24 | New Scientist | 8 February 2020
H
ERE’S a trivia question
for you. What do Bhutan
and Suriname have in
common? If you said that they are
the only countries that, in effect,
add no greenhouse gases to the
air, a state of grace known as net
zero, then well done – though
you might want to get out more.
Even if you aren’t a climate
obsessive, net zero is a phrase
you have probably heard. Greta
Thunberg talked about it last
month at the World Economic
Forum meeting in Davos,
Switzerland. Last year, the UK
and France became the first major
economies to legally commit to
achieving it; both chose 2050
as year zero. Sweden and New
Zealand have also enacted similar
net zero targets. Eleven other
countries have legislation in the
pipeline, with Finland aiming for
2035 and Norway and Uruguay
an even more ambitious 2030.
Smaller political entities such
as states and cities are increasingly
declaring net zero targets, as are
big companies. Net zero doesn’t
change what we have to do, but
seems to be focusing minds in a
way that vague global temperature
goals have failed to do.
On the surface, net zero seems
a good idea and a straightforward
one. Wherever possible, stop
emitting greenhouse gases, and
have enough carbon dioxide-
absorbing trees to counter any
remaining emissions, or capture
those emissions and bury them.
Unlike temperature goals, net
zero sounds unequivocal. It draws
on very solid science – the concept
of a carbon budget: the amount of
extra CO2 (or other greenhouse
gases) we can emit without
cooking Earth. It is clearly a useful
way of framing the challenge and
aiming for solutions.
Simple. But, as with all things
climate-related, there is devil inthe detail – and a good deal of
wiggle room.
Net zero has loopholes
galore, especially aviation and
shipping. To achieve national net
zero, a country must include all
emissions from planes and ships
within its airspace and territorial
waters. But what about emissions
once the craft have flown and
sailed into international ones?
Historically, these emissions
have been exempt from climate
change talks because of the
difficulty of allocating them to
specific countries. But without
a mechanism to do so, net zero
will be an illusion.To its credit, the UK government
has committed to accounting for
these emissions, though has yet to
specify how. But other countries
may not be so strict.
There’s more. Countries could
claim to be net zero, but consume
products made abroad whose
manufacture creates emissions.
A requirement to gauge a nation’s
consumption globally will close
this loophole, but in the meantime
nations can shift some emissions
off their books this way.
Even with a meaningful target,
you then have the problem of
actually hitting net zero, which is
where the hard yards really start.
Bhutan and Suriname succeeded
largely because they have small
populations, lots of hydroelectric
power and intact forests. The rest
of the world isn’t so blessed.
But there is positive evidence
that concerted action by the big
emitters is moving things in theright direction. Eighteen advanced
economies (including the UK)
are currently on a downward
net emissions trajectory, largely
as a result of their climate and
energy policies.
At the moment, even the best of
them are only achieving an annual
reduction of about 2 per cent,
when what is needed is more like
7 or 8 per cent. To hit that target,
every sector of the economy has
to put its shoulder to the wheel
and tough policies will have to be
implemented, such as completely
refurbishing the housing stock to
make it low energy and putting a
price on carbon emissions.
Even that won’t be enough;
we will also require widespread
deployment of carbon capture and
storage technology (CCS), which
is unproven on a large scale, and
which opens up another loophole.
Instead of pouring money into
CCS, advanced economies could
pay to plant trees in other
countries – usually developing
economies – and count this
towards their domestic target.
While it is easy to be cynical
about governments committing
to something they won’t be
judged on for three decades, there
are optimistic noises emerging
from climate science. The UK’s
declaration of net zero has
“shifted the dial”, says Jim Skea,
professor of sustainable energy
at Imperial College London,
with even North Sea oil and gas
companies accepting the need for
net zero targets. And a national
commitment will be useful for
peer shaming at the critical UN
climate talks due in the UK in
November, says Joeri Rogelj of
the Grantham Institute in London.
It still won’t be easy. It
will still take unprecedented
transformation of every aspect
of society. But the optimism is
rising: we can be zeroes. ❚This column will appear
monthly. Up next week:
Annalee Newitz“ Action by the big
emitters seems to be
moving things on:
18 nations are on
a downward net
emissions trajectory”Time for action Net zero is the new buzzword in climate circles.
Though it has its problems, this goal could finally start to galvanise
countries into serious carbon cutting, writes Graham LawtonNo planet B
What I’m reading
The Overstory by Richard
Powers, an epic novel
involving a lot of trees.What I’m watching
It’s classic horror season
in my house. My son is
writing a dissertation on
scary films.What I’m working on
I’m back on the
biodiversity beat as we
gear up for a big meeting
on the issue this month.Graham’s week
Graham Lawton is a staff
writer at New Scientist and
author of This Book Could Save
Your Life. You can follow him
@ grahamlawtonViews Columnist