20

• COLUMN @ green | January-February . 2025

Country reinforces its CEI reduction commitment to an unconditional target of 45 per cent reduction by 2030

The first positive Malaysian commitment on this issue was made at the COP ( Conference of Parties ) 15 in Copenhagen in 2009 to reduce its “ carbon emission intensity ( CEI )” by 40 per cent against its 2005 level by 2020 .

I happened to attend a MENGO ( Malaysian Environmental Non- Government Organisations ) organised event at University Malaya after COP15 , where I learned a curious fact .

A member of the national negotiating team at COP15 , a key speaker at the event , mentioned that the commitment did not really impose any financial burden on Malaysia to make serious efforts to rein in the intensity of carbon emissions .

This was simply because the Malaysian economic development forecast showed its GDP ( Gross Domestic Product ) growth rate to exceed its rate of carbon emissions increase , with the result that the intensity ratio would automatically decrease .

In addition , national energy-related initiatives in place then , such as the promotion of various EE ( Energy Efficiency ) initiatives and the promotion of diverse RE ( Renewable Energy ) projects , would actually accelerate the CEI reduction .

Thus , the Malaysian commitment at COP16 was not just an “ empty or frivolous ” commitment but was backed by a genuine intent to contribute to global efforts to challenge the threat of climate variability .

Subsequent annual COPs attempted to reinforce the global initiatives to fight the growing intensity of the climate variability threat , which included escalating inclement weather phenomena . However , such efforts have apparently been inadequate . Consequently , the global temperature rise has actually exceeded the 1.5 ° C target in 2024 on some occasions .

DILIGENTLY DELIVERED

The next COP of any consequence was COP 21 in Paris in 2015 , which achieved the consensus of 196 nations and

LAL ‘ S CHAT

BY G . LALCHAND

territories to the Paris Agreement to hold “ the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 ° C above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 ° C above pre-industrial levels .” by the end of the 21st century .

Unfortunately , the pledged commitments since then have apparently not been diligently delivered , and the more recent COPs have recognised the need even to triple the investment in efforts to decarbonise the electricitygenerating industry and transportation energy use .

Hence , there is a drive for the exponential increase in the development of RE sources for electricity generation , such as wind and solar energy and in the electrification of road transport with widespread ( especially in China ) expansion of electric vehicles ( EVs ).

Where does Malaysia stand in this global challenge to realise the Paris Agreement aspirations ?

Malaysia reinforced its CEI reduction commitment to an unconditional target of 45 per cent reduction by 2030 , from its previous target of 40 per cent by 2020 . For the record , an ASM ( Akademi Sains Malaysia ) Paper ( Carbon Free Energy by 2050 ) presented in 2015 reported that “ As of 2013 , Malaysia has reduced GHGs emission by 432,000 tCO2eq , and this accounted for a reduction of carbon intensity of 33 per cent .”.

In effect , this meant a commitment to reduce the CEI by 12 per cent over 17 years when it had already been reduced by 33 per cent in four years . Hence , this “ enhanced target ” certainly could not be considered challenging and not something to be proud of .

Yet Malaysia appears to be proud of pronouncing its commitment to reduce its CEI as a significant contribution to the global efforts against climate variability . Malaysia ’ s First Update of its Nationally Determined Contribution ( NDC ) includes a commitment as below : -

Malaysia intends to reduce its economy-wide carbon intensity1 ( against GDP ) by 45 per cent in 2030 compared to the 2005 level . The updated NDC includes the following increased ambition :

The 45 per cent reduction in carbon intensity is unconditional .

This target is an increase of 10 % from the earlier submission .

AMBITIOUS ACHIEVEMENTS

More critically , the question to answer is : Is carbon emission intensity a suitable metric to judge the journey to realise the national aspirations to achieve NZE ( Net Zero Emissions ) by 2050 ? NZE requires a reduction in absolute carbon emissions , not just CEI ( Carbon Emission Intensity ) or even per capita emission reduction .

So , what is the status of Malaysia ’ s CEI and carbon emission trends over the period from COP15 in 2009 and , subsequently , the Paris Agreement at COP 21 in 2015 ?

Achieving NZE by 2050 can only be realised by reducing total emissions ( not even per capita emissions ) and certainly not just by lowering the CEI .

For the record , China had committed to “ reach its peak emissions by 2028 , or at least by 2030 ”. Similarly , Singapore has committed to limit its peak emissions to 60 million CO2eq .

Even Malaysia ’ s NETR ( National Energy Transition Roadmap ) aspiration to have the share of RE to form 70 per cent of its energy generation mix by 2050 goes nowhere near getting Malaysia to its goal of NZE 2050 .

This is even more remote as the NETR also promotes the sale of its REgenerated electricity to its neighbours . Thus , even the electricity supply system may not be a “ carbon neutral ” system by 2050 , while transport and industrial energy consumption are likely to remain significantly reliant on fossil fuels .

What does Malaysia need to do to substantiate its desire to contribute its share of emission reductions to achieve the Paris Agreement obligations ?

First and foremost , Malaysia must stop any pronouncements about reducing its Carbon Emission Intensity by 45 per cent by 2030 . Instead , it must develop pragmatic strategies and mechanisms to reduce the actual emissions and , if possible , set a target year for its peak emissions ( or total maximum emissions as Singapore has done ).

Can and will Malaysia revise its pronouncements on the national mechanisms it needs to formulate to achieve its NZE 2050 goals ?

I certainly hope so , as I believe that we have the technical capability to do so . This belief applies even in the apparently unrealistic roadmaps and strategies that have seen the light of day in the recent past .

The unrealistic roadmaps and strategies mentioned above include proposals for the large scale and early development of Green Hydrogen ( not expected to be economically viable before 2030 ), the ( at least in my opinion ) undue haste to embark on BESS ( Battery Energy Storage Systems ) and the somewhat speculative attempts to harness OTEC ( Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion ) which has apparently been grossly misunderstood . – @ green