THE ROAD TO NET-ZERO
How does climate change compare to other global problems?
Is there a workable solution and what will it cost?
How quickly do we need to act?
I began writing CLIMATE CHANGE and the rod to NET-ZERO to illuminate all sides of the climate debate. I have finished the manuscript convinced that a rapid transition to zero carbon is a win-win solution for all. What follows is a synopsis of the book.
Mathew Hampshire-Waugh
A Story of Civilisation, Carbon Dioxide, and Temperature
From the book ‘Climate Change and the road to Net-Zero’ by Mathew Hampshire-Waugh
If the history of the Earth were condensed into the 24 hours of one day, the story of modern humans would start just 0.2 seconds before midnight, or 12,000 years ago, as the planet emerged from the last ice age. At this moment in time, concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere stabilised at just below 300 parts per million (ppm) and average temperatures on Earth settled at a comfortable 14⁰C. Humans advanced from nomadic hunter gatherers to build permanent settlements supported by a newly dependable agricultural yield. Civilisation was born. We domesticated animals, repurposed land for growing crops, and transformed the Earth’s natural resources to support an ever expanding human empire.
Populations grew. But prosperity did not. Agricultural production slowly increased but any gains were met with more mouths to feed. So for most of human history, the majority of humans have experienced the same levels of disease, hunger, and violence as all generations before them.
Humanity was stuck in what would become known as the Malthusian trap.
Thomas Robert Malthus, an 18th century scholar, asserted how any improvements to human existence would prove short lived because linear resource increases would always be met with exponential population growth. He believed humanity would remain forever imprisoned by the shackles of poverty unless action was taken to limit reproduction.
“The power of population is so superior to the power of the Earth to produce subsistence for man that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race.” - Thomas Robert Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population, 1798
And he was right for most of human history, all the way up until he actually published his theory when, two centuries ago, at 0.004 seconds before midnight, along came the industrial revolution. This was the moment modern humans mastered combustion, just as homo erectus had mastered fire. We unlocked millions of years of the sun’s energy stored in fossil fuels and used it to power the machinery of the modern world: transport, industry, agriculture and convenience living.
Both population and prosperity not only expanded for the first time in human history, they exploded. And so did carbon dioxide (CO2).
Blue line shows global population (in million), red line shows global CO2 emissions (other greenhouse gases not included, in million tonnes per year) and grey line shows global average GDP per person in the equivalent of today’s money ($2011 purchase price parity). Energy data from E. Cook and OurWorldinData. GDP from Bank of England and the Maddison database. For CO2 emissions since 1750 see CDIAC. To explore GDP, energy, and measures of human prosperity see OurWorldinData by Max Roser and Hannah Richie and for more on inequality go to Gapminder.
The industrial revolution has created unprecedented population growth and prosperity. Average incomes have increased from less than $1,000 to $18,000 per person per year (in the equivalent of today’s money). Life expectancy has doubled, child mortality and extreme poverty are ten times lower, and deaths on the battlefield have declined twenty fold.
We are living through a period of unprecedented wealth, quality of life, and relative peace.
Yet not everybody was on board. Average incomes may have risen 18 fold, but three quarters of the world earns less than the average and 10% of people still earn less than $1,000 per year. Half the population still has no basic sanitation, clean cooking, or electricity. Nearly one billion people have no access to safe water or sufficient food.
Population and consumption will continue to grow as developing countries rightfully strive for modern standards of living. Global emissions of greenhouse gases have already increased from 10 million tonnes per year in 1750 to 52,000 million tonnes per year today.
Total CO2 equivalent emissions per year including energy supply and non-energy emissions of all greenhouse gasses. Non-CO2 emissions given in equivalent warming potential of CO2 over 100 years. From the book ‘net zero’ aggregated from IPCC AR5, BP Statistical Review, IEA final consumption, and Robbie et al.
Unless we fundamentally change how our system is powered, CO2 emissions will continue to climb and ever higher concentrations will accumulate in the atmosphere.
