s Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee called for views on the principles that should underpin a green recovery, including key actions for change, immediate priorities, potential barriers to implementation and the governance arrangements needed to deliver this.

The call and the following evidence session took the Committee on Climate Change’s advice to the Scottish Government as its starting point.

This blog sets out the key points from CXC policy director Professor Dave Reay’s response to the Committee – submitted as written evidence and as oral evidence.

If we, and the world, fail to realise a green recovery the future impacts of climate change will unravel any apparent short-term economic progress.

In their advice to the Scottish Government the CCC set out a framework for an effective green recovery in Scotland. As guiding principles they are excellent. To provide a comprehensive framework, however, they would need to be applied at a more granular level, taking into account regional and sectoral differences and needs.

Barriers to overcome

A significant barrier to realising a green recovery may well arise from poor balancing of short term demands with longer term risks. Climate change has not gone away, but with a deep recession, job cuts, and widening inequalities and social divides the pressure for short term responses that ignore longer term sustainability and risks is magnified. This balancing is a fiendishly difficult call to make. Hence use of the best available evidence, learning from the mistakes of 2008, and overt alignment of responses and policies with the principles of a green recovery (incl. ensuring a ‘just recovery’), our climate change commitments and the need to give lasting resilience to the economy, livelihoods and wellbeing is required.

Finance will inevitably be a major barrier to delivering any sort of recovery, green or otherwise. As had been shown already, a truly green recovery actually gives the best return on investment (e.g. investment in renewable energy, energy efficiency in buildings and decarbonisation of heat). So, a significant barrier will be the level of recognition of this by government and the private sector – if we repeat the mistakes of 2008 and simply invest with a view to a return to business as usual we will waste money and any ‘recovery’ will not be a sustainable one.

Another key barrier related to the above is the workforce capacity, or lack thereof, to deliver the above. The transition to net zero already required major changes in sectors such as energy, transport, built environment and agriculture. These changes are now much more pressing, with many thousands of jobs and livelihoods a risk, and young people in particular facing many years of reduced opportunity and employment. Aligning skills, training and job creation with a green recovery is therefore vital in terms of buffering the impacts of Covid AND keeping Scotland on track to deliver on its climate change targets. With COP 26 next year we have an opportunity to demonstrate to the world how this alignment can be achieved

Policies, actions and priorities

The agriculture and land use sectors have a leading role in helping to deliver a sustainable net zero Scotland, through, for instance, a large increase in woodland creation, peatland restoration, and on-farm emissions reductions[1].

‘Net zero’ is simply impossible without both agriculture and land use seeing a rapid and sustained change in support and activities[2].

The continued commitment to the Agricultural Transformational Fund in the Programme for Government is welcome, but it is still confined to capital spend, and so not addressing the widening skills and training gap in the sector that must be addressed head on. This includes enhancing the capacity of advisory services to give the support required under any new support regime, refocussed training priorities and increased opportunities/sector attractiveness for new entrants, and overt integration of upskilling and training for existing land users into any new support regime.

The Programme For Government also has positive commitments on tree-planting targets and how to increase those. It’s taking a systems view from nurseries and tree-planting to the timber industry. But there is a lack of detail on e.g. post-CAP pilots and how they might align with net zero and a green recovery.

Brexit means action in the land use and agriculture sectors was already very urgent, and Covid has piled on a lot of additional pressure (e.g. through disrupted food supply chains, workforce availability, and unpredictable demand). For agriculture the immediate priority is to move quickly to confirm the post-CAP regime (see below), complete required pilots, and give assurance to farmers and land users on timelines, structures and support elements (e.g. levels of basic payment, tapering, compliance needs [esp. climate change action], and how different [or not] the future support scheme will be to that in England [e.g. ELMs]). We should have a contingency plan in place for a ‘no deal’ Brexit as part of this, ensuring that any short-term shocks are minimised and that they do not derail the wider transition to a new support regime for agriculture in Scotland.

