At the end of the day, without net zero, the world will continue to heat up.<\/p>\n
What does net zero actually mean?<\/p>\n
Climate change is caused by emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that trap heat from the Sun and cause temperatures to rise. When we release emissions by burning fossil fuels, they don’t disappear; they accumulate, making the problem worse.<\/p>\n
Net zero means reaching the point where we emit fewer emissions than can be absorbed by the Earth’s systems. A zero-sum game. What goes out can be absorbed through forests, oceans and natural sinks. The “net” refers to the need to find ways to absorb any emissions above that amount that we can’t stop.<\/p>\n
Only then will temperatures stop rising.<\/p>\n
As of today, there is no way to address climate change without drastically cutting fossil fuel emissions.<\/p>\n
So net zero is just the rough point at which the world will stop warming because humans aren’t adding to the problem.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Floodwaters inundated the community of Ingham, in Queensland, in February. (ABC News: Sophie Johnson)<\/p>\n
“If you’re going to stabilise the climate at any level, you have to achieve net zero emissions,” said Erwin Jackson, a longtime climate policy expert and Head of Australian Programs at Monash University’s Climateworks Centre.<\/p>\n
“It is impossible even to stabilise the world’s climate at 4 degrees Celsius [above pre-industrial levels] unless you achieve net zero at some point.<\/p>\n
“It’s a scientific imperative. I think all of us have a role in actually also articulating what a well-planned transition to net zero by 2050 looks like, and I think there is confusion in the Australian community about what that means.”<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Protesters gather for the Reckless Renewables rally in Canberra. (ABC News: Jessica Davis)<\/p>\n
Instead of its scientific meaning, net zero is often used as a shorthand for action on climate change.<\/p>\n
What does the Paris Agreement say about net zero?<\/p>\n
In 2015, world leaders came together to sign the Paris Agreement,<\/a> which now forms the backbone for the international response to climate change and aims to keep warming from reaching dangerous levels.<\/p>\n Under the agreement, countries set interim targets that put them on a trajectory of lowering their emissions. Remember, we are trying to reach the point where we don’t release more than the planet can absorb.<\/p>\n By signing up to the Paris Agreement, Australia has agreed to cut emissions rapidly and hit net zero \u2014 even if it doesn’t use the exact term.<\/p>\n “\u2026 to undertake rapid reductions thereafter [peaking emissions] \u2026 so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century.”<\/p>\n The global agreement was signed in Paris in 2015 after marathon climate talks. But that’s not exactly the end goal of the agreement; rather, it’s the action that will deliver the outcome. The goal is to keep global temperature increases as close to 1.5C, and below 2C, to avoid “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”.<\/p>\n If that doesn’t sound like much, think of it as the Earth’s body temperature. We are pushing it from a comfortable point into a fever. Warming above 1.5C will cause widespread crop failures and food insecurity, more extreme weather events, and the loss of between 70 and 90 per cent of the world’s coral reefs.<\/p>\n The Coalition is considering ditching its net zero commitment but remaining in the Paris Agreement. However, cutting emissions and getting to a point of net zero is at the heart of the accord.<\/p>\n A new UN emissions gap report says that without the policies of the Paris Agreement, we would have been on track to reach 4C by 2100. But even with the latest round of pledges increasing ambition from countries like China, we are still on track for increases of 2.3-2.8C.<\/p>\n The agreement requires countries to increase their ambition over time, not to go backwards, which is what weakening or scrapping targets would do.<\/p>\n More important than net zero is cutting emissions now<\/p>\n One of the compromises being put forward by some members of the Coalition is to stick with net zero but push the deadline out beyond 2050.<\/p>\n But climate change is a cumulative problem, and there is a direct link between every tonne of carbon that goes into the atmosphere and the subsequent warming.<\/p>\n If global emissions continue at the current rate, we will pass 1.5C within a decade and 2C by 2046.<\/p>\n Shadow Minister for Home Affairs Andrew Hastie has threatened to quit the frontbench if the Liberal Party does not dump net zero. (ABC News: Matt Roberts)<\/p>\n Delaying action means making the problem worse. It’s like a bathtub that’s almost full, and the choice is between starting to turn down the tap or leaving it on until the moment it overflows.<\/p>\n Countries and companies have tried to avoid reducing emissions by leaning into the “net” of net zero and looking for ways to pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. But many of these technologies are unproven, expensive, and there is no evidence they will be able to be deployed at a big enough scale to offset the vast amounts of fossil fuel emissions required.<\/p>\n Where does Australia sit compared to other countries?<\/p>\n One hundred and forty-five countries have or are considering net zero targets, covering 77 per cent of the world’s emissions, according to Climate Action Tracker, an independent project documenting global climate targets and policies. That figure was much higher until the United States, responsible for 14 per cent of the world’s emissions, pulled out of the agreement \u2014 again.<\/p>\n As many Coalition MPs have pointed out, Australia’s emissions represent only about 1 per cent of the global total. But we are still the 19th largest emitter out of 195 countries and, because of our tiny population, we have some of the highest per-capita emissions in the world. Australians emit more per capita than Canadians, and more than three times the amount of UK citizens.<\/p>\n ‘Dangerous loophole’ in the law<\/a><\/p>\n The government extended the life of one of the world’s largest gas facilities.<\/p>\n When fossil fuel export emissions are considered, Australia’s emissions account for about 5 per cent globally.<\/p>\n Australia’s 2035 climate targets put it towards the front of the pack, but we aren’t “streaking ahead”, as the Nationals have claimed.<\/p>\n When assessing climate ambition, it’s best to focus on policies and outcomes, not just goals like “net zero by 2050”.<\/p>\n Our emissions are rising in all sectors of the economy except energy, and Australia is still approving new coal and gas projects.<\/p>\n The rise of renewables in our electricity sector is seen as a global success story, but in metrics like the uptake of electric vehicles, Australia lags large parts of the world, including countries like China and regional neighbours Vietnam and Thailand.<\/p>\n Policies needed to reduce emissions<\/p>\n Even if it sticks with a vague commitment to have emissions reach net zero at some point beyond 2050, the Coalition does not have any policies to reduce emissions.<\/p>\n At the last election, where it lost 15 seats, the Coalition’s climate policies consisted of its support for nuclear energy, despite experts warning it would increase emissions by as much as 2 billion tonnes in the meantime, and a commitment to undo climate policies such as pollution limits on cars, and support for renewable energy.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\n\u00a0 (Li Genxing)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n