Over the last 150 years, modern science has unravelled the complex relationship between CO2 and temperature. A relationship that dates back hundreds of millions of years into the deep geological record, through the last million years of Ice Ages, and into the modern archives of the 20th century. Moreover, this is a relationship that has held constant, unwavering through time. The data is clear, the scientific basis sound, and the predictive models have proven accurate so far. Change either CO2 or temperature and the other will mutually follow; and we now understand how humans are changing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere faster than any other planetary event in at least 66 million years.
CO2 ppm and temperature (relative to pre-industrial period from 1850-1900) for the last 500 million years, data based on the average of hundreds of studies: Adapted from Paris Climate Agreement: Beacon of Hope by Ross J. Salawitch et al. published by Springer Climate. For analysis of the rate of change in CO2 see Zeebe et al.
Where 18th century scholars debated the perils of an expanding population and the future of the human race, now carbon dioxide, rising temperatures, and climate change have reignited the argument for the 21st century. On one side of the dispute sit the neo-Malthusians who foresee a dystopian vision for the future should we not limit population, consumption, and emissions. On the other side of the quarrel are those we might call the cornucopians, drinking from the horn of plenty, convinced that human innovation, technology, and free markets can weather the coming storm.
So who is right? Does the future hold doom or boom?
The Impact on Civilisation
Why climate change and air pollution are a top three global problem
Temperatures are already over 1⁰C higher than in pre-industrial times. Make no change to our existing systems and most likely we will warm the planet by at least 3⁰C by the end of this century and by 4.5⁰C by the middle of the next. Sea levels will rise and the ocean will become increasingly acidic. Amplifying feedback mechanisms - not yet captured in climate models such as melting tundra, burning forests, or weaker than expected carbon dioxide uptake by land and ocean - may accelerate change even faster.
Transient Temperature increase forecasts from ‘net zero’ based on peak population and peak consumption by 2060 (100 billion tonnes CO2e per year) baseline of inaction scenario. Approximations use simplified radiative forcing relationship of 5.35 x ln (CO2 change) from Mhyre et al. Black line shows basic transient temperature increase calculation. Orange includes estimates of extra CO2 in the atmosphere based on the increasing risk of melting tundra, peat and forest fires and a weakening land-ocean sink as the planet warms.
Cumulative total of people impacted by climate change in millions based on peak consumption, baseline of inaction scenario (peak 100 billion tonnes annual CO2e emissions by 2060, 3.3⁰C warming by 2100, 4.4⁰C by 2150). Same people may experience multiple impacts. Calculated in the book ‘net zero’ using data and studies including natural catastrophes, drought, wildfire, low lying population, heat migration, air pollution, ag yields, water stress.
We are already experiencing three times the number of climate related (and not so) natural catastrophes compared to 40 years ago. The last 20 years have recorded 19 of the hottest in the last two millennia, and with half of the strongest hurricanes on record. If we don’t change the way we fuel the economy then, over the next 80 years, 40 million people may die from hunger and natural catastrophes, and 500 million more could be forced to migrate due to extreme heat and rising seas. That would cost the economy $5 trillion per year by 2100.
But the biggest impact won’t be from headline grabbing destruction, but from hidden death, suffering, and economic toll.
Annual lost income (excluding inflation) due to climate change and air pollution in our baseline inaction scenario of peak population (10 billion) and peak consumption by 2060 (3.3⁰C by 2100 and 4.4⁰C by 2150). Calculated as a baseline of inaction in the book ‘net zero’ using data and studies including the impact of productivity from heatwaves, malnutrition, respiratory disease, and losses from extreme weather damage.
With rising heat, melting ice, and changing weather, more than one third of the global population will lack sufficient clean water and nutrition by 2100. The air pollution from burning fossil fuels already kills nearly 8 million people every year. By the end of the century, one billion lives will have been cut short from respiratory disease and heart failure. The hunger, water shortages, poor health, and heat, will force labour productivity declines across the economy, bringing total damages to more than $40 trillion every year or 5% of GDP in 2100.
