Collectively we three authors of this article must have spent more than 80 years thinking about climate change. Why has it taken us so long to speak out about the obvious dangers of the concept of net zero?
Ultimately, the goal of lowering our carbon footprint at home is to reduce our energy consumption while taking embodied carbon into consideration.
The recent net-zero pledges by major emitting countries and the potential for a “green recovery” from the Covid-19 pandemic “presents the opening” for the world to close the growing “gap” between existing commitments and what is needed to limit global warming to meet the Paris Agreement goals.
In Lewis Carroll’s words: “If you don’t know where you are going, any road will get you there.”
But we do know: it is net-zero emissions by 2030, not 2050.
You would have thought the time for obfuscation is over. But there’s a new game in town for those who still think there’s time left for business as usual. It’s called ‘net zero by 2050’ and its prevalence shows how many of those with power and influence still don’t really ‘get’ climate change.
And that’s the amazing thing about climate change. Because whilst it’s the greatest injustice in that those least responsible are the ones most impacted. Solutions to climate change that are fair are also the exact solutions needed to tackle economic inequality.
The UK is to raise its ambition on climate change by setting a legally binding target to cut its greenhouse gas emissions to “net-zero” by 2050, prime minister Theresa May has announced today.