essay on global zero

Is a World Without Nuclear Weapons Really Possible?

Subscribe to this week in foreign policy, michael e. o’hanlon michael e. o’hanlon director of research - foreign policy , director - strobe talbott center for security, strategy, and technology , co-director - africa security initiative , senior fellow - foreign policy , strobe talbott center for security, strategy, and technology , philip h. knight chair in defense and strategy @michaeleohanlon.

May 4, 2010

• 12 min read

Can mankind uninvent the nuclear bomb, and rid the world of the greatest military threat to the human species and the survival of the planet ever created?

Logic might seem to say of course not. But the president of the United States and a number of key foreign-policy dignitaries are now on record saying yes. They acknowledge that a nuclear-weapons-free world remains a vision, not immediately attainable and perhaps not achievable within the lifetimes of most contemporary policy makers. But they believe that the vision needs to be shared, in a vibrant, powerful way.

A movement known as Global Zero has gained in strength to attempt just that. It was established in the wake of a January 2007 newspaper column by George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, William Perry, and Sam Nunn advocating a nuclear-free world. A group of 100 signatories (not including the above four) established Global Zero in Paris in December 2008. The organization’s goal is to rid the world of nuclear weapons by 2030 through a multilateral, universal, verifiable process, with negotiations on the Global Zero treaty beginning by 2019.

Ideas about eliminating the bomb are as old as the bomb itself. But Global Zero draws inspiration from the recent grass-roots effort to craft a land-mine treaty, and from the work of several influential philanthropists in global antipoverty campaigns. Of course, it also evolved from earlier nonproliferation efforts, including the 1996 report of the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons. But the pace of the nonproliferation movement has accelerated in recent years. The current movement is notable too in that it has a serious strategy for moving forward—not at some distant time when miraculous new inventions might make nukes obsolete, but by later this decade, even if it would take at least another decade to put a treaty into effect.

Will President Obama really pursue such an idea? He gave an inspiring speech in Prague early in his first year in office, agreed to modest cuts in deployed forces with Russia in the New Start Treaty, and modestly lowered the profile of nuclear weapons in the April 2010 Nuclear Posture Review Report. Those steps are not insignificant, but they have a good deal of continuity with past policy, and still leave us very far from nuclear zero.

The much-heralded nuclear-security summit in April, in Washington, was worthwhile. But it was notable primarily not for its progress toward nuclear zero, but for actions to reduce the risks of nuclear theft, accident, and terrorism. For example, Mexico agreed to convert a research reactor from highly enriched uranium (usable in bombs) to lower-enriched uranium (not usable); Ukraine agreed to eliminate its stocks of highly enriched uranium within two years; the United States and Russia recommitted to eliminate an excess stock of plutonium; and so on. Those steps, as well as the administration’s 25-percent increase in spending for global nonproliferation activities (to $2.7-billion in the 2011 budget request), are entirely sensible. But it seems unlikely that Obama will push nuclear issues in additional bold new ways anytime soon. On other national-security matters like Iraq and Afghanistan, he has been extremely pragmatic and deferential to military commanders, and other priorities, especially economic recovery, compete for his time and attention.

But even if Obama, in effect, drops nuclear zero, crises in Iran and North Korea may bring the issue to a head soon. As Obama is surely all too keenly aware, the motivation for nuclear-weapons abolition is not utopian or futuristic. It is the very pragmatic, immediate need to deny extremist countries the excuse of getting the bomb because others already have it. With leaders in Tehran, P’yongyang, and elsewhere bent on getting nuclear weapons, and charging Americans with double standards in our insistence that we can have the bomb but they cannot, Obama’s ability to galvanize a global coalition to pressure Iran, North Korea, and possibly others into scaling back their weapons programs may depend in part on regaining the moral high ground. And that, in turn, may require an American commitment to work toward giving up its own arsenal—that is, once doing so is verifiable, and once others agree to do the same.

But how to rid the world of nukes? And how to do so safely? A nuclear-abolition treaty could constructively contribute to global stability if done right, but it could be hazardous if done wrong. Among other things, it could make countries that depend on America’s military protection decide they should seek nuclear weapons of their own. Serious consequences could ensue if the Turkeys and Saudi Arabias and Japans and Taiwans of the world interpret the American debate over Global Zero to imply that they can no longer rely on the United States as a dependable strategic partner—a formal ally in the cases of Turkey and Japan, a more informal but still-trusted friend in the cases of Saudi Arabia and Taiwan. The Global Zero movement could wind up sparking the very wave of nuclear proliferation and instability it was designed to prevent.

Sam Nunn compares nuclear disarmament to a mountain, with the summit beyond our current grasp and perhaps even out of sight. He advocates moving to a higher base camp, meaning much deeper disarmament and related measures, to determine if we can later reach the summit. That image makes sense, but I’d urge even more caution: We must also be safe on the way to the new base camp, and avoid committing ourselves to a certain route to the top too soon. A few scholars, including George Perkovich, Barry M. Blechman, and Frank N. von Hippel, acknowledge and discuss such complexities, but most Global Zero advocates don’t.

My forthcoming book on the subject does not argue against nuclear abolition; it is in fact a friendly skeptic’s case for nuclear disarmament. But I emphasize the conditions and caveats that would have to accompany any such treaty regime—including clear rules for how major powers might consider rearming themselves with nukes in the event of a future violation, even after weapons have supposedly been abolished. What if a dangerous country is highly suspected of having an active nuclear-weapons program but verification cannot resolve the question? What if a country develops an advanced biological pathogen with enormous potential lethality—and perhaps even an antidote that it could employ to protect its own people? Would nuclear deterrence truly be irrelevant or inappropriate as a response?

Many, if not most, advocates of Global Zero consider the abolition of nuclear weapons the moral equivalent of the abolition of slavery, and imply that, as with slavery, once eliminated, nukes should be gone for good. (The exception, these advocates say, would be a blatant violation of the treaty by a country that chooses to build a nuclear arsenal.) That, however, is a dangerous vision of a nuke-free world because it would deprive us of deterrent options we may someday need. Even once we eliminate nuclear weapons, in other words, we will have to accept the fact that we may not have done so forever. At a practical level, we will most likely still be living in a world full of nuclear power plants, as well as nuclear waste from nuclear bomb and energy programs to date. Neither the knowledge nor the nuclear materials will disappear.

What of the issue of timing—not only of when to try to negotiate and then eventually put in place a treaty, but of explaining the vision of nuclear disarmament for the short term? Many abolition advocates pull back the minute anyone asks if they want a treaty soon, recognizing the impracticality of trying to abolish nuclear weapons quickly. But it is they who put the idea into the contemporary nuclear debate with a renewed urgency, so putting off the details is neither consistent nor advisable.

That’s OK. There’s no time like the present, right? After all, eliminating nuclear weapons from the face of the earth has technically been a goal of United States policy since the 1960s. Moreover, the world is likely to lose sight of the big picture during slow negotiations over the recent New Start Treaty with Moscow and ratification debates over that pact as well as the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Bold ideas are inspiring and help the world remember how much is at stake.

I argue for a middle ground. Moving to nuclear zero at a set date in the near future is too fast. But dropping the subject for now and waiting for the 22nd century is too slow. Trying to abolish nuclear weapons too soon can, as I’ve said, spook American allies under our protection, but can also disrupt deterrent arrangements that are working today yet also somewhat fragile. That is, too much haste could encourage states entirely disinterested in nuclear disarmament to build up arsenals in the hope that the existing nuclear powers will reduce and thereby render their own nascent nuclear power greater. Too much haste also simply lacks credibility in a world in which some countries—Russia, Israel, Pakistan—clearly have no interest in denuclearizing anytime soon, even if the United States did. Declaration of ambitious but arbitrary and unattainable deadlines for action is more likely to discredit the Global Zero movement than to advance it.

The problem with putting off the nuclear-disarmament agenda, however, is that it leaves existing powers in a weak position to pressure would-be proliferators to abstain from the pursuit of nuclear weapons, and perpetuates a sense of complacency about the supposed safety of living with the bomb. We need a prudent form of urgency. Neither haste and impetuousness nor indefinite postponement on the matter will do.

The right time horizon for seriously pushing a new nuclear accord is when most of the world’s half-dozen or so major territorial and existential issues involving major powers are resolved—and this cannot be set to a calendar as precisely as the Global Zero movement would like. Those issues include the status of Taiwan, the territorial status of Kashmir, political relations between Russia and key “near abroad” states of Georgia and Ukraine in particular, and friction between Israel and its neighbors. Nuclear crises involving Iran and North Korea also need to be resolved, though the beginnings of a move toward nuclear disarmament might not have to await their complete resolution.

Once the former matters are largely resolved, the plausibility of great-power war over any imaginable issue that we can identify today will be very low. That would, in turn, make the basic structure and functioning of the international political system stable enough to take the risk of moving toward a nuclear-free world. That process will be so radical as to be inherently destabilizing in some sense, and thus prudent to pursue only when the great powers are in a cooperative mode and undivided by irredentist territorial matters.

Some argue that there is no foreseeable period of great-power peace and thus no prospect of the preconditions required for moving toward a denuclearized world. Such scholars often call themselves “realists” and imply that ideas such as Global Zero are just too utopian to be within mankind’s reach. But the so-called realists have a problem with their argument, too—the history of fallible mankind, and particularly of the nuclear age to date, makes it hard to believe that nuclear weapons will never be used if they continue to occupy a central role in international politics. If realism consigns us to the likelihood of nuclear war someday, it is hard to see why it is so prudent a worldview—indeed, it is hard even to call it realist, with all the connotations of prudence and pragmatism that the term implies.

That said, my vision for nuclear disarmament is of dismantling nuclear warheads, and should not be confused with their permanent abolition. The term “abolition” has several inappropriate connotations for our nuclear future. While most plausible uses of nuclear weapons would in fact be inhumane, it is war itself that is most inhumane, and war targeting civilians through whatever means that is the fundamental moral blight we should be trying to eliminate. Certain forms of biological-weapons attack, especially with plausible future pathogens; of large-scale conventional conflict resembling the world wars; and of wars that include genocide could be every bit as inhumane.

Outlawing nuclear weapons in a way that increased the prospects of other types of immoral warfare would be no accomplishment at all. Even as we strive for dismantling nuclear weapons, we need practical options for rebuilding them should even greater perils present themselves. Those might be pursuit of nuclear arms by a country bent on violating the accord, the development of advanced biological pathogens (the Obama administration’s 2010 Nuclear Posture Review Report follows this line of thought), and even an especially threatening conventional military buildup by a future extremist state. That is the broad, strategic argument in favor of preserving options for nuclear reconstitution under a temporary withdrawal from the treaty, even after nuclear disarmament might someday be a reality.

The terms by which the right of temporary withdrawal could be exercised must be clearly stated, and a burden of proof placed on any state or group of states exercising the right. I argue for a “contact group” of democratic states, including not just traditional allies but newer powers like India and Brazil, that would be asked to support an American decision to rearm, should Washington ever consider that necessary. (The U.N. Security Council might not be reliable for that purpose, though it should be consulted too.)

Capricious or blatantly self-serving reconstitution must be avoided. But a treaty that precluded the international community from responding to the actions of an advanced future military power believed to be pursuing nuclear, biological, or enormous conventional military capabilities would be a chimera.

There is also a technical reason to view reconstitution as a real future policy option, even short of such extreme circumstances. Simply put, nuclear weapons will always be within reach of mankind, whatever we may do, whatever we may wish. Verification methods will almost surely be incapable of assuring us that all existing materials are dismantled or destroyed, even as verification improves in coming years. Moreover, demands for the nuclear-power industry make it likely that bomb-grade materials will be salvageable from nuclear fuel or nuclear waste.

In other words, not only is permanent, irreversible abolition unwise, it is also probably impossible. Still, dismantlement of all existing bomb inventories, in recognition of the fact that the day-to-day role of nuclear weapons in international security is dangerous and ultimately unsustainable, should become our goal.

With all the caveats and conditions, is a nuclear-disarmament treaty worth the trouble? Yes, because of the danger posed by nuclear weapons, on the one hand, and the positive power of ideas and ideals in international politics on the other. These weapons are so heinously destructive as to be illegitimate; they are fundamentally indiscriminate killers, and on top of that, they have proved to be far harder to safely build and handle than many understand. They have no proper role even as visible deterrents in the normal interactions of states, and we should aspire to a world in which they would no longer have such an active, operational role.

Foreign Policy

Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Initiative

Jaganath Sankaran

May 10, 2024

Robin Brooks

May 9, 2024

May 8, 2024

We Can Eliminate Nuclear Weapons In Our Lifetime

Reaching zero.

In 1986, there were 70,300 nuclear weapons on the planet. Today, an estimated 12,500 weapons remain. 

In the dark days of the Cold War, few could have imagined the arms race would give way to decades of international cooperation that reduced global nuclear arsenals by 80%.  

Big vision and leadership, emboldened by public demand too loud to ignore, has taken us a long way through challenging times. We can keep going, and we’ve mapped the way forward.

• 70,300 Nuclear weapons in 1986
• 12,500 Nuclear weapons in 2024
• 0 Nuclear weapons in 2045

Building the Movement

Global Zero’s work aims to unlock the world of possibility beyond the bomb. 

Imagine a future where stability is not conflated with the threat of mass destruction; where safety for some no longer requires vulnerability for others; where justice and equity are experienced by communities most impacted by nuclear harm; and where international cooperation in the face of common threats allows us to finally address the many other urgent challenges competing for attention.

That future is possible — but we can’t get there alone. It will take bold leadership backed by a people-powered movement to topple these weapons of mass destruction and the systems of injustice that uphold them.

Achieving Justice

Nuclear abolition is not a standalone fight. Our movement intersects across other existential threats and social issues, from climate and racial justice to democracy and public health. Whether it’s extractive uranium mining, nuclear testing, waste storage, or coercive nuclear threats, abolishing these weapons is a critical pillar of the global fight for equity and justice.

In The News

Oppenheimer opened a door. we can close it..

8 August 2023

Managing Director Derek Johnson writes, “The greatest danger to human civilization and the planet is the inability to believe that tomorrow can be different, the idea that we are individually powerless in the face of colliding existential threats.”

Former Obama administration official discusses nuclear danger

22 June 2023

The Maine Monitor

Senior Advisor joins the The Midcoast Forum on Foreign Relations to discuss ​whether a new era of nuclear danger is upon us.

YaleGlobal Online

The history of zero.

From placeholder to the driver of calculus, zero has crossed the greatest minds and most diverse borders since it was born many centuries ago. Today, zero is perhaps the most pervasive global symbol known. In the story of zero, something can be made out of nothing.

Zero, zip, zilch - how often has a question been answered by one of these words? Countless, no doubt. Yet behind this seemingly simple answer conveying nothing lays the story of an idea that took many centuries to develop, many countries to cross, and many minds to comprehend. Understanding and working with zero is the basis of our world today; without zero we would lack calculus, financial accounting, the ability to make arithmetic computations quickly, and, especially in today’s connected world, computers. The story of zero is the story of an idea that has aroused the imagination of great minds across the globe.

When anyone thinks of one hundred, two hundred, or seven thousand the image in his or her mind is of a digit followed by a few zeros. The zero functions as a placeholder; that is, three zeroes denotes that there are seven thousands, rather than only seven hundreds. If we were missing one zero, that would drastically change the amount. Just imagine having one zero erased (or added) to your salary! Yet, the number system we use today - Arabic, though it in fact came originally from India - is relatively new. For centuries people marked quantities with a variety of symbols and figures, although it was awkward to perform the simplest arithmetic calculations with these number systems.

The Sumerians were the first to develop a counting system to keep an account of their stock of goods - cattle, horses, and donkeys, for example. The Sumerian system was positional; that is, the placement of a particular symbol relative to others denoted its value. The Sumerian system was handed down to the Akkadians around 2500 BC and then to the Babylonians in 2000 BC. It was the Babylonians who first conceived of a mark to signify that a number was absent from a column; just as 0 in 1025 signifies that there are no hundreds in that number. Although zero’s Babylonian ancestor was a good start, it would still be centuries before the symbol as we know it appeared.

The renowned mathematicians among the Ancient Greeks, who learned the fundamentals of their math from the Egyptians, did not have a name for zero, nor did their system feature a placeholder as did the Babylonian. They may have pondered it, but there is no conclusive evidence to say the symbol even existed in their language. It was the Indians who began to understand zero both as a symbol and as an idea.

Brahmagupta, around 650 AD, was the first to formalize arithmetic operations using zero. He used dots underneath numbers to indicate a zero. These dots were alternately referred to as ‘sunya’, which means empty, or ‘kha’, which means place. Brahmagupta wrote standard rules for reaching zero through addition and subtraction as well as the results of operations with zero. The only error in his rules was division by zero, which would have to wait for Isaac Newton and G.W. Leibniz to tackle.

But it would still be a few centuries before zero reached Europe. First, the great Arabian voyagers would bring the texts of Brahmagupta and his colleagues back from India along with spices and other exotic items. Zero reached Baghdad by 773 AD and would be developed in the Middle East by Arabian mathematicians who would base their numbers on the Indian system. In the ninth century, Mohammed ibn-Musa al-Khowarizmi was the first to work on equations that equaled zero, or algebra as it has come to be known. He also developed quick methods for multiplying and dividing numbers known as algorithms (a corruption of his name). Al-Khowarizmi called zero ‘sifr’, from which our cipher is derived. By 879 AD, zero was written almost as we now know it, an oval - but in this case smaller than the other numbers. And thanks to the conquest of Spain by the Moors, zero finally reached Europe; by the middle of the twelfth century, translations of Al-Khowarizmi’s work had weaved their way to England.

The Italian mathematician, Fibonacci, built on Al-Khowarizmi’s work with algorithms in his book Liber Abaci, or “Abacus book,” in 1202. Until that time, the abacus had been the most prevalent tool to perform arithmetic operations. Fibonacci’s developments quickly gained notice by Italian merchants and German bankers, especially the use of zero. Accountants knew their books were balanced when the positive and negative amounts of their assets and liabilities equaled zero. But governments were still suspicious of Arabic numerals because of the ease in which it was possible to change one symbol into another. Though outlawed, merchants continued to use zero in encrypted messages, thus the derivation of the word cipher, meaning code, from the Arabic sifr.

The next great mathematician to use zero was Rene Descartes, the founder of the Cartesian coordinate system. As anyone who has had to graph a triangle or a parabola knows, Descartes’ origin is (0,0). Although zero was now becoming more common, the developers of calculus, Newton and Lebiniz, would make the final step in understanding zero.

Adding, subtracting, and multiplying by zero are relatively simple operations. But division by zero has confused even great minds. How many times does zero go into ten? Or, how many non-existent apples go into two apples? The answer is indeterminate, but working with this concept is the key to calculus. For example, when one drives to the store, the speed of the car is never constant - stoplights, traffic jams, and different speed limits all cause the car to speed up or slow down. But how would one find the speed of the car at one particular instant? This is where zero and calculus enter the picture.

If you wanted to know your speed at a particular instant, you would have to measure the change in speed that occurs over a set period of time. By making that set period smaller and smaller, you could reasonably estimate the speed at that instant. In effect, as you make the change in time approach zero, the ratio of the change in speed to the change in time becomes similar to some number over zero - the same problem that stumped Brahmagupta.

In the 1600’s, Newton and Leibniz solved this problem independently and opened the world to tremendous possibilities. By working with numbers as they approach zero, calculus was born without which we wouldn’t have physics, engineering, and many aspects of economics and finance.

In the twenty-first century zero is so familiar that to talk about it seems like much ado about nothing. But it is precisely understanding and working with this nothing that has allowed civilization to progress. The development of zero across continents, centuries, and minds has made it one of the greatest accomplishments of human society. Because math is a global language, and calculus its crowning achievement, zero exists and is used everywhere. But, like its function as a symbol and a concept meant to denote absence, zero may still seem like nothing at all. Yet, recall the fears over Y2K and zero no longer seems like a tale told by an idiot.

References: 1. Kaplan, Robert (2000). The Nothing that Is: A Natural History of Zero. New York: Oxford University Press.

2. Seife, Charles (2000). Zero: The Biography

Rights: © Copyright Yale Center for the Study of Globalization 2002

The race to zero emissions, and why the world depends on it

Facebook Twitter Print Email

A host of countries have recently announced major commitments to significantly cut their carbon emissions, promising to reach "net zero" in the coming years. The term is becoming a global rallying cry, frequently cited as a necessary step to successfully beat back climate change, and the devastation it is causing.

What is net zero and why is it important?

Put simply, net zero means we are not adding new emissions to the atmosphere. Emissions will continue, but will be balanced by absorbing an equivalent amount from the atmosphere.

Practically every country has joined the Paris Agreement on climate change, which calls for keeping the global temperature to 1.5°C above pre-industrial era levels. If we continue to pump out the emissions that cause climate change, however, temperatures will continue to rise well beyond 1.5, to levels that threaten the lives and livelihoods of people everywhere.

This is why a growing number of countries are making commitments to achieve carbon neutrality, or "net zero" emissions within the next few decades. It’s a big task, requiring ambitious actions starting right now.

Net zero by 2050 is the goal. But countries also need to demonstrate how they will get there. Efforts to reach net-zero must be complemented with adaptation and resilience measures, and the mobilization of climate financing for developing countries.

So how can the world move toward net zero?

The good news is that the technology exists to reach net zero – and it is affordable.

A key element is powering economies with clean energy, replacing polluting coal - and gas and oil-fired power stations - with renewable energy sources, such as wind or solar farms. This would dramatically reduce carbon emissions. Plus, renewable energy is now not only cleaner, but often cheaper than fossil fuels.

A wholesale switch to electric transport, powered by renewable energy, would also play a huge role in lowering emissions, with the added bonus of slashing air pollution in the world’s major cities. Electric vehicles are rapidly becoming cheaper and more efficient, and many countries, including those committed to net zero, have proposed plans to phase out the sale of fossil-fuel powered cars.

Other harmful emissions come from agriculture (livestock produce significant levels of methane, a greenhouse gas). These could be reduced drastically if we eat less meat and more plant-based foods. Here again, the signs are promising, such as the rising popularity of "plant-based meats" now being sold in major international fast-food chains.

What will happen to remaining emissions?

Reducing emissions is extremely important. To get to net zero, we also need to find ways to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Here again, solutions are at hand. The most important have existed in nature for thousands of years.

 These "nature-based solutions" include forests, peatbogs, mangroves, soil and even underground seaweed forests , which are all highly efficient at absorbing carbon. This is why huge efforts are being made around the world to save forests, plant trees, and rehabilitate peat and mangrove areas, as well as to improve farming techniques.

Who is responsible for getting to net zero?

We are all responsible as individuals, in terms of changing our habits and living in a way which is more sustainable, and which does less harm to the planet, making the kind of lifestyle changes which are highlighted in the UN’s Act Now campaign.

The private sector also needs to get in on the act and it is doing so through the UN Global Compact , which helps businesses to align with the UN’s environmental and societal goals.

It’s clear, however, that the main driving force for change will be made at a national government level, such as through legislation and regulations to reduce emissions.

Many governments are now moving in the right direction. By early 2021, countries representing more than 65 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions and more than 70 per cent of the world economy, will have made ambitious commitments to carbon neutrality.　

The European Union, Japan and the Republic of Korea, together with more than 110 other countries, have pledged carbon neutrality by 2050; China says it will do so before 2060.

Some climate facts:

The earth is now 1.1°C warmer than it was at the start of the industrial revolution. We are not on track to meet agreed targets in the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change , which stipulated keeping global temperature increase well below 2 °C or at 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels.

2010-2019 is the warmest decade on record. On the current path of carbon dioxide emissions, the global temperature is expected to increase by 3 to 5 degrees Celsius by the end of century.

To avoid the worst of warming (maximum 1.5°C rise), the world will need to decrease fossil fuel production by roughly 6 per cent per year between 2020 and 2030. Countries are instead planning and projecting an average annual increase of 2 per cent.

Climate action is not a budget buster or economy-wrecker: In fact, shifting to a green economy will add jobs. It could yield a direct economic gain of US$26 trillion through to 2030 compared with business-as-usual. And this is likely to be a conservative estimate.

Are these commitments any more than just political statements?

These commitments are important signals of good intentions to reach the goal, but must be backed by rapid and ambitious action. One important step is to provide detailed plans for action in nationally determined contributions or NDCs. These define targets and actions to reduce emissions within the next 5 to 10 years. They are critical to guide the right investments and attract enough finance.

So far, 186 parties to the Paris Agreement have developed NDCs. This year, they are expected to submit new or updated plans demonstrating higher ambition and action. Click here to see the NDC registry .

Is net zero realistic?

Yes! Especially if every country, city, financial institution and company adopts realistic plans for transitioning to net zero emissions by 2050.