Three wishes for a Green Recovery across land use and agriculture

We really have no time to lose so here are my three wishes for policy:

Integrate the policies: We should have a comprehensive ‘Land Use Bill’, overcoming the current division of agriculture and land use into separate sectors, reflecting reality, and capitalising on synergies and working across the scale and speed needed in the transition process to a post-CAP regime for agriculture, and how this integrates with all land use in Scotland.
In this approach we need to also integrate with other key developments, such as the updated Land Use Strategy, National Planning Framework 4 and the Forestry Strategy, lay down time lines for regional pilots, data collection and reporting, and the staged implementation of new support, governance and reporting systems in all regions of Scotland.
Third is capacity building and change of mindset. Do the land managers have the mindset to implement changes and ensure return on investment for the public? What kind of advice is given around net zero and green recovery? These needs are of course shaped by what the post-CAP future of agriculture and land use in Scotland actually turn out to be. However, we already know enough of what is required to map gaps in provision, identify bottlenecks in terms of capacity, and so take action.

[1] ClimateXChange has delivered a number of reports assessing the options in agriculture, forestry and land use policy, see https://www.climatexchange.org.uk/policy/challenges/land-use/

[2] Read more about ‘net zero and how Scotland’s emissions are reducing towards it in this blog and the principles of net zero here

This article was first published in The Geographer – The newsletter of the Royal Scottish Geographical Society, (Spring 2020 issue, p 27).

‘Net Zero’ is a term that is seemingly everywhere at the moment. In its essence it describes a future where we do everything possible to cut greenhouse gas emissions but still have some emissions that are unavoidable – such as from food production – and so then have to soak up these residual emissions to reach a balance of our ongoing inputs to the atmosphere and what we drawdown from it.

Net zero has become a hugely important term in discussions on climate action, from individual organisations, through cities and states, right up to the global scale. Inevitably though, it has its complications.

In Scotland we have a net zero target of 2045, with the UK-wide target being 2050. Both refer to net zero greenhouse gas emissions (Net Zero GHG), so include methane, nitrous oxide and other powerful greenhouse gases, as well as carbon dioxide (CO₂). Globally the push is also for ‘net zero’ by the middle of the century, but here the 2050 focus is on ‘Net Zero CO₂’ rather than hitting the net zero balance for all greenhouse gases.

Worldwide, net zero CO₂ by the middle of the century gives us an evens chance of hitting the Paris Climate Goals and so avoiding more than a 1.5 degree increase in global average temperatures (we’re already at > 1 degree of heating compared to the pre-industrial baseline). As most developing countries have less ability to cut emissions as rapidly as developed nations, it follows that developed nations like Scotland and the UK should go beyond net zero CO₂ by 2050 and either achieve this target much earlier and/or deliver net zero for all GHGs by this date. For the global emissions account such concerted early action by developed nations could then provide the development headspace needed in the rest of the world. All nations would still have to hit net zero GHGs in the second half of the century to keep that 50:50 chance of achieving the Paris Climate Goals alive.

The Net Zero approach is certainly not without its critics. Some have called for gross or absolute zero, where all greenhouse gas emissions, everywhere, are stopped. This is theoretically possible for some activities and maybe even whole sectors – renewable power generation coupled with effective storage and multinational distribution networks could get the carbon intensity of UK electricity down to near zero for instance. However, there’s no way (yet) to achieve this complete zero emissions transition in other important areas, such as food production or long-haul aviation.

These so-called ‘unavoidable’ or ‘residual’ emissions are real and must be balanced by enhanced drawdown, but they open the door to a whole load of familiar protectionist ruses.

Both the UK Climate Change Act in 2008 and Climate Change (Scotland) Act in 2009 set a target of an 80% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 compared to 1990. Here, the 20% residual was intended to cover the really hard or impossible-to-mitigate sources (due to extremely high costs, social and technological barriers for instance). Naturally, every sector quickly identified areas of its own that should be included in this 20% allowance – it represented a nice buffer that allowed Business-As-Usual practices to continue based on everyone’s assumption that they were a special case.

