Science-based climate targets miss the mark

Science-based targets, often used by companies and countries to guide emission reduction efforts, are criticized for falling short in effectively addressing climate change. These targets, claiming to be rooted in science and aiming to limit warming to 1.5°C, are deemed inadequate as they oversimplify complex scientific findings and fail to consider equity and diverse circumstances. The reliance on generic methodologies derived from global averages, without incorporating social sciences and humanities, leads to inefficiency and inequity in emission reduction efforts. The current approach neglects the nuanced actions required from different actors based on their sector, geography, and capabilities. Furthermore, the narrow and arbitrary rules set by initiatives like the Science-Based Targets initiative restrict the use of offsets and carbon dioxide removal, hindering climate finance and potentially increasing reliance on costly methods like direct air carbon capture and storage. The unequal distribution of emission reduction targets based on global or regional averages disproportionately burdens high-emitting entities, favoring those with higher capacities to act. Embracing a more nuanced and inclusive approach, considering a wider range of actions and inputs from social sciences, is essential to effectively address climate change and meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.