In this extract from her new book, Ending Fossil Fuels: Why Net Zero Is Not Enough (Verso), Holly Jean Buck outlines the problems with the ‘net zero’ discourse surrounding carbon emissions and our use of fossil fuels

Buck, Holly Jean

English

LSE Research Online

Book	Extract:	‘How	to	Not	Say	the	F	Word’	fromEnding	Fossil	Fuels	by	Holly	Jean	BuckIn	this	extract	from	her	new	book,	Ending	Fossil	Fuels:	Why	Net	Zero	Is	Not	Enough	(Verso),	Holly	Jean	Buckoutlines	the	problems	with	the	‘net	zero’	discourse	surrounding	carbon	emissions	and	our	use	of	fossil	fuels.How	to	Not	Say	the	F	WordNet	zero	is	both	tedious	and	a	hot	trend.	Net	zero	has	the	effect	of	being	able	toinstantly	transform	the	exciting,	terrifying	work	of	our	times	into	something	numb	andboring.	Net	zero	is	the	stuff	of	webinars,	white	papers,	consultant	reports.	But	it’s	alsopopular.	At	the	time	of	this	writing,	at	least	six	countries	have	a	target	of	net-zeroemissions	by	mid-century	solidly	in	law,	several	others	have	them	in	proposedlegislation,	and	another	dozen	have	net-zero	targets	in	policy	documents.	Scores	ofcities	and	subnational	jurisdictions	have	also	announced	net-zero	goals.	Many	of	theworld’s	largest	companies,	from	tech	giants	like	Apple	to	fossil	fuel	producers	andutilities,	have	also	jumped	aboard	the	net-zero	train.	Microsoft	aims	to	be	not	just	netzero	but	carbon	negative	by	2030,	and	remove	all	of	its	historical	emissions	since	itsfounding	in	1975.Even	the	Green	New	Deal,	a	conceptual	innovation	that	links	climate	change	withbroader	social	goals,	begins	with	the	climate	math.	House	Resolution	109	—	theresolution	introduced	in	the	House	that	serves	as	a	sort	of	vision	document	—	kicks	offby	reporting	findings	from	the	Intergovernmental	Panel	on	Climate	Change’s	SpecialReport	on	1.5°C.	Keeping	temperatures	below	1.5°C	will	require	‘(A)	global	reductionsin	greenhouse	gas	emissions	from	human	sources	of	40	to	60	percent	from	2010	levels	by	2030;	and	(B)	net-zeroglobal	emissions	by	2050,’	it	states.	The	resolution	talks	about	achieving	‘net-zero	greenhouse	gas	emissionsthrough	a	fair	and	just	transition	for	all	communities	and	workers.’	It’s	a	tremendous	document.	But	it	doesn’t	leadwith	ending	fossil	fuel	production.	In	fact,	it	doesn’t	even	mention	the	words	‘fossil’	or	‘fuels’.Neither	does	the	landmark	Paris	Agreement.	Read	the	texts,	and	you’ll	be	struck	by	this	weird	verbal	jujitsu	ofdocuments	aimed	at	ending	this	thing	that	they	can’t	even	name.	The	European	Green	Deal	is	not	much	better,either:	it	does	address	fossil	fuels	a	few	times	and	call	for	phasing	out	subsidies	to	fossil	fuels,	but	it	certainly	doesnot	center	production.	Rather,	these	—	and	most	climate	policy	—	center	emissions,	the	byproduct	of	combustion,thus	skipping	right	past	production.This	isn’t	a	new	observation.	The	Indigenous	Environmental	Network,	for	example,	released	a	statement	thatstrongly	rejected	the	net-zero	emissions	language	in	the	resolution.	While	they	were	grateful	to	see	legislativesupport	for	climate	action,	they	could	not	fully	endorse	the	resolution	until	it	made	explicit	the	demand	to	keep	fossilfuels	in	the	ground.	‘Furthermore,	as	our	communities	who	live	on	the	frontline	of	the	climate	crisis	have	beensaying	for	generations,	the	most	impactful	and	direct	way	to	address	the	problem	is	to	keep	fossil	fuels	in	theground,’	they	wrote.	‘We	can	no	longer	leave	any	options	for	the	fossil	fuel	industry	to	determine	the	economic	andenergy	future	of	this	country.’While	activists	pointed	out	the	omission	of	references	to	fossil	fuels,	the	Green	New	Deal	was	still	generallycelebrated	as	an	important	step.	The	innovation	of	the	Green	New	Deal	is	the	way	it	broadens	concern	to	includethe	‘several	related	crises’	the	resolution	goes	on	to	list:	declining	life	expectancy,	income	inequality,	and	racial	andgender	wealth	and	earnings	gaps.	