Is 'net zero' concept really useful in mitigating harmful effects of climate change? An analysis.
SHARE:
Assessment of 'net zero concept' and impact on climate change
- The story: Mankind loves modern amenities, and increasing demand for resources and energy-intensive lifestyles make it nearly impossible for technological fixes to sharply reduce carbon emissions. But action is happening.
- Governments in the hot seat: The world has seen a surge in voluntary commitments to achieve net-zero targets, by governments and corporations, to keep global temperature rise under 1.5 degree Celsius. There is a sense of optimism, and some reckon that this could prove to be the ‘magic bullet’ for climate change everyone was waiting for.
- What is net zero: It refers to the balance between the amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) produced and the amount removed from the atmosphere. We reach net-zero when the amount we add is no more than the amount taken away.
- There will always be a temporal lag between the emission and sequestration of GHGs, and they are not done by the same actor (be it an industry or individual).
- Market-based arrangements connect the dots between emitters and sequesters, as conceptualised through 'carbon offsets'.
- Criticism: Climate scientists and activists critique the net-zero concept as it relies excessively on nature-based and technological solutions for carbon removal and sequestration. So, it disincentivises solutions that could lower actual carbon emissions through demand-side interventions.
- The larger socio-cultural critique of various nature-based solutions — particularly their implementation in the global south — are not considered enough.
- This "burn-now-pay-later" strategy promotes a reckless dependence on technological salvation, without delineating possible pathways towards lessening demand and consequently, emissions.
- In reality, postponing actual reduction in emission makes us vulnerable: Why? Positive feedback loops in nature.
- By allowing enough time for positive feedback, we tip the climatic balance beyond the threshold of “absolute no return.” By delaying action, we are letting a ticking time bomb explode.
- Naomi Klein’s 'This Changes Everything': She posed a simple question - Can the prevailing market fundamentalism solve a problem it has given rise to in the first place? The strategy fails to address the root cause of climate crisis; it does not say much on ways to tackle the increasing demand for consumer goods and services and how to address the current dependency of our economies on insatiable consumer demand.
- Neo-liberalism: Neo-liberal economic models prevailing across economies are oriented solely towards the notion of ‘growthism’ – a drive towards infinite growth of economies fueled by the ever-increasing consumer want. Consumer demand is considered sacrosanct, which naturally reflects in ways subsequent policies are designed.
- The idea of ‘growthism’ is based on a clearly misplaced belief that growth will take care of all concerns regarding just distribution.
- This belief is oblivious to the fact that infinite growth in a finite planet is a sheer impossibility.
- Naomi Klein rightly says our economic system and planetary system are now at war and clearly, the need of the hour is a radical reorientation of economic system away from this mindless ‘growthism’.
- Growth is the oxygen of the current neo-liberal economic model. It is natural that when faced with any major crisis, individuals are likely to curb their wants and resort only to fulfilling their needs. This will cut the supply of ‘oxygen’ to the economies, pushing them into recession. We are witnessing precisely this during the ongoing COVID-19 crisis.
- The net-zero strategy emphasises the use of carbon offsets and large corporations diverting their investments, making carbon offsets a multibillion dollar market. The growth of carbon offsets market would make the use of carbon offsets more popular among individuals. The wide use of carbon offsets at the individual level will also have far-reaching consequences. Individuals, through their conception of a good life, will keep chasing material goods, giving rise to a self-sustaining process.
- the creation of the a new middle class was a big goal in post-1991 India, even though only a fraction (2-3 per cent) of India’s current population manages to enjoy such a lifestyle
- But the visible idea of a good life creates points of aspirations for the rest of the population to strive towards a standard of living that cannot simply be extended to all.
- The increased use of carbon offsets at the personal level will normalise people’s consumption patterns even more conveniently and insulate them from any moral obligation to lower their levels of consumptions.
- Solution: The world has to find a way to effectively reduce the per-capita consumption of the top 10 per cent of the world’s population. As a society, man needs to understand that however difficult it may seem, mankind has to collectively chart pathways to reduce consumption demands and find non-materialistic ways to seek human fulfillment.
- Summary: A shift towards alternative economic models can be neither quick nor without the active participation of every individual and organisations. A slowly sustained change in socio-cultural priorities and notions of good life, along with necessary infrastructural changes to support that, is the only way forward to realise a sustainable and just world for all.
COMMENTS