In theory the new Climate Change Acts and their net zero targets mean that comforting emissions buffer has gone, but now of course there’s the real danger that the ‘net’ in Net Zero becomes another magic carpet under which to sweep weak mitigation actions and entirely avoidable ‘unavoidable emissions’.

For the 2050s and beyond it is hoped that emerging technologies like ‘Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage’ (DACCS) – where CO₂ is chemically trapped from the air, concentrated, and piped to geological stores – will increasingly provide the balance to unavoidable emissions. In the mean time the focus is firmly on trees, and a rapid expansion in woodland cover in the coming decades.

Tree planting (as well as soil carbon enhancement, peatland restoration and other so-called ‘Nature-based Solutions’) certainly have an important part to play in achieving net zero in Scotland and the UK. Yet our finite land surface is already asked to meet a swathe of demands, not least providing the food we need. The danger is that we assume land use gives us a handy ‘Get Out of Jail Free’ card when it comes to making far-reaching cuts in our own emissions. It doesn’t.

The truth behind net zero is that we have to do everything possible. It is not ‘decarbonise the power sector OR reduce aviation emissions’. It is not ‘revolutionise home heating OR plant trees’. It is ‘AND, AND, AND…’.

By cutting emissions across every sector and activity AND protecting and enhancing natural carbon sinks AND investing in emerging technologies like DACCS we give ourselves and future generations a fighting chance of avoiding the worst impacts of climate change.

The Net Zero narrative is here to stay. Now we need to turn its story into reality.

COP26 is the port in the storm, says CXC Policy Director Professor Dave Reay. The pandemic gives us more time to sure its success.

For 20 years, climate scientist Dave Reay has had a dream for the world to achieve net zero emissions. Now, he tells us why lessons learnt during this global crisis might help us, as nations, communities and individuals, move closer to that goal.

Covid-19 doesn’t respect borders. It doesn’t discriminate. It is exposing the weaknesses in our global food and health systems, and in how we collaborate as countries. It’s also showing us the way to a future where we’re more resilient, and better at working together internationally – valuable lessons we need to learn to address the global climate emergency. Whether we are addressing the pandemic or climate change, if we go down an isolationist route, the impacts are much worse for everyone.

The social distancing we’re being asked to practise has parallels with the behaviour we need to change if we are serious about hitting our net zero emissions targets. We’re doing it for other people. It’s a very altruistic act. For climate change we need to think about how the way we live now can have an impact on the quality of life for future generations. It’s been encouraging to see people listening to and acting upon evidence-based advice.

A thin silver lining to this awful pandemic is the effect these strict conditions we’re experiencing for Covid-19 are having upon emissions and air quality. We’re seeing air quality improve all over the world.

By staying indoors our transport emissions have reduced significantly. From the beginning to the end of March, the amount of traffic on UK roads more than halved and emissions were about 30% down. That means about 3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide weren’t emitted into the atmosphere; it’s the equivalent of taking about a million cars off the road for a year. So, we’re understanding the impact some sectors, like transport, have in terms of emissions, and through the measures we’re taking to address the virus outbreak, we’re seeing how quickly emissions could be cut.

Although I’m desperate to get back to some face-to-face meetings, this experience is teaching me that I can do more virtually. I can have more meetings online, I can spend more time with my family, I can commute less. Once we get through Covid-19, many of us will have learnt about the tools we can use for online working and understood more about the benefits. What we thought of as normal before this pandemic was presenteeism for work or attending international meetings but now the door is open for us to work in a different way.

This new norm for working could not only improve our wellbeing but also help us reduce emissions and help us on that transition to net zero emissions, which is where we have to be globally by the middle of the century.

