Readers of this paper were recently treated to a classic piece of 鈥渓ight your hair on fire鈥� misinformation inspired by the 颅fossil-fuel industry. In a July 31 column, Gwyn Morgan informed us that achieving net-zero 颅greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050 鈥渨ould require phasing out fossil fuels that 颅currently supply 84 per cent of global energy,鈥� that the G7 plan to achieve net zero 鈥渄efies the laws of physics鈥� and that 鈥渋t鈥檚 clear that 鈥榥et zero鈥� is simply not on.鈥�
If achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 defies the laws of physics and is simply not on, that must be news to the International Energy Agency, hardly a hotbed of wild-eyed radicals. In May, the IEA released its Net Zero by 2050 report, subtitled 鈥淎 Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector.鈥� The report notes that 50 countries, 颅representing 70 per cent of global emissions, and 颅including China and the U.S., have committed to net zero by 2050.
It must also be news to the European Commission, which adopted a set of 颅measures on July 14 that will reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030, compared with 1990 levels, on the way to making Europe the world鈥檚 first climate-neutral continent by 2050. But let鈥檚 be clear what net zero really means.
First, it does not mean no greenhouse-gas emissions or no fossil-fuel use. In the Paris Agreement on climate change, 颅countries agreed to 鈥渁chieve a balance between anthropogenic [human-created] emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of the century.鈥� Net zero means that overall, there would be no net increase in the level of GHGs in the atmosphere.
To achieve net zero, we have to either reduce our emissions or find ways by which the Earth can absorb more GHGs through its carbon sinks. In practice, we need to do both, although emissions reduction has received most of the attention so far. Next week, I will dig further into the potential to expand carbon sinks.
Clearly, the IEA believes 颅achieving net zero, while very challenging, is doable. Their report states: 鈥淚n the net zero 颅pathway, global energy demand in 2050 is around 8% smaller than today, but it serves an economy more than twice as big and a population with 2 billion more people.鈥� Moreover, 鈥渢he energy sector is based largely on renewable energy,鈥� with 颅鈥渢wo-thirds of total energy supply from wind, solar, bioenergy, geothermal and hydro energy.鈥�
This would not mean phasing out fossil fuels, although they would be 颅dramatically reduced. While noting there would be 鈥渁 huge decline in the use of fossil fuels,鈥� the IEA reported that compared with the 颅鈥渇our-fifths of total energy supply today,鈥� fossil fuel鈥檚 contribution would fall to 鈥渟lightly over one-fifth by 2050.鈥�
It would mainly be used 鈥渋n sectors where 颅low-emissions technology options are scarce,鈥� as well as in facilities using carbon-capture technology and in creating plastics.
Of course, what troubles Morgan and other fossil-fuel advocates is the IEA鈥檚 avowal that 鈥渢here is no need for investment in new fossil-fuel supply in our net zero pathway.鈥�
The IEA foresees coal demand declining 鈥渂y 98 per cent to just less than 1% of total energy use in 2050,鈥� while 鈥済as demand declines by 55 per cent 鈥� and oil declines by 75 per cent鈥�.
Nobody is suggesting this will be easy. Recognizing that 鈥渘ot all technologies are available on the market today,鈥� the IEA calls for 鈥渁n unprecedented clean 颅technology push to 2030.鈥�
The IEA suggests this requires a 颅doubling of annual energy-sector investment by 2030, but notes that by 2050, average annual energy investment takes only one per cent more of GDP than in recent years.
Moreover, this pathway means 鈥渦niversal access to sustainable energy is achieved by 2030鈥� and the creation of 30 million jobs, compared to losses of about five million jobs in the fossil-fuel sector. This must be 颅handled with care, ensuring a just transition for these workers.
The pathway to net zero is tough, but doable, and brings many social, economic, ecological and health co-benefits, as the IEA and European Commission reports make clear. It is the denial of net zero that is simply not on.
Dr. Trevor Hancock is a retired 颅professor and senior scholar at the University of 颅Victoria鈥檚 School of Public Health and Social Policy.
- - -
To comment on this article, write a letter to the editor: [email protected]