Compare the death, suffering, and economic toll of climate change and air pollution to other global issues and they already rank in the top three of major world problems, alongside poverty in the developing world and the prevalence of heart disease in rich nations. Continue burning fossil fuels and climate change quickly takes the top spot, before spilling over into nearly every other human problem.
Annual spending or annual losses to Global Income in trillions of USD. Climate change impact is the annual loss of GDP by 2100 discounted into the equivalent damages today at 3% discount rate, based on the damage estimates (see above) from ‘net zero’ baseline of inaction scenario. Other data points from: health, fraud, tax abuse, military, justice, and crime.
Annual deaths per year and right inset is deaths by risk factor (the problem that leads to death) in million people (total global deaths per year is 60 million). Sources of data points are from WHO and Our World in Data, plus specific reports on cancer, heart disease and air pollution. 2100 air pollution estimate from ‘net zero’ baseline of inaction scenario.
But for our cornucopians the forecast needn’t look so bleak: the future isn’t simply a bigger, warmer version of the past, and humanity won’t just sit back and let rising temperatures and rising seas destroy their food supply, homes, work, and health. If GDP grows at just half the rate of the last 40 years, average annual income per person will still rise to over $70,000 by the end of the century. Suddenly, losing 5% of future income becomes a much smaller problem.
Black line shows forecast damages per capita as a percent of forecast GDP per capita. Orange line shows future USD damages discounted into today’s money as a percentage of today’s GDP per capita – equivalent utility. We use a GDP per capita growth rate of 2.4% and a discount rate of 3%. The chart also shows dashed lines with our discounted damages using the Stern discount rate 1.4% (places greater value on future generations) and Nordhaus discount rate 4.5% (places less value on future generations). Based on baseline of inaction estimates from the book ‘net zero’.
Why can’t future generations simply spend their way out of the problem?
Humanity can adapt to a changing climate using an increasingly large pot of wealth to not only minimise associated death and suffering, but also to lessen its economic burden. With the benefit of advanced technologies, more information, and greater wealth, surely future generations are better placed than we are to solve the problem. If done well, climate change could cost the world less than 0.5% of GDP by 2100.
This is where the plot takes another twist. Thus far our story has assumed that climate change follows a manageable or predictable pathway.
CDO = collateralised debt obligation. Post Lehman losses reflect market declines immediately after Lehman Brothers collapsed. Lost Wealth is the reduction in Global household income between 2007 and 2008. Fossil fuel stranded assets are 70% of the future $10 trillion profits on fossil fuel reserves (in today’s money). Fossil fuel reliant assets are the present value of power plants, vehicles, industrial equipment and home/commercial appliances which rely on fossil fuels. Damages from warming represents the present value of future climate damages to 2100 under a baseline inaction scenario using a 3% discount rate. Based on estimates from the book ‘net zero’.
However, we know that not all change is linear; we know that dangerous tipping points exist where risks grow exponentially and sub-systems may collapse and very quickly lead to complete systemic breakdown – whether of the environment, society, or the economy. Or all three. The acceleration of melting ice, biosphere feedback, global pandemics, a financial carbon crunch, global conflict – at a tipping point moment, change is unpredictable but sudden. Damages grow exponentially. The problem may become unmanageable no matter how much money is thrown at it.
Tipping points represent a known-unknown: unpredictable change that risks throwing humanity back into the Malthusian trap.
