Zero net emissions = zero net energy

In more or less democratic countries, future zero net emissions (ZNE) promises have been made by governments. 'Virtue signalling' about ZNE today – the 'what' and the 'when' – has obscured practical questions about the required future 'how'?

Australia needs restoration of affordable, reliable electricity. On affordability, the NEM is faring badly, based on AEMO/ACCC advice.

I assume advisers 'speak truth to power', not echo political ideology. They'll have warned against rushed cutting off fossil fuels, and banning nuclear, without enough alternative energy. Higher power costs are here now. More areunavoidable. Less reliability coming?

Assume 'virtue signalling' today about reducing emissions is intended actually to deliver ZNE in future.

How? Inconvenient truths are rife here. Energy, from any source, fuels every bit of supply. Neither energy nor supply are 'free'.

Just to approach ZNE requires greater energy efficiency.

• There's considerable scope for this in buildings (heating, cooling), and transport (fuel efficiency and emissions standards).
• There's maybe some scope for it in carbon capture and storage (CCS), but at scale?
• Providing a broad-based, transparent, price on emissions would induce broad-based emissions reductions over time.

This process will be slow, because effects must cover the large existing stocks of buildings, motor vehicles, etc. Emissions reductions come at the margin, as older stock is modified, retro-fitted, or scrapped, with new increments compliant with new emissions rules.

This isn't enough. Growing, more energy-efficient, economies may reduce emissions growth, but emissions still grow. Activities with negative emissions must grow a lot to offset such emissions growth. ZNE requires net emissions growth to stop.

How?

One way or another, all current living standards, and increases therein, require energy inputs. For example:

• Humans and their farm animals must breathe, oxidising air and expelling CO₂.
• They must also eat and drink food and liquids as an energy source. What energy sources produce this fuel?
• Factories, offices, households, transport and other service industries consume energy too.
• Can anybody advise energy sources for these that are zero emissions across their entire supply chain?

Plants get a big rap these days. More trees, please.

Photosynthesis is our saviour, it's claimed. Not so fast.

• The harvesting equipment for collecting naturally photosynthesised energy is both extensive and expensive.
• What does the full emissions supply chain science say about plants as a net negative emissions industry option?
• It takes considerable time to put into place anyway. We have little aggregate control over plant growth rates.
• If natural photosynthesis is the answer, can we see the objective evidence?

To achieve ZNE, the globe faces a 'green' dilemma.

More plants are needed so photosynthesis absorbs 'excess' greenhouse gases like CO₂, producing more oxygen in exchange.

• Forest clearing, etc, therefore must not only stop, but be reversed. At present the opposite seems the case.
• Development and living standards aspirations prevent cessation/reversal of forest clearing, and net new planting.
• Globally, population growth continues, reinforcing living standards aspirational pressures, and associated resource demands.
• Reducing global emissions therefore entails reducing – even stopping – total economic and per capita income growth.
• Politicians hoping to win/hold their seats won't like dealing with this dilemma.
• They deny it. They say there's a climate 'free lunch': cheaper 24/7 energy based on more – even 100% – renewables.
• The international emissions reduction tactic of 'pass the parcel' to other countries may also continue.

Today, power consumers are being 'gas lit'. Not by AEMO or the ACCC. By others.

What if:

i. ZNE is achieved by 2050, 2060, or whenever.

ii. ZNE in practice also requires zero net energy (ZNE)?

ZNE means any energy plus emissions therefrom (gross) due to human activity must be offset by emissions-negative human activities.

How? Can we have a science-based answer, not political assertions, to this basic, practical, question? Technology will help reduce net emissions growth. Will ZNE policies eliminate their growth? Is ZNE a 'hospital pass' for ZNE₂ in future?

Humans have unlimited living standards aspirations. Global resources are limited. Goods and services are never 'free'.

Are higher world living standards, plus affordable, reliable, 24/7 power, plus lower global greenhouse gas emissions, achievable?

Not if we avoid one key issue, and fail to act upon it.

Population.

Are governments prepared to put their real world policies for reducing emissions where their 'virtue signalling' mouths are?