How We Cut Carbon To Net Zero
How We Cut Carbon To Net Zero

And why waiting around for technology isn’t the answer.

I’ve written extensively about potential solutions to the climate crisis, both in articles and responses to various readers, but a stock-take of how to get to net zero is needed. Crucially, we must consider how we get there quickly, efficiently, and sustainably, and without alienating the public — factors which aren’t discussed often enough by those proffering potential solutions.

Let’s take a look at some solutions. There are the typical ones which you’ve likely heard of and understand, such as renewables, nuclear energy, and plant-based diets; there are futuristic and unrefined concepts such as absorbing sun rays before they even reach our atmosphere, and there are promising technologies entering the fray, such as carbon capture.

All of these offer different advantages and challenges. For example, renewables cut carbon at source but are less reliable and unlikely to produce enough energy quickly enough. However, they are sustainable and cheaper than many other of the potential solutions, and won’t alienate people as they won’t cause major inconvenience. Indeed, we already rely largely on renewables, and most people haven’t even noticed.

I won’t waste your time summarising these for each solution, but I’ll refer back to these different considerations when justifying my proposals for an effective carbon-cutting strategy.

Let’s deal directly with the easiest part of the strategy: the energy mix. It is clear non-renewables are polluting and unsustainable, and must be removed completely as soon as possible. To replace them, governments must ensure a balance between reliable and unreliable renewables, as well as the extremely efficient nuclear.

Unreliable renewables such as wind are cheap and can be strategically harnessed to ensure efficiency and sustainability, whereas more reliable renewables are often more expensive. Subsidising solar panels for homes and offices may be the single most effective thing that could be done in this regard, due to the economic benefits, sustainability, and speed at which this could be implemented.

Nuclear is great and could help temporarily, but a major issue with nuclear is that plants take a long time to build, especially when taking into consideration the huge safety risks that must be mitigated. Furthermore, it has the potential to anger a lot of people who are concerned about disasters, and, as such, should be used minimally and with caution. The last thing that environmentalism needs now is disillusion and alienation, as this will halt the progress in its tracks.

Therefore, renewables must, in the end, make up the vast majority of our energy mix, perhaps with some temporary reliance on nuclear energy, which is reduced over time as renewable technologies become cheaper and more efficient. There is, at present, no other clear alternative to this.

Of course, individuals must also make changes to their lifestyles, from small things like switching off lights when not in the room, to larger contributions such as switching to mostly plant-based diets. Cutting meat out of everyone’s diet entirely would perhaps be too far, as the general scientific consensus is that humans are omnivorous, even if only small quantities of meat and fish should be eaten.

If individuals would all voluntarily make these huge changes, then the effect would be huge. The reality, though, is very different. Governments must incentivise individuals to eat less meat and use less energy, which could be done either directly, by tax credits or some alternative system, or indirectly, by incentivising companies to offer low-carbon products and services, in turn driving the price down for customers.

Both could be effective but the latter may be more practical and economically wise, in the sense that it will drive more foreign direct investment by creating more incentives for companies in the country, in turn creating more money for the taxpayer and more jobs.

Any strategy to reduce CO2 emissions to net zero must include negative emissions technology, to capture carbon in the atmosphere and store it underground, or to collect carbon produced at power stations and recycle or store it.

This technology isn’t too far away from being cheap enough to be used widely, perhaps only a couple of years. Already, trials of it have begun to take place, such as the Drax power plant in the UK, which produces less carbon than it removes from the atmosphere.

There is little hope of reaching zero emissions by 2030 whatsoever, but there is absolutely no hope of it without aggressive use of negative emissions technology. It is vital that governments take an active role in research and subsidising production, even if this runs counter to the economic preferences of many governments.

Indeed, afforestation, such as the planting of 50 million trees across the North of England, is a great way to use nature to remove emissions and reverse the damage caused by deforestation, and this can be done now, and rather on the cheap.

What we cannot afford to do, however, is wait around for better, more efficient, and futuristic technology. We must take action now, not in 50 years’, 10 years’, or even 5 years’ time. Moreover, we already have the capacity to implement an effective strategy to reduce emissions to net zero, and needn’t wait for futuristic strategies.
['Dave Olsen']
['Nuclear', 'Energy', 'Climate Change', 'World', 'Environment']