“Companies that don’t adapt {to climate change} will go bankrupt without question”. “The longer the adjustment is delayed in the real economy, the greater the risk that there is a sharp adjustment”. - Mark Carney, the former head of the Bank of England and now the UN envoy for Climate Action
The Earth’s systems are currently playing catch up with the rapid increase to the concentration of CO2 and that means nearly 1.5⁰C warming is already locked-in. Further change is inevitable but should prove manageable. Adaptation will be necessary, but other tactics must be deployed if we are to avoid higher temperatures and unmanageable tipping points. At first glance, a technical fix like climate engineering seems the easy, cheap option. But as with most quick fixes it only solves part of the problem. Limiting solar radiation using space mirrors, aerosols, or cloud whitening, might keep temperatures at bay, but such measures don’t solve air pollution or ocean acidification and they run a seriously high risk of going wrong. Negative emissions technologies to remove CO2 from the atmosphere are lower risk, but more expensive, or can only cover a fraction of emissions.
Mitigation of carbon dioxide and the transition to a net zero carbon economy offers the only complete and low risk path.
Mitigation assumes prevention is better than cure, and yet we are still presented with a range of neo-Malthusian and cornucopian ideals.
Applying the Kaya Identity: Black) Exponential consumption is the benchmark with peak population of 10 billion, 2% compound consumption growth. Red) Fertility rates are set to 1 and population halves by next century, agricultural land is freed up and reforested, consumption growth continues per person at 2%. Blue) Energy and agricultural efficiency are improved at a rate of 1.5% per year, consumption growth still compounds at 2%. Orange) GDP per person is set at $14,000, 10 billion people, no improvement to efficiency or emissions intensity. Green) emissions intensity drops to net zero in 30 years, agricultural land use still grows until peak population, peak food consumption. Based on simplified climate change model used in the book ‘net zero’.
Greenhouse gases are the product of population, GDP, energy efficiency, and emissions intensity; so which factor should we target to produce the best outcome? The answer of course is all four, but not in equal measure. Attempting to control human reproduction is slow, morally difficult, and practically challenging and the global population should self-limit with growing wealth. Consumption limits are effective but demand a complete re-wiring of socio-economic behaviours and are perhaps best left to activities with little other option. Energy efficiency buys time but never offers a complete solution.
The bulk of change must come from slashing emissions intensity and reaching net-zero.
Building Net-Zero
A workable solution which creates greater wealth, health, and human prosperity
A transition to zero carbon requires fundamental changes to both our energy supply and our energy demand. Wind & solar electricity coupled with pumped hydro and battery storage can form the backbone of a net-zero economy which will use less than 1% of land on Earth, and a fraction of available raw material resources, to provide cost competitive, safe, reliable, distributed energy, with no carbon emissions or air pollution.
Left: Mix of final energy today, data based on IEA final consumption Right: possible mix of future final energy from ‘net zero’ .
We must electrify everything where possible and where not, switch to hydrogen, biofuels, or carbon capture.
Electrification will replace oil-powered transport, gas-powered heating, and coal-powered industry. Global agriculture will need to be modernised to cut waste and lower carbon intensity. Global eating habits will require cutting back on meat consumption to free up enough agricultural land to regrow forests and offset stubborn residual emissions.
Percentage of the World’s dryland used for agriculture today and in a peak food future (10 billion people) under six future scenarios. Mixed assumes partial adoption of all options. Based on calculations used in the book ‘net zero’ using analysis from Berners-Lee and global data including meat consumption, biofuels, and food production.
Change will be all-encompassing, but requires no compromise on quality of life: simply the breaking of old habits. Done well, the transition will barely register for the top 10% of the global population already accustomed to the highest quality of life in developed countries. The remainder of the world will quickly raise living standards towards those in the top bracket.
The poorest 10% will for the first time connect to the modern world with electricity access, clean cooking, and basic amenities.
A just and equitable transition for all.
Global (final) energy supply matched to energy use today and in a peak consumption future with no system change or with a net zero system. Today’s data from the IEA, future estimates calculated in the book ‘net zero’.
The book, net-zero, shows why electricity prices will decline, but because electricity must replace cheap coal and gas heating, so the overall blended price of energy may rise by one third.