But	what	starts	out	as	a	remedy	for	inequality	may	end	up	as	a	carbonaccounting	exercise.LSE Review of Books: Book Extract: ‘How to Not Say the F Word’ from Ending Fossil Fuels by Holly Jean Buck Page 1 of 3		Date originally posted: 2021-11-02Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2021/11/02/book-extract-how-to-not-say-the-f-word-from-ending-fossil-fuels-by-holly-jean-buck/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/Photo	by	Callum	Shaw	on	UnsplashRather	than	jump	into	figuring	out	the	nuances	of	a	just	supply-side	climate	policy	—	which	is	really	hard!	—	well-meaning	climate	and	sustainability	professionals	may	spend	several	years	wandering	in	the	thickets	of	‘net	zero’.Again,	net	zero,	at	its	simplest,	means	balancing	some	amount	of	positive	greenhouse	gas	emissions	with	negativeemissions	or	removals.	Well,	what	amount	of	positive	greenhouse	gas	emissions	are	we	talking	about?	That	oftenremains	conveniently	unclear.	Goldman	Sachs,	for	example,	estimates	25	percent	of	current	emissions	wouldremain.	They	state	that	these	anthropocentric	greenhouse	gas	emissions	are	not	currently	abatable	using	availablelarge-scale	commercial	technologies,	calling	for	both	innovation	and	investment	in	sequestration	technologies	toachieve	net	zero.	A	quarter	of	current	emissions	is	still	a	lot	of	emissions.	Decarbonization	roadmaps	set	out	bycountries	and	cities	tend	to	be	vague	on	this	point,	when	they	even	exist,	but	many	of	them	include	10–20	percentof	baseline	emissions	as	‘residual’	emissions,	or	remaining	positive	emissions,	which	will	need	to	be	compensatedfor	by	removals.	This	is	a	looming	political	fight,	though	in	some	places,	it	has	already	been	decided:	New	YorkState,	for	example,	has	set	the	maximum	residual	emissions	at	15	percent	of	1990	levels;	Massachusetts	lawsimilarly	requires	an	85	percent	reduction	from	1990	levels.Is	net	zero	really	more	ambitious	than	what	preceded	it?	Net-zero	targets	have	replaced	earlier	targets,	which	oftentook	nonintuitive	goals,	such	as	an	80	percent	reduction	of	greenhouse	gases	from	1990	levels	by	2050.	Replacingthese	reduction	goals	with	net-zero	targets	has	generally	been	welcomed	as	a	strengthening	of	ambition.	But	it	maynot	be	in	all	cases:	in	theory	a	country	could	have	a	net-zero	target	that	is	less	than	an	80	percent	reduction	ofgreenhouse	gas	emissions	from	some	earlier	point,	as	long	as	those	positive	emissions	can	be	compensated	for	bynegative	ones.Net	zero	by	2050	is	an	ambitious	goal	relative	to	the	pace	of	climate	action	thus	far.	Achieving	it	would	beincredible.	But	there	are	also	ways	in	which	it	is	the	wrong	goal.	The	concept	of	net	zero	offers	balance	andstability.	It	also	offers	ambiguity	that	can	be	exploited.Cleaner	Fossil	World	or	Near-Zero	World?LSE Review of Books: Book Extract: ‘How to Not Say the F Word’ from Ending Fossil Fuels by Holly Jean Buck Page 2 of 3		Date originally posted: 2021-11-02Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2021/11/02/book-extract-how-to-not-say-the-f-word-from-ending-fossil-fuels-by-holly-jean-buck/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/Imagine	a	world	that	has	reached	net	zero	near	the	end	of	this	century.	Let’s	call	it	‘Cleaner	Fossil	World.’	CleanerFossil	World	still	has	fossil	fuel	companies,	particularly	oil	and	gas	companies.	They	have	shifted	their	portfoliosand	are	now	producing	fossil	fuels	with	lower	carbon	intensity.	Oil	is	still	produced	for	aviation,	shipping,	andindustry.	The	companies	have	invested	in	systems	to	capture	billions	of	tons	of	carbon	dioxide	from	theatmosphere,	injecting	it	underground	and	turning	it	into	fuel,	an	energy	intensive	process.	This	allows	a	class	ofpeople	in	the	developed	world	to	keep	internal	combustion	vehicles	with	drop-in	fuels.	Meanwhile,	energy	hasbecome	more	expensive,	as	fossil	fuel	companies	have	passed	the	cost	of	all	their	new	carbon-capturingequipment	down	to	consumers,	and	many	people	live	in	energy	poverty,	carefully	rationing	the	solar	power	theyhave	access	to.But	this	Cleaner	Fossil	World	has	achieved	net-zero	emissions	by	sucking	up	tremendous	amounts	of	carbon.	