In the bleak moments, for me COP26 (The United Nations Climate Conference in Glasgow) is the port in the storm. It’s been delayed due to the pandemic but that additional time could make all the difference. It is so important for Scotland, for the UK, but also for the whole world in terms of limiting climate change and delivering on the Paris Climate Goals. We can’t afford it to be a failure and so having the extra time, whether it’s six months or a year, means we really have no excuse for it not to be a success. I’m still really optimistic, probably more optimistic about COP26 in 2021 than I was for this year, just because of the time we’ve now got to make sure it really does hit the spot.

We’re dealing with a terrifying pandemic but the climate crisis hasn’t gone away. Global temperatures will keep on increasing. The seas will keep on rising. Weather events will get more severe. The impacts of these upon natural ecosystems and human populations pose a huge threat long term so, as we battle Covid-19 today, we can’t afford to lose the war on climate change tomorrow.

This article first appeared in Edinburgh Friends.

Prof Dave Reay is Chair in Carbon Management at the University of Edinburgh and Principal Investigator and Director, Policy, of ClimateXChange. Dave is also the incoming Executive Director of the Edinburgh Centre for Carbon Innovation (ECCI). This is his take on the 2020 climate year.

In climate science we often talk about ‘tipping points’: those triggers in the Earth system where, if we push too far, things flip into a whole new state. For most climate change tipping points we are unsure when exactly they might be passed – just how much more we can push the accelerator before things spin out of our control. But there is one fork in the global climate road that is all too stark, a tipping point that is about people rather than science. It’s 2020.

This year is of monumental importance for climate change action. November will see Glasgow play host to COP26 (the 26th ‘Conference of the Parties’) where all nations come together to set out what action they will take to deliver on the Paris Climate Goals. Achieving these goals – to keep global average temperature increase to well below 2 degrees Celsius and pursue efforts to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius – would massively reduce the negative impacts of climate change for centuries to come.

Current global climate commitments fall far short of the Paris goals and so the Glasgow COP – where new commitments through to 2030 will be set – represents a crucial (and likely final) chance to steer the world away from failure in the climate emergency.

Inevitably, the eyes of the world will be on Scotland and the UK in 2020. As developed economies with significant fossil fuel reserves we are grappling with the same urgent questions on how to achieve a sustainable and just transition to net zero emissions that most nations now face.

Scotland in particular has a lot of good progress to point to, having cut greenhouse gas emissions by 47% since 1990 while at the same time seeing its economy grow by more the 50%. Much of this success has come from decarbonising our power sector, with renewables replacing fossil fuels and 2016 marking the end of any coal-based power generation in Scotland.

As a nation we can highlight the huge level of public support for action, the strong engagement of both public and private sector in cutting emissions, and a legally-binding commitment to hit ‘net zero’ greenhouse gas emissions by 2045. There’s a lot of good policy and practice to share, but from now on in it gets really tough. With no more Longannet power stations to close, and emissions in key sectors such as transport, buildings and agriculture needing to fall rapidly, climate action in Scotland is set to get personal for us all.

From the cars we drive and the holidays we take, to the jobs we do and the food we eat, all facets of our lives will be affected in the push for net zero. Our landscape will change as woodland areas expand to sequester those emissions we cannot avoid, such as some of those from food production. New industries will emerge, requiring new skills and training, while major changes in some existing areas of our economy will test the commitment to achieve a ‘just transition’ to net zero to its core.

It’s daunting. But it’s also doable. In Scotland we have the public and political will to not only realise a sustainable net zero future for our nation, but also to help other nations do the same. With the help of ClimateXChange and others, the world-leading expertise in our Universities and research institutions is already combining with government, public and private sector partners to deliver the solutions we need. Whether its implementing large-scale technologies like Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), or understanding human behaviour and local contexts, Scotland has the will and the way to stand in the glare of global scrutiny in 2020 and show the way forward. As tipping points go, this year can be the one that stops all the others in their tracks.

Related links