We don’t need ‘net zero,’ we need ‘real zero’
Teck Mine application and rosy federal emission statistics don’t tell an accurate story
The phrases “net zero” emissions or “carbon neutral” are being increasing used by politicians and industry to describe a goal to deal with climate change. And “emissions intensity” is being used to measure progress.
It’s dangerous language. It can create a false impression that enough is being done, be it in setting goals, approving projects or meeting targets, when we are falling behind.
In the run-up to last year’s election, the Liberals promised the goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. More recently the CEO of the proposed Teck Frontier oilsands mine set the objective of being carbon neutral by 2050. Although Teck has now withdrawn its application for the mine, the project still has all the necessary approvals and awaits only federal cabinet support. It could be reintroduced in the future.
It sounds like good news when Environment and Climate Change Canada’ reported in their most recent inventory that Canada has achieved an emissions intensity reduction of 36 per cent per unit of GDP from 1990 to 2017. But if you dig deeper you find that emissions overall increased by almost 19 per cent, mainly because of oil and gas production.
See how the language betrays one’s initial conclusion? A stated improvement in emissions intensity masks failure in the real goal of reducing emissions.
Let’s look at some examples of net-zero.
A net-zero by 2050 target for the Frontier Mine may sound like a good target, but it is misleading for several reasons.
First, the target is too distant. Any emissions today remain in the atmosphere for 100+ years. For 24 of the projected 36 years of the mine (two thirds of its projected life), there will be net-positive emissions. Atmospheric CO2 will grow, just at a time when we need to reduce it.
Second, not only is the mine producing emissions, but in deforesting 292 square kilometres of boreal forest it is destroying natural emissions removal capacity. Mine remediation and restoration will take way beyond 2050 to replace the lost carbon capture capacity of the destroyed forest.
Third, the plan includes using carbon capture technologies that are at best in the early stages, costly and not used in large scale.
Fourth, and most significant in global terms, the net-zero promise does not include the emissions produced when the daily production of 260,000 barrels of bitumen are burned. That is the real problem, not just the emissions from mine operation.
To be really net-zero, we should count all the net-positive emissions from the project until by 2050 and require those to be removed from the atmosphere by 2050 as well.
The federal promise has many of the same issues.
First, too distant a target. Canada is way behind on meeting its current target of a 30 per cent over 2005 by 2030. In 2017, the last year of published data, Canada’s emissions grew by 1.5 per cent. Given performance to date, we must make emissions reductions of 2.4 per cent every year to 2030 to make our target.
Second, slow progress so far. Based on measures taken so far, the Government forecasts we will be at only 8 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 and maybe, just maybe, with additional policies under development we might be at 19 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. Way below our committed targets.
Most significant in global terms? Not only are our 2030 targets weak but 2050 is just another 20 years onwards from 2030; how realistic is it to make the remaining 70 per cent reduction over by 2050 if we can only manage 8-19 per cent in the first 10 years?
You’ll realize from performance so far that getting to any sort of zero by 2050 is going to be an enormous challenge.
We need to be crystal clear in the language we use to explain to everyone exactly what we need to achieve.
Net-zero is not good enough. Major projects that grow emissions should not go ahead.
As young Greta Thunberg told the elite audience at Davos in December, “we don’t need net-zero, we need real zero.”