While I disagree with some of the observations that she makes later in her Washington Post op-ed I agree with Rachel Kyte’s opening point—pledges of “net zero” emissions are baloney:
Even top climate diplomats aren’t immune to misusing the phrase. Mark Carney, former head of the Bank of England and a climate adviser to the British prime minister, declared this month that Brookfield Asset Management, where he is an executive, has already achieved net zero. “The reason we’re net zero is that we have this enormous renewables business,†he said, and thus “all the avoided emissions that come with that†offset existing investments in entities that emit carbon.
That is not net zero. (To his credit, Carney walked back his statements after public furor.)
So what should count as net zero? A goal of net zero should mean cutting emissions to zero, as soon as possible. If not immediately possible — which is understandable, especially for utilities, heavy industry and agriculture — then a goal of net zero means implementing a realistic plan for transitioning to zero for all greenhouse gases while finding offsets for residual emissions.
Offsetting emissions is basically a scam:
Nature has its limits; there’s only so much land available for tree-planting. And carbon-capture technology is extremely expensive, and thus not deployable at scale yet.
The strategy I have advocated in the past is R&D aimed at making carbon-capture technology affordable. We’re not going to develop more land. She uses Shell Global as an example:
Shell announced it’ll achieve net zero by 2050 in part by “planting forests the size of Spain†(while continuing to produce oil and increase its natural gas production). Spain is approximately 50 million hectares. The United Nations estimates there’s only about 500 million hectares of land available for forest planting. Ten percent of available land for just one company is not sustainable — and beggars belief.
And then we get to where I disagree with her. Here’s what she wants to do:
First, we need enforceable international rules, independently adjudicated and based on science, free from industry influence — think a climate World Anti-Doping Agency with teeth.
The rules need to make clear that carbon must first be removed. Where there is no prospect of getting to zero in the medium term, residual emissions will need to be offset. We will need to agree what residual emissions are. Offsetting should preferably be by a method where the carbon is removed and stored for the long term.
Offsetting is a critical buffer and should be regarded as a precious space — one that should only be used for difficult-to-abate emissions. Offsetting cannot be a crutch for firms wanting to extend business as usual or countries slow-walking the transition to carbon neutrality.
Can you imagine China submitting to an international agency? They won’t even fulfill the commitments they made to gain admission to the WTO 20 years ago. They might say they’ll conform; what they’ll actually do is something different.
And it’s hard for me to imagine a policy more likely to lose Democrats their House and Senate majorities and, possibly, along with them the White House than for the Biden Administration to pledge to subordinate U. S. law to such an international agency.
Scientifically, any additional temperature increase will not have any effect for thousands of years. Like the annual seasons, the Earth oscillates between cold (ice ages) and warm periods, and there is no “skipping” an ice age.
Due to Milankovitch cycles, the Earth will continue warming until the next ice age begins, and there is nothing any human can do to stop this, period. Assuming AWG, the temperature increases are occuring earlier than they would, and any effects are natural.
This all assumes that there are no feedback mechanisms and that current trends will continue forever. This is why Malthusian thinking is always wrong.
All that you observe about China etc is true. Those who think what the US and a few European countries can do will not be offset by China and India – and at catastrophic cost to the US – are infantile in their thinking.
But Tasty makes a point often lost on the silly commentator class. Climate naturally cycles. Even if AGW were true, natural down temp cycles will offset and delay ultimate warming effects. We have so much time for technologically adaptive actions, some offered here.
This is a pure politically driven issue for the anti-growth and immoral politician crowd. It’s everything wrong with excessive government intervention, faux science and the lightweight thinkers who go along on full display. It’s very similar to COVID, and the always present need for government to seek issues to exploit for increased influence and outright control.
Have a little faith in the reproductive rate of diatoms and plankton.
They’re more reliable than 30 year corporate targets.
Net zero is along way off, if ever. Achievable reduction should be the goal. We should continue our research efforts and our current efforts into renewable energy which have been highly successful. Costs have dropped dramatically and if they continue, certainly possible since we dont have a lot of scale effects yet, China will adopt renewables since it is cheaper and/or safer. As they become more wealthy they will be less happy about cities where it is not safe to walk outside without a respirator.
Steve
@ Steve:
You’ve just conflated air pollution and carbon dioxide emissions.
That’s become so common I don’t think most people realize they do it.
I’ll say this again, with every airborne carbon atom tying up two of oxygen, we’re on the verge of a catastrophic oxygen shortage.
With oxygen supplies low, fires will snuff themselves out, engines will sputter, birds fall from the skies, shoals of fish wash belly up on the beach. Coyotes will chase rabbits, both at a walk, gasping for air.
Unless climate science can come up with a source of oxygen other than photosynthesis, which has been proven by consensus to be wholly inadequate, we’re dead. Dead, dead, dead.