We should dump the net zero carbon goal

Thursday, 17 March 2022

Josie Pagani has worked in politics, aid and development, and is a regular opinion contributor to Stuff.

OPINION: Big goals are meant to be inspirational. Fly to the Moon. Solve poverty. Run a marathon.

Big, unrealistic goals also frustrate us. We give up the will to lose weight. Wine and chocolate are more tempting.

We end up hating our bad habits. So, I know I am going to get some hate for saying we should dump one of our biggest long-term goals: Net Zero Carbon by 2050.

That goal will never be delivered. We should focus on practical goals, with meaningful milestones over the next two, five or 10 years.

The big net zero target sounds audacious, but the more I look into it, the more incremental and ineffective it seems.

* COP26: Greta Thunberg labels UN climate talks a 'failure'

* G20's mild climate change pledges receive disappointed reaction

* World's largest cruise line aims to be carbon-neutral by 2050

* We're fossil fuel addicts. Could we go cold turkey?

We burned more imported coal last year than in any year since the first global climate targets were adopted in the 1990s, says Josie Pagani.

* Zero Carbon Bill: Why the next decade is crucial for a safe climate

Since New Zealand adopted a net zero goal, our carbon emissions have increased.

We burned more imported coal last year than in any year since the first global climate targets were adopted in the 1990s. The ban on oil and gas hasn’t saved a gram of carbon.

The Climate Change Commission found that the benefit gained from going from 99 per cent renewable electricity generation to 100 per cent would avoid only 0.3 Mt (million tonnes) CO2 at a cost of more than $1200 per tonne of carbon dioxide emissions (to put that into context, the current price is 70).

Despite what Greta Thunberg says, governments are acting on climate change, says Josie Pagani.

As well, it’s doubtful whether your personal decision not to invest your KiwiSaver in funds that profit from fossil fuels has made any difference.

As a Financial Times commentator wrote this week, the fossil fuel industry is not capital constrained, ‘’and there are ample sources of private, ethically flexible capital that can supply such needs as it has. As long as demand for oil, gas and coal persists, who owns what financial instrument will not change industry operations’’.

We have attempted inspirational global targets before. In 2000, world leaders signed up to Millennium Development Goals, a set of targets that no-one could disagree with, such as clean water for everyone by 2015.

Although real progress was made on some goals, many failed. But every leader who signed up knew they would not be in office 15 years later to be held accountable. They get the credit, but not the blame.

Smaller targets set three or five years apart would have been better. Instead, the first few years were spent drawing up strategies and coming up with art installations to '’raise awareness’’.

You see where I'm going with this: No-one signing up to net zero in 2050 will be held accountable for failure either.

Josie Pagani: ‘’’Various surveys around the world highlight people’s reluctance to pay more than a few hundred dollars a year on climate policies.’’

I'm not arguing the government is doing nothing. Greta Thunberg is wrong. Climate change seems to be a higher priority than poverty or the cost of living. It’s just no-one in power now will be accountable for policies aimed 30 years in the future.

Before Ukraine, the European Union put climate at the ‘’top’’ of its political agenda. Yet more than 75 per cent of its total energy needs are met by fossil fuels. Solar and wind contribute only 3 per cent.

When the full costs of ensuring an always-on energy source are taken into consideration, fossil fuels are still cheaper. If research could drive the cost of one source of clean energy below fossil fuels, consumers would switch with no prompting. But governments continue to miss targets for funding research.

We replaced whale oil as a fuel source a century ago, not because we wanted to save the whales, but because we discovered a much cheaper and more abundant fuel - oil. Now we have to do the same to oil: double down on making the alternative cheaper and abundant.

And we should follow the science. Look closely at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) latest report assessing the impacts of climate change and you will see the world has made progress towards limiting impacts. Cool heads, not hot takes, make for better responses.

Setting smaller targets would confront the real costs of change, including the economic impacts which on many forecasts are vast.

The Bank of America has found that globally, achieving net-zero will cost $150 trillion over 30 years. In a new study, the international consultancy firm McKinsey finds most of the poorest nations in Africa would have to pay more than 10 per cent of their total national incomes every year toward climate policy. This is more than these nations combined spend on education and health.

This is not only implausible but also immoral on a continent where almost half a billion people still live in abject poverty.

Meanwhile, various surveys around the world highlight people’s reluctance to pay more than a few hundred dollars a year on climate policies.

Making it expensive to emit carbon does work.

The ACT party suggests a scheme similar to that implemented by the centre left prime minister of Canada Justin Trudeau, where the proceeds of the Emissions Trading Scheme (or a carbon tax) would be returned to households as a carbon dividend.

The Green Party has advocated a similar idea.

Cash in your pocket will make us feel better about reducing carbon – and leaves more to spend on wine and chocolate.