Misconceptions on and Health Impacts of ‘Net-Zero Emissions
Geoff Strong1 and Richard van der Jagt2
1 Climate scientist, Duncan BC; 2Adjunct Prof. of Medicine, U of Ottawa ON.
A key component of Canada’s climate plan, and that of other countries, is the deceptive term ‘net-zero emissions by 2050’. The prefix ‘net’ implies a difference, such as between one’s gross and net salary.
Each member country of the IPCC selected a ‘baseline’ year for their climate plan. Canada chose 2005 when carbon emissions were maximum at 730,000,000 metric tons (730 MT). Thus, for any year, say 2019 when Canada’s reported emissions were 691 MT,
Net Emissions = 691 – 730 MT = -39 MT (a reduction of 5.3%, 2005-2019).
The IPCC employed the term ‘net-zero’ under the influence from member countries, who were likely swayed by fossil fuels. IPCC indicated net-zero to mean near-zero emissions by 2050, but participating countries interpreted it differently. They presumed that if emissions stayed ‘at or below’ their baseline year, then they achieve ‘net-zero’. They misinterpreted the current global mean temperature to be directly related to the current atmospheric CO2 concentration. This is a serious misconception because warming experienced in any year results from emissions over the previous 50-100 years. Thus, if CO2 were to stay at 422 ppm, the climate would continue to warm for perhaps another century. This occurs because there is a lag of several decades to a century between the time CO2 reaches a particular level and when the total warming potential is realized. Climate model estimates suggest that 422 ppm has a potential for 3-5 °C warming! Recent research (Hansen et al., 2023) suggests warming may be even greater because of a reduction in atmospheric aerosols as carbon emissions fall, allowing higher radiation.
Member countries need to recognize that ‘near-zero’ emissions are the actual goal. The world also needs to draw down existing atmospheric CO2. The present 422 ppm should be under 300 ppm for a stable climate. Moreover, another misperception existing among many governments is that we can use various carbon sequestration methods to counter carbon emissions and draw down excess atmospheric CO2 at the same time. That presumption enables emissions to continue unabated, but this misconception is leading mankind down the path to global catastrophe. Their carbon sequestration plans include planting millions of trees, and utilizing new unproven technologies such as Direct Atmospheric Capture and Carbon Capture at Source. These three combined sequestrations cannot make a measurable counter to annual carbon emissions, and would require several centuries to draw down atmospheric CO2. Most of mankind may extinguish itself if current carbon emissions continue unabated.
The frequency of recent severe weather events exacerbated by our warming climate is abnormal. These events will worsen over the next 20 years if the world cannot agree on a realistic plan for GHG reductions, requiring a rapid reduction in fossil fuel use. The IPCC suggests countries reduce carbon emissions by over 50% by 2030, and 90% by 2040. With present national climate plans, this is unachievable.
There is only one realistic way to achieve the required carbon emission reductions. Mandating industries to reduce emissions without an alternative energy source would cause a global economic meltdown. Instead, we must replace fossil fuel energy with renewable energy sources (wind, solar, geothermal, and hydroelectric). Replacing fossil fuel vehicles with EVs will achieve about 20% of necessary emission reductions, if governments deliver on promises to restrict new car sales to EVs by 2035 or sooner. Renewables would allow market forces to decrease the demand for fossil fuels without government interference. Jobs lost from the fossil fuel industry would be compensated by an economic boost and new jobs in renewables.
Realizing that rapid conversions to renewable energy may yet have unknown setbacks, another advantage would be a large reduction in air pollutants and GHGs. Burning fossil fuels produce carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide, along with GHGs. Poor air quality causes multiple health problems, including lung disease, many cancers, asthma, and neurodegenerative disorders. Renewables would be a win-win for the entire world, except for fossil fuel billionaires. We cannot emphasize enough that current plans for addressing climate change are incompatible with an acceptable destiny. Our future health, as opposed to dollars, must become our priority.