U.K. puts Canada to shame with bold 2035 climate target

The United Kingdom (U.K.) has just lowered their 2035 climate target to a staggering 81 per cent below their 1990 emissions. 

Canada will set our 2035 target in the next few days. Here’s a chart-filled look at where both nations are today and how close they are to their upcoming targets.

Back in 1990 -- the international starting line for global climate action -- the U.K. was the world’s sixth largest economy. So, it’s not surprising they were one of the world's biggest climate polluters back then -- emitting more than 800 million tonnes of CO2 (MtCO2) per year. Since then, however, they’ve managed to cut their emissions in half while still boasting the world’s sixth largest economy. 

My first chart shows how the U.K.’s emissions have changed since 1990. That plunging blue line indicates that they now emit 53 per cent less than in 1990. 

To provide Canadian readers with some perspective, I’ve included our nation's emissions above as a gray line.

The U.K.’s newly set climate target for 2035 is shown by the green bullseye near the bottom of the chart. The direct path to this target is marked by two arrows. 

The first arrow shows that the U.K. needs to cut another 15 per cent from their 1990 emissions to reach their 2030 target (blue bullseye). Then they need to cut another 13 per cent to hit their 2035 target. 

As the chart shows, this future path is roughly a continuation of what they’ve been doing for the last couple of decades. 

If the British pull it off, they will be tantalizingly close to net-zero --having just 19 per cent of the initial task remaining at that point.

Canada is required to announce our 2035 target by December 1. The Paris Agreement requires increased ambition with each successive target. Canada’s official “Net Zero Advisory Body” (NZAB) recommends a target that's 37 per cent less than our 1990 emissions.

Carbon budgets guide U.K. emissions down

A major reason the U.K. has stayed on track is their use of legally-binding carbon budgets. I've added their carbon budgets onto the chart as yellow boxes. 

The use of carbon budgets was introduced in their landmark Climate Change Act 2008. This law requires a series of five-year carbon budgets. These budgets set the maximum cumulative emissions allowed over those five years. The U.K. just barely met their first budget, which started immediately in the year the act was enacted. Since then, they've done even better, coming in well below budget on the next two. 

Another key feature of this law is the requirement that the government actually enact sufficient climate policies to meet these budgets. These policies must be enacted years in advance to provide time for citizens and businesses to plan for what’s coming. 

Currently, the British government is developing policies to achieve their sixth carbon budget starting in 2033. That’s the shortest yellow box on the chart. It was designed to hit 78 per cent below 1990 in 2035. More will be needed to achieve their new target for that year of 81 per cent below 1990.

The Canadian government does not use carbon budgets. Canada’s “Net Zero Advisory Body” (NZAB) strongly recommends they adopt them. 

Cumulative emissions drive climate change

A major benefit of carbon budgets is that they require a nation to account for all its emissions. That’s critical in the climate fight because the climate crisis is driven by cumulative emissions. 

The CO2 released by burning fossil fuels (oil, gas and coal) is new carbon extracted from geologic storage and added to the Earth’s active carbon cycle. It can take millennia for new fossil CO2 to be removed again from the carbon cycle. As a result, every tonne of fossil CO2 we emit thickens the blanket of greenhouse gases surrounding our planet – increasing global heating, extreme weather, and ocean acidification for countless generations to come. 

So, it would be more accurate and informative if national climate progress and targets included cumulative emissions. 

If you only look at the single years for the U.K., for example, their emissions numbers keep falling. Smaller and smaller numbers can give the mistaken impression that the problem is getting better. In reality, as noted above, any additional emissions make the crisis worse. That's true even if you’ve reduced your annual additions by 81 per cent. In contrast, cumulative emissions numbers keep getting larger, which more accurately reflects reality.

To illustrate what it might look like to include information on cumulative emissions, I’ve added some for the U.K. and Canada to my chart below. 

For example, in 2023 the U.K.’s emissions were 53 per cent lower than in 1990. This single year measurement is the standard way climate progress and targets are described. On this chart I labeled it: Year: -53% of 1990. 

However, the U.K.’s cumulative emissions since 1990 are 27 times what they emitted in that first year. On this chart I’ve included this more accurate measurement of their climate impact as: Total: 27x 1990.

On this chart I’ve also included an example of a carbon budget that covers all six decades from 1990 to 2050. I chose a straight line budget to net-zero in 2050. It’s that big yellow triangle on the chart. The cumulative emissions allowed under this budget total 30 times (30x) a nation's 1990 emissions. 

As you can see, the U.K.’s emissions have closely followed this “straight line to zero” budget so far. Their relatively small overshoot is shown by blue shading. In my book, what the British have done is both impressive and also what I would expect all wealthy nations to do. 

The world’s wealthy, advanced economies have the money, talent, resources and capacity to lead the way. Plus, their super-sized historical emissions make them extra responsible for destabilizing the climate. Canada is one of those wealthy nations. Our cumulative emissions currently total 40 times (40x) our 1990 emissions. Our emissions overshoot from a straight-line-to-zero carbon budget is shown by that ballooning gray area on the chart.

Future targets should also include a carbon budget being pledged, not just the end point. That would be a more accurate accounting of how much future climate damage a nation's climate commitments will cause. 

For example, Canada’s 2030 target works out to 25 per cent below our 1990 emissions in that year. That's shown by a gray bullseye on the chart. But the cumulative emissions Canada emits on the way to meeting that target -- and thus our nation's actual climate impact -- can vary a lot depending on the path taken. I don't show example paths on the chart, but the difference between heading straight to our target now compared to doing it directly from 2015 Paris Agreement is an additional billion tonnes of CO2. An extra billion tonnes of CO2 is a lot -- more than a decade of all emissions from Central America, for example. As a major emitter, we should include a carbon budget in our climate targets to clarify our intentions.

For the upcoming U.K. targets, I’ve indicated what their cumulative emissions will be if they head directly to each of them. For example, their total will rise to 30 times (30x) their 1990 emissions if they hit their new 2035 target. 

Cumulative emission numbers are helpful because they keep rising -- right in step with a nation's climate impact -- until that nation hits net-zero.

At that point, a nation's cumulative total will stand as their climate legacy. 

What will our legacy be, Canada?