Climate Change by Taymaz Valley via Flickr CC

What to make of net zero? Is it really happening? Is it possible? Will there be enough money? Is there enough staying power on the part of companies and organizations? When?

One recent World Bank report,  Net Zero Energy by 2060: Charting Europe and Central Asia’s Journey Toward Sustainable Energy Futures, says that with decisive action, net zero energy is within reach in Europe and Central Asia (ECA). “The World Bank has developed a model to project an optimal least-cost pathway for ECA to achieve a net zero energy target by 2060. Together, the 23 countries included in the model produce almost a tenth of global greenhouse gas emissions. The report considers the profound impact the war in Ukraine has had on energy security by representing energy trade flows on the basis of gas pipeline flows and capacities as of May 2023 and under a stress test. This novel analysis delivers insights not covered by previous works, focused mainly on the European Union.” Continuing, in the short term, “Central Asia faces a tightening gas supply balance and some difficult choices. Central Asia has been a large net exporter of gas, notably to China. Rapidly growing demand within the entire subregion, combined with stagnating production (especially in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan), limits the ability to meet export commitments to China and peak winter demand at home simultaneously. Russia’s proposed gas union with Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan could improve Central Asia’s natural gas balance, although the poor state of pipeline infrastructure (IEA 2016) poses uncertainties. Improving regional gas trade in Central Asia and increasing gas imports from Turkmenistan could be also used to replace coal in Kazakhstan, fill the emerging supply gap in Uzbekistan, and meet growing demand across Central Asia.”

So basically, it’s time for ECA to ditch fossil fuels and embrace renewables for energy security and sustainable growth. It sounds easy enough, but it’s complicated. Very complicated

Another recent report, an article in RealClear World, says Net Zero’s days are “numbered.” Former IMF chief economist Oliver Blanchard poured water on the claim that net zero is a major growth opportunity when he told the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee that there would be a “substantial fiscal cost to achieve anything close to Net Zero.”

Of course, it’s going to be expensive, and no one really knows how costly it will be! Is it, as some say, a growth opportunity that will pay for itself? That would be nice, but that is probably way too optimistic.

For example, a recent analysis revealed that the world is not on course to achieve the target of zero-emission fuels comprising five percent of international shipping fuels by 2030, according to Reuters. This shortfall threatens the shipping industry’s broader objective of decarbonizing by 2050. The assessment indicates that the existing production capacity for scalable zero-emission fuels (SZEF) will only cover a quarter of the required fuel volume by 2030. As of the end of 2022, there were 24 ships capable of operating on SZEF, primarily methanol, with an additional 144 on order.

However, current orders represent only one-fifth of the necessary volume to achieve mid-term sustainability goals. “It’s just not enough at scale or at the pace that is needed,” said UN COP Climate Champions shipping lead Kathryn Palmer.

And here is a wild one: An article in Fortune says, “Germany’s latest ‘net zero’ plan involves storing carbon dioxide underground beneath the sea.” Wait, what? “According to the article, Germany plans to enable underground carbon storage at offshore sites, pushing ahead with a much-discussed technology in an acknowledgment that time is running out to combat climate change,” the country’s vice chancellor said. How difficult and expensive will that be?

Yes, but what happens if the globe somehow reaches net zero? That’s a big if, of course, because there is so much work to do by companies, organizations, and governments.

A recent paper from a group of scientists, published by Frontiers in Science, “The Zero Emissions Commitment and Climate Stabilization,” has some unnerving conclusions, including this one: “How confident are we that when we stop carbon emissions, we also stop global warming?” Yikes, there’s an enigma.

Here are some “key points” in the paper:

• Substantial uncertainty remains in both the sign and magnitude of the Zero Emissions Commitment (ZEC): the expected additional change in global surface temperature once we achieve net zero CO₂ emissions.
• Uncertainty in ZEC has implications for the remaining carbon budget to stay below the temperature limits of the Paris Agreement: a positive ZEC reduces the remaining budget; a negative ZEC opens the door for more ambitious targets or more time to reach net zero.
• The prospect of additional warming after net zero is both plausible and significant, with a chance that ZEC could exceed 15% of total global warming.
• While a ZEC of 0 means no further change to global surface temperatures, other aspects of the Earth system, such as sea levels, will continue to change in a net zero world due to warming realized previously. These changes should be factored into the assessment of safe warming limits and adaptation plans.
• Current climate models do not adequately represent the full scope of complex and interdependent Earth system processes that determine ZEC. (bold added)

The paper presents “a structure for quantifying uncertainty in ZEC and proposes a roadmap for future research into quantifying ZEC and reducing its uncertainties.

Uncertainly, thy name is net zero.