The (in-)transparency of negative emissions: Rendering visible how countries aim to realize aspirational Net-Zero emission targets

The recent flurry of mid-century net-zero emissions targets across the globe represents a shift from a decade ago when discussions were focused on emissions in 2100. This momentum provides the impression of increased ambition; however, it is problematic. The very goal net-zero targets seek to achieve runs the risk of lowering ambition and action in the short-term. Observers have criticized that the 2050 targets distract from short-term climate action, and that the apparent increase in ambition relies on large amounts of speculative negative emissions technologies. To avoid a situation in which countries make promises that they cannot deliver, it is important to better understand the relationship between long-term and short-term climate commitments. This paper provides an overview of challenges identified in preliminary assessments of first round net-zero targets, examines concerns posed by the lack of concrete plans to achieve these targets, and interrogates the assumption that this momentum necessarily entails greater action. The paper studies the relationship between long and short-term commitments in the case of the G20 countries. It compares the content of the climate commitments that these countries have made for 2050 with 2030, and with policies that they have implemented to kick-start economic recovery following the Covid19 pandemic. It then compares the institutional settings and mechanisms in which governments are held accountable for the various commitments. The paper highlights substantial discrepancies between the long-term climate commitments, short-term Covid19 recovery policies, and nationally determined contributions of G20 countries. They have largely missed the window of opportunity for a so-called green recovery in the post-COVID period. This disconnect between post-Covid stimulus and what is needed for critical climate action does not bode well for meeting 2030 targets. Second, the paper examines discrepancies between short and long-term targets with regard to negative emissions technologies. Global projections rely on extensive deployment of these technologies to achieve the ambitious 1.5 target, which may increase the potential for mitigation deterrence. Scenarios focused on using these technologies may disincentivize the urgency of meeting 2030 goals while providing highly uncertain predictions. The paper also shows how differences in the ambition of long-term, mid-term and short-term climate targets are subject to very different mechanisms of accountability. The further into the future a target is, the less transparent countries need to be about how they will achieve it. There exists no formal link between long-term and short-term goals considered in UNFCCC transparency agreements, without which countries can be expected to commit to more conservative short-term goals while planning for long-term visionary and aspirational strategies. The paper contributes an important analysis of the institutional settings that shape long-term and short-term climate policies and highlights the need for accountability mechanisms that scrutinize the compatibility of long-term, mid-term and short-term climate targets and policies.