The COVID-19 pandemic recovery could be an important and positive turning point. When economic stimulus packages kick in, there will be a genuine opportunity to promote renewable energy investments, smart buildings, green and public transport, and a whole range of other interventions that will help to slow climate change.

But not all countries are in the same position to affect change, are they?

That’s absolutely true. Major emitters, such as the G20 countries, which generate 80 per cent of carbon emissions, in particular, need to significantly increase their present levels of ambition and action.

Also, keep in mind that far greater efforts are needed to build resilience in vulnerable countries and for the most vulnerable people; they do the least to cause

climate change but bear the worst impacts. Resilience and adaptation action do not get the funding they need, however.

Even as they pursue net zero, developed countries must deliver on their commitment to provide $100 billion dollars a year for mitigation, adaptation and resilience in developing countries.

What is the UN doing promote climate action? 

It supports a broader process of global consensus on climate goals through the Paris Agreement and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development .

It is a leading source of scientific findings and research on climate change.

Within developing countries, it assists governments with the practicalities of establishing and monitoring NDCs, and taking measures to adapt to climate change, such as by reducing disaster risks and establishing climate-smart agriculture.

• climate change

We use cookies. Read more about them in our Privacy Policy .

• Accept site cookies
• Reject site cookies

Why is net zero so important in the fight against climate change?

What is net zero and why is it needed?

The term ‘net zero’ refers to the target of reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming to zero by balancing the amount released into the atmosphere with the amount removed and stored by carbon sinks. This is also described as ‘carbon neutrality’ or ‘climate neutrality’.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated in 2018 that the world needs to reach net zero by around 2050 if it is to meet the Paris Agreement target of limiting global warming to 1.5°C. The 2050 deadline was subsequently included in the Glasgow Climate Pact agreed at COP26 in 2021. Parties signed up to the Pact recognise that “limiting global warming to 1.5°C requires rapid, deep and sustained reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions, including reducing global carbon dioxide emissions … to net zero around mid-century”.

Governments are increasingly accepting that net zero targets need to be included in their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), and a growing number are legislating for net zero (see below). However, the United Nations Environment Programme’s  Emissions Gap Report  of October 2022 found that, “In the best-case scenario, full implementation of conditional NDCs, plus additional net zero commitments, point to a 1.8°C rise [but] this scenario is currently not credible.”

Achieving net zero through emissions abatement, negative emissions and offsetting

Getting to net zero requires significant abatement of greenhouse gas emissions across all sectors of the economy. For example, in the energy sector – the source of around three-quarters of emissions – switching from fossil fuels to renewables including wind and solar power to generate electricity is significantly reducing carbon dioxide emissions in many countries. To make deeper cuts in emissions, large-scale investment and innovation are needed, firstly to provide technologically-viable and economically-competitive alternatives to fossil-fuel-intensive technologies in sectors like heating and transport, and secondly to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide (such as methane) from sectors like agriculture. 

Abating emissions from some sectors – such as cement, aviation and shipping – is currently difficult and expensive and it is unlikely they will be reduced to zero in the timescale needed to meet the Paris Agreement temperature targets. Therefore, there will be ‘residual’ emissions and the equivalent amount of these will need to be removed from the atmosphere as ‘negative emissions’. This can be done by offsetting from sectors such as land use and power, which have the potential to deploy greenhouse gas removal technologies, in order to achieve net zero across an economy. However, the technologies in question, which include Direct Air Capture (DAC) and Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), are not yet proven at scale, can be expensive and energy-intensive, and have their own unwanted negative impacts.

Greenhouse gases can also be removed using nature-based solutions such as  planting trees , and through land management changes to increase the amount of carbon sequestered into soil.

Governments may use international offsets to meet their own individual net zero targets. Offsets are used especially if it is difficult for the country to reduce some of its own territorial emissions: for example if,  like Norway , it has a large oil and gas industry. Buying offsets allows a country to invest in an emissions reduction project outside its borders but is sometimes criticised for ‘moving the problem elsewhere’ and in some countries there is poor governance of offsets. 

Because of the limits to negative emissions technologies and the criticisms of offsetting, climate scientists stress the need to focus on abating domestic emissions as the primary way to bring emissions to net zero and thus avoid dangerous climate change.

Who is setting net zero laws and targets?

National governments.

The Net Zero Tracker’s 2022 Stocktake Report finds that 128 countries and territories have some sort of net zero target. In 2019 the United Kingdom became the first major economy to legislate for net zero (by 2050), following  guidance  from the UK’s independent advisory body, the Climate Change Committee, which stressed that a net zero target was essential for the country to meet its commitments to the Paris Agreement goals. 

Of the world’s biggest emitters, China in 2020 committed to achieving ‘climate neutrality’ by 2060 – a crucial pledge for enabling the world as a whole to limit temperature rise to 1.5 or 2°C. The European Union set out its bloc-wide  net zero target for 2050  in its  European Green Deal  published  in December 2019. The United States has also committed to net zero emissions by 2050 at the latest.

While the number of net zero laws is increasing, less positively the Net Zero Tracker highlights that more than 75% of national and sub-national governments are not transparent on whether they intend to use external offsetting to meet their targets.

Businesses and finance

Businesses and the financial sector are also making net zero commitments, and at an increasing pace. It is hoped that these actions – along with those from cities and regions – will both directly contribute to meeting the Paris goals and influence national governments to commit more to reducing emissions.

Under the umbrella of the UN’s Race to Zero campaign, more than 450 institutions including banks, insurers and investors, responsible for over US$130 trillion of private finance assets, have committed to net zero targets through the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ). There are various initiatives to support the private sector in reducing its emissions in line with the Paris Agreement, for instance providing guidance on setting credible pledges, and criteria against which to monitor progress, highlight gaps and hold organisations to account. These include UN guidance for ‘non-state entities’ (including businesses and cities), the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), the Transition Pathway Initiative (TPI), and Climate Action 100+ .

Cities and regions

Individual cities and regions are also setting net zero targets. Cities are taking independent action to reduce emissions (e.g. London has expanded its Ultra Low Emission Zone to become the largest zone of its kind in Europe), and they are also acting in coalitions. For example, more than 1,000 cities and local governments have joined the Cities Race to Zero to “raise climate ambition” and contribute to reaching the 2050 net zero target. Cities are home to more than half of the human population and in democracies their inhabitants can influence national policy with their voting choices; they make an outsized contribution to emissions; and they are likely to suffer acute climate impacts – so their role in climate action is very important.

This Explainer was written by Georgina Kyriacou with Josh Burke.

Sign up to our newsletter

Jahangir's World Times First Comprehensive Magazine for students/teachers of competitive exams and general readers as well.

• CSS Result 2020
• Attention CSS 2020 Aspirants! CSS 2018 Examiners Report Also, read in-depth analysis on CSS 2019 Exam by Team JWT
• CE-2019- Written Part Result
• Coronavirus (COVID-19) Latest Update
• India's Bloody Borders | CSS Current Affairs | A Fortnightly Glance | Ahmed Ali Naqvi | World Times
• World Times April 2020 Urdu Editon in PDF
• World Times April 2020 English Edition in PDF
• World Times May 2020 Urdu Edition
• Guss Paper PMS -2020 of URDU & ISLAMIAT
• 4th JWT Essay Competition

Global Zero: world without nuclear weapons

February 4, 2011 Essay , February 2011 Leave a comment

It is clear that if we don’t achieve ‘Global Zero, our planet is always at risk, of being converted into a Ground Zero.

Man has achieved tremendous progress in developing scientific technology for the welfare and well-being of humanity, but simultaneously, he has also developed weapons for his own destruction. To acquire power’ the most flagrant of all passions’ he created weapons including explosive, chemical, biological and nuclear. Among them, the nuclear weapons are the most destructive causing mass destruction. Though, these have been used once in history during the World War-II, these have created a perpetual fear of annihilation among all humans. Now, with the evolving of a multi-cultural globalised world, there is an increase in momentum to develop a consensus for achieving Global Zero- elimination of all nuclear weapons. To succeed in this initiative, the need is to sit together, contemplate, devise a strategy and agree to divert this capability from weapons to welfare of humanity. The most resounding argument, generating urge to achieve this surpassable task lies in the brief history of apocalyptic perils of nuclear weapons.

The perils of atomic weapons were manifest as the two cities of Japan were wreaked when the bombs were dropped on them. In Hiroshima, some 75,000 people were immediately killed by blast, fire and radiation. Another 70,000 died by the end of 1945.

Three days later in Nagasaki, plutonium bomb killed about 40,000 people immediately, another 75,000 died by the end of 1945. Five days after Nagasaki’s flattening, Japan surrendered. But the impact didn’t stop there. Thousands people died in following years due to radiation. Tens of thousands became disabled. Not only the people present at the time suffered but the ‘unborn’ as well. Thousands others were born with deformities and genetic disorders due to which successive generations have suffered.

The need to eliminate nuclear weapons is not only because these can be used for destruction in war but also because they pose equal danger in times of peace. There have been ‘Close Calls’ to annihilation in various occasions. [In 1995] President Boris Yeltsin was informed that a nuclear missile was speeding towards the heart of Russia. Russian nuclear forces, already on hair-trigger alert, were put in even higher alert. Russian policy called for a ‘launch on warning. The fate of the planet hung in the balance. Yeltsin wisely waited. And within those moments, the alarm declared false. ‘An unimaginable nuclear disaster had barely been avoided’ declared America’s Defense Monitor, Center for Defence Information, December 26, 1999.

Another, important incident took place in the US on August 31, 2007.  Air Force crew loaded six live nuclear warheads onto a 8-52 Bomber and flew from ‘Minot Air Force Base’ in North Dakota to ‘Barksdak Air Force Base’ in cruising over the country’s heartland (Around 15 states). Each warhead was 10 times more powerful than the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In analysis report, America’s Defence science Board (DSB) revealed that ‘six of the planet’s most powerful weapons were missing and no one noticed until they had landed in Louisiana after flight of 3 ½ hours.’ The report concluded that ‘human error was at the heart of the incident.

This incident underscores the risk of accidental nuclear explosion threat due to ‘human error’ even in the country of its origin and in the ‘peace times’. It is important to note that this incident occurred in the US, which claims to employ world’s best safety standards for nuclear weapons. While the US itself keeps expressing concern over the safety of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.

wisdom calls for elimination of all nuclear weapons in order to make the future of humanity’ our generation and our future generations ‘ safe and secure.

Moreover, the presence of nuclear weapons in some states provides reason and pretext for other ambitious nations to acquire the same status. This unwise race has itself caused devastating effects on economy and human development, particularly in developing countries.

One of the major world powers, the USSR too, collapsed under the heavy burden of extraordinary defence spending on economy. The developing countries like India, Pakistan, and North Korea also joined the race. They did succeed in acquiring nuclear weapons but their poor population is suffering from abject poverty. A country like Pakistan, which is merely surviving at the edge of economic insolvency, could gain much economic growth, had the resources been utilised for the welfare of people. Iranians are bearing the sanctions imposed by western powers through the UN for pursuing nuclear technology, which according to them, is aimed at acquiring weapons.

Besides, the argument to possess nuclear weapons to maintain deterrence capability has also lost its ground. More the states acquire ‘nukes’, more the risk of their use builds-up. Moreover, the presence of nukes always poses risk of slipping into the hands of terrorists. Admiral Noel Gayler, a former commander-in-chief of the Pacific Command of US Navy, asks, ‘Is difference of nuclear weapons still possible?’  He answers, ‘No. He also questions, ‘Does nuclear disarmament imperil our security? He answers, ‘No, it enhances it.’ As human ‘beings are fallible, deterrence is not a perfect system. It can be failed by human error, accident, miscalculation or simply miscommunication. ‘Does it make sense to risk the future of our cities and even the human species on an unprovable theory?’ David Krieger, founder of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

This is why, fortunately, the initiative of achieving peace of the world without nuclear weapons is gaining support among both the senior military and the political leaders of the world. The increasing number of leaders have realised what Abraham Lincoln said, ‘We must think anew and act anew. Recently many world leaders have expressed willingness to move towards this goal. British Prime Minister Gorden Brown said in March 2008 that the UK was ready to work for ‘a world that is free from nuclear weapons. On December 5, 2008, Nicholas Sarkozy, the French President, while holding EU Presidency, wrote a letter to UN General Secretary, outlining an EU plan to advance global progress toward nuclear disarmament.

Negotiations between Washington and Moscow should start to cut back nuclear stockpiles to minimum. According to moderate estimates, the US and Russia have about 26000 of total 27000 weapons in the world.

• Massive reduction in Russian-US arsenal.
• Complete elimination to zero by all states.
• Establishing verification system to keep check.
• International management of the fuel cycle.

There are many positive indicators which indicate why this goal is achievable. First; there is a strong historical support. Throughout the nuclear age, even at the height of the Cold War, leaders foresaw a day when the world could be free of nukes. In 1986, Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev and US President Ronald Reagan agreed that: ‘A nuclear war could never be won and must never be fought. ‘In 1999, Chinese President Jiang Zemin stated: ‘There is no reason why nuclear weapons should not be comprehensively banned and completely destroyed.

Second; as Jiang Zemin had emphasised in his statement, ‘What it takes to reach this objective is no more than a strong political will. ‘The world leaders agree with the idea of a world without nukes and have the means to achieve it. What they only need is the ‘Political will. Some analysts argue that even if the major world powers agree to eliminate nuclear weapons, country like Iran might not agree to abandon its ambition. Though Iran’s nuclear weapon ambitions is a fallacy, there is a strong reason why Iran would follow the course. If there is growing support by nuclear powers and public opinion worldwide, I think it becomes harder for any government, including Iran, to cross that barrier, said Richard Burt, who was Washington’s Chief negotiator in the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) talks in the early 1990s. Naturally, no country can afford to be on the one side and whole of the world on the other.

Third; there is a strong support among majority of the people around the world. A poll of 21 countries conducted by Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), USA, shows that global public opinion is overwhelmingly in favours of an international agreement for eliminating all nuclear weapons. 76 per cent of respondents, across all countries polled, favour such an agreement. As the public opinion tends to direct the policies of governments, it is likely that the leaders would come to the table.

Fourth; at this time particular, there is a new and great opportunity. US President Barak Obama and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin have signalled to work on nuclear disarmament. The former declared, ‘This is the moment to begin the works of seeking the peace of a world without nuclear weapons. Similarly, Russian Prime Minister Putin expressed in a speech in September 2008 to ‘Close this Pandora’s Box.

This new and unprecedented political support from the heads of the world’s most important governments’ for zero nuclear weapons has made this goal possible. This moment offers both the possibilities and dangers. Possibilities; because of new leadership in the US which appears to support the goal of nuclear abolition. Dangers; because, if this moment passes without action, then the nuclear-race could quickly gather pace with many more states acquiring weapons and the risk of weapons falling into the hands of terrorists would increase.

This opportunity must be seized. It is the time for a new beginning to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons. This moment calls for embracing possibilities and dispelling dangers. The phased and verifiable elimination of nuclear weapons is possible. Here are some of the steps needed to achieve this goal:

Firstly; the ratification of Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). The NPT, which was sponsored by the US, UK and the USSR, was aimed ‘to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapon technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament. The treaty was signed by 187 states and was ratified in 1975. However, the US, its sponsors, did not ratify it. Other four countries which have not signed it are: India, Pakistan, Israel and Cuba. Similarly, CTBT, introduced in 1995, has not been ratified by many states, including the US. It is strongly felt that if the US ratifies these treaties, others would follow the course. ‘Early the US ratification would do much to encourage the few remaining states to follow suit, wrote David Miliband, UK’s former Foreign Secretary, in The Washington Post on December 8, 2008.

Secondly; negotiations between Washington and Moscow should start to cut back nuclear stockpiles to minimum. According to moderate estimates, the US and Russia have about 26000 of total 27000 weapons in the world. As both these states possess largest stockpiles’ 96 per cent of all the nuclear weapons in the world’ they should reduce their arsenal in the first step. ‘Process needs to start with American and Russian leaderships’ argues Richard Burt.

This is an absolutely insensible approach to accumulate that much big arsenal that fraction of which can destroy the whole world. ‘When a country can be destroyed by a dozen weapons, its own possession of thousands of weapons gains no security’ says Admiral Noel Gayler. The huge possession of nukes itself puts larger responsibility on the US and Russia to initiate the process of disarmaments up to minimum level. The successful conclusion of ‘START NEW’ between both powers strengthens the possibility of reaching an agreement on nuclear disarmament.

Thirdly; following the reductions by the US and Russia, the rest of the countries can be brought on board for complete abolition of nukes. It would not be a difficult task. Once the powerful countries lead the course, rest will follow them. Perhaps others seem poised to welcome such move. The willingness of China, the UK and France has already been mentioned. The two South Asian countries India and Pakistan are also ready to shun the nukes. Last June, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, backed the same goal, saying that: ‘The only effective form of nuclear disarmament and elimination of nuclear weapons is global disarmament. President Zardari has also talked of ‘nuclear weapon-free South Asia. North Korea is already on-board in six-party talks and has also committed to abolish nuclear weapons for economic incentives. The only country which has stayed silent is Israel which is undeclared nuclear state. But given the leverage, Washington enjoys over it, Israel will have to be part of the process.

Once this process sets in momentum, the weapons could be delivered to a single and common remote place in oceans for dismantling under the supervision of skilled scientists. The nuclear material could be returned to the donors for use in the energy sector or disposal.

Lastly, having achieved the complete and verified elimination of nuclear weapons from the world, all the countries will have to conclude a joint treaty at the UN platform banning any development of nuclear weapons and technology. As Queen Noor of Jordan told BBC, ‘We have to work on de-legitimising the status of nuclear weapons.’ This is vital for making the elimination of nukes irreversible. This would require establishing many mechanisms to constitute an eventual regime for overseeing the global ban.

It is also important to realise that advantage of use of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes is too great to be ignored. The NPT also underscores ‘to promote cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy’. And, every country has the right to acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. But given the element of conflict in international affairs and atmosphere of mistrust, all the countries can’t be trusted as reliable for not pursuing the ambitions of acquiring nuclear weapons again. This situation warrants a new approach, which would allow the use of nuclear energy and deny the weapons technology.

The Global Zero initiative envisages ‘international management of the fuel cycle to prevent future development of nuclear weapons. ‘An agreement on a new International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) led system that would help states wishing to develop a civil nuclear energy industry to do so without increasing the risk of nuclear weapon proliferation’ says David Miliband. Creation of such international fuel bank would also end the conflicts in the world like Iran Nuclear Issue. This proposal was also forwarded by IAEA’s former head Muhammad Elbradi as early as in 2003, that: ‘all production and processing of nuclear material be under international control. This novel idea has attracted the EU and an American billionaire ‘Warren Buffett’ for financing the project.

In this way, the world could not only be safe from destruction and the humanity from annihilation, but the tremendous energy potential of the nuclear resources could also be utilised for the welfare of people. The resources that go into weapons would help keep people safe and healthy and to give them opportunities. Not only the world is facing energy crisis due to depletion of fossil fuels, but with their emissions our environment is being damaged severely. Nuclear power possesses tremendous energy and simultaneously it is clean energy. It is important for health purposes as it is used in the treatment of many diseases, including cancer. Its use in agriculture enhances crop yield which would help mitigate the food crisis.

Global Zero offers two’ pronged benefits: achieving safety by eliminating nuclear weapons and to achieve prosperity by using nuclear energy. The leaders of world have the greatest moral responsibility to seize the opportunity for the welfare of the living and the future generations of mankind. As Benazir Bhutto said, ‘We owe it to our children to build a world free of the threat of nuclear annihilation.

Related Articles

Great-Power Rivalry Would Lead to a Bipolar World

April 17, 2021

Guess for CSS 2021

January 12, 2021

Essay Outlines

May 18, 2020

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Our award-winning reporting has moved

Context provides news and analysis on three of the world’s most critical issues:

climate change, the impact of technology on society, and inclusive economies.

This site is archived: Visit Context for the latest news and analysis on the three biggest issues affecting people, society and the environment.

• About Thomson Reuters Foundation

EXPLAINER: Are we making real progress towards 'net zero' emissions?

Solar panels are shown on the roof of the Hanover Olympic building, the first building to offer individual solar-powered net-zero apartments in Los Angeles, California, U.S., June 6, 2017. REUTERS/Mike Blake

About our Climate coverage

Newsletter sign up:.

• As climate 'tipping points' near, scientists plan for the unthinkable
• Roe v Wade: Which US states are banning abortion?
• Vanuatu breaks ground with 'loss and damage' in climate plan
• What will new British PM Liz Truss do on LGBTQ+ issues?
• Activists say China's new Silk Road equips autocrats with spy tech

Many countries and companies have set 'net zero' goals to curb global warming - but they are still too weak to kickstart the huge changes needed in how we live, work and play

BARCELONA, June 13 (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - Governments, cities and companies are rushing to set the net-zero emissions goals scientists say must be met by mid-century to keep global warming to agreed limits - but achieving them is another matter.

A new analysis by the Net Zero Tracker research initiative notes that in the last few years interest in setting such targets has "exploded" – but "an alarming lack of credibility still pervades the entire landscape", it warned.

"This is problematic because if some of the targets disguise inaction, it can create a false sense of progress," said the June report from the UK-based Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit, Data-Driven EnviroLab, NewClimate Institute and Oxford Net Zero.

Many of the goals - especially those set by business - lack transparency, cover only limited types of emissions, rely too heavily on carbon offsetting or have no interim milestones to stay on track, it added.

What does the growing global enthusiasm for "net zero" mean and what is its importance for the climate and our economies?

WHY DOES 'NET ZERO' MATTER?

It may have become a buzzword in the world of climate action, but scientists and policy makers say it's key to keeping us safe from harm as the planet warms.

The U.N. climate science panel has said man-made carbon dioxide emissions need to fall by about 45% by 2030, from 2010 levels, and reach "net zero" by mid-century to give the world a good chance of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius and avoiding the worst impacts of climate change.

Under the 2015 Paris Agreement, nearly 200 countries said they would act to curb the rise in global average temperatures to "well below" 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times and strive to keep it to a ceiling of 1.5C.

But the world has already heated up by about 1.1C and is set for warming of close to 2.5C this century, even if current pledges to rein in still-rising emissions by 2030 are implemented, researchers estimate.

In May, the World Meteorological Organization warned there is a 50:50 chance of the average global temperature temporarily reaching 1.5C above the pre-industrial level for at least one of the next five years – and that likelihood is increasing with time.

Should that happen, it would not mean the Paris accord limits have been broken but it would be a precursor of what the world could be like if they are.

Scientists say surpassing 1.5-2C of warming for a longer period of time would bring worsening extreme weather and potentially catastrophic sea level rise, making some parts of the planet uninhabitable and fuelling hunger and migration.

These risks - and mounting public pressure to act on climate change threats - are why a fast-rising number of countries, companies and others are promising to cut their planet-warming emissions to net zero by 2050 or soon after.

If the mid-century net-zero goals set so far are actually met, global warming could be kept to about 1.8C, analysts say.

But some climate activists have criticised 2050 net-zero goals for enabling countries and companies to postpone emissions reductions until a vague far-off date.

WHAT IS NET ZERO?

Achieving net-zero emissions isn't the same as eliminating all emissions.

It means ensuring any human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2) or other planet-warming gases that can't be avoided or locked up are removed from the atmosphere some other way .

This can be done naturally, such as by restoring forests that suck CO2 out of the air. It can also be done using technology that captures and stores emissions from power plants and factories or directly pulls CO2 from the atmosphere.

Planting more trees worldwide is a popular way to absorb and store more carbon, but human-made technologies that perform the same job remain expensive and have yet to be deployed on a large-scale.

Scientists say carbon "removals", in any form, cannot substitute for cutting greenhouse gas emissions as fast as possible - although some removals are likely to be needed and deployed to help curb rising temperatures.

There is fierce debate around the growing enthusiasm for carbon offsetting - where governments, companies and individuals pay for their emissions to be compensated by clean energy and conservation projects that reduce CO2 emissions elsewhere. Those emissions cuts are then counted as part of the government, company or individual’s own carbon-cutting efforts.

WHO HAS COMMITTED TO NET ZERO?

At a country level, the picture is improving, according to the latest Net Zero Tracker report, but things are advancing more slowly among businesses and cities.

National government net-zero targets now cover 91% of global GDP, up from 68% in December 2020, and represent at least 83% of global greenhouse gas emissions, with about two-thirds of those goals enshrined in law or policy documents.

Only 10 countries have set target years later than 2050 but they include some of the world’s biggest emitters – including China’s 2060 pledge and India’s 2070 commitment. Those 10 countries are responsible for about 55% of all emissions by countries with net zero targets, the researchers said.

Large cities are lagging, with 235 having set a net-zero target, mainly in rich countries in North America, Europe, and Asia - but more than 900 have yet to do so.

