San Miguel

The Realities of Net Zero Emissions

Written by Julia San Miguel

In early November, the world watched Glasgow as the United Nations held their 26th Climate Conference, more commonly referred to as COP26. Nearly two hundred parties met to discuss and debate climate policy as climate scientists have become increasingly aware of the potential devastating effects of climate change. Above all, one oft-repeated phrase has stood out in discussions of future environmental policy –“net zero emissions. ”

The Paris Agreement of 2015 outlined the urgency of ensuring that warming of the planet stays “well below 2°C” of pre-industrial levels. The agreement, however, does not outline exactly how each participating party should do this; instead, it is up to the countries themselves to determine how best to prevent catastrophic warming. As of 2021, eighty-one countries have pledged to have “net zero” carbon emissions by 2050, the midpoint of the century. On the surface, this is a sound idea, as the absence of new carbon emissions would prevent further warming of the planet. However, the reality of net zero emissions is not so simple.

Net zero is not the same as no emissions at all. The theory behind net zero emissions takes the form of “carbon in, carbon out. ” Carbon emissions can continue well into the future, so long as they are offset by some form of carbon capture. Examples of carbon capture can include natural methods, like the rejuvenation and expansion of forests that trap carbon to prevent it from escaping into the atmosphere. The issue with net zero emissions lies in the reliance of unnatural, human-invented methods to prevent greenhouse gases from polluting the atmosphere, known as “carbon capture technology. ” Many of these technologies have not been invented yet, and are not a sound nor reliable way to remove carbon at the same rate as it is produced.

The issue with relying too heavily on future scientific advancements to provide global relief from climate change is that this way of thinking does not require policymakers to act urgently now.

As of today, there is still no reliable method of scientifically storing carbon on Earth without letting it escape into the atmosphere. Various projects over the years have been deemed infeasible due to their high resource use, requirements of cultivated land, and/or simply being unable to remove carbon on as large of a scale as is needed considering expected future fossil fuel use.

Greta Thunberg, famous Swedish climate activist, has been a loud skeptic of net zero emissions, calling agreements that rely heavily on them “empty” , “vague” , and “loopholes” . She urges the importance of moving away from fossil fuels altogether and embracing renewable energy, which technology currently does exist for, to significantly curb global emissions and prevent further warming of the planet. She’s not alone; climate scientists have expressed an increasing worry in the growing popularity of net zero emissions as an answer to climate issues in major environmental policy.

John Kerry, the Special Climate Envoy for the U.S., has admitted himself that half of all future emissions will come from future technologies. Many of these future technologies, to reiterate, have not yet been invented; this means future climate breakthroughs are not ready yet, when the effects of climate change are felt now.

The simple truth is that the sooner emissions are cut, the better off the world will be. Relying on future net zero targets gives policymakers the easy way out, where 2050 can be thought of as a far-off year that requires no significant action be taken now. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way. Without strict enforcement of climate policies that require decisive action, emissions continue to rise at a rate that outpaces renewable energy use year after year. Unless this changes, future technologies will be up to the daunting task of offsetting the many gigatons of

carbon released into the atmosphere each year with a very quick turnaround. This would be a truly monumental task, and cannot be the only thing between current emission trends and the carrying out of the Paris Agreement’s goal of keeping warming well below 2° Celsius.

World leaders are in a unique position where the decisions they make and enforce regarding climate now will have an irreversible effect on the world’s future generations, good or bad. Some decisions, like choosing to expand the renewable energy sector rapidly, will have quicker and better outcomes for the planet in a long term setting compared to waiting for net zero technologies to develop. The world is not on pace to meet climate goals on its current trajectory. Current plans see the world warming an additional 2.5° C by the end of the century. As attractive as net zero targets are on the surface, they are ultimately a monumental gamble on something as precarious as the future of our planet.