The debate is between those who see a net-zero world as within our grasp and those who see it as futile, even by 2050.
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis remarked that “most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossible before they were done.” That is, most things that we take for granted today were often dismissed as mere wishful thinking by many and only obtained with much struggle.
As the world continues to heat up as a result of the climate crisis, one such potential goal is net zero by 2050. As defined in the Paris Agreement in 2015, “net zero” means “cutting carbon emissions to a small amount of residual emissions that can be absorbed and durably stored by nature and other carbon dioxide removal measures, leaving zero in the atmosphere.” If achieved, this would keep global temperatures from rising above 1.5°C and avert the worst-case scenario climate crisis.
As of 2024, 107 countries have adopted net-zero pledges in some form or another and are working on cutting carbon emissions, as have thousands of private businesses, educational institutions, cities, and financial companies. Unfortunately, this is not enough to meet the Paris Agreement’s goals, as this would only lead to a 2.6 percent decline by 2030, instead of the required forty-three percent. Much more needs to be done, including a complete reconfiguration of the way we eat, live, and work.
But, even in an ideal world where all countries, people, and businesses do their part, is net zero even achievable by 2050, if at all?
To Read the Pro Side of This Debate, Go Here.
The pro side says that, yes, a net-zero world is within our reach, but, given the magnitude of the shift, the transition will be more evolutionary than revolutionary. After all, if we just look at the power sector in the United States, Australia, Brazil, and beyond, you can see that it is becoming greener and greener when compared to what it was at the beginning of the century. Similarly, other green sources of energy — such as geothermal and nuclear energy — are also becoming commercially viable for the first time. Finally, the path to a net-zero world will not look the same in every country of the world, as environmental factors, which must be looked at alongside traditional energy metrics, must also be taken into account and vary from place to place.
For the Con Side of This Debate, Go Here.
The critics disagree, saying that a net-zero world is not currently possible, and attempting to do so would negatively impact each of the three components of the energy trilemma: affordability, reliability, and sustainability. The first part of the problem is that while a great deal of money has been poured into green energy over the past decade, much of it is based on subsidies and incentives, which, when removed, cause demand to dry up. Ultimately, it is not “someone else” who will foot the bill. It is the consumer. Secondly, despite improvements to batteries, the problem of wind and solar being dependent on the wind blowing and the sun shining has not yet been resolved. And thirdly, insistence on imposing green energy comes from a position of privilege, which the developing world can ill afford right now.
Image: Shutterstock/chayanuphol
