Deadlines for net-zero ambitions are rapidly approaching: 2050 in the EU and US, 2060 in China, and 2070 in India. If you’re 20 today, you will likely experience this entire transition. Exciting times ahead! Less exciting, however, is the rapid growth in emissions, despite all the claims and pledges. Clearly, something must give—will it be the pledges or the emissions? Let’s examine five scenarios.
1. Perpetually Extended Deadlines
Countries cherry-pick green initiatives that are easiest to implement: build some wind and solar, hand out subsidies for EVs, and prop up heat pumps. Yet, as costs rise, going green may turn red because voters hate actually paying real money out of their wallets. People might not be willing to sacrifice their comfort for a greener future. Domestic industries could also struggle to compete against less heavily taxed foreign competition.
There will always be good reasons to push deadlines. Perhaps the world is in a financial turmoil, in a crisis, in a pandemic, or a state of war. We will still be “committed” to the net zero—just not now, in the future.
2. Service-Economy Net Zero
Let’s say the EU targets net-zero by 2050 and countries like China do not. Instead, they enjoy less expensive energy and material production. Countries with net-zero ambitions protect their industries using carbon border tax, but competitors find ways to secure exceptions, deploy creative accounting, and leverage legal loopholes. This, in turn, forces resource-heavy industries to gradually shift to countries less concerned with global warming, leaving only the most “value added” production in the net-zero countries.
It would even look good statistically—removing heavy industry makes greenhouse emissions figures appear so much better. After all, some economists argue that we should not be married to the idea of retaining heavy industry.
3. Green Dictatorship
Emissions are rising and humanity might be in existential danger, they will say. Private markets, despite their loud claims, fall short in reducing greenhouse gasses, even with all the subsidies, mandates, and incentives. The government steps in, taking control of key energy and energy-intensive industries to mitigate emissions. Again, there is only so much you can do to make industries green without running into bottlenecks such as limited supply of raw materials.
The best way to deal with that, however, is to reduce consumption and by extension, use less material. When you travel less or if you live in a smaller home, then you spend less carbon, but individual efforts and voluntary citizen action are not enough. A war on carbon is declared, and we operate under martial carbon law. Freedoms are constrained, and gradually decreasing individual carbon budgets are assigned. Eventually, we live not free, but carbon-free!
4. Zero-Carbon Innovations
Green energy production and storage: few problems, if solved, could change the world as profoundly— or as profitably for the inventors. Someday, the world will discover how to produce and store energy cheaply. This could involve better nuclear reactors, significantly more cost-effective storage of electricity, innovative plant fuels, or it may be some miracle materials. We need to step up and invest more into innovation. Creativity and innovation need discipline, management, and also money, which means there is some risk that breakthroughs may not arrive in time, sliding us into the scenario of perpetually extended deadlines.
5. Global unity
All countries decarbonise rapidly and in an orderly fashion. They refrain from excavating more fossil fuels to prop up economic development. Investments are made in places and amounts that maximise the utility of each dollar, euro, or yuan spent. After all, the world has already collectively eliminated ozone-damaging chlorofluorocarbons (and replacing them with not so innocent substitutes), so greenhouse gasses can be tackled too.
—
The future likely holds a combination of some or perhaps all of these scenarios.