If national governments across the globe are prepared to put minimising the climate threat ahead of protecting the fossil fuel industry, they will have to make major changes to how the net zero concept is being applied. This will require carbon offsetting to be brought in line with its intended application, and a consequential major reduction in its use.

The Paris Agreement calls for a balance between sinks and sources of emissions in order to achieve global net zero. The aim of net zero emissions is to reduce greenhouse gases going into the atmosphere as close to zero as possible, and balance remaining emissions by permanently removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

Carbon offsetting is the method being used to balance emissions that currently can’t be stopped. In theory, these are the emissions that remain after companies have eliminated emissions from their operations to the greatest extent possible. The main users of offsets should be industries where technologies have not yet been developed to eliminate the use of fossil fuels. Examples are aviation and steel and cement manufacture.

Most carbon credits are generated from initiatives that increase the drawdown of atmospheric carbon through land-based sequestration. However, there is a major problem with this. Emitted CO2 and CO2 drawn down from the atmosphere are not equivalent, so there is no balance. Trees and other vegetation are part of the active carbon cycle, and take decades to absorb carbon. Fossil fuels release CO2 instantly, and it stays in the atmosphere for centuries. And with increasingly destructive weather events, caused by climate change, carbon sequestration is becoming much less reliable. A clear example of this relates to wildfires, that are increasingly releasing massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. And giant kelp forests, major carbon sinks, are under threat from increasing ocean temperatures and other impacts of climate change.

Carbon offsetting is a poor alternative to stopping emissions at the source and its use should be minimised. Disastrously, it is being used extensively in Australia and globally. The criteria to only use offsetting as a last option for emissions that are impossible to eliminate is being ignored. Major polluters are procuring carbon credits to enable them to continue polluting. This major problem is being compounded by the lack of value of many carbon credits. Investigations have identified that many carbon credits have little value. For example, there is evidence that credits are being created from land use changes that were going to occur without any additional action being taken. Not only is the current system enabling continued polluting, in many cases it is not increasing carbon sequestration.

Currently there is a total disregard for the world getting as near to actual zero emissions as possible. Australia provides a good illustration of this. The Safeguard Mechanism enables companies to make their own decisions as to whether they decarbonise their operations or offset their emissions. Outrageously, fossil fuel companies are being allowed to offset their emissions. Offsetting is meant to accelerate decarbonisation. It defies logic that companies whose core business is extracting fossil fuels, the opposite of decarbonisation, are being allowed to offset emissions.

Woodside and Santos are developing major new gas extraction infrastructure and are using carbon offsets, and both claim they will become carbon neutral by 2050 or earlier. These major fossil fuel producers are achieving climate targets whilst increasing production!

The Albanese Government is complicit with this practice. The massive Beetaloo Basin fracked gas development in the NT was approved on the basis that all the Australian emissions would be offset. The majority of emissions weren’t considered, apparently because they are the responsibility of the country where the gas is burnt. Of course, where the fuel is used makes no difference to the impact on the planet.

The Safeguard Mechanism aims to reduce Australia’s domestic emissions by 205 million tonnes by 2030, and these “reductions” will include offsets. The Beetaloo Basin development has the potential to create 1.4 billion tonnes of pollution over the first 20 years of gas extraction. And this is just one of several major gas projects supported by the Albanese Government. The Burrup Hub development, off the WA coast, if fully developed, has the potential to create in excess of six billion tonnes of emissions over its lifecycle.

The government’s support for new gas developments makes its planned domestic emissions reductions incidental. It clearly is ignoring the science with its ongoing support for gas. The government’s future gas strategy claims there will be significant demand for gas beyond 2050. This is totally at odds with the science.

The government undoubtedly is putting a higher priority on supporting the fossil fuel industry than protecting its citizens from the consequences of unmitigated climate change. And it is able to do this whilst achieving net zero emissions by 2050!

Other fossil fuel producing countries also are allowing fossil fuel producers to offset their emissions. This is an irresponsible and disastrous practice.

The global objective should be to phase out fossil fuels as quickly as responsibly possible. Instead, the objective appears to have become how to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 without phasing out fossil fuels! It is hard not to think this has a lot to do with the power of the fossil fuel industry.

The major international fossil fuel corporations have, for many years, seen carbon offsetting and carbon capture and storage as a lifeline that will enable them to continue producing coal, oil and gas over the long term. Net zero emissions by 2050 works brilliantly for these big polluters, because it enables them to meet climate targets whilst continuing to pollute.