More than a third of the world’s largest publicly traded companies, meanwhile, now have net-zero targets - up from a fifth in December 2020 - but 65% of corporate targets do not yet meet minimum reporting standards, said the latest Net Zero Tracker report.

Europe is doing best in terms of the proportion of companies with net-zero targets, with 58%, compared with 36% in North America and 20% in East Asia.

But a February report from the NewClimate Institute and Carbon Market Watch warned that net-zero and carbon-neutral pledges can hide a multitude of sins, and there is a need for more information to allow consumers to work out which amount to little more than “green-washing”.

The analysis looked at 25 of the world’s largest corporations, many of them household names – from Amazon to IKEA, Carrefour and Google – and found their net-zero pledges amounted to future emissions reductions, often decades from now, of an average of just 40%.

The problems identified range from a lack of specific emissions reduction targets to vagueness around which parts of the supply chain are covered and the use of carbon credits to offset company emissions instead of efforts to cut them. 

HOW DO YOU SET A CREDIBLE NET-ZERO TARGET?

The World Resources Institute (WRI) and the 2050 Pathways Platform - which work with governments and others on their climate commitments - say cutting emissions within national boundaries should be the priority, with efforts to offset what remains considered only after that.

Currently, only a few governments explicitly aim to use offset credits outside of their jurisdiction to meet their net zero targets or reserve the right to do so: 17 out of 128 countries; 15 out of 115 states and regions; and 39 out of 235 cities, according to Net Zero Tracker.

The share is far higher for corporations at nearly 40%, especially among those targeting net-zero emissions for earlier dates such as 2030. Less than 2% of companies have explicitly ruled out their use, leaving close to 60% that have not specified whether or not they plan to rely on offsetting.

To be credible, net-zero targets should cover all greenhouse gases, including methane, and all economic sectors, as well as international aviation and shipping, WRI says.

Plans for net-zero emissions should be achieved by 2050 or earlier, with the highest-emitting countries doing the most, fastest - and they should be crafted in consultation with those they will affect and clearly communicated, WRI recommends.

The steps needed to get to net zero should be incorporated now into ambitious 2030 emissions reduction targets in national plans and reflected in everyday decision-making, to avoid new investments in high-carbon technologies and infrastructure, according to WRI researchers.

Company net-zero targets often cover very different sources of emissions, with different baselines, and can be challenging to compare, though the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) has released guidelines to help remedy that.

This year, U.N. chief António Guterres launched a high-level expert group to help develop stronger and clearer standards for net-zero pledges by businesses, investors and local governments, as well as to verify progress towards them and accelerate their implementation through new rules and regulations.

The U.N.-led "Race to Zero" campaign, launched on World Environment Day in June 2020, also unites businesses, cities and other organisations that aim by around mid-century to cut their planet-heating emissions to net zero.

With a growing focus on the robustness of those commitments, Race to Zero members must meet stringent criteria, including submitting a plan in line with climate science and setting interim targets to reduce emissions.

This explainer was updated on June 13, 2022, with new information on the growth in net-zero targets from the latest Net Zero Tracker analysis.

Related stories:

IN FOCUS - Achieving net-zero emissions

Consumers left in the dark as corporate net-zero plans fail to add up

More net than zero: Do carbon-cutting promises add up for the climate?

Meaningless or sensible? Net zero by 2050 divides climate community

(Reporting by Megan Rowling @meganrowling; editing by Laurie Goering. Please credit the Thomson Reuters Foundation, the charitable arm of Thomson Reuters, that covers the lives of people around the world who struggle to live freely or fairly. Visit http://news.trust.org/climate)

• Climate Politics
• Climate Change General

EXPLORE MORE Climate NEWS

Could an indigenous funding boost revive stuttering forest pact?

No room to cut: Rising inflation traps Bangladesh climate migrants

Will Iran's climate inaction fuel rising disaster threats?

Why climate-change 'loss and damage' will be a hot topic at COP27

Our global editorial team of about 55 journalists and more than 350 freelancers covers the lives of people around the world who struggle to live freely or fairly.

• Terms and Conditions
• Privacy and Cookies
• Acceptable Use Policy
• Trust Principles

Copyright © 2020 Thomson Reuters Foundation. Thomson Reuters Foundation is a charity registered in England and Wales (registration number: 1082139)

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 12 November 2021

Path to net zero is critical to climate outcome

• Tianyi Sun 1 ,
• Ilissa B. Ocko 1 ,
• Elizabeth Sturcken 1 &
• Steven P. Hamburg 1  

Scientific Reports volume  11 , Article number:  22173 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

9674 Accesses

20 Citations

34 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Climate-change mitigation
• Projection and prediction

An Author Correction to this article was published on 24 November 2021

This article has been updated

Net zero greenhouse gas targets have become a central element for climate action. However, most company and government pledges focus on the year that net zero is reached, with limited awareness of how critical the emissions pathway is in determining the climate outcome in both the near- and long-term. Here we show that different pathways of carbon dioxide and methane—the most prominent long-lived and short-lived greenhouse gases, respectively—can lead to nearly 0.4 °C of warming difference in midcentury and potential overshoot of the 2 °C target, even if they technically reach global net zero greenhouse gas emissions in 2050. While all paths achieve the Paris Agreement temperature goals in the long-term, there is still a 0.2 °C difference by end-of-century. We find that early action to reduce both emissions of carbon dioxide and methane simultaneously leads to the best climate outcomes over all timescales. We therefore recommend that companies and countries supplement net zero targets with a two-basket set of interim milestones to ensure that early action is taken for both carbon dioxide and methane. A one-basket approach, such as the standard format for Nationally Determined Contributions, is not sufficient because it can lead to a delay in methane mitigation.

Similar content being viewed by others

Aligning climate scenarios to emissions inventories shifts global benchmarks

Uncertainty in non-CO2 greenhouse gas mitigation contributes to ambiguity in global climate policy feasibility

Net-zero approaches must consider Earth system impacts to achieve climate goals

Introduction.

The concept of net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is now a central element of government and business commitments to address climate change, with more net zero policies and pledges being rolled out on an almost daily basis. However, discussions continue to focus on the year in which net zero is achieved as the determinant of a successful climate outcome. Rather, the path to net zero is equally as important as when it is achieved, because different paths yield different climate outcomes especially in the near-term.

Here we show that pathways that include early action to reduce emissions of both carbon dioxide and methane (Fig.  1 , panel A)—the two most prominent long- and short-lived GHGs, respectively 1 , 2 —yields the lowest temperature outcomes over all timescales. We therefore recommend that countries and companies adopt supplementary interim milestones in addition to net zero targets that encourage early emissions reductions of both of these gases. This can be pursued by following a two-basket approach that identifies a specific near-term milestone for each gas.

Beyond the increased likelihood of achieving long-term temperature targets, three potential advantages of this supplemental two-basket milestone strategy include: (i) slowing down the rate of warming in the near-term, (ii) lowering the mid-century peak warming, and (iii) reducing dependence on negative emissions technologies in the medium to long-term. The success of the two-basket milestone strategy ultimately depends on countries and companies committing to and achieving ambitious targets in both baskets. However, this strategy is particularly beneficial relative to a one-basket because it encourages separate treatment of long- and short-lived GHGs, and thereby circumvents the many challenges of using a metric to compare GHGs with vastly different lifetimes 3 . For example, Global Warming Potential with a 100-year time horizon (GWP100)—the most commonly employed metric to aggregate emissions in a one-basket approach—downplays the importance of short-lived GHG mitigation to avoided warming in the following few decades, which can therefore lead to missed opportunities to maximize climate benefits before midcentury 3 .

Awareness of the importance of the path and action to address this issue are critical given that the number of net zero pledges has doubled in less than a year. This includes more than 1,500 companies with a combined revenue of more than $11.4 trillion 4 and more than 20 national governments 5 currently accounting for at least one third of global GHG emissions 6 . Several more governments are currently considering active legislation to adopt targets 7 , and investors are urging companies to adopt net zero goals and prepare for a zero-emissions economy 8 .

Net zero targets, in particular net zero carbon dioxide emissions, is a critical element for achieving the Paris Agreement temperature goals 9 , 10 , 11 . Previous studies have discussed many aspects of net zero with regards to its application in policy, including the definitions of relevant terminology, timeline difference between net zero carbon and net zero GHG emissions, near-term emissions reductions and mitigation investments, and impact of climate metrics on the net zero timeline 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 . Studies have also identified multiple shortcomings of current net zero targets, and called for strategies for improvement. Some of those issues are a need for transparency relating to types of GHGs covered and metrics used; consistency in the accounting method for land-use emissions; clarity in definitions and terminology; distinction among carbon dioxide removals, reductions and avoidance; consideration of fairness regarding different timelines for achieving net zero among countries with a diversity of economic conditions; and concern over companies/countries using the long timeline of net zero targets to delay decarbonization 13 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 . Proposals to improve net zero targets include but are not limited to transparency in the scope of emissions regarding gas species, sources, and metrics; disclosure of contributions from emissions reductions, removals, and offsets; disclosure of fairness and adequacy of target timeline as required in the Paris Agreement Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs); long-term roadmap of maintaining net zero or net negative emissions; and plans to monitor and manage carbon storage.

Further, current net zero targets do not inherently call for early action on short-lived GHGs, which a growing body of research shows is a key strategy to slow down warming in the near-term 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 . Emissions of short-lived GHGs account for nearly a third of today’s gross warming 27 , and given that they don’t last long in the atmosphere, emissions reductions in these GHGs can quickly lead to slowing down the global-mean rate of warming. Short-lived GHGs’ role in net zero commitments can be undervalued and misunderstood, due in part to the metrics issue described above, which can lead to missed opportunities to lower damages in the near- (2021–2040) to mid-term (2041–2060).

Our recommended approach of supplementing net zero commitments with separate interim milestones for methane and carbon dioxide emissions builds on previous recommendations discussed above 13 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 and the two-basket approach to GHG mitigation that has been proposed by earlier studies [e.g. 28 , 29 ] but not widely adopted. This strategy can help constrain the emissions pathway and encourage early action for both short- and long-lived GHGs, thereby strengthening the probability of meeting globally agreed upon temperature goals while reducing the damages suffered in the interim.

Common misconceptions of net zero targets

Net zero GHG targets are considered the primary strategy to achieve long-term temperature goals. The current net zero framework rose to prominence as a result of analyses reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 9 as well as language in the Paris Agreement 11 that suggested the net zero concept and suitable timelines consistent with global temperature targets. While variations in the definition exist 14 , 15 , 30 , current net zero pledges most often use the definition adopted by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC): a point in time (typically around 2050) when no further GHGs are being added to the atmosphere through human activities beyond what can be removed by human interventions 11 . However, as previous reports and studies have noted, the net zero concept is far more complex than widely perceived and many aspects of net zero and the Paris Agreement are open for interpretation 4 , 15 , 31 , 32 . As a result, several misconceptions have evolved that in some cases can threaten the effectiveness of targets.

First, there have been misinterpretations about the ideal timeline; the timeline identified by the IPCC for achieving net zero carbon dioxide emissions consistent with temperature targets has been largely interpreted as the timeline for achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions, but the time period for the latter is decades later 9 . Net zero by 2050 is also the strictest timeline within the flexibility given by Article 4 of the Paris Agreement that outlines net zero GHGs to be achieved “in the second half of this century” 11 . However, it is widely perceived by the general public and environmental organizations that achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 is a requirement by the Paris Agreement 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 . While achieving net zero GHG emissions as early as possible is generally better for the climate, it can potentially deter commitments if companies and countries become overwhelmed with the aggressive timeline. Therefore, it is important that decision makers are aware that 2050 is not a “required” timeline for net zero GHG emissions, rather that net zero would likely occur before 2100 to achieve temperature goals 15 .

Second, there has been confusion over the role of short-lived GHGs in net zero targets 4 , 37 ; combining all GHG emissions into one target obfuscates the different actions needed for short- versus long-lived GHGs (most prominently methane and carbon dioxide, respectively). For example, while we need to prevent the build-up of long-lived GHGs in the atmosphere via net zero emissions (and thus adhere to a budget) 38 , short-lived GHG emissions don’t need to reach zero, only have their rates reduced to not contribute to additional warming 9 , 39 . The emphasis on a combined net zero target can therefore lead to a lack of attention to cumulative emissions for long-lived GHGs, and a misguided perception that short-lived GHGs need to reach zero, or more commonly, that net negative carbon dioxide emissions must compensate for residual short-lived GHG emissions. Rather, we can still achieve climate stabilization with residual non-zero emissions of short-lived GHGs that are not compensated for by negative carbon dioxide emissions as long as their emission rate is gradually declining over time, because these pollutants do not build up in the atmosphere over long time periods 9 , 39 .

And third, many do not realize that net zero emissions goals do not address the climate crisis over all timescales, only long-term warming and climate stabilization. This is consistent with the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement, which is to stay below certain levels of warming in the long-term, but also means that net zero targets in isolation are not designed to slow down the rate of warming in the next few decades which would reduce additional damages from increases in temperature. Further, the aggregation of GHG emissions, using GWP100 as required by the UNFCCC, makes it difficult to unambiguously determine the climate impact of the Paris Agreement emission goal of “peaking of GHG emissions as soon as possible” and undertaking “rapid reductions thereafter” 11 , because the breakdown between short- and long-lived GHG emissions is unknown; for example one could increase short-lived GHG emissions but decrease long-lived GHG emissions, with a net decrease that suggests a peak and decline, but more warming in the following few decades. Given that effective strategies exist to reduce near-term climate damages 25 , 26 , it is important that climate policies pursue these actions as well as those focused on stabilizing the climate. Together, cumulative damages can be reduced relative to those incurred from focusing on only one of these objectives.

In addition to these impactful misunderstandings 4 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , the critical role of the emissions pathway in determining the climate outcome is not widely understood—threatening anticipated benefits of climate action as well as potentially missing opportunities to further reduce near-term damages. There is a perception that the date net zero is achieved is the sole indicator of success 32 , 36 , yet different paths yield different outcomes and thus damages. Therefore, the net zero framing can unintentionally yield a false sense of what is needed to stay below agreed upon temperature goals because some paths can overshoot temperature goals. Further, there is a false sense of rigid requirements 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , because it is also possible to achieve temperature goals even if humanity does not succeed in meeting the net zero goals set out (Fig.  1 ; gray lines). And finally, the role of early action in limiting damage in the near-term is largely hidden in the net zero construct.

To clarify the importance of the path to minimizing climate damages, we examined a range of GHG emissions pathways, all of which achieve net zero by 2050 and yet result in a range of temperature outcomes (Fig.  1 ; colored lines and markers). Some are far better than others at lowering the rate of warming over the next few decades, some experience peak warming temperatures well below and even above 2 °C, and there are different end-of-century warming levels.

Global emissions pathways and corresponding temperature outcomes discussed in this study. ( A ) Global mean temperature increases relative to the pre-industrial (1850–1900) period resulting from various global emissions pathways shown in ( C , D ). ( B ) The near-term (2030–2040) rate of warming and mid-term (2050) temperature increase corresponding to ( A ). ( C ) Global GHG emissions pathways (Gt CO 2 e-100; calculated using Global Warming Potentials with a 100-year time horizon 1 ) used in this study. ( D ) The breakdown of carbon dioxide, methane, and other GHG emissions (nitrous oxide and fluorinated gases) in ( C ). Colored solid lines and markers indicate pathways that meet the net zero GHG emissions by 2050 target. Gray dashed lines and markers indicate pathways that do not meet the net zero GHG emissions by 2050 target.

The role of the net zero path in determining climate outcomes

We assess four illustrative mitigation pathways that encompass a range of possibilities for achieving global net zero GHG emissions by 2050 (the most ambitious timeline consistent with the Paris Agreement). Each path is considered feasible given existing technologies and/or consistent with policy discussions. For example, abatement potentials for methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated (F)-gases are constrained by technological feasibility and availability of effective mitigation strategies, and for carbon dioxide are constrained by the ultimate goal of achieving net zero by 2050 (the average timeline for emissions pathways consistent with 1.5 °C according to IPCC 9 ). Emissions of aerosols and reactive gases are assumed to follow the average of Shared Socio-economic Pathways that reach similar radiative forcing levels as the Representative Concentration Pathway 2.6 (Supplementary Fig.  1 ) 40 , 41 . The mitigation pathways of these pollutants are influenced by decarbonization and air quality policy that is not discussed in this study, but the sensitivity of our results to three different levels of mitigation is tested (Supplementary Fig.  2 ). Overall, the reduction of aerosol and reactive gas emissions tends to increase warming rate in the immediate term before the benefit of reducing GHGs starts to dominate, and increase peak warming in all scenarios. Nonetheless, the benefit of early action on major GHGs is consistent across different levels of aerosol and reactive gas emissions. See “ Methods ” section for more details.

We consider two mitigation timelines for the two most prominent GHGs, carbon dioxide and methane: ‘early’ and ‘late’ action. We focus on these two gases because they account for over 70% of today’s positive radiative forcing from GHG emissions to date, and they also represent the dominant long-lived and short-lived GHGs, respectively, for both current and future warming in the absence of climate action 42 . While the paths we consider are generally illustrative, they are within the range of emissions pathways projected by integrated assessment models 9 or considered technically achievable 25 , 26 , 46 , 47 . However, actual carbon dioxide and methane reductions over time can take many forms, and socio-economic constraints and large-scale deployment of various technologies, such as negative emissions technologies, will play a major role in determining exact paths. For the purpose of this analysis, we do not vary nor explore these variables further.

For carbon dioxide, we are constrained by paths that achieve net zero emissions in 2050. Therefore, in this study, carbon dioxide emissions are reduced following a linear path and only reach the amount of net negative emissions needed to compensate for residual non-carbon dioxide emissions mathematically. Early action for carbon dioxide includes immediately reducing emissions, at a rate of 18 gigatonnes per year (Gt/yr) emissions every decade from 2020 (45Gt/yr) to 2050 (-8Gt/yr), and late action includes keeping the 2020 emissions level (45Gt/yr) through 2030 then quickly reducing to net negative emissions in 2050. Achieving -8Gt/yr of net carbon dioxide emissions in 2050 is within the range of scenarios estimated by the integrated assessment models used in the IPCC 2018 report 9 . While net negative carbon dioxide emissions generally increase in magnitude toward 2100 in these scenarios, we keep it constant at -8Gt/yr from 2050 to 2100 for simplicity.

For methane, recent studies have shown that 45–55% of methane emissions reductions by 2030 can be considered achievable with existing technologies and strategies 25 , 26 . Therefore in this analysis, early action for methane includes roughly halving methane emissions by 2030 (relative to the reference scenario of a projected 383 million metric tonnes per year (MMt/yr) based on Ocko et al. 25 ) then keeping a constant emission rate at 200 MMt/yr throughout the century. Late action includes taking no action until 2040 and then reducing to 200 MMt/yr by 2050.

Combinations of these early and late mitigation timelines for carbon dioxide and methane, along with mitigation of nitrous oxide and F-gases, make up the four pathways: (1) early action for both carbon dioxide and methane; (2) early action for carbon dioxide and late action for methane; (3) late action for carbon dioxide and early action for methane; and (4) late action for both carbon dioxide and methane (see Methods for more details on the model and pathways). Each pathway achieves net zero GHG emissions in 2050 using the standard metric for accounting under the UNFCCC: Carbon Dioxide Equivalence (CO 2 e) using GWP100 for non-CO 2 gases.

Impact of path on key climate indicators

We use the reduced-complexity climate model MAGICC 43 to assess global mean temperature responses to each pathway, and analyze key climate change indicators: rate of warming, which is associated with the pace of damages and the ability for society and ecosystems to adapt to changes; peak warming, which is associated with loss of some ecosystems and tipping point thresholds; and long-term warming, which is associated with shifts in biomes and sea level rise 9 . Results are shown in Fig.  1 and described below:

Rate of warming —Early methane action has the largest impact on slowing the rate of warming over the next few decades. When combined with early carbon dioxide mitigation, the slowdown is maximized. If early action only applies to carbon dioxide emissions, there is an appreciable slowdown in the rate of warming, but not nearly as much as with methane or methane alone (Fig.  1 ; note that we restrict the magnitude of early carbon dioxide reductions to a reasonably realistic path, which constrains the degree to which the rate of warming can slow down). If we delay reductions in emissions of both GHGs relative to early reductions in both, the rate of warming is close to the reference emissions pathway for at least a couple decades, meaning we miss a powerful opportunity to limit social and environmental damages in the near-term.

Peak warming —Peak warming is lowest for the case with early action on both GHGs, and can be considered “well below 2 °C.” The early methane action and late carbon dioxide action scenario has a lower peak warming than early carbon dioxide action and late methane action; this is because peak warming occurs by midcentury, and methane plays an outsized role in near-term warming due to its potent yet short-lived characteristics. Therefore, delaying methane action leads to a larger peak warming around midcentury. Further, early action for both compared to late action for both can shave 0.4 °C off the peak warming, and late action for both can even temporarily breach the 2 °C temperature target despite meeting the net zero by 2050 target (Fig.  1 , panel B).

Long-term warming —Despite emissions pathways being nearly identical post-2050, end-of-century warming varies considerably for the four emissions scenarios (Fig.  1 , panels A and C). This is mostly due to the amount of carbon dioxide emitted before 2050. Given that carbon dioxide is a long-lived GHG, the more carbon dioxide we emit before the net zero target is achieved, the more carbon dioxide there is in the atmosphere for centuries to come—committing the planet to warming for generations. Therefore, early action prevents a considerable amount of carbon dioxide from ever entering the atmosphere (i.e. a smaller carbon budget), that would otherwise have to be removed at a later date to achieve similar long-term temperature outcomes. Further, although the early methane action and late carbon dioxide action scenario shows a lower peak warming than vice versa, it has a higher long-term warming level, because more carbon dioxide has built up in the atmosphere throughout this path. However, it is important to note that in all four cases, the level of warming at end-of-century can be considered “well below 2 °C.” Further, for early action for both gases, the temperature drops close to 1.5 °C. While none of the illustrative pathways in our analysis reach temperature below 1.5 °C by 2100, it does not represent the full range of climate futures. For example, if net negative carbon dioxide emissions were to grow in magnitude toward 2100 as carbon capture technologies scale up, it is possible to reach temperature below 1.5 °C by 2100 9 .

The importance of early action

Early action to mitigate both carbon dioxide and methane is clearly beneficial for reducing climate damages over all timescales relative to other mitigation timelines. It yields the lowest rate of warming, peak warming, and long-term warming. It also helps to avoid temporarily overshooting the 2 °C temperature goal of which the consequences are not well understood 9 . An additional benefit of early carbon dioxide and methane action (which includes actions to protect carbon stocks such as stopping tropical deforestation) is that we are less dependent on nascent, currently expensive, or as-of-yet unavailable carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies, such as large-scale direct air capture of carbon dioxide. While the investment in advancing CDR technologies is important, a greater focus on mitigating short-lived GHGs along with decarbonization by companies and countries could reduce dependence on CDR to achieve climate goals.

The outsized role of methane in the near-term

Standard climate metrics (i.e. CO 2 e-100 and GWP100) downplay the impact of short-lived GHGs—such as methane—on warming in the next few decades. For example, the methane reductions (Fig.  1 D) appear modest relative to the carbon dioxide reductions, but they have a substantial impact on the near-term warming rate. The reason the reductions appear modest is because methane emissions are being valued based on their cumulative radiative impacts over 100 years, which undervalues methane’s true radiative impact relative to carbon dioxide over shorter time horizons (< 30 years). This highlights a key analytical issue with net zero commitments, and why researchers have called for metrics that better convey climate impacts of short-lived GHGs over all timescales 3 , 39 , 44 . In fact, the 10 MMt CO 2 e/yr of methane emitted in 2010 had a similar impact on warming over the following 10 years compared to the 40 MMt CO 2 /yr in 2010 based on the latest understanding of methane’s direct and indirect radiative effects 2 . This is partly why cutting methane emissions can drive down the rate of warming more quickly than cutting carbon dioxide emissions.

Failing to achieve net zero by 2050

It is important to note that while midcentury targets are useful for getting companies and governments to commit to ambitious action, net zero GHG emissions by 2050 is neither a required timeline for achieving temperature targets 45 nor a cliff foretelling failure 16 . We could potentially miss net zero by 2050 targets and still succeed at staying below temperature goals, if we act on methane and never exceed the maximum carbon budget allowed to stay below 2 °C (Fig.  1 ; gray lines and markers). For example, emissions pathways that achieve net zero GHG emissions in 2090 (dotted gray line) or do not achieve net zero GHG emissions at all (dash gray line) can be consistent with staying below temperature targets throughout this century. Note that both pathways do achieve net zero carbon dioxide emissions well before 2100, and the one with early methane reduction (dotted gray line) has a larger maximum carbon budget for similar end-of-century temperature outcomes. This is not to suggest we abandon net zero by 2050 targets, but rather to highlight the advantages of accelerating progress by exploiting components currently receiving much less attention and investment, including rapid reductions in methane emissions and preventing tropical deforestation, and thus greatly increase the probability of achieving humanity’s collective temperature goals. These opportunities largely arise from the ability to aggressively address methane emissions as a separate goal 46 , 47 while continuing a sharp focus on carbon dioxide emissions reductions.