Vasttree	plantations	that	have	decimated	biodiversity	provide	a	portion	of	those	negative	emissions.	Land	is	routinelyappropriated	for	carbon	storage	and	renewable	energy	generation.	The	companies	and	platforms	that	finance,arrange,	and	perform	the	industrial	services	of	removing	all	this	carbon	hold	tremendous	power,	because	peoplerely	on	them	for	climate	stability.	Cleaner	Fossil	World	might	align	with	the	International	Energy	Agency’sSustainable	Development	Scenario	or	Shell’s	Sky	scenario.	In	this	world,	there’s	a	circular	carbon	economy	and	acontinued	role	for	oil	and	gas,	but	oil	and	gas	production	is	decarbonized.Now	imagine	a	second	world	that	has	also	reached	net-zero	emissions	near	the	end	of	the	century.	In	Near-ZeroWorld,	the	remaining	greenhouse	gas	emissions	arise	primarily	from	agriculture.	The	need	for	negative	emissions	islower,	and	they	can	be	generated	through	modest	infrastructures.	Near-Zero	World	might	follow	along	with	theInternational	Energy	Agency’s	Net	Zero	by	2050	scenario,	which	paints	a	world	that	quintuples	investment	in	solarphotovoltaic	technology	by	2030,	shuts	down	most	coal	plants,	electrifies	half	the	vehicle	fleet	by	2030,	retrofitsbuildings,	and	sees	significant	behavioral	changes.Cleaner	Fossil	World	and	Near-Zero	World	might	sound	pretty	much	the	same.	Anyone	could	be	forgiven	forthinking	they	are	the	same,	if	they	heard	about	them	casually.	Both	of	these	worlds	have	attained	net	zero.	Butwhich	is	more	livable?	Which	is	more	plausible?	What	‘net	zero’	does	is	allow	companies	and	policymakers	toconveniently	ignore	the	choices	between	these	worlds	and	countless	others.	Net	zero	may	be	a	temporary	state	onthe	way	toward	a	fossil-free	future,	or	it	may	be	a	permanent	condition	where	fossil	fuels	continue	forever,	re-interpreted	as	part	of	sustainable	carbon	management.	Net	zero	does	important	work:	it	shifts	attention	entirely	ontoemissions,	counting	and	balancing	them.	This	draws	attention	away	from	the	point	of	production,	which	is	where	weneed	to	also	be	focusing.The	argument	here	is	this:	without	deliberately	phasing	out	fossil	fuels,	we’re	more	likely	to	end	up	in	Cleaner	FossilWorld.	But	that’s	not	even	all	that	likely.	What’s	even	more	plausible	is	that	the	world	never	reaches	net	zero	at	all.The	structures	of	power	in	place	would	only	half-heartedly	go	about	decarbonizing	fossil	fuels	and	call	partway‘good	enough’,	leaving	us	with	a	devastating	3°C	of	warming.	Conversely,	the	chances	for	a	livable	planet	are	muchhigher	if	we	frame	our	goals	around	ending	production,	aiming	for	an	actual	fossil-free	world	this	century.Arguments	about	ending	fossil	fuels	tend	to	read	as	Puritan	ones:	no	compromise,	total	abolition	—	and	so	they	getlaughed	off	by	‘serious	folks’	as	ideological	or	unachievable.	The	set	of	arguments	in	Ending	Fossil	Fuels	comesfrom	a	different	rationale.Note:	This	book	extract	gives	the	views	of	the	author,	and	not	the	position	of	the	LSE	Review	of	Books	blog,	or	ofthe	London	School	of	Economics	and	Political	Science.	Thank	you	to	Verso	for	providing	permission	to	publish	anedited	extract	from	Ending	Fossil	Fuels.		LSE Review of Books: Book Extract: ‘How to Not Say the F Word’ from Ending Fossil Fuels by Holly Jean Buck Page 3 of 3		Date originally posted: 2021-11-02Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2021/11/02/book-extract-how-to-not-say-the-f-word-from-ending-fossil-fuels-by-holly-jean-buck/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/

Book extract: ‘How to not say the f word’ from Ending fossil fuels by Holly Jean Buck

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/113132/1/lsereviewofbooks_2021_11_02_book_extract_how_to_not_say_the_f_word.pdf

Book extract: ‘How to not say the f word’ from Ending fossil fuels by Holly Jean Buck

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online