Making net zero emissions by 2050 an important target was a bad idea because it is not something to aspire to. It is something that unfortunately can’t be avoided because it is impossible to eliminate all emissions. It has been exploited by companies and countries to enable them to meet targets without fossil fuel usage being reduced. The core requirement to rapidly phase out fossil fuels has been negated.

The problem with net zero emissions goes beyond the fossil fuel industry. Many companies and public entities have taken up offsetting as a means of achieving the 2050 target. However, the best way they can help minimise the climate threat is by decarbonising their operations. Net zero as a target is promoting the wrong priority.

There is a huge global demand for carbon credits. This means there is a huge demand to continue using fossil fuels. Disastrously, the world can achieve net zero emissions by 2050 while the use of fossil fuels remains high. This large fossil fuel usage would in theory have been “balanced” by planting lots of trees and saving lots of forests!

Offsetting should be used as it is meant to be used; by industries where technologies have not yet been developed to eliminate the use of fossil fuels, and for residual emissions after companies have decarbonised their operations to the greatest extent possible.

Companies whose business is fossil fuel extraction should not be allowed to offset emissions because their business is incompatible with accelerating decarbonisation, the purpose of offsetting. It is disastrous that major coal, oil and gas producers are able to meet climate targets whilst expanding production.

Supporters of carbon trading claim it is a good thing because carbon credits provide funding to increase land-based carbon sequestration. Maximising carbon sequestration is essential because minimising the climate threat requires boththe rapid phase-out of fossil fuels and the greatest feasible drawdown of atmospheric carbon. However, when the money is coming from big polluting companies to enable them to continue polluting, this clearly is defeating the objective of decarbonising the global economy.

 There are many ways to finance carbon sequestration initiatives. The money doesn’t have to come from companies wanting to offset their emissions. One obvious way would be to stop supporting the fossil fuel industry with billions of dollars of subsidies in Australia, and trillions of dollars globally, and use this money to pay poor countries to protect the environment, including saving rain forests, and also to pay farming communities to increase sequestered carbon on their properties.

Another major problem relates to the current method of reporting emissions. Emissions from fossil fuels, the most important information to keep track of, aren’t reported separately. Offsets are being included as emissions reductions, as are increases in land-based carbon sequestration, that are difficult to calculate and prone to being over-stated. The consequence of this is that actual fossil fuel usage is likely to be much higher than reporting indicates. The world may remain on track towards a catastrophic temperature increase whilst reporting indicates a major reduction in fossil fuel usage and a manageable temperature increase.

National governments that are unwilling to drive fossil fuels out of the global energy mix are opting instead to focus on the rapid development of renewable energy. This is an easier political option for governments not prepared to take on the fossil fuel industry. However, a rapid expansion of renewable energy will not alone lead to the essential rapid phase-out of fossil fuels.

The fossil fuel industry is very good at marketing its product. And it is very active in developing nations, where major future demand for additional energy will come from.

Another highly relevant issue that seems unlikely to be addressed is that several developing nations have major untapped reserves of coal, oil or gas that they plan to develop. Currently, there are no indications the rich world is prepared to provide the support to enable these countries to develop their economies without exploiting these resources.

The development of new technologies, especially artificial intelligence, also is substantially increasing the demand for electricity.

There is no doubt that the future demand for energy will be huge. And there is no doubt that if national governments continue to support fossil fuel production, the fossil fuel industry will continue to successfully market its product, and global fossil fuel usage will remain disastrously high.

The world is on track for a major growth in renewable energy, but all the indications are that if things don’t change, fossil fuel usage will remain far too high for a climate catastrophe to be avoided.

If the fossil fuel crisis isn’t quickly resolved, we can forget about Australia becoming a renewable energy superpower, because there won’t be any renewable energy superpowers. The world won’t be enjoying the benefits of clean energy, it will be fully occupied dealing with the human and environmental consequences of increasingly frequent and severe climate-related disasters.

Dr Karl Braganza, from the BOM, nailed the issue when he presented the BOM/CSIRO 2024 State of the Climate report. He said, “the world is sick, it’s addicted to fossil fuels and the only way to bring the temperature down is to get off them.”

It is unlikely the world will get off fossil fuels because many countries, especially those that export fossil fuels, don’t want fossil fuels to be phased out. A system that enables climate targets to be met, while allowing the ongoing exploitation of fossil fuel reserves, suits the governments of these countries. This is, of course, a recipe for disaster.

There is a strong case that the incorrect use of net zero, together with carbon offsetting and carbon capture and storage, has enabled the development of a highly successful greenwashing operation designed to ensure the ongoing use of fossil fuels.

https://johnmenadue.com/net-zero-emissions-by-2050-is-great-for-the-fossil-fuel-industry/

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.