Understanding Net Zero Emission
Imagine a mobile phone, a person using a phone while the phone charges maintains a balance in the amount of power the phone consumes and the amount of power that charges it.
Carbon neutral, sequestration, direct air capture, GHG, phasing out, etc. Where human lives are at stake, you will definitely come across these terms that appear like jargons to an average person. One of them is ‘Net Zero Emissions”.
The atmosphere is “home” to various kind of elements, including hazardous emissions such as greenhouse gases (GHG) which are highly detrimental to the environment. Carbon is an example of a greenhouse gas substance.
Net Zero Emission is simply the balance between GHG emissions into the atmosphere and the emissions taken out of the atmosphere. Think of it like a mobile phone, a person using a phone while the phone charges maintains a balance in the amount of power the phone consumes and the amount of power that charges it. This is exactly what net zero means in the environment; where emissions are still being generated but they are offset by the same amount in a period of time.
Sequestration is the process of removing emissions from the atmosphere. It is also known as ‘carbon removal’.
Someone as curious as I was might ask the question: If it is possible to clear off the atmosphere of carbon emissions gradually, why should anyone think of generating more emissions into our beloved environment in the guise of balancing emissions?
First, you must understand that net zero emission is not an end itself but a means to an end. The war against climate change requires a certain level of management. To avoid the worst climate impact, GHG emissions has to drop by half by 2030 and reach net zero around mid-century. Since it is impossible to identify and remove emissions completely because humans alone are not the only polluting agents, the goal then is for anthropogenic emissions to be reduced as close to zero as possible.
Take note that net zero emission is distinct from zero emission. Net zero emission implies attaining a state of balance in emissions produced into the atmosphere and emissions sequestrated. On the other hand, zero emission is a state of absence of any form of emission into the atmosphere, which is impossible currently because even the greenest of technologies generates emissions directly or indirectly.
What the International Community is saying
As stated above, the mandate for human beings is to reduce emissions as close to zero as possible. Net zero emission is a step to achieving this. Major global industries heavily rely on petroleum, natural gas and carbon emitting processes in order to manufacture and provide services. An average individual pollutes the atmosphere daily whether directly on indirectly. Cumulatively, these actions are responsible for several environmental challenges. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Special Report ‘Global Warming of 1.5°C 2018 stressed the vital importance of net zero as an interim goal in the response to climate change. The international community via the Paris Agreement agreed to an objective to limit global warming below 2°C, ideally 1.5°C. To achieve the target of limiting warming to 1.5°C, CO2 needs to reach net zero between 2044 and 2052. This is the reason why you hear many countries setting year 2050 as their targets for net zero emission.
Interestingly, Tasmania, one of the six federal states of Australia, is the only state in the world that has been net zero in 2014 and 2018. It is pertinent to note that most countries are only paying lip-service to the objective of achieving net zero. No feasible strategy, just speeches and promises which are never implemented. It is 2021 and most countries do not have their net zero in place by law. Few countries that have net zero target in laws are Sweden, the UK, France, Denmark and New Zealand.
How do we achieve net zero before 2050?
The process of net zero emission is a permutation of human efforts. As listed by the World Research Institute, examples of practices that contribute to this objective are transition to renewable energy, phasing out coal plant, increase in public transport, halting deforestation, restoring degraded lands and decarbonizing cements, steel and plastics.7
The hypocrisy of nations and companies towards their commitment to a safe environment is a major impediment to environmental objectives. Developing countries are also not financially buoyant to invest in clean energy as it is costly. The lack of political will by world leaders to tackle the challenge of climate has rendered net zero emission target a dignified façade which may worsen the current state of the human environment.
Solution that bring us closer to environmental goals is not in speeches and promises made by leaders in their meetings and conferences. Solution lies in the people. And we must bring the solution to them.
Peter Okediya ACIARB (UK) is a writer, an avid researcher and a law student with a strong background in energy law. Peter is the content creator for The Energy Brief, a growing modern newsletter which serves the purpose of publishing contents, insights and updates in the global and local energy industry. Click the Subscribe button. For more info: energybriefwithpeter@gmail.com
The only question then is what is the forward for Nigeria in relation to achieving a green economy
Excellent point of view. However, taking into factor the transboundary nature of environmental pollution, the world's biggest polluters have to follow through on the PCC agreement to achieve a balance.