Nearly Zero Emissions Net of Nothing

“Net-zero emissions” has gone wildly off track. It has morphed from a sometimes useful framework for thinking about climate issues into a slogan that serves mainly to allow rich countries and companies to pay to continue spewing out greenhouse gases (GHG) — with money that is frequently not really used to reduce emissions somewhere else. “Nearly zero emissions” is what we should focus on at this stage, net of nothing. Speed in slashing GHG emissions is critical. That means going after the plentiful low-hanging fruit: energy efficiency, solar and wind power generation, and electric vehicles (EVs). The “hard” fixes can come later.

“Net-zero by 2050” is a slogan many have latched onto because it sounds nice but binds nobody to anything. Over and over again it is cited as the target humanity must hit in order to keep global average temperatures from rising by more than 1.5°. In fact, nothing about that oft-repeated statement is indisputably true. We don’t know precisely even what the right target is, much less what’s required to get there.

The latest report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) talks at length about how close the cumulative level of GHGs in the atmosphere is to making the planet unlivable. But this is the mild version on which everyone signed off. Many climate scientists think it’s already too late. A few think things aren’t that dire. All we really have are educated guesses.

Nor does the IPCC say precisely how much more coal, oil and gas we can burn in what timeframe without topping 1.5°. Partly that’s because other greenhouse gases come into play along with carbon dioxide (CO2), notably including methane. Timing is another variable. Switching 50% of road vehicles from gasoline to electricity by 2040 puts a lot more CO2 into the atmosphere than switching by 2030.

Trading carbon emission rights and using “offsets” such as tree planting in exchange for continuing to burn oil or gas throws on a whole other level of complex unknowns. How much CO2 does a tree absorb? How long do you have to leave trees in place before they have offset burning a ton of coal and it’s okay to release their carbon back into the atmosphere?

All this is assuming the offset programs are honest and genuinely remove CO2 as promised, which is arguably more the exception than the rule. Even environmental groups such as Nature Conservancy and the Audubon Society have been caught selling offsets to oil companies and airlines based on retention of forests that they planned to preserve in any case. So nothing new was done to cancel out the emissions the offsets were supposed to negate — pardon the multiple negatives.

That’s before you stop to consider whether there isn’t an ethical flaw in the entire notion of rich polluters being allowed to pay to avoid their responsibilities. Isn’t it a bit like buying indulgences in the Middle Ages? It’s good to plant and retain trees, but should we try to count how good it is and make that good a tradable commodity?

I could go on, but you get the idea. Pretending we can come up with numerical calculations that validate even the basic goals, much less allow us to trade GHG emissions off against withdrawals to attain some mythical “net zero” is, to coin a phrase, so much “blah, blah, blah.”

Forget the Numbers

None of this is to say we don’t know anything important about climate change. On the contrary, we know all the most important things: We know many of the plants and animals on Earth, including many people, will die and coastal cities go under water if we continue emitting as we are now. That’s enough to warrant action. We don’t need precise numbers or dubious promises about what will happen in 30 years.

We also know the best way to radically shrink carbon and methane emissions — to get to Nearly Zero Emissions, net of nothing — is to slash burning of coal, oil and natural gas. And we know the three quickest and most effective tools for doing that are energy efficiency, renewable power and EVs.

These are things that reduce emissions — a lot — and, given time, save money. They generally makes people healthier and, who knows, maybe even happier.

Start with efficiency gains. They are readily available to us all: putting insulation and better windows in buildings. Driving less, walking and biking more. Buying food and other products made closer to home. Turning thermostats up in summer and down in winter. Installing heat pumps and using efficient appliances.

Then renewables. The biggest use of coal and natural gas is for power generation. Making electricity accounts for 40% of CO2 emissions and about 25% of all GHG emissions worldwide. Luckily, solar and/or wind electricity is already cheaper in most places than burning coal or gas in new power plants and its cost is falling, while the cost of fossil-fueled electricity is rising. These “intermittent” power sources require batteries and other means of storing electricity, but battery costs are plunging, too, and longer-lived storage methods are being developed.

That leaves oil. Oil’s biggest use is for transportation, which accounts for another nearly 25% of CO2 emissions. Luckily — again — EVs are poised to provide a solution that will soon make the road transport cheaper and healthier. EVs sales are soaring and already account for nearly 20% of the passenger vehicle market in Europe and China and 5% in the US (including plug-in hybrids). Soon, EVs should be cheaper to buy upfront than conventional cars. They’re already cheaper to operate.

It’s a no-brainer, really. We just need to get on with it. Forget Net Zero (someday, maybe). Forget about carbon offsets and trading. Forget the “hard” things like making carbon-free cement and steel. We can focus on those once we’re closer to doing the big, easy things.