However, electrification brings large efficiency gains – heat pumps use four times less energy than gas boilers; electric cars use three times less energy than combustion engines, and electrified industrial manufacturing can halve energy consumption. A zero carbon economy will demand less than half the energy of the equivalent fossil fuel system with no compromise on travel, goods, food, or amenities. Spending on the energy supply declines by one third, despite higher blended prices.
The whole system, including the higher upfront cost of equipment, will end up 25% cheaper than the fossil fuel alternative.
Wind, solar, and battery costs are already shrinking by 10-35% every time the number of installations doubles. Hydrogen and biofuels will soon join this commercial experience curve. It’s not the passing of time that lowers costs, but the scale of production. Sitting on our hands and waiting for a breakthrough is not the way forward. We have already commercialised 80% of the technology we need so the faster we push, the cheaper it gets. The other 20% merely requires incremental development. The book illustrates why the faster we reach net-zero, the sooner we will save over $5.5 trillion per year on our energy system and we avoid worst case climate impacts: why we will get paid to breathe cleaner air, save lives, avoid climate change damages, and create a sustainable world for future generations.
The estimated cost of energy in a full scale net zero system. All cost estimates are based on fully scaled economics using extrapolated experience curves, expert estimates, and floor prices for each technology. Wind & Solar have 0.4 kWh of storage for every 1 kWh of generation using mostly lithium ion and pumped hydro ($2.3c/kWh average cost). Each technology has lifecycle carbon emissions offset based on 70% CCS, 20% reforestation and 10% enhanced rock weathering (average $24/tonne cost). Electricity T&D is $4c/kWh everything else is $2c/kWh. Calculated in the book ‘net zero’. To explore the rate at which renewable energy costs are declining on the experience curve see the IRENA database
If that isn’t enough, transitioning to zero carbon also cuts air pollution which saves nearly eight million premature deaths per year and creates more jobs by directing our energy spending into labour rather than exorbitant profits for petro-states. Net-zero side-steps conflict over dwindling resources, and avoids the worst impacts of climate change.
A zero carbon world will be cheaper, cleaner, safer, more reliable, more sustainable, and create more employment than a world bound to fossil fuels.
Net-zero is inevitable. But that doesn’t mean the speed of the transition can’t be optimised. Continuing to run a fossil fuel economy is inefficient and, just like any other market inefficiency, it can be corrected to drive greater prosperity.
Annual benefit (cost) of a net zero transition compared to remaining with our fossil fuel system. GDP calculated based on Cobbs-Douglas function including market-based climate damages, higher net zero investment spending, write downs and relative ongoing system costs. Calculated in the book ‘net zero’ using integrated assessment modelling.
Think about the value investor Warren Buffet who buys companies trading below their intrinsic value and profits as they rise, or Silicon Valley venture capital firms who recognise the potential of tech enthusiasts running makeshift operations from their parents’ garages. These market players profit from inefficiencies and in doing so they also correct them – Warren Buffet’s undervalued investment portfolio appreciates and Apple, Google and Amazon are born. In just the same way, markets will undoubtedly move towards zero carbon as the best solution; provide an early helping hand to overcome market inefficiencies, however, and the speed of the transition can be optimised, generating greater wealth, improving health, and accelerating human prosperity.
The book estimates that reaching net-zero will require $70 trillion of upfront investment, $46 trillion more than sticking with fossil fuels, but it will create an energy system more than $5.5 trillion cheaper to run each year.
The book, net-zero, argues that a twenty year transition provides the best outcome with enough time for governments, businesses, and individuals to adjust whilst bringing the system cost savings forward and more than offsetting any losses from fossil fuel assets left stranded or from crowding out other investments.
Cumulative benefit (NPV to 2100) of a net zero transition compared to sticking with fossil fuels depending on the number of years taken to transition. This is a balance of write-offs, labour availability and technology costs versus the speed getting to a cheaper energy system and avoiding market based climate damages. Calculated in the book ‘net zero’ using integrated assessment modelling.
