Is 2050 a Realistic Net-Zero Goal? (w/ Roger Pielke, Jr.)

As we edge forward to a goal of net-zero in Canada and the United States, the reality of that aspiration runs headlong into the on-going and increasing need for energy. Net-zero means completely negating the amount of greenhouse gas emissions produced by human activity. The theory is that a combination of emissions reductions and the implementation of carbon sequestering can and will balance the volume of carbon in the atmosphere with the volume that we remove.
There are countless initiatives underway. For example, a Canadian company called Svante based in British Columbia has been enjoying impressive results. So, too, is Bill Gates’ carbon capture company Graphyte. That company’s website acknowledges that 5 to 10 billion tons of carbon dioxide need to be removed from the atmosphere annually by 2050; today the world removes less than 0.001% of that.
The quest is underway, but at what cost? In British Columbia, the government acknowledges its commitment to net-zero will have a significant impact on the economy. That impact, in turn, will increase the cost of living and lower per-capita GDP.
Roger Pielke Jr, the author of the “Iron Law,” states that when the cost of carbon mitigation impacts the cost of living, voters turn away from protecting the environment and so do politicians.
He joins us today for a Conversation That Matters about whether net-zero by 2050 is realistic.
---
Please become a Patreon subscriber and support the production of this program, with a $1 pledge goo.gl/ypXyDs
The views discussed in this video are the opinions of our guests and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Oh Boy Productions or this show. Any images in this video are for fair use only, as we are a journalism outlet that seeks to illustrate the topic or guest involved.
ctm501 #netzero #environment #climatechange

[@clester4773]

Thank you Rodger, you made a great case for the need of a multitude of energy sources. Nuclear is definitely one way to cut emissions globally.I also enjoyed the fact that there is a case to use LNG as a source to reduce dependence on coal. Trudeau should take notes there is a business model for this. I couldn’t agree more with the statement that less prosperous emerging countries need a safe and affordable energy supply.The time line of 2060 is doable, Canada needs more pipelines.

[@anthonymorris5084]

Demanding net zero is like demanding a perpetual motion machine.

[@manongartside7467]

Deep dry rock geothermal for electricity wasn't mentioned. This heat is accessible by oil and gas companies using the same workers and equipment and has huge potential. Geothermal heat for buildings wasn't mentioned and neither was geothermal heat or electric heat for some industries. Tidal electricity wasn't mentioned. Neither was energy efficiency nor the rebound effect when energy efficiency doesn't reduce total energy use but gets used for something else (more efficient motors but heavier vehicles or more driving). We are looking at this only from the perspective of producing more energy and always high tech solutions far into the future.
If you look at any Sankey diagram, about 60% of all energy generation is waste heat, almost all of it from fossil fuels. This is energy that is not used. Burning coal, oil and gas produces heat that is either used as heat or transformed into electricity or motion. Waste energy is unavoidable at transition points but it can be greatly reduced. Waste energy (heat) and waste resources (CO2, methane leaks at wellheads, at joints in pipelines) occur throughout supply chains. Electricity for mechanical use or for motion is much more efficient than the internal combustion engine (approx. 25% waste heat for electric motor, 70% waste heat for ICE). Rail and barges on canals are more efficient than vehicles on roads. We need to look at the energy system from all angles, holistically, starting with how much energy we need, for what purpose, under what form. Half of the world's energy use is in the form of heat, 20% in the form of electricity, 30% in the form of fuels for mechanical/movement (machinery, transport). Most non-carbon energy produces electricity. Electrifying everything we need is doable but the energy, mineral resources and labour are going to be enormous for the transition. Mineral resources are not infinite and mining them (especially low concentration ores) is polluting, uses a lot of water and destroys a lot of land.
The global infrastructure for fossil fuel production, distribution and use is huge. 40% of marine shipping is for fossil fuels. There are a lot of sunk costs in all this infrastructure and it's still profitable. Furthermore, fossil fuels are easy to transport across oceans and much of it is produced for export. Electricity is usually a public utility and is produced for local use and the electricity grids don't cross the oceans.
It is better to not lock-in high energy and resource use in the first place. We can get much more use out of the energy we produce with current technology, such as passive house buildings (first built in Saskatchewan in 1977), passive modular pre-fabs for houses and low-rise multiplexes, heat pumps (old tech), heat recovery ventilation systems with moisture control (old tech), on-demand electric hot water (old tech), heat recovery from waste hot water (old tech), electric rail for long and medium transport of cargo instead of trucking (like before 1980s), electric tramways in cities (like until 1950s).
N-fertilizer is made with fossil methane gas and emits enormous amounts of CO2 in its production. Approx. 25% of the N-fertilizer applied to fields gets taken up by crops, the rest runs-off into water ways (anoxic water) and nitrous oxide emissions (greenhouse gas). Governments could force N-fertilizer producers to use hydrolysis of water for hydrogen. But again the infrastructure is already built and profitable. Sunk costs. Same thing with pesticides, made from oil and gas. Tilling and harvesters, some weighing 60 tonnes, erode and compact the soil. All this is degrading and eroding the soil at a time when global warming is causing drought, heat waves, floods, more pests. It takes decades to develop more resistant crops.
It doesn't matter how much CO2 plants have access to. If they don't have enough water, they die. If fields get flooded, crops can be ruined. If crops take up more carbon but not more nitrogen, they have less relative protein and nutrients. The green revolution may turn out to be a one-trick pony. Let's not be blind to energy, resources and ecology. These are real. Money is not a substitute, but a claim on energy and resources.