Two-basket interim milestones for net zero targets

While the simplicity of the 2050 net zero goal has led to successfully mobilizing companies and governments to commit to ambitious climate actions on all GHG emissions, it has also de-emphasized the nuanced role of the pathway relative to the conceptually easy point-in-time target. Given that early action leads to significantly more climate benefits over all timescales than pathways with later action, we recommend that companies and countries supplement the original point-in-time net zero targets with a two-basket set of interim milestones to ensure early action, for both short- and long-lived GHGs separately (most notably methane and carbon dioxide, respectively). The adoption of these supplementary interim milestones would retain the simplicity and familiarity of the net zero concept while bringing critical details to the forefront that are key to achieving commonly held climate goals.

The interim milestones would include two near-term targets between now and the net zero year, one for short-lived (e.g. methane) and one for long-lived (e.g. carbon dioxide) GHGs (i.e. a two-basket approach) in addition to the multi-GHG ‘net zero by a specific year’ target. At the country level, this approach is distinct from the standard Paris Agreement NDCs—which can be considered interim milestones for longer-term net zero goals—because those are often one-basket, in that there is just one target that generally includes all GHGs. However, a country can submit these two-basket milestones as part of their NDCs.

A two-basket approach for interim milestones—as opposed to a one-basket interim milestone—is critical because reducing short- and long-lived GHGs benefit the climate over different timescales, and we could miss out on better outcomes in both the near- and long-term if the gases are combined into one target 28 , 29 . The standard metric for combining GHGs (CO 2 e-100) also misrepresents the climate impacts of early action for short-lived GHGs, which further threatens realizing significant climate benefits. While the role of methane and short-lived GHGs mitigation has been investigated by many studies 22 , 25 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , it has been debated whether the additional benefit of a separate mitigation policy is significant 23 , 45 , 54 , 55 , 56 . Some previous studies suggested that early actions to mitigate GHG emissions should focus on CO 2 , if there is competition between CO 2 and methane abatement measures [e.g. 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 ]. However, there is growing evidence of and attention to the benefits of early methane action 25 , 26 , 61 , and given the many affordable measures available for distinct emissions sources 25 , there is strong support to act early for both CO 2 and methane. Our analysis shows a clear benefit of early and rapid versus late methane mitigation in near-term rate of warming, which would likely not occur without an explicit methane policy 47 , 62 . Further, a two-basket approach to emissions accounting can also increase the effectiveness of international emission offset agreements by avoiding additional climate damages from emission offsets with imperfect climate metrics 63 and reduce the uncertainties in climate impacts with emissions trading 64 .

Overall, without two-basket interim milestones, the emissions pathway to net zero can take various forms 16 . Depending on different combinations of the amount, type, and timing of GHGs emitted before net zero, it is both possible to remain well below or overshoot temperature goals even if the global community reaches net zero by 2050 (Fig.  1 ; colored lines). These insights are largely hidden to most companies and policymakers, and a two-basket interim milestone approach would bring them to the forefront and increase our chance of a better climate outcome over all timescales.

We need to exploit our growing understanding of the options we have in addressing climate change to ensure an effective, equitable, and rapid outcome. Acting early on methane and carbon dioxide would limit warming over all timescales, maximize reductions in the rate of warming, and make achieving our goals more likely by making the path forward more affordable and less dependent on technology not yet available at scale.

The global mean temperature change is simulated by the freely available reduced complexity climate model, Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change (MAGICC) version 6 43 . MAGICC6 consists of an upwelling-diffusion ocean coupled to a four-box atmosphere and a globally averaged carbon cycle model. The model parameters are calibrated against the more sophisticated Coupled Model Intercomparison Project CMIP3 atmosphere–ocean and C4MIP carbon cycle models. It can reliably simulate the impact of GHG emissions on climate without relying on much computational resource. In this analysis, the model is run using mostly the default properties and medium parameters including 3 °C climate sensitivity. The methane-related properties are updated based on the latest research, including radiative efficiency 65 , atmospheric chemical lifetime 1 , and tropospheric ozone radiative efficiency 66 (see Data S1 ).

For all the experiments, the model is run from 1765 to 2100 with historical GHG concentrations and prescribed aerosol forcing before 2005 and emissions of gases and aerosols from 2005 and onward. The global mean temperature increase simulated by MAGICC6 in 2010–2019 is 1.19 °C relative to the 1850–1900 level, within the likely range of 0.8–1.3 °C assessed by the latest IPCC report and higher than the best estimate of 1.07 °C 27 . It is important to note that a single model projection with one set of parameters cannot represent the full range of possible future temperatures. However, this paper focuses on the differences between emission pathways rather than the exact outcome of a particular pathway.

Two groups of experiments were conducted: The first group contains four emission pathways that reach the target of net zero GHG emissions in 2050; the second group contains one emission pathway that reaches net zero GHG emissions in 2090 and one pathway that does not reach net zero GHG emissions at all. All emission pathways reach net zero CO 2 emissions well before 2100. Only CO 2 and methane emissions pathways are different among these experiments. The CO 2 mitigation pathways are constrained by the need to achieve net zero around mid-century and previous estimates 14 , 45 , 67 . Two illustrative pathways of CO 2 emissions are used for the experiments where the net zero GHG emissions by 2050 target is achieved—early action and late action. Early action is represented by reducing enough CO 2 emissions this decade to be on track to achieve the negative emissions (-8Gt/yr) needed in 2050. Late action is represented by keeping the same emissions rate till 2030 and taking drastic measures to achieve negative emissions in 2050. In the experiments where global emissions do not reach net zero by 2050, CO 2 emissions are constrained by the corresponding methane emission pathway and the goal of limiting temperature below 2 °C. The methane mitigation pathways are constrained by existing technologies 25 , 46 , 47 and also characterized by early and late action. Early action is represented by halving methane emissions by 2030 relative to the reference scenario (200 MMt/yr) then held constant thru 2100. Late action is represented by following the reference scenario emissions until 2040 then reducing to 200 MMt/yr by 2050.

Nitrous oxide (N 2 O) and Fluorinated gases emissions follow a scenario consistent with limiting warming below 2 °C 9 , 68 . N 2 O is slowly reduced to ~ 70% of the 2010 level by mid-century and held constant thru 2100. This mitigation pathway is consistent with the limited and uncertain mitigation potential for N 2 O 9 and can be considered as early action since emissions start to reduce immediately. All species of fluorinated (F-)gases are slowly phased out by 2060 with emission levels reduced to 94%, 63%, and 25% relative to 2020 level by 2030, 2040, and 2050 respectively, consistent with the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol 68 . We do not vary the emissions pathways of N 2 O and F-gases in this analysis, because their potential mitigation pathways play a relatively minor role in determining future level of warming compared to carbon dioxide and methane.

Emissions of aerosols and reactive gases are assumed to follow a selected group of combined Shared Socio-economic Pathways and Representative Concentration Pathways (SSP-RCPs). These combined SSP-RCPs are used in the latest Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 6 (CMIP6) to take into account both end-of-century radiative forcing levels and socio-economic factors such as population, governance, technology advancements, education, and gross domestic product (GDP) 69 . Because the emissions pathways of aerosols and reactive gases are influenced by both decarbonization and air quality policy, we consider three mitigation levels to show the sensitivity of our results to these emissions (Supplementary Figs.  1 and 2). For the no/low mitigation level, we use the RCP8.5 40 as in the reference scenario where aerosols and reactive gases are slightly reduced from 2020 to 2100 except for NH 3 (Supplementary Fig.  1 ; red lines). For the strong mitigation level, we use the SSP1-1.9 scenario 41 where stringent air quality policy is applied and emissions are the lowest (orange lines). For the intermediate mitigation level, we use the average of SSPx-2.6 scenarios (x includes SSP1, 2, 4, and 5) 41 where the radiative forcing level is consistent with the 2 °C temperature goal, which is appropriate for net zero pathways, while assuming no specific air quality policy (yellow lines). The resulting temperature outcomes are shown in Supplementary Fig.  2 and the intermediate mitigation level outcome is shown in Fig.  1 . Overall, the reduction of aerosols and reactive gases can increase peak and end-of-century warming by up to 0.2 °C, and increase the rate of warming in the immediate term (Supplementary Fig.  2 ).

The outcomes of global mean temperature increase from all emission pathways are compared to a reference scenario that corresponds to a world where no additional policies are implemented after what was legislated by the end of 2017 70 .

Data availability

All data are available in the supplementary materials.

Change history

24 november 2021.

A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-02588-2

Myhre, G. et al. Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing. In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Qin, D. et al. ) (Cambridge University Press, 2013).

Google Scholar  

Forster, P. et al. The Earth’s Energy Budget, Climate Feedbacks, and Climate Sensitivity. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al. ) (Cambridge University Press, 2021).

Ocko, I. B. et al. Unmask temporal trade-offs in climate policy debates. Science 356 , 492–493 (2017).

ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

NewClimate Institute and Data-Driven EnviroLab. Navigating the nuances of net-zero targets. http://datadrivenlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Accelerating_Net_Zero_Report_Sept2020.pdf (2020).

Levin, K., D. Rich, K. Ross, T. Fransen, and C. Elliott. Designing and Communicating Net-Zero Targets. World Resources Institute. https://files.wri.org/s3fs-public/designing-communicating-net-zero-targets.pdf (2020).

Janssens-Maenhout, G. et al. EDGAR v4.3.2 Global Atlas of the three major greenhouse gas emissions for the period 1970–2012. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 11 , 959–1002 (2019).

ADS   Google Scholar  

Energy&Climate Intelligence Unit. Countdown to zero: Plotting progress towards delivering net zero emissions by 2050. https://ca1-eci.edcdn.com/reports/ECIU_Countdown_to_Net_Zero.pdf (2019).

Fink, L. Larry Fink’s 2021 letter to CEOs. BlackRock www.blackrock.com/corporate/investor-relations/larry-fink-ceo-letter (2021).

IPCC. In Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. (Masson-Delmotte, V. et al. ) In Press (2018).

Lee, J. Y. et al. Future global climate: scenario-based projections and near-term information. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al. ) (Cambridge University Press, 2021).

Paris Agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change , T.I.A.S. No. 16–1104. (2015).

Rogelj, J. et al. Zero emission targets as long-term global goals for climate protection. Environ. Res. Lett. 10 , 105007 (2015).

Rogelj, J. et al. A new scenario logic for the Paris Agreement long-term temperature goal. Nature 573 , 357–363 (2019).

Schleussner, C.-F. et al. Science and policy characteristics of the Paris Agreement temperature goal. Nat. Clim. Change 6 , 827–835 (2016).

Fuglestvedt, J. et al. Implications of possible interpretations of greenhouse gas balance in the Paris Agreement. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. 376 , 20160445 (2018).

Tanaka, K. & O’Neill, B. C. The Paris Agreement zero-emissions goal is not always consistent with the 1.5 °C and 2 °C temperature targets. Nat. Clim. Change 8 , 319–324 (2018).

ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

McLaren, D. P., Tyfield, D. P., Willis, R., Szerszynski, B. & Markusson, N. O. Beyond “Net-Zero”: A case for separate targets for emissions reduction and negative emissions. Front. Clim. 1 , 4 (2019).

Schleussner, C.-F., Nauels, A., Schaeffer, M., Hare, W. & Rogelj, J. Inconsistencies when applying novel metrics for emissions accounting to the Paris agreement. Environ. Res. Lett. 14 , 124055 (2019).

Rogelj, J., Geden, O., Cowie, A. & Reisinger, A. Net-zero emissions targets are vague: Three ways to fix. Nature 591 , 365–368 (2021).

Smith, S. M. A case for transparent net-zero carbon targets. Commun. Earth Environ. 2 , 24 (2021).

van Soest, H. L., den Elzen, M. G. J. & van Vuuren, D. P. Net-zero emission targets for major emitting countries consistent with the Paris Agreement. Nat. Commun. 12 , 2140 (2021).

ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Shindell, D. et al. Simultaneously mitigating near-term climate change and improving human health and food security. Science 335 , 183–189 (2012).

Lund, M. T. et al. A continued role of short-lived climate forcers under the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. Earth. Syst. Dynam. 11 , 977–993 (2020).

Allen, R. J. et al. Significant climate benefits from near-term climate forcer mitigation in spite of aerosol reductions. Environ. Res. Lett. 16 , 3. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abe06b (2021).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Ocko, I. B. et al. Acting rapidly to deploy readily available methane mitigation measures by sector can immediately slow global warming. Environ. Res. Lett. 16 , 5. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abf9c8 (2021).

United Nations Environment Programme and Climate and Clean Air Coalition. Global Methane Assessment: Benefits and Costs of Mitigating Methane Emissions. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme. (2021).

IPCC Summary for policymakers. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Masson Delmotte, V. et al. ) (Cambridge University Press, 2021).

Jackson, S. C. Parallel pursuit of near-term and long-term climate mitigation. Science 326 , 526–527 (2009).

Smith, S. M. et al. Equivalence of greenhouse-gas emissions for peak temperature limits. Nat. Clim. Change 2 , 535–538 (2012).

Huntingford, C., Williamson, M. S. & Nijsse, F. J. M. M. CMIP6 climate models imply high committed warming. Clim. Change 162 , 1515–1520 (2020).

ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Stephens, A. Net zero: an ambition in need of a definition. Carbon Trust (2019) https://www.carbontrust.com/news-and-events/insights/net-zero-an-ambition-in-need-of-a-definition

Corporate Accountability. Not Zero: How ‘net zero’ targets disguise climate inaction. (2020) https://www.corporateaccountability.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/NOT-ZERO-How-net-zero-targets-disguise-climate-inaction-FINAL.pdf?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=greenbuzz&utm_content=2021-05-10

Sen, A. & Dabi, N. Tightening the Net: Net zero climate targets—implications for land and food equity. Oxfam. Int. https://doi.org/10.21201/2021.7796 (2021).

Article   Google Scholar  

Jaumotte, J., Liu, W. & McKibbin, W. J. Mitigating Climate Change: Growth-Friendly Policies to Achieve Net Zero Emissions by 2050. IMF (2021) https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2021/07/23/Mitigating-Climate-Change-Growth-Friendly-Policies-to-Achieve-Net-Zero-Emissions-by-2050-462136

Black, R., Cullen, K., Fay, B., Hale, T., Lang, J., Mahmood, S. & Smith, S.M. Taking Stock: A global assessment of net zero targets , Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit and Oxford Net Zero (2021). https://ca1-eci.edcdn.com/reports/ECIU-Oxford_Taking_Stock.pdf

Carbon Trust. Briefing: Net zero for corporates. https://www.carbontrust.com/resources/briefing-net-zero-for-corporates?utm_source=Net%20Zero%20for%20Corporates&utm_medium=tools-library&utm_campaign=NZC

Pineda, A. C. et al. Foundations for Science-Based Net-Zero Target Setting in the Corporate Sector. Science Based Targets (2020). https://sciencebasedtargets.org/resources/legacy/2020/09/foundations-for-net-zero-full-paper.pdf

Millar, R. J. et al. Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 °C. Nat. Geosci. 10 , 741–747 (2017).

Cain, M. et al. Improved calculation of warming-equivalent emissions for short-lived climate pollutants. Npj Clim. Atmos. Sci. 2 , 29 (2019).

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Meinshausen, M. et al. The RCP greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions from 1765 to 2300. Clim. Change 109 , 213 (2011).

Huppmann, D. et al. IAMC 1.5°C Scenario Explorer and Data hosted by IIASA. Integrated Assessment Modeling Consortium & International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (2019). Doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3363345 http://data.ene.iiasa.ac.at/iamc-1.5c-explorer

Naik, V. et al. Short-Lived Climate Forcers. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al. ) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2021).

Meinshausen, M., Raper, S. C. B. & Wigley, T. M. L. Emulating coupled atmosphere-ocean and carbon cycle models with a simpler model, MAGICC6 – Part 1: Model description and calibration. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 11 , 1417–1456 (2011).

Allen, M. R. et al. A solution to the misrepresentations of CO2-equivalent emissions of short-lived climate pollutants under ambitious mitigation. Npj Clim. Atmospheric. Sci. 1 , 16 (2018).

Sanderson, B. M., O’Neill, B. C. & Tebaldi, C. What would it take to achieve the Paris temperature targets?. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43 , 7133–7142 (2016).

Höglund-Isaksson, L., Gmez-Sanabria, A., Klimont, Z., Rafaj, P. & Schpp, W. Technical potentials and costs for reducing global anthropogenic methane emissions in the 2050 timeframe results from the GAINS model. Environ. Res. Commun. 2 , 025004 (2020).

Harmsen, M. et al. The role of methane in future climate strategies: Mitigation potentials and climate impacts. Clim. Change 163 , 1409–1425 (2020).

Shoemaker, J. K., Schrag, D. P., Molina, M. J. & Ramanathan, V. What role for short-lived climate pollutants in mitigation policy?. Science 342 , 1323–1324 (2013).

Hu, A., Xu, Y., Tebaldi, C., Washington, W. M. & Ramanathan, V. Mitigation of short-lived climate pollutants slows sea-level rise. Nat. Clim. Change 3 , 730 (2013).

Sterner, E., Johansson, D. J. A. & Azar, C. Emission metrics and sea level rise. Clim. Change 127 , 335–351 (2014).

Stohl, A. et al. Evaluating the climate and air quality impacts of short-lived pollutants. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 15 , 10529–10566 (2015).

Zickfeld, K., Solomon, S. & Gilford, D. M. Centuries of thermal sea-level rise due to anthropogenic emissions of short-lived greenhouse gases. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114 , 657–662 (2017).

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Fu, B. et al. Short-lived climate forcers have long-term climate impacts via the carbon–climate feedback. Nat. Clim. Change 10 , 851–855 (2020).

Smith, S. J. & Mizrahi, A. Near-term climate mitigation by short-lived forcers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 110 , 14202–14206 (2013).

Rogelj, J. et al. Disentangling the effects of CO2 and short-lived climate forcer mitigation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111 , 16325–16330 (2014).

Smith, S. J. et al. Impact of methane and black carbon mitigation on forcing and temperature: a multi-model scenario analysis. Clim. Change 163 , 1427–1442 (2020).

Manne, A. S. & Richels, R. G. An alternative approach to establishing trade-offs among greenhouse gases. Nature 410 , 675–677 (2001).

Shine, K. P., Berntsen, T. K., Fuglestvedt, J. S., Skeie, R. B. & Stuber, N. Comparing the climate effect of emissions of short- and long-lived climate agents. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 365 , 1903–1914 (2007).

Johansson, D. J. A. Economics- and physical-based metrics for comparing greenhouse gases. Clim. Change 110 , 123–141 (2012).

Tanaka, K., Boucher, O., Ciais, P., Johansson, D. J. A. & Morfeldt, J. Cost-effective implementation of the Paris Agreement using flexible greenhouse gas metrics. Sci. Adv. 7 , 9020 (2021).

Naik, V. et al. Short-Lived Climate Forcers. In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al. ) (Cambridge University Press, 2021).

Riahi, K. et al. The shared socioeconomic pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview. Glob. Environ. Change 42 , 153–168 (2017).

Allen, M. et al. Ensuring that offsets and other internationally transferred mitigation outcomes contribute effectively to limiting global warming. Environ. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abfcf9 (2021).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Daniel, J. S. et al. Limitations of single-basket trading: Lessons from the Montreal Protocol for climate policy. Clim. Change 111 , 241–248 (2012).

Etminan, M., Myhre, G., Highwood, E. J. & Shine, K. P. Radiative forcing of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide: A significant revision of the methane radiative forcing. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43 , 12614–12623 (2016).

Stevenson, D. S. et al. Tropospheric ozone changes, radiative forcing and attribution to emissions in the atmospheric chemistry and climate model intercomparison project (ACCMIP). Atmos. Chem. Phys. 13 , 3063–3085 (2013).

Rogelj, J. et al. Scenarios towards limiting global mean temperature increase below 1.5 °C. Nat. Clim. Change 8 , 325–332 (2018).

OzonAction Series of Fact Sheets relevant to the Kigali Amendment. UN Environment Program (2016; https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/26770/7897FS_Kigali_series.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y ).

Gidden, M. J. et al. Global emissions pathways under different socioeconomic scenarios for use in CMIP6: A dataset of harmonized emissions trajectories through the end of the century. Geosci. Model Dev. 12 , 1443–1475 (2019).

Keramidas, K. et al. Global Energy and Climate Outlook 2018: Sectoral Mitigation Options Towards a Low-Emissions Economy (Publications Office of the European Union, 2018).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Michael Oppenheimer, Suzi Kerr, Kelley Kizzier, Sam Kotis, Jon Coifman, Anne Marie Borrego, Jordan Faires, and Christina Baute for thoughtful feedback and discussions. Two anonymous reviewers provided constructive suggestions that have considerably strengthened the manuscript. This work is supported by the Robertson Foundation and Heising-Simons Foundation.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Environmental Defense Fund, New York City, NY, 10010, USA

Tianyi Sun, Ilissa B. Ocko, Elizabeth Sturcken & Steven P. Hamburg

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

T.S. and I.B.O. conceptualized and designed the methods for the manuscript. T.S. conducted the analysis. I.B.O. prepared the figure. All authors contributed to the manuscript text.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ilissa B. Ocko .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original online version of this Article was revised: The original version of this Article contained an error in the Acknowledgments section. “We thank Michael Oppenheimer, Suzi Kerr, Kelley Kizzier, Sam Kotis, Jon Coifman, Anne Marie Borrego, Jordan Faires, and Christina Baute for thoughtful feedback and discussions. Two anonymous reviewers provided constructive suggestions that have considerably strengthened the manuscript. This work is supported by the Robertson Foundation, Heising Simons Foundation, and Klarman Family Foundation.” now reads: “We thank Michael Oppenheimer, Suzi Kerr, Kelley Kizzier, Sam Kotis, Jon Coifman, Anne Marie Borrego, Jordan Faires, and Christina Baute for thoughtful feedback and discussions. Two anonymous reviewers provided constructive suggestions that have considerably strengthened the manuscript. This work is supported by the Robertson Foundation and Heising-Simons Foundation.”

Supplementary Information

Supplementary information 1., supplementary information 2., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Sun, T., Ocko, I.B., Sturcken, E. et al. Path to net zero is critical to climate outcome. Sci Rep 11 , 22173 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01639-y

Download citation

Received : 07 May 2021

Accepted : 29 October 2021

Published : 12 November 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01639-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Doomed to fail a call to reform global climate governance and greenhouse gas inventories.

• Kyle S. Herman

International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics (2024)

Net-zero, resilience, and agile closed-loop supply chain network design considering robustness and renewable energy

• Amirhossein Khanbaba
• Salman Omidi

Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2024)

Increased transparency is needed for corporate science-based targets to be effective

• Anders Bjørn
• H. Damon Matthews
• Shannon M. Lloyd

Nature Climate Change (2023)

Aerosols overtake greenhouse gases causing a warmer climate and more weather extremes toward carbon neutrality

Nature Communications (2023)

Green frontrunner or indebted culprit? Assessing Denmark’s climate targets in light of fair contributions under the Paris Agreement

• Joachim Peter Tilsted

Climatic Change (2023)

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Global net-zero emissions goals: Challenges and opportunities

To avert the worst impacts of climate change, from extreme flooding to devastating droughts, the world will need to cap global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius, according to the latest United Nations  IPCC Report  on the Earth’s climate system. Achieving that goal means that by around 2050, the planet’s total greenhouse gas emissions will need to decline to  net-zero . To that end, more and more governments and businesses are setting net-zero emissions targets.   

At the XLIV (44th) MIT  Global Change Forum  on March 23-24, 2022, more than 100 attendees from industry, academia, government and NGOs gathered at the Samberg Conference Center on the MIT campus and on Zoom to explore how global net-zero emissions goals are creating challenges and opportunities for carbon budgets, decarbonizing energy and industry, nature-based solutions, climate and health, negative emission technologies, and policy design. Facilitated by the  MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change  in an informal, “off-the-record” setting for independent assessment of studies and policy proposals, presentations and discussions examined this year’s Forum theme from a variety of perspectives.

"We meet at a time when the urgent need to transition to a net-zero-greenhouse-gas-emitting world is made even more complex by the global COVID-19 pandemic, the premature acceleration of climate extremes, and now the Russian invasion of Ukraine,” said MIT Joint Program Director  Ronald Prinn , a professor at MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences in his opening remarks. “New questions now arise such as how an emerging case for security in national energy supplies may help or hinder the net-zero transition. As the complexity grows, the need for deep-dive modeling of complex interacting human and natural systems that is the hallmark of the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change is becoming more and more evident."