The headline numbers may sound daunting, but break the transition down over the global population and it seems far more manageable. Over the next two decades, we install just 4 solar panels, plant 27 trees and develop 16 square metres of biofuel cultivation for each person on the planet. We add the equivalent of one (radiator sized) battery in every house and one wind turbine between every 7,000 people. One quarter of car owners shift to ride sharing and the remaining three quarters replace their old vehicles with electric. Half of broken boilers are replaced with heat pumps. It starts to feel far more achievable. Part way through the transition, we decide whether renewables can cost-competitively carry us all the way to zero carbon, or whether support from next generation nuclear or fossil fuels with carbon capture is needed. Either way, the best course of action for the next decade is abundantly clear:
Push as hard as possible on wind & solar plus storage and electrify everything.
Finding $3.5 trillion of annual investment also sounds like a daunting task. But the world already invest $1.75 trillion in mostly fossil fuel energy each year and wastes another $0.5 trillion on fossil fuel subsidies. We need to redirect this money and find another $1.25 trillion per year (1.5% of GDP) to deploy in net-zero solutions at a competitive market rate of return.
Global spending on the energy supply network for a 20 year net zero transition (annual average) and the spending on the energy supply network today(2019). (T&D stands for Transmission and Distribution). Extra spending on demand side is extra (not total) cost of buying net zero appliances and solutions like the battery in electric cars, heat pump versus boiler or insulation refit etc. Calculated in the book ‘net zero’ using integrated assessment modelling. For fossil fuel subsidies see the IEA
The money is ready and waiting to go. It just needs clear direction from governments and private savers.
Net-zero financing will open up new and productive investment opportunities, boost jobs, and stimulate the economy whilst creating a cheaper energy system with a ten year payback.
But let’s pause for a moment, let’s sit back, take stock and remember the words of British statistician George Box, that “essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful”. And the modelling in the book, net-zero, is no exception.
Annual benefit (cost) of a net zero system compared to a fossil fuel equivalent system this century. Shows the difference in the net present value of GDP due to the different energy systems and damages across each discounting rate / post tax cost of capital. Calculated in the book ‘net zero’ using integrated assessment modelling.
We can’t predict exactly where the dials are set for the response of the earth, the desires of future generations, or the rate of technological progress. But the range of probable outcomes are now sufficiently narrow that they demonstrate how a rapid transition to net-zero creates a better economic, social, and environmental outcome, whether we turn, what I call, the ‘dials of doom and boom’ up high or down low. Net-zero creates a cheaper energy system, greater GDP growth, avoids major climate damage, and brings many co-benefits.
“We are like tenant farmers chopping down the fence around our house for fuel when we should be using nature’s inexhaustible sources of energy - sun, wind and tide… I’d put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don’t have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that”. - Thomas Edison speaking to Henry Ford in 1931
Plotting a Good Course
Achieving a twenty year transition to zero carbon
Despite the abundant benefits, progress towards net-zero has so far been slow.
Since the International Panel on Climate Change formed in 1990, we have emitted as much CO2 into the atmosphere as all of human history before. In 30 years, net-zero energy supply has grown from 12% to just 15% of energy.
The hurdles to action range from apathy, misaligned economic interests, inequality, free-riding, and political wrangling to deliberate sabotage: each and all has slowed progress. But ultimately the balance of fear has stopped humanity transitioning away from fossil fuels. The perceived threat of climate change hasn’t been great enough to overcome the political, social, and economic risk of transitioning the energy system. But the longer we wait, the bigger and more immediate the threat becomes, the more people die from air pollution and, although the cost-benefits of a zero carbon system will become increasingly clear, our window of opportunity for the best possible outcome will inevitably narrow.
The time has come for governments around the globe, corporates, and individuals to stop stalling and to push towards a better system. We are now lining up, ready to clear the bar, and if we can only recognise the benefits of a net-zero system and act on that recognition we will leapfrog most of the remaining hurdles:
Don’t believe in climate change or care about other countries? Well, net-zero will be cheaper and it will reduce air pollution in your own.
