Net Zero? Hmmmm. It means balancing carbon emissions with negative emission technologies or natural sinks like trees. But there are several reasons to be suspicious. (1)
First, companies mislead about their levels of emissions. Yesterday FT reported that Shell and other companies report their tankers full of oil are greenwashed as 'carbon neutral' because the transport costs are offset...without assessing the emissions from the oil itself... (2) 
Second how reliable are the carbon capture and storage technologies or their projected efficiency in future? In 2007 we were told CCS would solve the problem by now. We are a long way off. (3)
Third, carbon stored in soils or trees or in the sea can leak back into the atmosphere. (4)
Fourth, nations mislead us and the media by ignoring emissions from consumption rather than production. Things made in China are consumed in the west...whose emissions are they? Our carbon footprint is much higher than is reported. Almost half UK emissions r from consumption (5)
Fifth, net zero models are at best dubious, often bordering on fantasy. We must cut emissions as quickly as possible if we're to avoid triggering any one of several tipping points. But emissions are rapidly rising. (6)
Businesses set “net-zero” corporate goals w negative emissions “offsets” eg Heathrow pays for peat-bog restoration to offset, + oil companies for expansive afforestation. But these goals ensure continued emissions from aviation +fossil fuel extraction. (7)
Welsby and colleagues in Nature paint a bleak picture. We need to be reducing emissions by 3% per year to have a 50% chance of meeting 1.5 degrees. So we need to keep fossil fuels in the ground. (8) nature.com/articles/s4158…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