Here, with permission from all speakers, we summarize key points from this year’s Forum presentations.

Carbon Budgets

The first session explored the concept of carbon budgets and how it can be applied in the design of strategies aimed at achieving net-zero-emissions.

One common definition of a carbon budget is “the total net amount of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) that can still be emitted by human activities while limiting global warming to a specified level.” The impetus for estimating the Earth’s “remaining-carbon budget” is that concentrations and growth rates of CO 2 —the main driver of long-term anthropogenic climate change—are the highest they’ve been in millions of years. The latest IPCC Report estimates that there’s a 50% probability that we can limit global warming to 1.5°C (or 2°C) starting in 2020 with a carbon budget of about 500 gigatons (Gt) (or 1,350 Gt) of CO 2 . Another carbon budget definition quantifies exchanges and storage of carbon between and within global land, ocean and atmosphere systems. While about half of CO 2  emissions get sequestered in land and ocean systems, the remaining half ends up in the atmosphere where it largely warms the global climate along with other, shorter-lived greenhouse gas emissions such as methane. In recent years, the ability of the land and oceans to store CO 2  has showed signs of weakening, a trend consistent with El Nino Southern Oscillation events and evidence of climate-warming impacts from Earth-system models.

To estimate a remaining-carbon budget, the IPCC considers: historical warming to date (about 1.1°C), transient climate response to cumulative emissions of CO 2 , zero-emission commitment (how much warming might still occur if emissions go to zero), projected future non-CO 2  temperature contribution, and unrepresented Earth-system feedbacks—all accompanied by uncertainty ranges. Estimated carbon budgets determine how much CO 2  can still be emitted in order to align with a specified climate target. They also provide the scientific basis for net-zero targets. While many of today’s announced net-zero targets are imprecise, they can be improved by providing clarification on scope, adequacy and fairness, and the long-term roadmap for achieving the target. By using cumulative emissions until net-zero to design mitigation pathways, limitations of the current scenario literature can be overcome—reducing the risk of exceeding maximum temperature limits and limiting the burden on future generations to remove large quantities of CO 2  from the atmosphere.  

Decarbonizing energy and industry

The second session focused on how the energy and industry sectors can effectively and efficiently reduce greenhouse gas emissions in alignment with net-zero emissions goals.

The energy sector contributes about 73 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. To achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, the sector must decarbonize at an unprecedented pace. But to be deployed at scale, zero-carbon energy technologies must not cause significant increases in energy prices and declines in energy access. Among these are wind and solar, which now account for two percent of global primary energy use and must increase dramatically. The MIT Joint Program, most notably in its  2021 Global Change Outlook , has explored different emissions pathways and risks in the coming decades. Its most ambitious climate policy scenarios show a substantial decline in fossil fuel use, and significant increases in wind and solar, and in electrification. A wide range of future technologies will be needed to get to net-zero, from advanced nuclear power to direct air carbon capture. Critical minerals will be in greater demand for the clean energy transition, and obtaining sufficient quantities could be a challenge .

A recent net-zero emissions (NZE) scenario prepared by the International Energy Association (IEA) shows that dramatic reductions in industrial CO 2  emissions will be needed to achieve net-zero emissions from the energy sector by 2050. One key challenge is posed by heavy industries—primarily steel, cement and chemicals—particularly in emerging market and developing economies, where they are expected to produce the majority of industry-sector emissions in 2050. Heavy industries use large amounts of fossil fuels, especially to generate high-temperature heat for industrial processes. The IEA NZE scenario shows that interventions at end of the next 25-year capital investment cycle could prevent the release of about 60 gigatons of cumulative CO 2 , around 40% of projected emissions from existing heavy industry assets. While direct substitution of electricity at the scale required is impractical or expensive with today’s technologies to reduce heavy-industry emissions, innovative technologies such as hydrogen and carbon capture utilization and storage could play a critical role.

Nature-based solutions

The third session examined how nature-based solutions (NBS) can contribute to global efforts to achieve net-zero emissions.

The World Conservation Union defines nature-based solutions as “actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural or modified ecosystems, that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits.” NBS opportunities include protecting natural ecosystems, restoring degraded ecosystems, and more sustainably managing ecosystems used for food, fiber and energy production. One NBS method, reforestation, could deliver substantial CO 2  sequestration, but also intensify competition for land-based food production. Agroecological farming, another NBS approach, may store 20-33% more soil carbon than conventional agriculture, but runs the risk of mal-adaptation and mal-mitigation. Finally, systems to monitor and measure carbon sequestration will be needed to determine how much to pay NBS providers for the environmental services they perform. 

NBS that is implemented within large-scale systems and in ways that also meet human needs can be at least as additional and “permanent” as reductions in fossil fuel extraction. To that end, there is an urgent need to act now on deforestation to avoid nearly irreversible loss. Beyond avoiding tropical deforestation, there is a lot of global potential for NBS carbon storage through afforestation/reforestation, and soil carbon sequestration in croplands and grasslands. NBS could contribute 29% of net reductions needed to be on a 2°C pathway in 2030, but one key challenge is to make NBS crediting programs effective and equitable. In one analysis, the global use of carbon markets with forest-based NBS could allow nearly doubling of climate ambition at the same cost, relative to current Paris Agreement pledges. Jurisdictional approaches to forest protection, in which deforestation is reduced through national or regional-scale forest protection programs, could provide high-integrity credits from avoiding tropical deforestation.

Climate and health

The fourth session centered on efforts to formulate integrated emissions-reduction policies that not only help stabilize the climate but also improve air quality and public health outcomes.

Fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels contributes to more than 25 percent of all air pollution-related deaths globally. The use of solid fuels (wood, charcoal and animal dung) in residential settings is another major contributor to air pollution-related health impacts. Policies that accelerate a transition away from fossil fuels and toward clean energy sources could improve air quality and public health outcomes considerably while simultaneously advancing climate goals. The changing climate is expected to increase public health vulnerability and costs, underscoring the need to incorporate air quality and health concerns in climate action. Key questions that can advance integrated air pollution, public health and climate policies are: What are the major sources of air pollution and greenhouse gases, and how do they contribute to health impacts; what are their relative contributions to disease burdens; and what actions are needed to achieve substantial improvements in the future?

Previous research in this space separated “direct” from “indirect” benefits of climate policies, framing improved health outcomes as “co-benefits” of such policies. But a more holistic approach to policy design could advance an integrated set of objectives based on questions such as: What are the observed impacts of climate and energy policies on air quality? Who benefits and why (including assessment of environmental justice and equity)? What strategies can promote well-being for the present and future (and what new methods and models are needed to evaluate options)? This approach could yield new insights on proposed energy, climate and air pollution policies such as: health impacts may depend on local responses to policy; and maximizing overall benefits at the national level may not address disparities at subnational levels. New models and methods can facilitate multi-dimensional assessment (e.g. of multiple indicators/outcomes relevant to sustainability) of policy strategies on different scales. 

Keynote address: MIT Grand Climate Challenges

The keynote address highlighted the  MIT Grand Climate Challenges  initiative, which seeks to “mobilize the MIT research community to develop game-changing solutions to the most challenging unsolved problems in climate adaptation, mitigation and restoration.” Engaging all disciplines across MIT, the initiative aims to draw on the MIT innovation ecosystem and develop new partnerships with multiple communities, businesses and investors to accelerate development, field-testing, implementation and scaling of these solutions. Twenty-seven finalist projects represent four themes: building equity and fairness into climate solutions; removing, managing and storing greenhouse gases; decarbonizing complex industries and processes; and using data and science to forecast climate-related risk. In the spring of 2022, MIT will announce a small number of flagship projects from among the 27 finalists.

Negative emission technologies

The fifth session explored the potential of negative emission technologies to enable the world to meet net-zero emissions and long-term Paris Agreement climate targets.

Negative emission technologies (NETs) are those that physically remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it in a manner intended to be permanent, with the total quantity of stored CO 2  exceeding the total quantity of CO 2  emitted or leaked into the atmosphere by the NET. NETs include afforestation and reforestation, soil carbon sequestration, biochar, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), direct air capture, enhanced weathering and ocean alkalinization, and ocean fertilization. NETs are not an alternative to greenhouse gas mitigation methods, but a complementary toolset to help ensure that emissions and climate targets are met. How much the world will need to rely on NETs to meet those targets will depend on how late it starts to aggressively mitigate emissions at the global level. Within the portfolio of NETs, no one method is a silver bullet. To ensure climate stabilization, NETs must be deployed in such a way that the CO 2  that they extract from the atmosphere is removed permanently and is subject to effective measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) protocols.

A study of BECCS designed to quantify its potential scale and impact on the economy under 1.5°C or 2°C scenarios   shows that in 2100 without BECCS, total primary energy (TPE) is 33-38 percent of what it would be in a business-as-usual (BAU) scenario; with BECCS, TPE nearly reaches BAU levels, with emissions from oil use offset by BECCS. When it comes to net CO 2 -equivalent emissions under a 1.5°C or 2°C scenario, without BECCS the world will need significant additional emissions reductions; with BECCS it will have a lot more “headroom” to achieve the same emissions pathway. The study shows that BECCS significantly reduces the cost of meeting long-term targets, causes significant land-use change, but only increases food prices by about 1.5 percent. All technical components for large-scale BECCS now exist, but many challenges, from availability of sustainable biomass to public acceptance, could limit its deployment. Other research indicates that when designing climate-stabilizing emissions pathways, one must consider the full range of options (no NETs to multiple NETs) for risk assessment and planning.

Policy: The way forward

The sixth and final session explored the design and implications of policies aimed at achieving net-zero emissions targets, with a focus on the near-term actions needed to get there.

Prospects for greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation in the United States improved in 2021 with the passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the House of Representatives’ passage of the Build Back Better (BBB) Bill. Stalled in the Senate, BBB would earmark $555 billion for measures aimed at reducing GHG emissions 50-52-percent below 2005 levels by 2035. While the bill focuses on many sectors of the economy, it would reduce emissions the most in the transportation and electricity sectors.

Meanwhile, the European Green Deal led to the enactment of a European Union law that seeks climate neutrality by 2050 and sets the EU’s Paris Agreement target for 2030 to at least 55 percent below 1990 GHG emissions levels. The EU also introduced a “Fit for 55” package of 16 legislative proposals aligned with that target, and a Sustainable Finance Framework to re-orient capital flows toward sustainable investment. Finally, the EU is working to phase out dependence on Russian fossil fuel imports.

Recent successes in decarbonizing the energy sector provide lessons for mitigation of GHG emissions in agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU). What has accelerated decarbonization in the power sector—technical advances, simulation modeling, policy support and institutional innovation—might also bring about the level of innovation and investment needed to substantially cut GHG emissions in AFOLU. Accounting for about 21 percent of global GHG emissions in 2018, AFOLU is a major source of methane emissions, and is the only sector with significant potential to deliver net-negative emissions.

In 2020, the Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts committed the state to a 2050 net-zero greenhouse gas emissions goal; in 2021 he signed into law  An Act Creating a Next Generation Roadmap for Massachusetts Climate Policy , which codified that goal. Analysis conducted by the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs found that the state could achieve the 2050 goal cost-effectively and equitably. Strategies include deployment of large-scale offshore wind, importation of additional hydropower, and decarbonization of home heating systems and private vehicles—and ensuring that the needed green technologies are adopted by and affordable for everyone.

Related Posts

Two mit phd students awarded j-wafs fellowships for their research on water....

William Green named director of MIT Energy Initiative

Bridging the Divide: Assessing the Viability of International Cooperation o...

Reimagining Cities with Prof. David Hsu

MIT Climate News in Your Inbox

Getting to Net-Zero Emissions by 2050

Avoiding the worst impacts of climate change will require aggressive action to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing Earth to warm. A number of expert reports from the National Academies have assessed the latest in climate science, technology options, and socioeconomic dimensions related to the goal of reaching net-zero emissions by the year 2050 . This resource provides an at-a-glance look at findings and U.S. policy-relevant advice from those reports.

SCROLL DOWN TO LEARN MORE

Why Net-Zero Emissions by 2050?

Reduce impacts of climate change, meet international agreements, improve health, benefit society.

Emissions Reduction Strategies

Avoiding the worst impacts of climate change requires a portfolio of options. The primary focus should be on implementing technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, particularly CO 2 , complemented by efforts to remove and reliably sequester carbon from the atmosphere and to curb emissions of other greenhouse gases.

As the first line of defense against climate change, the world is transforming its energy system from one dominated by fossil fuel combustion to one with net-zero emissions of carbon dioxide. Accelerating Decarbonization of the U.S. Energy System (2021) identifies technology goals, socioeconomic goals, and policy options and federal actions that would put the United States on a fair and equitable path to net-zero in 2050.

Technology Goals

Achieving a net-zero emissions energy system will require that the United States begin working on five technology goals:

As of 2020, U.S. electricity generation was composed of about 60% fossil fuels, 20% nuclear, and 20% hydropower and other renewables. There are many sources of energy that produce little or no CO 2  emissions, including solar, wind, geothermal, and hydropower. To meet the goal of net-zero by 2050, the United States should double the share of electricity generated by non-carbon-emitting sources to at least 75% by 2030, which will require:

• Record-setting deployment of solar and wind technologies
• Scaling back coal and some gas-fired power plants,
• Preserving operating nuclear plants and hydroelectric facilities where possible.

Reducing emissions will require that existing and planned transportation, building, and industrial infrastructure be converted to use electricity from low-carbon sources where possible.  Meeting net-zero targets by 2050 will require that by 2030 the United States:

• Aim for 50% of all new vehicle sales to be zero emissions vehicles.
• Replace 20% or more of fossil fuel furnaces with electric heat pumps in buildings.
• Require that new building construction is all electric except in the coldest climate zones.
• Begin the transition to low-carbon heat sources for industrial process that cannot be fully electrified.

Technology advances such as LED lighting and energy efficient appliances have helped high-income countries substantially reduce energy use per capita and per unit of economic output.  Efficiency gains to date, however, are not enough.  Meeting net-zero targets by 2050 will require that by 2030 the United States:

• Reduce total energy use in new buildings by 50%.
• Lower energy used for space conditioning and plug-in devices in existing buildings each year to achieve a 30% reduction by the end of the decade.
• Increase goals for industrial energy productivity (dollars of economic output per energy consumed) each year.

Achieving the transition to clean electric power generation requires development of the infrastructure to support it.  By 2030, the United States should:

• Increase overall electrical transmission capacity by approximately 40% to better distribute high quality and low-cost wind and solar power from where it is generated to where it can be used.
• Accelerate the build-out of the electric vehicle recharging network.

The nation should triple federal investment in clean energy research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) in order to provide new technology options, reduce costs for existing options, and better understand how to manage a socially-just energy transition.

Socioeconomic Goals

The transition to a carbon-neutral energy system has the potential to revitalize the U.S. economy, create 1-2 million jobs over the next decade, and address inequities in our current energy system. Policies to enable the transition to net-zero emissions should be designed to advance four critical socioeconomic goals to ensure an equitable transition:

Global demand for clean energy and climate mitigation solutions will reach trillions of dollars over the coming decades, creating an opportunity to revitalize U.S. manufacturing, construction, and commercial sectors, while providing a net increase in jobs paying higher wages than the national average.

U.S. policies should promote equitable access to the benefits of clean energy systems, including reliable and affordable energy, new training and employment opportunities, and opportunities for wealth creation. Policies for the net-zero emissions economy should also work to eliminate inequities in the current energy system that disadvantage historically marginalized and low-income populations.

There will be a need to identify and mitigate job losses and other impacts on labor sectors and communities negatively impacted by the transition of the U.S. economy to net-zero emissions. U.S. policies should promote fair access to new long-term employment opportunities and provide financial and other support to communities that might otherwise be harmed by the transition.

Recommended U.S. Policies

The following policy changes would help support the U.S. transition to a new energy system.

• Setting an official U.S. emissions budget for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to support the goal of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050
• An economy-wide price on carbon , in addition to other policies focusing on particular sectors
• A new National Transition Task Force to evaluate how best to support labor sectors and communities that will be affected by the energy transition
• A new Office of Equitable Energy Transitions within the White House to establish criteria, measure, and report back on net-zero transition impacts and equity considerations
• A new independent National Transition Corporation to provide support and opportunities for displaced workers and affected communities
• A new Green Bank , capitalized initially at $30 billion and rising to $60 billion by 2030, to ensure the required capital is available for the net-zero transition and to mobilize greater private investment
• A comprehensive education and training initiative to develop the workforce required for the net-zero transition, to fuel future innovation, and to provide new high-quality jobs
• Setting national standards for clean electricity and electrification and efficiency standards for vehicles, appliances, and buildings

Reducing emissions is a primary goal, but deployment of negative emissions technologies (NETs) will also be needed.  Meeting the goal of net-zero by 2050 will likely require the removal globally of about 10 Gt/y CO 2 by 2050 and 20 Gt/y by 2100.   Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration: A Research Agenda (2019) assessed the costs, potential for carbon removal, and barriers to overcome for several available and emerging technologies.

Assessed Potential and Limiting Factors of NET Technologies

CLICK ON A CIRCLE TO LEARN MORE

Terrestrial Carbon Removal and Sequestration

Afforestation/Reforestation Planting trees or facilitating natural regeneration of trees on land that has been in a nonforest use condition for some length of time.

Forest management Changes in forest management and agricultural practices that enhance soil carbon storage.

Biomass energy with Carbon Capture and Sequestration (BECCS)

The cultivation of crops which take up CO 2 as they grow and are used to produce electricity, liquid fuels, and/or heat. The CO 2 generated is captured and sequestered underground.

Carbon Mineralization

The use of reactive minerals (particularly mantle peridotite, basaltic lava, and other reactive rocks) to form chemical bonds with CO 2 .

Coastal Blue Carbon

Practices that increase the amount of carbon stored in living plants or sediments in tidal marshlands, mangroves, seagrass beds, and other tidal or salt-water wetlands.

Direct Air Capture

Filtering processes that capture CO 2 from ambient air and sequester it underground.

View this table for details on costs, CO 2 removal rate, and limiting factors for each technology assessed.

NETs Ready to Deploy

Terrestrial carbon removal strategies and BECCS could be scaled up to capture and store substantial amounts of carbon: ~1 Gt CO 2 /yr in the United States and ~10 Gt CO 2 /yr globally. However, unprecedented rates of adoption of agricultural soil conservation practices, forestry management practices, and waste biomass capture would be needed. Practically, about half the full potential is achievable.

NETs with High Potential but High Costs and Uncertainty

Direct air capture or carbon mineralization could be revolutionary, because of the large potential capacity for CO 2 removal. The primary impediment to direct air capture is high cost.  Carbon mineralization needs to be better understood.

Recommended Research on NETs

A substantial research initiative is needed that is focused on the following goals:

• Improve existing NETs by increasing their capacity and reducing their negative impacts and costs;
• Make rapid progress on direct air capture and carbon mineralization technologies;
• Advance NET-enabling research on biofuels and CO 2 sequestration that should be undertaken anyway as part of an emissions mitigation research portfolio.

The ocean covers 70% of the Earth’s surface and provides much of the global capacity for natural carbon sequestration. It currently holds roughly 50 times as much inorganic carbon as the preindustrial atmosphere. The ocean’s natural capacity to store carbon could be enhanced with strategies that act to remove CO 2 from the atmosphere and upper ocean and store it in ocean reservoirs, such as marine plants and geologic, or geological reservoirs for some period of time. A Research Strategy for Ocean-Based Carbon Dioxide Removal and Sequestration (2021) develops a research agenda to assess the benefits, risks, and potential for responsible scale up of six specific ecosystem-based and technological ocean-based CDR approaches.

Ocean-based Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) Strategies

The report assessed six carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and sequestration strategies conducted in coastal and open ocean waters. Each approach was evaluated based on its existing knowledge base, potential efficacy, durability, scale, project costs, monitoring and verification, viability and barriers, and governance and social dimensions.

View this table to compare the six ocean CDR technologies.

TABLE S.1 Comparison of the Six Ocean CDR Technologies

OCEAN-CDR RESEARCH PRIORITIES

At present, society and policymakers lack sufficient knowledge to fully evaluate ocean CDR outcomes and weigh the trade-offs with other climate response approaches, and with environmental and sustainable development goals. A research program should be implemented to address current knowledge gaps. The best approach will involve a diversified research investment strategy that includes both cross-cutting, common components and coordination across multiple individual CDR approaches in parallel.

Amongst the biotic approaches , research on ocean iron fertilization and seaweed cultivation offer the greatest opportunities for evaluating the viability of possible biotic ocean CDR approaches; research on the potential CO 2 removal and sequestration permanence for ecosystem recovery would also be beneficial in the context of ongoing marine conservation efforts.

Amongst the abiotic approaches , research on ocean alkalinity enhancement , including electrochemical alkalinity enhancement, have priority over electrochemical approaches that only seek to achieve carbon dioxide removal from seawater (also known as carbon dioxide stripping).

Cross-Cutting Research Priorities

Research needed to advance ocean cdr approaches.

While reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a primary goal, much can be done to reduce other greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. Methane, nitrous oxide, and some industrial gases (e.g., hydrofluorocarbons) comprise about 18 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in terms of CO 2 equivalents.

Sources of Methane Human activities that emit methane (the primary component of natural gas) include petroleum and natural gas systems, cattle and manure management, landfills, and coal mines. Levels of atmospheric methane have risen steadily over the past century and are unprecedented over the past 2,000 years as measured in ice cores. Methane is second only to carbon dioxide in its contribution to rising global average temperatures. Sources of Nitrous Oxide Human activities that emit nitrous oxide are primarily from agriculture and also from fossil fuel combustion, and industrial processing. Levels of nitrous oxide in the atmosphere have risen steadily since the Industrial Revolution and more sharply over the past four decades.

Reducing and Tracking Methane Emissions

Methane is not as long-lived in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, but it is a more powerful warming agent.  Reducing methane emissions could help prevent the worst impacts of climate change.  Efforts to reduce methane emissions, along with reductions in black carbon emissions, could help reduce global mean warming in the near term, with additional benefits for air quality and agricultural productivity.

Tracking atmospheric methane levels and methane emissions is essential for informing efforts to reduce it.  However, tracking is difficult given the many human and natural sources of methane.   Improving Characterization of Anthropogenic Methane Emissions in the United States  (2018) recommends strengthening measurement, monitoring, and inventories of methane emissions and launching a nationwide research effort to address knowledge gaps.

Reducing Emissions from Agriculture

Agriculture is a large source of non-CO 2  greenhouse gases. Livestock farming may be responsible for as much as 14.5 percent of all human-induced greenhouse gas emissions (including CO 2 ).  Methane is produced when livestock digest their food and also is emitted in large quantities from rice paddies.  Nitrous oxide arises from applications of fertilizer. 

Environmental Engineering for the 21st Century: Addressing Grand Challenges (2020) identifies several pathways to reducing agricultural emissions, including:

• Feeding livestock easier-to-digest foods and strategically managing livestock waste through proper storage, reuse as fertilizer, and recovery of methane
• Precision agriculture techniques to help farmers minimize fertilizer use and reduce nitrous oxide emissions. 
• Shifting dietary patterns to de-emphasize animal-based protein, particularly beef.
• Reducing food waste, which is currently estimated at one-third of all food produced.

Evidence of Climate Change

It is now more certain than ever, based on many lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth’s climate. Climate Change: Evidence and Causes (updated 2020), a booklet produced by the National Academies and The Royal Society, lays out the evidence that human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels, are responsible for much of the warming and related changes observed around the world.  The booklet includes a section on Basics of Climate Change for those who want to learn more.

Earth’s Average Surface Temperatures are Increasing

Since 1900, Earth’s average surface air temperature has increased by about 1 °C (1.8 °F), with over half of the increase occurring since the mid-1970s. A wide range of other observations such as reductions in Arctic sea ice, reduced snowpack, and ocean warming, along with indications from the natural world, such as poleward migrations of some species, provide incontrovertible evidence of planetary-scale warming.

Figure 1a: Annual Global Temperature 1850-2019 Figure 1b: Evidence that Earth's Climate is Changing

Levels of Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases are Increasing

The average concentration of atmospheric CO 2 measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii has risen from 316 parts per million (ppm) in 1959 (the first full year of data available) to more than 411 ppm in 2019.

Human Activities are Changing the Climate

Rigorous analysis of all data and lines of evidence shows that most of the observed global warming over the past 50 years or so cannot be explained by natural causes and instead requires a significant role for the influence of human activities.

Projected Warming Given Current Emissions

If emissions continue on their present trajectory, without either technological or regulatory abatement, then warming of 2.6 to 4.8 °C (4.7 to 8.6 °F) in addition to that which has already occurred would be expected during the 21st century.

Connect with National Academies Climate Work

Climate Crisis Demands ‘Urgent and Ambitious’ Response

The presidents of the National Academies said in an October 29, 2021 statement that COP26 presented a historic global opportunity to agree on emissions reduction targets to avoid the most intolerable impacts of climate change.

The National Academies conducts a wide range of ongoing activities related to climate change, including studies, events, roundtables, and initiatives.   To learn more, visit our Climate Resources website and subscribe to the National Academies climate email list to stay apprised of news and opportunities to participate.

Reports Referenced in this Resource:

Additional Educational Resources

Subscribe to Climate @ the National Academies to stay apprised of news and opportunities to participate.

Climate scientists: concept of net zero is a dangerous trap

Associate Professor in Earth System Science, University of Exeter

Emeritus Professor in Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia

Senior Research Scientist, Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science, Lund University

Disclosure statement

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

University of East Anglia , University of Exeter , and Lund University provide funding as members of The Conversation UK.

View all partners

• Bahasa Indonesia

Sometimes realisation comes in a blinding flash. Blurred outlines snap into shape and suddenly it all makes sense. Underneath such revelations is typically a much slower-dawning process. Doubts at the back of the mind grow. The sense of confusion that things cannot be made to fit together increases until something clicks. Or perhaps snaps.

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? In our defence, the premise of net zero is deceptively simple – and we admit that it deceived us.

The threats of climate change are the direct result of there being too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So it follows that we must stop emitting more and even remove some of it. This idea is central to the world’s current plan to avoid catastrophe. In fact, there are many suggestions as to how to actually do this, from mass tree planting, to high tech direct air capture devices that suck out carbon dioxide from the air.

Read more: There aren’t enough trees in the world to offset society’s carbon emissions – and there never will be

The current consensus is that if we deploy these and other so-called “carbon dioxide removal” techniques at the same time as reducing our burning of fossil fuels, we can more rapidly halt global warming. Hopefully around the middle of this century we will achieve “net zero”. This is the point at which any residual emissions of greenhouse gases are balanced by technologies removing them from the atmosphere.

This is a great idea, in principle. Unfortunately, in practice it helps perpetuate a belief in technological salvation and diminishes the sense of urgency surrounding the need to curb emissions now.

We have arrived at the painful realisation that the idea of net zero has licensed a recklessly cavalier “burn now, pay later” approach which has seen carbon emissions continue to soar. It has also hastened the destruction of the natural world by increasing deforestation today, and greatly increases the risk of further devastation in the future.

To understand how this has happened, how humanity has gambled its civilisation on no more than promises of future solutions, we must return to the late 1980s, when climate change broke out onto the international stage.

Steps towards net zero

On June 22 1988, James Hansen was the administrator of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, a prestigious appointment but someone largely unknown outside of academia.

By the afternoon of the 23rd he was well on the way to becoming the world’s most famous climate scientist. This was as a direct result of his testimony to the US congress , when he forensically presented the evidence that the Earth’s climate was warming and that humans were the primary cause: “The greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now.”

If we had acted on Hansen’s testimony at the time, we would have been able to decarbonise our societies at a rate of around 2% a year in order to give us about a two-in-three chance of limiting warming to no more than 1.5°C. It would have been a huge challenge, but the main task at that time would have been to simply stop the accelerating use of fossil fuels while fairly sharing out future emissions.

Four years later, there were glimmers of hope that this would be possible. During the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio , all nations agreed to stabilise concentrations of greenhouse gases to ensure that they did not produce dangerous interference with the climate. The 1997 Kyoto Summit attempted to start to put that goal into practice. But as the years passed, the initial task of keeping us safe became increasingly harder given the continual increase in fossil fuel use.

It was around that time that the first computer models linking greenhouse gas emissions to impacts on different sectors of the economy were developed. These hybrid climate-economic models are known as Integrated Assessment Models . They allowed modellers to link economic activity to the climate by, for example, exploring how changes in investments and technology could lead to changes in greenhouse gas emissions.

They seemed like a miracle: you could try out policies on a computer screen before implementing them, saving humanity costly experimentation. They rapidly emerged to become key guidance for climate policy. A primacy they maintain to this day.

Unfortunately, they also removed the need for deep critical thinking. Such models represent society as a web of idealised, emotionless buyers and sellers and thus ignore complex social and political realities, or even the impacts of climate change itself. Their implicit promise is that market-based approaches will always work. This meant that discussions about policies were limited to those most convenient to politicians: incremental changes to legislation and taxes.

This story is a collaboration between Conversation Insights and Apple News editors The Insights team generates long-form journalism and is working with academics from different backgrounds who have been engaged in projects to tackle societal and scientific challenges.

Around the time they were first developed, efforts were being made to secure US action on the climate by allowing it to count carbon sinks of the country’s forests. The US argued that if it managed its forests well, it would be able to store a large amount of carbon in trees and soil which should be subtracted from its obligations to limit the burning of coal, oil and gas. In the end, the US largely got its way. Ironically, the concessions were all in vain, since the US senate never ratified the agreement .

Postulating a future with more trees could in effect offset the burning of coal, oil and gas now. As models could easily churn out numbers that saw atmospheric carbon dioxide go as low as one wanted, ever more sophisticated scenarios could be explored which reduced the perceived urgency to reduce fossil fuel use. By including carbon sinks in climate-economic models, a Pandora’s box had been opened.

It’s here we find the genesis of today’s net zero policies.

That said, most attention in the mid-1990s was focused on increasing energy efficiency and energy switching (such as the UK’s move from coal to gas ) and the potential of nuclear energy to deliver large amounts of carbon-free electricity. The hope was that such innovations would quickly reverse increases in fossil fuel emissions.

But by around the turn of the new millennium it was clear that such hopes were unfounded. Given their core assumption of incremental change, it was becoming more and more difficult for economic-climate models to find viable pathways to avoid dangerous climate change. In response, the models began to include more and more examples of carbon capture and storage , a technology that could remove the carbon dioxide from coal-fired power stations and then store the captured carbon deep underground indefinitely.

This had been shown to be possible in principle: compressed carbon dioxide had been separated from fossil gas and then injected underground in a number of projects since the 1970s. These Enhanced Oil Recovery schemes were designed to force gases into oil wells in order to push oil towards drilling rigs and so allow more to be recovered – oil that would later be burnt, releasing even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Carbon capture and storage offered the twist that instead of using the carbon dioxide to extract more oil, the gas would instead be left underground and removed from the atmosphere. This promised breakthrough technology would allow climate friendly coal and so the continued use of this fossil fuel. But long before the world would witness any such schemes, the hypothetical process had been included in climate-economic models. In the end, the mere prospect of carbon capture and storage gave policy makers a way out of making the much needed cuts to greenhouse gas emissions.

The rise of net zero

When the international climate change community convened in Copenhagen in 2009 it was clear that carbon capture and storage was not going to be sufficient for two reasons.

First, it still did not exist. There were no carbon capture and storage facilities in operation on any coal fired power station and no prospect the technology was going to have any impact on rising emissions from increased coal use in the foreseeable future.

The biggest barrier to implementation was essentially cost. The motivation to burn vast amounts of coal is to generate relatively cheap electricity. Retrofitting carbon scrubbers on existing power stations, building the infrastructure to pipe captured carbon, and developing suitable geological storage sites required huge sums of money. Consequently the only application of carbon capture in actual operation then – and now – is to use the trapped gas in enhanced oil recovery schemes. Beyond a single demonstrator , there has never been any capture of carbon dioxide from a coal fired power station chimney with that captured carbon then being stored underground.

Just as important, by 2009 it was becoming increasingly clear that it would not be possible to make even the gradual reductions that policy makers demanded. That was the case even if carbon capture and storage was up and running. The amount of carbon dioxide that was being pumped into the air each year meant humanity was rapidly running out of time.

With hopes for a solution to the climate crisis fading again, another magic bullet was required. A technology was needed not only to slow down the increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but actually reverse it. In response, the climate-economic modelling community – already able to include plant-based carbon sinks and geological carbon storage in their models – increasingly adopted the “solution” of combining the two.

So it was that Bioenergy Carbon Capture and Storage, or BECCS , rapidly emerged as the new saviour technology. By burning “replaceable” biomass such as wood, crops, and agricultural waste instead of coal in power stations, and then capturing the carbon dioxide from the power station chimney and storing it underground, BECCS could produce electricity at the same time as removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. That’s because as biomass such as trees grow, they suck in carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. By planting trees and other bioenergy crops and storing carbon dioxide released when they are burnt, more carbon could be removed from the atmosphere.

With this new solution in hand the international community regrouped from repeated failures to mount another attempt at reining in our dangerous interference with the climate. The scene was set for the crucial 2015 climate conference in Paris.

A Parisian false dawn

As its general secretary brought the 21st United Nations conference on climate change to an end, a great roar issued from the crowd. People leaped to their feet, strangers embraced, tears welled up in eyes bloodshot from lack of sleep.

The emotions on display on December 13, 2015 were not just for the cameras. After weeks of gruelling high-level negotiations in Paris a breakthrough had finally been achieved . Against all expectations, after decades of false starts and failures, the international community had finally agreed to do what it took to limit global warming to well below 2°C, preferably to 1.5°C, compared to pre-industrial levels.

The Paris Agreement was a stunning victory for those most at risk from climate change. Rich industrialised nations will be increasingly impacted as global temperatures rise. But it’s the low lying island states such as the Maldives and the Marshall Islands that are at imminent existential risk. As a later UN special report made clear, if the Paris Agreement was unable to limit global warming to 1.5°C, the number of lives lost to more intense storms, fires, heatwaves, famines and floods would significantly increase.

But dig a little deeper and you could find another emotion lurking within delegates on December 13. Doubt. We struggle to name any climate scientist who at that time thought the Paris Agreement was feasible. We have since been told by some scientists that the Paris Agreement was “of course important for climate justice but unworkable” and “a complete shock, no one thought limiting to 1.5°C was possible”. Rather than being able to limit warming to 1.5°C, a senior academic involved in the IPCC concluded we were heading beyond 3°C by the end of this century .

Instead of confront our doubts, we scientists decided to construct ever more elaborate fantasy worlds in which we would be safe. The price to pay for our cowardice: having to keep our mouths shut about the ever growing absurdity of the required planetary-scale carbon dioxide removal.

Taking centre stage was BECCS because at the time this was the only way climate-economic models could find scenarios that would be consistent with the Paris Agreement. Rather than stabilise, global emissions of carbon dioxide had increased some 60% since 1992.

Alas, BECCS, just like all the previous solutions, was too good to be true.

Across the scenarios produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) with a 66% or better chance of limiting temperature increase to 1.5°C, BECCS would need to remove 12 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide each year. BECCS at this scale would require massive planting schemes for trees and bioenergy crops.

The Earth certainly needs more trees. Humanity has cut down some three trillion since we first started farming some 13,000 years ago. But rather than allow ecosystems to recover from human impacts and forests to regrow, BECCS generally refers to dedicated industrial-scale plantations regularly harvested for bioenergy rather than carbon stored away in forest trunks, roots and soils.

Currently, the two most efficient biofuels are sugarcane for bioethanol and palm oil for biodiesel – both grown in the tropics. Endless rows of such fast growing monoculture trees or other bioenergy crops harvested at frequent intervals devastate biodiversity .

It has been estimated that BECCS would demand between 0.4 and 1.2 billion hectares of land . That’s 25% to 80% of all the land currently under cultivation. How will that be achieved at the same time as feeding 8-10 billion people around the middle of the century or without destroying native vegetation and biodiversity?

Read more: Carbon capture on power stations burning woodchips is not the green gamechanger many think it is

Growing billions of trees would consume vast amounts of water – in some places where people are already thirsty . Increasing forest cover in higher latitudes can have an overall warming effect because replacing grassland or fields with forests means the land surface becomes darker. This darker land absorbs more energy from the Sun and so temperatures rise. Focusing on developing vast plantations in poorer tropical nations comes with real risks of people being driven off their lands .

And it is often forgotten that trees and the land in general already soak up and store away vast amounts of carbon through what is called the natural terrestrial carbon sink. Interfering with it could both disrupt the sink and lead to double accounting .

As these impacts are becoming better understood, the sense of optimism around BECCS has diminished .

Pipe dreams

Given the dawning realisation of how difficult Paris would be in the light of ever rising emissions and limited potential of BECCS, a new buzzword emerged in policy circles: the “ overshoot scenario ”. Temperatures would be allowed to go beyond 1.5°C in the near term, but then be brought down with a range of carbon dioxide removal by the end of the century. This means that net zero actually means carbon negative . Within a few decades, we will need to transform our civilisation from one that currently pumps out 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year, to one that produces a net removal of tens of billions.

Mass tree planting , for bioenergy or as an attempt at offsetting, had been the latest attempt to stall cuts in fossil fuel use. But the ever-increasing need for carbon removal was calling for more. This is why the idea of direct air capture, now being touted by some as the most promising technology out there, has taken hold. It is generally more benign to ecosystems because it requires significantly less land to operate than BECCS, including the land needed to power them using wind or solar panels.

Unfortunately, it is widely believed that direct air capture, because of its exorbitant costs and energy demand , if it ever becomes feasible to be deployed at scale, will not be able to compete with BECCS with its voracious appetite for prime agricultural land.

It should now be getting clear where the journey is heading. As the mirage of each magical technical solution disappears, another equally unworkable alternative pops up to take its place. The next is already on the horizon – and it’s even more ghastly. Once we realise net zero will not happen in time or even at all, geoengineering – the deliberate and large scale intervention in the Earth’s climate system – will probably be invoked as the solution to limit temperature increases.

One of the most researched geoengineering ideas is solar radiation management – the injection of millions of tons of sulphuric acid into the stratosphere that will reflect some of the Sun’s energy away from the Earth. It is a wild idea, but some academics and politicians are deadly serious, despite significant risks . The US National Academies of Sciences, for example, has recommended allocating up to US$200 million over the next five years to explore how geoengineering could be deployed and regulated. Funding and research in this area is sure to significantly increase.

Difficult truths

In principle there is nothing wrong or dangerous about carbon dioxide removal proposals. In fact developing ways of reducing concentrations of carbon dioxide can feel tremendously exciting. You are using science and engineering to save humanity from disaster. What you are doing is important. There is also the realisation that carbon removal will be needed to mop up some of the emissions from sectors such as aviation and cement production. So there will be some small role for a number of different carbon dioxide removal approaches.

The problems come when it is assumed that these can be deployed at vast scale. This effectively serves as a blank cheque for the continued burning of fossil fuels and the acceleration of habitat destruction.

Carbon reduction technologies and geoengineering should be seen as a sort of ejector seat that could propel humanity away from rapid and catastrophic environmental change. Just like an ejector seat in a jet aircraft, it should only be used as the very last resort. However, policymakers and businesses appear to be entirely serious about deploying highly speculative technologies as a way to land our civilisation at a sustainable destination. In fact, these are no more than fairy tales.

The only way to keep humanity safe is the immediate and sustained radical cuts to greenhouse gas emissions in a socially just way .

Academics typically see themselves as servants to society. Indeed, many are employed as civil servants. Those working at the climate science and policy interface desperately wrestle with an increasingly difficult problem. Similarly, those that champion net zero as a way of breaking through barriers holding back effective action on the climate also work with the very best of intentions.

The tragedy is that their collective efforts were never able to mount an effective challenge to a climate policy process that would only allow a narrow range of scenarios to be explored.

Most academics feel distinctly uncomfortable stepping over the invisible line that separates their day job from wider social and political concerns. There are genuine fears that being seen as advocates for or against particular issues could threaten their perceived independence. Scientists are one of the most trusted professions. Trust is very hard to build and easy to destroy.

But there is another invisible line, the one that separates maintaining academic integrity and self-censorship. As scientists, we are taught to be sceptical, to subject hypotheses to rigorous tests and interrogation. But when it comes to perhaps the greatest challenge humanity faces, we often show a dangerous lack of critical analysis.

In private, scientists express significant scepticism about the Paris Agreement, BECCS, offsetting , geoengineering and net zero. Apart from some notable exceptions , in public we quietly go about our work, apply for funding, publish papers and teach. The path to disastrous climate change is paved with feasibility studies and impact assessments.

Rather than acknowledge the seriousness of our situation, we instead continue to participate in the fantasy of net zero. What will we do when reality bites? What will we say to our friends and loved ones about our failure to speak out now?

The time has come to voice our fears and be honest with wider society. Current net zero policies will not keep warming to within 1.5°C because they were never intended to. They were and still are driven by a need to protect business as usual, not the climate. If we want to keep people safe then large and sustained cuts to carbon emissions need to happen now. That is the very simple acid test that must be applied to all climate policies. The time for wishful thinking is over.

For you: more from our Insights series :

There aren’t enough trees in the world to offset society’s carbon emissions – and there never will be

How we discovered a hidden world of fungi inside the world’s biggest seed bank

Prehistoric communities off the coast of Britain embraced rising seas – what this means for today’s island nations

To hear about new Insights articles, join the hundreds of thousands of people who value The Conversation’s evidence-based news. Subscribe to our newsletter .

• Climate change
• Interdisciplinary research
• Carbon dioxide removal
• Interdisciplinarity
• Climate crisis
• Interdisciplinary thinking
• Insights series
• Carbon credits
• Audio narrated
• Net zero emissions
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

Lecturer / Senior Lecturer - Marketing

Communications and Engagement Officer, Corporate Finance Property and Sustainability

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

Global Zero CSS Essay

Global Zero is a movement that advocates for the elimination of all nuclear weapons around the world. The idea behind this movement is that the world would be a safer place without these weapons. The Global Zero movement aims to achieve a world without nuclear weapons through the gradual reduction of existing nuclear arsenals and the prevention of new nuclear weapons from being developed. (Global Zero CSS Essay)

The history of nuclear weapons dates back to the end of the Second World War. The United States dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing hundreds of thousands of people instantly and causing long-term health problems for many survivors. These bombings changed the world forever and led to a nuclear arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The arms race eventually led to the accumulation of thousands of nuclear warheads by both countries.

Since the end of the Cold War, the number of nuclear weapons in the world has decreased significantly. However, nine countries still possess nuclear weapons: the United States, Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea. These countries possess a combined total of approximately 13,000 nuclear warheads, with the United States and Russia possessing the vast majority of them.

The Global Zero movement argues that the continued possession of nuclear weapons by these countries poses a significant threat to global security. The potential for accidental nuclear war or the use of nuclear weapons in a conflict is a constant concern. In addition, the possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands, such as terrorist organizations, is a significant risk.

The elimination of nuclear weapons would greatly reduce the risk of accidental or intentional use of nuclear weapons. It would also reduce the likelihood of other countries developing nuclear weapons, as there would be no need to do so for deterrence purposes. The reduction of nuclear weapons would also free up resources that are currently being used to maintain and upgrade existing arsenals, which could be redirected to other areas such as education, healthcare, and infrastructure development.

However, the road to achieving Global Zero is not an easy one. The nine countries that possess nuclear weapons have strong incentives to maintain their arsenals for deterrence purposes. The possession of nuclear weapons gives these countries a significant advantage in international politics and provides a sense of security in the face of potential threats. In addition, the development of new nuclear weapons, such as hypersonic weapons, is a growing concern.

To achieve Global Zero, it is necessary to engage in diplomatic efforts to reduce existing nuclear arsenals and prevent the development of new nuclear weapons. This requires international cooperation and a commitment to disarmament by all countries, not just those that possess nuclear weapons. It also requires a willingness to address the underlying security concerns that drive countries to seek nuclear weapons in the first place.

In conclusion, the Global Zero movement represents a bold vision for a world without nuclear weapons. The elimination of nuclear weapons would greatly reduce the risk of accidental or intentional use of these weapons and free up resources for other important areas. Achieving Global Zero is a difficult but necessary task that requires international cooperation and a commitment to disarmament by all countries. While there are significant challenges to achieving this goal, the potential benefits are enormous, and the pursuit of Global Zero is a worthy endeavor for all of humanity.

Boys will be Boys CSS Essay

Ppsc literacy mobilizer pdf book new edition pdf download free, leave a reply cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Bachelor of Arts
• Balochistan Board
• Books (PDF)
• BS English Past Papers
• BS Past Papers
• CSS / PMS Past Papers
• CSS Compulsory
• CSS Current Affairs
• CSS English Essay & Grammer CSS GSA
• CSS Pak Affairs
• CSS Punjabi Notes
• CSS Study Material
• Educational Apps
• English Compositions
• English Essay Notes (PDF)
• Federal Board
• FPSC PPSC KPPSC Books
• Important Idioms Notes
• Matric Part 1 – (9th)
• Matriculation
• Modern Essay Notes
• Multi Topic English Essay
• Past Papers
• Poem Summaries (PU)
• Political Science Books
• Short Stories
• The Old Man and The Sea
• UDEMY Courses
• Uncategorized

Download LEARN CSS ONLINE app from Google Play

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

Subscribe or renew today

Every print subscription comes with full digital access

Science News

It’s possible to reach net-zero carbon emissions. here’s how.

Cutting carbon dioxide emissions to curb climate change is possible but not easy

Curbing climate change means getting more electricity from renewable sources, such as wind power.

Erik Isakson/ Tetra images/Getty Images

Share this:

By Alexandra Witze

January 27, 2023 at 7:00 am

Patricia Hidalgo-Gonzalez saw the future of energy on a broiling-hot day last September.

An email alert hit her inbox from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company. “Extreme heat straining the grid,” read the message, which was also pinged as a text to 27 million people. “Save energy to help avoid power interruptions.”

It worked. People cut their energy use. Demand plunged, blackouts were avoided and California successfully weathered a crisis exacerbated by climate change. “It was very exciting to see,” says Hidalgo-Gonzalez, an electrical engineer at the University of California, San Diego who studies renewable energy and the power grid.

This kind of collective societal response, in which we reshape how we interact with the systems that provide us energy, will be crucial as we figure out how to live on a changing planet.

Earth has warmed at least 1.1 degrees Celsius since the 19th century, when the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels began belching heat-trapping gases such as carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Scientists agree that only drastic action to cut emissions can keep the planet from blasting past 1.5 degrees of warming — a threshold beyond which the consequences become even more catastrophic than the rising sea levels, extreme weather and other impacts the world is already experiencing.

The goal is to achieve what’s known as net-zero emissions, where any greenhouse gases still entering the atmosphere are balanced by those being removed — and to do it as soon as we can.

Scientists say it is possible to swiftly transform the ways we produce and consume energy. To show the way forward, researchers have set out paths toward a world where human activities generate little to no carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases — a decarbonized economy.

The key to a decarbonized future lies in producing vast amounts of new electricity from sources that emit little to none of the gases, such as wind, solar and hydropower, and then transforming as much of our lives and our industries as possible to run off those sources. Clean electricity needs to power not only the planet’s current energy use but also the increased demands of a growing global population.

Once humankind has switched nearly entirely to clean electricity, we will also have to counter­balance the carbon dioxide we still emit — yes, we will still emit some — by pulling an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and storing it somewhere permanently.

Achieving net-zero emissions won’t be easy. Getting to effective and meaningful action on climate change requires overcoming decades of inertia and denial about the scope and magnitude of the problem. Nations are falling well short of existing pledges to reduce emissions, and global warming remains on track to charge past 1.5 degrees perhaps even by the end of this decade.

Yet there is hope. The rate of growth in CO 2 emissions is slowing globally — down from 3 percent annual growth in the 2000s to half a percent annual growth in the last decade, according to the Global Carbon Project , which quantifies greenhouse gas emissions.

There are signs annual emissions could start shrinking. And over the last two years, the United States, by far the biggest cumulative contributor to global warming, has passed several pieces of federal legislation that include financial incentives to accelerate the transition to clean energy. “We’ve never seen anything at this scale,” says Erin Mayfield, an energy researcher at Dartmouth College.

Though the energy transition will require many new technologies, such as innovative ways to permanently remove carbon from the atmosphere, many of the solutions, such as wind and solar power, are in hand — “stuff we already have,” Mayfield says.

How to hit net-zero carbon emissions by 2050

In a 2021 report, the International Energy Agency described the steps necessary to ensure that by 2050 the amount of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere globally balances the amount being taken out. This chart shows how carbon dioxide emissions would have to drop across sectors to bring planetwide emissions from roughly 34 billion metric tons annually to net-zero.  

The current state of carbon dioxide emissions

Of all the emissions that need to be slashed, the most important is carbon dioxide, which comes from many sources such as cars and trucks and coal-burning power plants. The gas accounted for 79 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2020. The next most significant greenhouse gas, at 11 percent of emissions in the United States, is methane, which comes from oil and gas operations as well as livestock, landfills and other land uses.

The amount of methane may seem small, but it is mighty — over the short term, methane is more than 80 times as efficient at trapping heat as carbon dioxide is, and methane’s atmospheric levels have nearly tripled in the last two centuries. Other greenhouse gases include nitrous oxides, which come from sources such as applying fertilizer to crops or burning fuels and account for 7 percent of U.S. emissions, and human-made fluorinated gases such as hydrofluorocarbons that account for 3 percent.

Globally, emissions are dominated by large nations that produce lots of energy. The United States alone emits around 5 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide each year. It is responsible for most of the greenhouse gas emissions throughout history and ceded the spot for top annual emitter to China only in the mid-2000s. India ranks third.

Because of the United States’ role in producing most of the carbon pollution to date, many researchers and advocates argue that it has the moral responsibility to take the global lead on cutting emissions. And the United States has the most ambitious goals of the major emitters, at least on paper. President Joe Biden has said the country is aiming to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. Leaders in China and India have set net-zero goals of 2060 and 2070, respectively.

Under the auspices of a 2015 international climate change treaty known as the Paris agreement, 193 nations plus the European Union have pledged to reduce their emissions. The agreement aims to keep global warming well below 2 degrees, and ideally to 1.5 degrees, above preindustrial levels. But it is insufficient. Even if all countries cut their emissions as much as they have promised under the Paris agreement, the world would likely blow past 2 degrees of warming before the end of this century. 

Every nation continues to find its own path forward. “At the end of the day, all the solutions are going to be country-specific,” says Sha Yu, an earth scientist at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and University of Maryland’s Joint Global Change Research Institute in College Park, Md. “There’s not a universal fix.”

But there are some common themes for how to accomplish this energy transition — ways to focus our efforts on the things that will matter most. These are efforts that go beyond individual consumer choices such as whether to fly less or eat less meat. They instead penetrate every aspect of how society produces and consumes energy.

Such massive changes will need to overcome a lot of resistance, including from companies that make money off old forms of energy as well as politicians and lobbyists. But if society can make these changes, it will rank as one of humanity’s greatest accomplishments. We will have tackled a problem of our own making and conquered it.

Here’s a look at what we’ll need to do.

Make as much clean electricity as possible

To meet the need for energy without putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, countries would need to dramatically scale up the amount of clean energy they produce. Fortunately, most of that energy would be generated by technologies we already have — renewable sources of energy including wind and solar power.

“Renewables, far and wide, are the key pillar in any net-zero scenario,” says Mayfield, who worked on an influential 2021 report from Princeton University’s Net-Zero America project , which focused on the U.S. economy.

The Princeton report envisions wind and solar power production roughly quadrupling by 2030 to get the United States to net-zero emissions by 2050. That would mean building many new solar and wind farms, so many that in the most ambitious scenario, wind turbines would cover an area the size of Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and Oklahoma combined.

How much solar and wind power would we need?

Achieving net-zero would require a dramatic increase in solar and wind power in the United States. These maps show the footprint of existing solar and wind infrastructure in the contiguous United States (as of 2020) and a possible footprint for a midrange scenario for 2050. Gray shows population density of 100 people per square kilometer or greater.

Such a scale-up is only possible because prices to produce renewable energy have plunged. The cost of wind power has dropped nearly 70 percent, and solar power nearly 90 percent, over the last decade in the United States. “That was a game changer that I don’t know if some people were expecting,” Hidalgo-Gonzalez says.

Globally the price drop in renewables has allowed growth to surge; China, for instance, installed a record 55 gigawatts of solar power capacity in 2021, for a total of 306 gigawatts or nearly 13 percent of the nation’s installed capacity to generate electricity. China is almost certain to have had another record year for solar power installations in 2022.

Challenges include figuring out ways to store and transmit all that extra electricity, and finding locations to build wind and solar power installations that are acceptable to local communities. Other types of low-carbon power, such as hydropower and nuclear power, which comes with its own public resistance, will also likely play a role going forward.

More renewable electricity globally

Renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind and hydropower, account for a larger share of global electricity generation today than they did in 2015. The International Energy Agency expects that trend to continue, projecting that renewables will top 38 percent in 2027.

Get efficient and go electric

The drive toward net-zero emissions also requires boosting energy efficiency across industries and electrifying as many aspects of modern life as possible, such as transportation and home heating.

Some industries are already shifting to more efficient methods of production, such as steelmaking in China that incorporates hydrogen-based furnaces that are much cleaner than coal-fired ones, Yu says. In India, simply closing down the most inefficient coal-burning power plants provides the most bang for the buck, says Shayak Sengupta, an energy and policy expert at the Observer Research Foundation America think tank in Washington, D.C. “The list has been made up,” he says, of the plants that should close first, “and that’s been happening.”

To achieve net-zero, the United States would need to increase its share of electric heat pumps, which heat houses much more cleanly than gas- or oil-fired appliances, from around 10 percent in 2020 to as much as 80 percent by 2050, according to the Princeton report. Federal subsidies for these sorts of appliances are rolling out in 2023 as part of the new Inflation Reduction Act , legislation that contains a number of climate-related provisions.

Shifting cars and other vehicles away from burning gasoline to running off of electricity would also lead to significant emissions cuts. In a major 2021 report , the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine said that one of the most important moves in decarbonizing the U.S. economy would be having electric vehicles account for half of all new vehicle sales by 2030. That’s not impossible; electric car sales accounted for nearly 6 percent of new sales in the United States in 2022, which is still a low number but nearly double the previous year .

Make clean fuels

Some industries such as manufacturing and transportation can’t be fully electrified using current technologies — battery powered airplanes, for instance, will probably never be feasible for long-duration flights. Technologies that still require liquid fuels will need to switch from gas, oil and other fossil fuels to low-carbon or zero-carbon fuels.

One major player will be fuels extracted from plants and other biomass, which take up carbon dioxide as they grow and emit it when they die, making them essentially carbon neutral over their lifetime. To create biofuels, farmers grow crops, and others process the harvest in conversion facilities into fuels such as hydrogen. Hydrogen, in turn, can be substituted for more carbon-intensive substances in various industrial processes such as making plastics and fertilizers — and maybe even as fuel for airplanes someday.

In one of the Princeton team’s scenarios, the U.S. Midwest and Southeast would become peppered with biomass conversion plants by 2050, so that fuels can be processed close to where crops are grown. Many of the biomass feedstocks could potentially grow alongside food crops or replace other, nonfood crops.

Solar and wind power trends in the United States

The amount of electricity generated from wind and solar power in the United States has surged in the last decade. The boost was made possible in large part by drops in the costs of producing that energy.

Cut methane and other non-CO 2 emissions

Greenhouse gas emissions other than carbon dioxide will also need to be slashed. In the United States, the majority of methane emissions come from livestock, landfills and other agricultural sources, as well as scattered sources such as forest fires and wetlands. But about one-third of U.S. methane emissions come from oil, gas and coal operations. These may be some of the first places that regulators can target for cleanup, especially “super emitters” that can be pinpointed using satellites and other types of remote sensing .

In 2021, the United States and the European Union unveiled what became a global methane pledge endorsed by 150 countries to reduce emissions. There is, however, no enforcement of it yet. And China, the world’s largest methane emitter, has not signed on.

Nitrous oxides could be reduced by improving soil management techniques, and fluorinated gases by finding alternatives and improving production and recycling efforts.

Sop up as much CO 2 as possible

Once emissions have been cut as much as possible, reaching net-zero will mean removing and storing an equivalent amount of carbon to what society still emits.

One solution already in use is to capture carbon dioxide produced at power plants and other industrial facilities and store it permanently somewhere, such as deep underground. Globally there are around 35 such operations, which collectively draw down around 45 million tons of carbon dioxide annually. About 200 new plants are on the drawing board to be operating by the end of this decade, according to the International Energy Agency.

The Princeton report envisions carbon capture being added to almost every kind of U.S. industrial plant, from cement production to biomass conversion. Much of the carbon dioxide would be liquefied and piped along more than 100,000 kilometers of new pipelines to deep geologic storage, primarily along the Texas Gulf Coast, where underground reservoirs can be used to trap it permanently. This would be a massive infrastructure effort. Building this pipeline network could cost up to $230 billion, including $13 billion for early buy-in from local communities and permitting alone.

Another way to sop up carbon is to get forests and soils to take up more. That could be accomplished by converting crops that are relatively carbon-intensive, such as corn to be used in ethanol, to energy-rich grasses that can be used for more efficient biofuels, or by turning some cropland or pastures back into forest. It’s even possible to sprinkle crushed rock onto croplands, which accelerates natural weathering processes that suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.

Another way to increase the amount of carbon stored in the land is to reduce the amount of the Amazon rainforest that is cut down each year. “For a few countries like Brazil, preventing deforestation will be the first thing you can do,” Yu says.

When it comes to climate change, there’s no time to waste

The Princeton team estimates that the United States would need to invest at least an additional $2.5 trillion over the next 10 years for the country to have a shot at achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. Congress has begun ramping up funding with two large pieces of federal legislation it passed in 2021 and 2022. Those steer more than $1 trillion toward modernizing major parts of the nation’s economy over a decade — including investing in the energy transition to help fight climate change.

Between now and 2030, solar and wind power, plus increasing energy efficiency, can deliver about half of the emissions reductions needed for this decade, the International Energy Agency estimates. After that, the primary drivers would need to be increasing electrification, carbon capture and storage, and clean fuels such as hydrogen.

The trick is to do all of this without making people’s lives worse. Developing nations need to be able to supply energy for their economies to develop. Communities whose jobs relied on fossil fuels need to have new economic opportunities.

Julia Haggerty, a geographer at Montana State University in Bozeman who studies communities that are dependent on natural resources, says that those who have money and other resources to support the transition will weather the change better than those who are under-resourced now. “At the landscape of states and regions, it just remains incredibly uneven,” she says.

The ongoing energy transition also faces unanticipated shocks such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which sent energy prices soaring in Europe, and the COVID-19 pandemic, which initially slashed global emissions but later saw them rebound.

But the technologies exist for us to wean our lives off fossil fuels. And we have the inventiveness to develop more as needed. Transforming how we produce and use energy, as rapidly as possible, is a tremendous challenge — but one that we can meet head-on. For Mayfield, getting to net-zero by 2050 is a realistic goal for the United States. “I think it’s possible,” she says. “But it doesn’t mean there’s not a lot more work to be done.”

More Stories from Science News on Climate

As the Arctic tundra warms, soil microbes likely will ramp up CO 2 production

A new approach to fighting wildfires combines local knowledge and AI

A ruinous hailstorm in Spain may have been supercharged by warming seas

Three reasons why the ocean’s record-breaking hot streak is devastating

Will stashing more CO 2 in the ocean help slow climate change?

A rapid shift in ocean currents could imperil the world’s largest ice shelf

A new U.S. tool maps where heat will be dangerous for your health

Polar forests may have just solved a solar storm mystery

Subscribers, enter your e-mail address for full access to the Science News archives and digital editions.

Not a subscriber? Become one now .

What does net-zero emissions mean and how can we get there?

When 'net-zero' is reached, this means that global greenhouse gas emissions from human activity are in balance with emissions reductions. Image:  UNSPLASH/chris robert

.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo{-webkit-transition:all 0.15s ease-out;transition:all 0.15s ease-out;cursor:pointer;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;outline:none;color:inherit;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:hover,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-hover]{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:focus,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-focus]{box-shadow:0 0 0 3px rgba(168,203,251,0.5);} Johnny Wood

.chakra .wef-9dduvl{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-9dduvl{font-size:1.125rem;}} Explore and monitor how .chakra .wef-15eoq1r{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;color:#F7DB5E;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-15eoq1r{font-size:1.125rem;}} SDG 13: Climate Action is affecting economies, industries and global issues

.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;color:#2846F8;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{font-size:1.125rem;}} Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale

Stay up to date:, sdg 13: climate action.

Listen to the article

• Reaching net zero emissions means removing an equal amount of CO2 from the atmosphere as we release into it.
• Despite the growth of sustainable technologies in recent years, carbon emissions continue to increase.
• Current climate change commitments are not enough to keep the planet within 1.5℃ above pre-industrial times.
• Urgent and coordinated global action is needed within the next decade to combat the growing climate change threat.

Calls for governments, companies and other organizations to bolster commitments to reach net zero emissions are becoming increasingly widespread as the effects of failing to limit climate change become more apparent.

But what does “net zero” actually mean? And importantly, what can be done to put the planet’s emissions on a safe course? Put simply, the term net zero applies to a situation where global greenhouse gas emissions from human activity are in balance with emissions reductions . At net zero, carbon dioxide emissions are still generated, but an equal amount of carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere as is released into it, resulting in zero increase in net emissions.

While sustainability efforts are increasing around the world, some sectors are harder to decarbonize than others. Heavy industries like iron and steelmaking, for example, and transport like aviation, shipping and road haulage are particularly hard to electrify. Abating emissions in these sectors requires new climate-tech solutions, such as carbon-capture utilization and storage (CCUS) technologies that prevent CO2 emissions from heavy industry reaching the atmosphere. Synthetic fuels can provide cleaner drop-in alternatives to fossil fuels like petrol or diesel for aeroplanes, ships and trucks. Many new emissions-busting technologies are still at the early stage of development, with the business case yet to be proven. Reaching net zero will require huge investment to scale up these solutions and bring costs down.

The growing climate crisis

Since the first COP talks held in 1995 , the energy transition has gained momentum. Power from wind and solar sources is fast becoming cheaper than fossil fuel alternatives, large parts of society and industry are being electrified, and technologies like carbon capture and synthetic fuels are helping to decarbonize hard-to-electrify sectors like steelmaking and aviation.

Energy transition innovations like these — and others still to be developed — are a crucial part of efforts to combat climate change. But despite advances, much of this technology is yet to be scaled up and global greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase.

Annual global greenhouse gas emissions exceeded 50 gigatonnes , before the pandemic brought many countries to a virtual economic standstill. But as the world bounces back to business-as-usual, emissions are once again on the rise. Current climate policies put the planet on course to reach at least 2.7℃ above pre-industrial times by 2100 . This potentially cataclysmic rate of warming is approximately twice the 1.5℃ target set by the Paris Agreement.

What can we do to reach net zero emissions?

Climate science and scenarios outlined in reports by bodies like the IEA and the IPCC , all call for urgent action to address the climate crisis. The coming decade is crucial. Agreements reached at the COP26 climate talks in Glasgow, UK, are a vital chance to gain a global consensus on action to cut emissions and reach net zero. Commitment is needed from global leaders to at least halve global emissions by 2030 and reach net zero by mid-century. And a clear plan for how to deliver on these commitments is needed, along with interim emissions targets. As the climate crisis is a global threat, the world needs to find global solutions, by committing to support developing countries' efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change.

Climate change poses an urgent threat demanding decisive action. Communities around the world are already experiencing increased climate impacts, from droughts to floods to rising seas. The World Economic Forum's Global Risks Report continues to rank these environmental threats at the top of the list.

To limit global temperature rise to well below 2°C and as close as possible to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, it is essential that businesses, policy-makers, and civil society advance comprehensive near- and long-term climate actions in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement on climate change.

The World Economic Forum's Climate Initiative supports the scaling and acceleration of global climate action through public and private-sector collaboration. The Initiative works across several workstreams to develop and implement inclusive and ambitious solutions.

This includes the Alliance of CEO Climate Leaders, a global network of business leaders from various industries developing cost-effective solutions to transitioning to a low-carbon, climate-resilient economy. CEOs use their position and influence with policy-makers and corporate partners to accelerate the transition and realize the economic benefits of delivering a safer climate.

Contact us to get involved.

The First Movers Coalition , announced at COP26, is a partnership between the World Economic Forum and US Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry.

It’s a platform for companies to commit to buying zero-emission goods and services by 2030, to create demand for low-carbon technologies, make them cost-competitive and build the clean supply chains of the future.

Three main areas of action were outlined in a recent open letter for world leaders at COP26 , signed by more than 90 CEOs of multinational companies: 1. The switch from fossil fuels to clean energy and clean energy products needs to accelerate in order to achieve net zero. Policymakers must shift subsidies and financial support away from fossil fuels to clean energy and low carbon technologies, cut tariffs on climate-friendly practices and goods, and take adequate measures to ensure a just transition.

2. Policymakers must support and incentivize first-movers in the fight against climate change, to help scale existing proven solutions and develop new sustainable technologies. Universally harmonized laws and regulations can help accelerate key technologies and sustainable best practices and encourage public adoption of low-carbon products.

3. Public and private investment is a crucial part of creating resilient supply chains and infrastructure that can help advance climate resilience, sustainable food production and secure water supplies. Mobilizing capital for large scale infrastructure projects requires a coordinated approach between developers, investors, public finance institutions and governments, particularly in developing countries.

The IEA’s recent Net Zero by 2050 report sets out a roadmap for policymakers and world leaders to follow, setting out key milestones over the coming three decades to reach net zero by 2050. Reaching net zero by 2050 is not going to be easy, but it can be done.

The science is clear, what is needed now is urgent, robust and sustained global action.

Don't miss any update on this topic

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

Related topics:

The agenda .chakra .wef-n7bacu{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-weight:400;} weekly.

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

.chakra .wef-1dtnjt5{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;} More on Climate Action .chakra .wef-nr1rr4{display:-webkit-inline-box;display:-webkit-inline-flex;display:-ms-inline-flexbox;display:inline-flex;white-space:normal;vertical-align:middle;text-transform:uppercase;font-size:0.75rem;border-radius:0.25rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;line-height:1.2;-webkit-letter-spacing:1.25px;-moz-letter-spacing:1.25px;-ms-letter-spacing:1.25px;letter-spacing:1.25px;background:none;padding:0px;color:#B3B3B3;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;box-decoration-break:clone;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;}@media screen and (min-width:37.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:0.875rem;}}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:1rem;}} See all

Sustainability reporting: What directors need to know and do

Sarah Barker and Simon Learmount

May 13, 2024

Scientists expect global heating to exceed 1.5°C, and other nature and climate stories you need to read this week

4 strategies to decarbonize existing buildings

Jesse Saldivar, Alaina Ladner, Marc Starkey and Brittany Syz

How to finance battery energy storage and ensure constant clean energy

Prasad Thakur and Labanya Prakash Jena

May 10, 2024

How renewable energy serves as a catalyst to broader social change

Jennifer Rosen

Essay on Zero Hunger

Students are often asked to write an essay on Zero Hunger in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Zero Hunger

Understanding zero hunger.

Zero Hunger is a global aim to end all forms of hunger and malnutrition. It’s one of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals set by the United Nations.

Why is Zero Hunger Important?

Hunger leads to malnutrition, which can cause health problems. Achieving Zero Hunger means ensuring everyone has enough nutritious food, promoting better health.

How Can We Achieve Zero Hunger?

We can contribute by reducing food waste, supporting local farmers, and promoting sustainable farming. Everyone’s effort counts towards achieving Zero Hunger.

Also check:

• 10 Lines on Zero Hunger

250 Words Essay on Zero Hunger

Introduction to zero hunger.

Zero Hunger, a critical initiative of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), aims to eradicate all forms of hunger and malnutrition by 2030. It emphasizes the necessity of a comprehensive approach, focusing on sustainable food production, improved nutrition, and increased agricultural productivity.

The Imperative of Zero Hunger

The urgency of Zero Hunger is underscored by the stark reality that nearly 690 million people worldwide go to bed hungry each night. The situation is exacerbated by factors such as climate change, economic disparities, and global pandemics. Achieving Zero Hunger is not merely about addressing hunger, but also about ensuring health, stimulating economic growth, and preserving our planet.

Strategies for Achieving Zero Hunger

Achieving Zero Hunger requires a multifaceted strategy. Sustainable agriculture, for instance, is a key pillar, promoting efficient use of resources and reducing the impact on the environment. Additionally, fostering resilient agricultural practices can help communities withstand climate-related shocks and natural disasters.

Challenges and the Way Forward

Despite the clear roadmap, the journey to Zero Hunger is riddled with obstacles. These include political instability, resource constraints, and the complexity of coordinating global efforts. Overcoming these challenges necessitates robust global cooperation, innovative solutions, and unwavering commitment.

In conclusion, Zero Hunger is an ambitious yet achievable goal. It demands collective action, sustained commitment, and innovative strategies. As we move towards a world free of hunger, we also pave the way for a healthier, more equitable, and sustainable future.

500 Words Essay on Zero Hunger

Introduction.

Zero Hunger is a global initiative aimed at eradicating hunger and malnutrition by 2030. It is one of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set by the United Nations. The objective of Zero Hunger goes beyond addressing hunger, to include the commitment to ensure access to safe, nutritious, and sufficient food all year round for everyone.

Understanding the Zero Hunger Challenge

The Zero Hunger challenge is an ambitious goal that requires a comprehensive understanding of the complex issues surrounding food security. It is not simply about increasing food production, but rather creating a sustainable food system that can feed every person on the planet. It involves improving food quality, reducing food waste, promoting sustainable agriculture, and tackling the root causes of hunger such as poverty, inequality, and conflict.

The Importance of Zero Hunger

Achieving Zero Hunger is crucial for the health and wellbeing of individuals and societies. Malnutrition and hunger are linked to poor physical and mental health, lower educational attainment, and reduced economic productivity. Moreover, hunger perpetuates a cycle of poverty and inequality, as those who are malnourished often struggle to work and learn, further limiting their opportunities. Therefore, eradicating hunger is not just a moral imperative, but also a necessary step towards achieving sustainable development and social justice.

Challenges in Achieving Zero Hunger

Despite the global commitment to Zero Hunger, progress has been slow and uneven. Conflict, climate change, and economic downturns are among the major barriers to achieving this goal. For instance, climate change threatens food production through increased droughts, floods, and storms, while conflict disrupts food distribution and access. Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated food insecurity, pushing millions more into hunger.

Strategies to Achieve Zero Hunger

Achieving Zero Hunger requires a multifaceted approach. This includes promoting sustainable agricultural practices, reducing food waste, improving food distribution systems, and implementing social protection schemes for the vulnerable. Education and public awareness are also crucial to change consumption patterns and reduce waste. Furthermore, international cooperation and peacebuilding are needed to address the global challenges that threaten food security.

Zero Hunger is a vital goal that demands urgent and collective action. It requires not only addressing immediate food needs, but also tackling the root causes of hunger and building a sustainable food system. While the challenges are immense, the potential benefits of achieving Zero Hunger – healthier populations, stronger economies, and more equitable societies – make it a goal worth striving for. As global citizens, we all have a role to play in achieving Zero Hunger and creating a world where everyone has access to safe, nutritious, and sufficient food.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on YouTube
• Essay on Youth Violence
• Essay on Youth Sports

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

More From Forbes

Why we need rapid deployment of carbon capture technologies.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

CCS aims to reduce atmospheric CO2 through permanent storage, a necessity for heavy industries like ... [+] steel, cement, and fertilizer, which otherwise face challenges in reducing emissions.

Amid the accelerating climate crisis, the urgency to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 has become a global imperative, with some required technologies still in need of rapid development.

While photovoltaics and electric vehicles march towards widespread adoption, critical technologies like Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage (CCUS) lag behind.

CCUS is an urgently required solution for hard to abate emissions and to clean up historical emissions due to the lag of action in reducing emissions, we also need to reduce the stock of CO 2 in the atmosphere. The latter is usually called carbon dioxide removal (CDR) .

This disparity not only presents significant risks but also a substantial opportunity to pioneer a renaissance in carbon management.

Carbon Technologies Explained

These days, we frequently group CCUS as a single set of technologies yet they encompass two distinct approaches.

CCS primarily aims to reduce atmospheric CO 2 through permanent storage , a necessity for heavy industries like steel, cement, and fertilizer, which otherwise face challenges in reducing emissions.

CCU, on the other hand, recycles CO 2 into products, sometimes valuable products, although this does not always equate to permanent sequestration.

Both CCS and CCU need to capture CO 2 . These capture technologies are well known and improvement has been made in reducing energy use in the processes, be it from capturing tailpipe emissions, removing carbon from the fuel to produce hydrogen, or recycling the CO 2 in the process to end up with a concentrated stream of CO 2 .

Netflix: Marvel Dud Among Movies New On Streaming Service This Week

Houston rockets land third pack in upcoming nba draft, as knicks and rangers captivate new york, the yankees quietly roll along.

Originally designed for power production, these post-combustion, pre-combustion, and oxy-fuel technologies are now increasingly applied in industrial settings.

Despite the rising dominance of renewable energy, which diminishes the appeal of new CCUS installations in power generation, these technologies remain crucial for retrofitting existing installations.

For example, Asia has a large fleet of relatively young coal-fired power plants that are unlikely to be decommissioned anytime soon. Therefore, CCUS will continue to play a vital strategic role in the region's power sector and much needed to decarbonize fast enough.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) underscores that CCS and CCU are not alone in their slow progress; however, their lag is particularly consequential. In a recent report from the IEA that tracks progress since COP28, the lag in deploying CCUS and clean hydrogen is particularly worrying, only highlighting the need to embrace the current developments and accelerate these solutions.

According to another IEA report , a five-year delay in developing and deploying CCUS technologies would halve the CO 2 emissions being captured worldwide in 2030 compared to the needed amounts in the Sustainable Development Scenario.

Despite their potential to significantly mitigate global warming, current global CCS and CCU deployment is a fraction of the gigaton-scale needed by the 2030s and 2040s. Currently, the deployment stands at about 50 million tons per year, starkly insufficient against the looming deadlines. Globally, we would need about 20 times more per year by 2030.

Historical Barriers and Missed Opportunities

The CCUS journey has been fraught with challenges. In Europe, targets were set for 10-15 operational plants by 2015, supported by the EU commission through various schemes. However, a viable business model was missing, complicated by regulatory and logistical barriers that discouraged investment and innovation.

The European Trading System (ETS) for emission quotas , intended as a financial mechanism, failed to provide stability. The system initially collapsed due to the issuance of free quotas and inflated emission baselines, which drove the prices down to as low as €5 per ton of CO 2 .

Such an economic environment rendered the business model—which relied on generating income by avoiding the purchase of ETS quotas—impractical, particularly when the costs of CCS ranged between €100-200 per ton.

Strategic Shifts

Significant changes have since been implemented. The EU has enacted robust climate legislation, including the European Green Deal , aiming for climate neutrality by 2050 and a 55% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.

The necessity for a carrot and stick approach intensified following the Ukraine conflict, which disrupted Russian gas imports due to pipeline sabotage in the Baltic Sea.

This situation underscores the EU's need for energy autonomy , prompting a shift towards massive renewable energy deployments, such as wind and solar, and strategic partnerships with aligned nations like Norway, now the EU's largest piped gas supplier.

Additionally, the EU is adapting through increased energy efficiency, having already reduced gas usage by 15%. These efforts are vital not only for reducing fossil fuel dependence but also for maintaining industrial production and integrating sufficient hydrogen to replace natural gas.

These ambitious EU targets are now backed by more robust policies and higher ETS prices, improving the economic viability of CCUS projects.

The EU's Industrial Carbon Management Strategy anticipates a need for escalating CO 2 storage capacity, targeting 50 million tons per year by 2030 and reaching 450 million tons by 2050.

These are not just projections but necessities if we are to mitigate the worst impacts of climate change.

The North Sea region is paving the way having most of the CO 2 storage capacity in Europe at present. Collaboration between regions and actors is needed when CO 2 sources and CO 2 storage sites are to be properly matched going forward.

New Regulations and Future Outlook for CO 2 Storage

Recent regulations mandating fossil fuel producers in the EU to provide necessary storage capacities are set to be transformative. By 2030, these producers are required to contribute storage equivalent to their market share over the past four years.

This regulation not only provides a clear price signal but also facilitates the necessary infrastructure for CCS to flourish.

The debate around CCU centers on the efficiency of extracting CO 2 from flue gases or air, only to potentially re-emit it by using it to produce fuels. While current processes, such as those used in making beverages, do not offer long-term carbon storage, employing CO 2 in recyclable materials or disposing of it through CCS presents viable options.

Looking ahead to 2040-2050, when fossil fuel use will dramatically decrease, identifying sustainable carbon sources becomes critical. CCU emerges as a key solution, recycling carbon in a similar way we handle strategic materials. Most products contain carbon.

Although currently less energy-efficient, the increasing shift towards renewable, nearly emission-free electricity will enhance the feasibility of using CO 2 to create carbon-based products, such as plastics and clothing, that must otherwise rely on biogenic sources or recycling.

This approach is essential as we aim to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide and maintain global warming well below two degrees Celsius.

A Renaissance For CCUS?

The EU is not alone in recognizing the importance of CCS and CCU technologies for reducing emissions. With a CCS renaissance on the horizon, supported by robust mechanisms, it's time to accelerate these solutions.

This involves not only advancing technology but also aligning policies, investments, and public perception to foster an environment where such technologies can thrive and contribute significantly to global climate goals. Fast.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Join The Conversation

One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts. 

Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's  Terms of Service.   We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

• False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
• Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
• Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
• Content that otherwise violates our site's  terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

• Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
• Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
• Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
• Actions that otherwise violate our site's  terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

• Stay on topic and share your insights
• Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
• ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
• Protect your community.
• Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's  Terms of Service.

The Straits Times

• International
• Print Edition
• news with benefits
• SPH Rewards
• STClassifieds
• Berita Harian
• Hardwarezone
• Shin Min Daily News
• Tamil Murasu
• The Business Times
• The New Paper
• Lianhe Zaobao
• Advertise with us

LTA refutes claims that ERP 2.0 on-board units do not meet global standards

SINGAPORE – The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has refuted allegations that the on-board units (OBUs) for the next-generation Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) system, or ERP 2.0, had failed to meet international standards.

In a press statement on May 14, LTA said the OBU meets the relevant global benchmarks for electronic devices and, when installed properly, is safe and reliable in Singapore’s operating environment.

Responding to online comments, LTA noted that the OBU had been tested against the International Electrotechnical Commission’s IEC-60068 and IEC-60529 standards, which are widely used to assess the operational reliability of electronic devices.

The IEC-60068 is a method for the environmental testing of electronic equipment, while the IEC-60529 rates the resistance of electronic devices against the intrusion of dust and liquids.

To qualify for these standards, the OBU passed a wide range of tests, including those for temperature and humidity, added LTA.

The authority reiterated Transport Minister Chee Hong Tat’s parliamentary reply to Workers’ Party MP Louis Chua’s question on May 8 about whether the OBU meets the minimum standards of the Automotive Electronics Council Q100 (AEC-Q100) requirements for reliable operations in Singapore’s climate.

In response, Mr Chee said a series of tests was done on the unit to ensure its reliability for use in Singapore’s weather conditions, and to ensure it would not pose safety risks during accidents.

LTA further clarified that the AEC-Q100 is not the correct standard for assessing electronic devices such as the OBU, as it is a technical standard used to measure packaged integrated circuits used in vehicles, like the chips in the in-car entertainment system.

The AEC-Q100 focuses on the quality of individual parts and is not meant for devices comprising many components, added the authority.

The three-piece OBU consists of a processing unit, an antenna and a touchscreen display.

The authority said the processing unit is different from devices such as the existing ERP in-vehicle unit and a vehicle dashcam, or the OBU’s antenna and touchscreen display, which are either passive or do not have the same computing functions as the processing unit.

A more relevant comparison with the processing unit, said LTA, is a smartphone, which functions similarly like a mini-computer.

LTA said a smartphone could overheat and stop working temporarily if it is left in a holder near the dashboard for a few hours under the hot sun.

Citing a technical advisory by smartphone maker Apple, LTA noted that Apple devices should be stored at between -20 and 45 deg C, and users should not leave their iPhones in a parked car on a hot day.

For the same reason, the authority does not recommend placing the processing unit on the dashboard, as the temperature there could reach 50 to 52 deg C on a hot day, compared with 38 to 39 deg C at the footwell.

The heat tolerance of the OBU has become a hot topic in recent weeks, with LTA posting a video to its social media channels on April 29 explaining why the OBU for cars comes in three parts – instead of a one-piece unit for motorcycles.

The video noted that the one-piece motorcycle OBU is designed for outdoor conditions, and is unsuitable for the enclosed interior of a car. If placed on a car’s dashboard, an item can heat up to 52.4 deg C.

Under ERP 2.0, the current in-vehicle unit (IU) will be replaced with the on-board unit (OBU). Unlike the IU, which is only activated when passing through an ERP gantry, the processing unit is like a mini-computer which is processing information when the car engine is switched on. Hence, the processing unit generates more heat than the IU. LTA has measured the temperature at different locations within a car and commercial vehicle. Due to greenhouse effect within an enclosed space, temperatures at locations inside the vehicle are higher than the ambient temperature. When the ambient temperature is about 35 degrees Celsius on a sunny day, the temperature at the dashboard within an enclosed vehicle can reach 50-52 degrees Celsius. In comparison, the temperature in the footwell area is around 38-39 degrees Celsius. This is why we separated the antenna from the processing unit, as the antenna needs to be installed near the top of the dashboard for optimal connectivity and recommend to install the processing unit at the footwell of the vehicles where the device is not exposed to direct sunlight and high temperatures. Posted by Land Transport Authority – We Keep Your World Moving on Sunday, April 28, 2024

In comparison, the temperature at a car’s footwell goes up to 38.7 deg C, close to the temperature of 34.1 deg C on a motorcycle parked outdoors, said LTA in the video.

The authority cited this as the reason for positioning the processing unit away from the dashboard.

The issue resurfaced on May 8 when Mr Chua raised the question on the OBU’s safety standards in Parliament, which led some social media users to claim that the unit was prone to overheating risks due to a design flaw.

About two per cent, or 18,000 vehicles, of almost one million vehicles here have been fitted with the OBUs since August 2023.

The installation of the new OBUs started for fleet vehicles, such as buses and motorcycles, in November 2023, while new vehicles registered from May 1 would be pre-fitted with them.

Owners of Singapore-registered cars will be notified progressively in the second half of 2024 when they are supposed to have the OBU installed.

Join ST's WhatsApp Channel and get the latest news and must-reads.

Read 3 articles and stand to win rewards

Spin the wheel now

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

The Americas

A car-free town in the amazon serves lessons for pedaling to net zero emissions.

Mac Margolis

People cycle along the street in Afuá, a city in northern Brazil's Pará state, in January. Since 2002, this city on the banks of the Amazon River has been famously off limits to motor vehicles. Stefan Kolumban hide caption

People cycle along the street in Afuá, a city in northern Brazil's Pará state, in January. Since 2002, this city on the banks of the Amazon River has been famously off limits to motor vehicles.

AFUÁ, Brazil — Brazilian politicians stumping for reelection know the power of public largesse. So it was in 2010 when the incumbent governor of Pará state lavished city halls in this sprawling Amazonian province twice the size of France with tractors and motor graders to make roads.

In a remote tropical region, where tarmac is a totem of progress, no self-respecting mayor would snub such a bequest. No one except Odimar Wanderley Salomão, mayor of Afuá, who politely declined and had a good laugh — then astutely swapped his tractor chit for a riverboat.

Since 2002, this city on the Amazon River has been famously off-limits to motor vehicles. It wasn't a matter of environmental scruples. Cars and motorways had no place in this town of 38,000, much of which is built on stilts and sits above the chronically submersed floodplains of Marajó Island, near where the world's largest river empties into the Atlantic.

Deadly floods in southern Brazil

Locals call their hometown the Venice of the Amazon, because of its filigree of waterways and the fleet of boats that ply them. A visitor would be forgiven for thinking they'd landed in an outsize velodrome, such is the dizzying flow of cyclists zipping along the narrow streets. If Mayor Salomão — known to all as "Mazinho" — has his way, Afuá might yet be remembered as the city that pedaled its way to net zero emissions.

Odimar Wanderley Salomão, the mayor of Afuá, in January. Stefan Kolumban hide caption

He's got a good head start. Although there is no independent measure of municipal carbon emissions, this riverine community with one bicycle per capita and "the fittest legs in the Amazon," as Salomão boasts, stands out in a region still in thrall to fossil fuel-driven urban sprawl.

After all, this city of boardwalks, boats and bicycle-taxis is refreshingly free of the gridlock, tailpipe fumes and claxons that plague most fast-growing Amazon cities. The taboo on cars became law in 2022 .

Opinion: The global gold rush puts the Amazon rainforest at greater risk

"Afuá is an example for the Amazon and Brazil, and maybe for the world," Mazinho told me in a recent interview. "We want people to come see for themselves," he added, in a nod to the scores of diplomats and heads of state set to gather next year in Belém, the storied Amazon port and host city for COP30, the headline United Nations climate summit.

The problem is getting there. Afuá sits on the upper lip of a fluvial island in Brazil's forgotten far north. There are no overland connections to the rest of the country. The local landing strip is often underwater. Travelers must either shell out for a flight to Macapá, a remote regional capital, then take a two to four-hour riverboat ride, or board a ship in Belém for a 27-hour cruise.

An aerial view of Afuá, a Brazilian municipality in Pará state, on the Amazon River delta. It is known as the "Venice of Marajó Island," for having several canals and stilt houses, and no cars at all. Stefan Kolumban hide caption

Generations of ambitious national leaders always took such isolation as an affront. They preached road building as a civilizational mission, no matter the devastation it wrought. Research in Brazil and Colombia shows that nearly all Amazon deforestation occurs within a few kilometers of roadways. Road by road, Amazon cities grew with their "backs to the river," as locals put it, often in reckless haste.

Traffic fatalities claimed 339,000 Brazilian lives from 2010 to 2019 and saw lethal road accidents jump 43% in the Amazon region , more than three times the national rate.

Brazil's floods leave more than 100 people dead and thousands displaced

Rain and floods driven by increasingly rogue weather are an existential threat in southern Brazil, as the lethal deluges in Rio Grande do Sul state this month have made devastatingly clear. In Afuá, the seasonal high waters, known as lançantes , are the cue for a celebration. "When the floods come, we raise the furniture and fridge, put on flip flops and slosh into the streets to have fun until the waters recede," says Adiel de Souza Santos, 32, who sells açaí, a popular rainforest fruit.

Not everything in Afuá is a party. Fewer than 3 in 10 municipal residents live in homes with access to running water, sewage mains or garbage collection. Poverty and income inequality are among the worst in Brazil.

Cars and motorways had no place in this town of 38,000 people, much of which is built on stilts and sits above the chronically submersed floodplains of Marajó Island. Stefan Kolumban hide caption

Like most Amazonian cities, the town depends on federal tax transfers just to pay its bills. For all the enthusiasm over the emerging green economy, city hall is the biggest employer. Afuá ranks 655th among 772 municipalities on the Amazon region's Social Progress Index , an aggregate of metrics for overall well-being.

Carbon neutrality, too, is a work in progress. One of the enduring paradoxes of the Amazon basin is that the same bounteous waterways that power the world's ninth economy and make Brazil a renewable energy standout often leave nearby towns in the dark. Afuá has yet to be plugged into the national grid fueled by hydroelectric dams. (A long overdue plan to do so is still in the works.) Hence, the constant growl and acrid whiff of diesel-burning thermoelectric plants and generators running night and day to keep the lights on.

What Afuá suggests is that pragmatic leadership and community consensus can make a difference even in one of the most chaotically urbanizing regions of the Americas. By turning off the combustion engine, resisting the tarmac temptation and abiding by centuries-old ways of the river, the town is a real time experiment in how to navigate an increasingly uncertain world where unruly climate change is overturning the rules of sustainable urban habitability. All this without a traffic light or tractor in sight.

Riding bikes is one of the few ways to get around in Afuá. Stefan Kolumban hide caption

Mac Margolis is a longtime reporter, columnist and scriptwriter covering Latin America, and author of The Last New World: the Conquest of the Amazon Frontier.

This story was produced with support from the Rainforest Journalism Fund in partnership with the Pulitzer Center.

• carbon emissions
• amazon rainforest
• climate change

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

And the Winner Is: Kendrick Lamar. And Old-School Hip-Hop.

By Laurence Ralph

Dr. Ralph is a professor of anthropology at Princeton.

The rap battle between Drake and Kendrick Lamar is about more than whatever personal beefs these two men have with each other. As many have noted , it is a significant moment in hip-hop history, and not just because Mr. Lamar’s diss track “ Not Like Us ,” released last week, has become the hip-hop song with the most plays on U.S. Spotify in a single day — surpassing the high set previously by Drake and Lil Baby.

What sets this rap battle apart from previous high-profile hip-hop feuds is its magnitude and implications for popular music. Hip-hop, born as an underground movement, has long been a global phenomenon, leading certain artists to blur the lines between authenticity and commercialization. The global pop audience has always been more drawn to a simplified hip-hop sound devoid of the complex lyrics and politicized messages that characterize “conscious” rap.

Mr. Lamar’s victory signals a resurgence of lyrically rich rap — and a return to the roots of hip-hop culture — all while establishing a new template for relevance in an era when content can go viral instantly on social media and streaming platforms. If Drake, who has become the face of rap’s mainstream pop faction, has lost this battle, that setback is not his alone.

Mr. Lamar’s ability to write layered and intricate lyrics has long been lauded. But this battle has brought new attention and enthusiasm to the particular artistic element at which he excels. Fans have scrambled to decipher his complex verses with each new release. (The website Genius , where users annotate lyrics, crashed from the volume of visitors investigating this feud.) Mr. Lamar’s apparent decision to remove copyright protections for “Not Like Us” has also enabled a wide dissemination of the track, allowing content creators to monetize posts featuring the song.

Removing these kind of constraints on the distribution of the song signals a new and savvy approach to marketing and sales in the music industry. It’s another facet of Mr. Lamar’s victory — enlisting countless unseen collaborators to spread his message and join his crusade.

Drake has been doing his best to counter and innovate. His second volley in the battle, “Taylor Made Freestyle,” incorporated A.I. to enlist two iconic figures from West Coast hip-hop: Tupac Shakur and Snoop Dogg. (Drake removed the song from social media after objections from Mr. Shakur’s estate .) Drake also took direct aim at Mr. Lamar’s supposed lyrical prowess, taunting him to respond with a “quintuple entendre.”

Underestimating Mr. Lamar — who won a Pulitzer Prize for his album “DAMN.” — was a questionable move. Mr. Lamar’s response, “ Euphoria ,” arrived with the precision and effectiveness of a heat-seeking missile. The title “Euphoria” nods not only to the feeling but to the HBO series on which Drake has been an executive producer — a show known for its controversial portrayal of teenage sexuality, a parallel that underscores Mr. Lamar’s allegations that Drake harbors inappropriate infatuations.

In the arena of rap battles, entendres are wielded precisely because they imbue words with layers of meaning. Nowhere is this more evident than in the stark contrast between love and hate, the poles around which rap oscillates. In a pivotal moment in “Euphoria,” Mr. Lamar adopted the persona of the late rapper DMX, who in 2012 aired his grievances about Drake on “The Breakfast Club,” a radio show that was a cornerstone of hip-hop media. On the track, Mr. Lamar echoes DMX as he snarls at Drake, “I hate the way that you walk, the way that you talk, I hate the way that you dress.”

Drake parried by questioning Mr. Lamar’s authenticity, characterizing his portrayal of Black empowerment as superficial and insincere. But Mr. Lamar swiftly retaliated, targeting Drake’s alleged cultural appropriation. Authenticity in hip-hop is often tied to a rapper’s ability to embody the distinctive sound of their hometown — something Drake, a Canadian of ambiguous racial identity, has skillfully transcended, crossing geographical and musical boundaries and incorporating regional sounds from across the United States, particularly the South.

In the closing lines of “Not Like Us,” Mr. Lamar zeros in on what he sees as Drake’s vulnerability. Mr. Lamar’s artistry shines through as he seamlessly weaves together social commentary and catchy rhythms. He begins by evoking the painful legacy of Black Americans in chains, then highlights Atlanta’s historical significance as a hub for the slave trade in the South — before drawing parallels to Drake’s exploitation of Southern rap culture for personal gain. His indictment culminates with a damning accusation: “You run to Atlanta when you need a few dollars,” he says. Drake is not a “colleague,” he’s a “colonizer.”

Through his incisive lyrics Mr. Lamar exposes the complexities of cultural identity and power dynamics within the rap industry — all while carrying the banner of lyrical rap. His verbal offensive proves the depth and staying power of hip-hop’s history and culture, with its legacy of lyrical dexterity and complexity.

Armed with these tools and talents, Mr. Lamar managed to topple Drake, and in the process has shown himself, by calling on hip-hop’s traditions, to be more relevant to the current moment. At least until the bell sounds to signal the next round.

Laurence Ralph is a professor of anthropology at Princeton and the author of “Sito: An American Teenager and the City That Failed Him.”

Source photographs by Arturo Holmes/MG23 and Prince Williams, via Getty Images.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

CP Foods Selects SAP Solutions for Cloud Sustainability  

WALLDORF and BANGKOK — SAP SE (NYSE: SAP) today announced Charoen Pokphand Foods Public Company Limited (“CP Foods”) has selected multiple SAP solutions to drive further growth and competitive advantage and to ensure the sustainability of its products for the future.

Catering to more than 4 billion people globally, CP Foods is embarking on its next stage of digital transformation with the RISE with SAP, SAP Sustainability Footprint Management, and SAP Sustainability Control Tower solutions. In addition, the SAP EHS Management, environment management application will be implemented to future-proof its business and to gain strategic insight into the sustainability impact of its products, processes and infrastructure globally. The company is a leading integrated agro-industrial and food business that is one of the world’s largest producers of feed, shrimp, poultry and pork. It has operations in 17 countries and exports to more than 50 countries.

Global Net-Zero Ambitions   

In line with CP Foods’ goal of becoming the “Sustainable Kitchen of the World,” CP Foods is the first food processing company in the world with near- and long-term forests, lands and agriculture (FLAG) sustainability targets validated by the Science-Based Targets Initiative (SBTi). CP Foods is looking to realize the company’s Net Zero goals of reducing 42% of Scope 1 and 2 emissions and 30.3% of Scope 3 emissions by 2030 – and 90% of Scope 1 and 2 emissions and 72% of Scope 3 emissions by 2050. To achieve these goals, the company is implementing SAP Sustainability solutions to record, report and act on real-time sustainability data, driving carbon accounting at both corporate and product levels.   

“Net Zero is the only solution to climate change,” CP Foods CEO Prasit Boondoungpraser said. “It is important to us to understand and reduce our impact on the planet, so we create food that is not only safe and nutritious for people but also green and clean for the earth. Feeding our livestock, farming our food and transporting it to people’s plates incurs emissions we have to be able to record and report. With RISE with SAP and SAP Sustainability solutions, we will have insight into actual emissions automated in real time rather than relying on manual averages, allowing us to make quick, informed and sustainable business decisions for our operations and for the planet.”  

SAP plans to provide a technology foundation that will support CP Foods in complying with forthcoming carbon regulations in various markets, including the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (EU C-BAM) and U.S. SEC climate risk disclosures.  

Key to reducing total emissions, CP Foods will focus on supply chain emissions, with its emissions mostly falling under Scope 3. CP Foods will work with the Customer Success organization at SAP, leverage YASH Technologies’ sustainability expertise and build on Amazon Web Services (AWS) to implement SAP Sustainability solutions. Doing so will allow it to record and report on its Scope 1 and 2 emissions in Thailand and select Scope 3 (3.1 and 3.4) for its feed business in Thailand covering both FLAG and non-FLAG emissions. The next phase of implementation will extend in scope to cover operations around the world.  

Cloud Sustainability

Paul Marriott, president of SAP Asia Pacific & Japan, said: “Sustainability is a huge opportunity for businesses across Asia. Using RISE with SAP and our sustainability solutions, CP Foods is getting ahead of forthcoming emissions regulation and future-proofing its business by using data to make more sustainable decisions. It can use those insights to drive more operational efficiencies, optimize supply chains, and differentiate its business against competitors.”

Visit the SAP News Center . Follow SAP at @SAPNews .

As a global leader in enterprise applications and business AI, SAP (NYSE:SAP) stands at the nexus of business and technology. For over 50 years, organizations have trusted SAP to bring out their best by uniting business-critical operations spanning finance, procurement, HR, supply chain, and customer experience. For more information, visit  www.sap.com .

Note to editors: To preview and download broadcast-standard stock footage and press photos digitally, please visit www.sap.com/photos . On this platform, you can find high resolution material for your media channels.

For customers interested in learning more about SAP products: Global Customer Center: +49 180 534-34-24 United States Only: 1 (800) 872-1SAP (1-800-872-1727)

For more information, press only: Rizka Laksmi, [email protected] , WIB Lesa Plingen, +49 622 776 9000,  [email protected] , CET SAP Press Room ; [email protected]

This document contains forward-looking statements, which are predictions, projections, or other statements about future events. These statements are based on current expectations, forecasts, and assumptions that are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results and outcomes to materially differ. Additional information regarding these risks and uncertainties may be found in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including but not limited to the risk factors section of SAP’s 2023 Annual Report on Form 20-F. © 2024 SAP SE. All rights reserved. SAP and other SAP products and services mentioned herein as well as their respective logos are trademarks or registered trademarks of SAP SE in Germany and other countries. Please see https://www.sap.com/copyright for additional trademark information and notices. Please consider our privacy policy . If you received this press release in your e-mail and you wish to unsubscribe to our mailing list please contact [email protected] and write Unsubscribe in the subject line.  

More in Customers

SAP Signavio Is a Leader in the 2024 Gartner® Magic Quadrant™ for Process Mining Platforms

How Preh Eases Product Costing for Hundreds of Projects with SAP

DeLaval Selects SAP S/4HANA Cloud to Cultivate Cloud Benefits