Think zero carbon technology is too expensive? Well, total buying and running costs will become cheaper than fossil fuels once we are just one quarter through the transition and will end up 25% cheaper once fully scaled.
Don’t want to risk change? Once the transition is underway, to remain bound to fossil fuels will become uneconomic, unethical, and unimaginable.
Awareness and willingness to act is certainly on the rise. The unified scientific voice grows louder, 26 countries have declared a climate crisis, and protests across the globe are mobilising young and old alike. Investors are beginning to push companies for change and media outlets are spreading an ever greater message of urgency.
Unsplash By Mika Baumeister
The challenge is to translate the promises and goodwill into action so that, over the next decade, we set the course for net-zero. We create change rather than just talking about it.
We already have the tools to expedite the transition - from left leaning command and control regulation, to right leaning market economics and consumer choice. All tools must be utilised: there is no one size fits all, but recognising the benefits of net-zero creates non-partisan agreement on action.
Science will continue to be constrained by burden of proof. Business limited by burden of profits. And politics limited by popular votes. But recognise the benefits of net-zero and all become aligned.
Unsplash by Marco Oriolesi
Individuals can electrify demand and source zero carbon electricity, forcing demand away from fossil fuels. Vote with your ballot paper and your wallet, choose credible policy and low carbon products. Politicians will soon respond to the changing polls and companies will soon react to falling revenues. Cut back on meat, the one area of consumption where there is no easy substitute solution – the average diet requires one football pitch of agricultural land, whereas the vegan equivalent requires just the penalty box. Reduce consumption where you can, but this should remain a personal choice. Do we need cars, planes, or washing machines to survive and reproduce? No. But they are culturally and economically embedded in our social systems – giving them up is a perceived hardship and we need to avoid the idea that solving climate change requires hardship or a trade-off between our current and future needs. The clear message is that net-zero is not a zero-sum-game, but a win-win, and we have everything needed to transition without compromise.
“Sustainable development is not an oxymoron but a term that describes a logical partnership”. - C S Holling (ecological economist)
Individuals must recognize their role in changing energy demand; not just blaming government inaction or big business profiteering. Corporates should strive for net-zero as the best sustainable economic outcome; greenwashing should not be used as a marketing tool. Politics should be used to transition the energy system; climate change should not be used as an excuse to change politics. Yes, there may be significant shortcomings with traditional economics, GDP as a measure of progress, and globalised capital markets – but once we understand that a net-zero system will create a more favourable outcome for both right and left politics, big and small business, the individual, and society, then we can accelerate change for the better.
The cost to install one MW of solar versus the installed cumulative capacity since the year 1995. Data from IRENA
The last decade of stimulus following the credit crunch transformed the economics of wind and solar technology which are now competing with fossil fuel power. No analyst, energy agency, or government, predicted just how quickly renewables prices would decline compared to their fossil fuel predecessors. Everyone underestimated how much faster technology moves compared to geology.
With the unprecedented stimulus being deployed following COVID-19, we now have the opportunity to transform the economics of supporting technologies such as hydrogen and batteries and to begin the full scale transition to net-zero.
Supply must be deployed five times faster and demand switched nearly ten times quicker in order to transition over the next two decades and reach an optimal outcome. The solutions are ready: we just need to push.
“We have come this far because we are the smartest creatures that have ever lived. But to continue we require more than intelligence. We require wisdom.” - David Attenborough, A Life on Our Planet, 2020
Our possible future pathways
Our story began with CO2 as the protagonist and air pollution quickly emerged as an equally dangerous accomplice. But the real twist in the tale is that net zero can solve both problems whilst accelerating underlying wealth, health, and human progress.
Net zero will be cheaper, cleaner, safer, more reliable, more sustainable, and will create more employment than if we remain bound to fossil fuels.
By understanding and acting on this statement we can redefine the argument and create a better future for all on Planet Earth.
BUY THE BOOK
Further details and excerpts from the book, net zero, will be uploaded in the book blog:
