Our planet is warming dangerously.

And, as the 2013

report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
makes clear, our carbon-dioxide emissions over the past
half-century are extremely likely to be to blame. A more
robust approach to global warming is needed if we are to
avoid catastrophe. Unlike the recent financial crisis, there
is no bailout option for the earths climate.
The burning of coal, natural gas, and oil for electricity and
heat is the largest single source of global greenhouse gas
emissions. More than 25% of global carbon emission
comes from power generation. In 2011, the top carbon
dioxide (CO2) emitters were China, the United States, the
European Union, India, the Russian Federation, Japan,
and Canada with a total of almost 75% contribution,
combined. These data include CO2 emissions from fossil
fuel combustion, as well as cement manufacturing and gas
flaring. Together, these sources represent a large
proportion of total global CO2 emissions.
The statistic are so overwhelming, the world has been
urged to find a solution to overcome this problem, hence
todays motion.
However, we are here to tell you that zero carbon
emission is not the definite solution. Before I tell you why,
let us go through some terms that needed to be
understood.

DEFINITION
What does zero carbon mean?
- For stabilization of climate and ocean acidification it
(should) means that all industrial sources of CO2
have to be converted to run on zero carbon emitting
energies.
- As in the 2014 Climate Action network International's
June 2014 Position Statement it means the end of the
fossil fuel energy era, by all fossil fuel energy being
replaced 100% by non-polluting renewable energy.
- Zero carbon refers to zero carbon dioxide emissions,
and can be applied to CO2 equivalent emissions, that
takes in the other GHG emissions
- It is a not an agreed scientific term but it is a scientific
reality for climate change mitigation.
- If any industrial pollution CO2 is added to the
atmosphere stabilization of atmospheric CO2 cannot
happen - that is the scientific reality. Nor can
stabilization of ocean acidification
- In fact we have been adding some carbon to the
atmosphere (CO2 and methane CH4) since
agricultural civilizations developed. With the industrial
revolution that additional carbon started to increase
and soon was increasing at an exponential rate.

What is low carbon?

- This is a confusing and potentially dangerous term.
We hear of 'low carbon' more often than zero carbon.
- First and foremost it must mean zero industrial carbon
emissions.
- If low carbon means about a 90% emissions reduction
then it makes sense.
- Lower carbon cannot prevent planetary catastrophe
because the carbon still accumulates in the
atmosphere.
- 'Low carbon' as the term generally being applied does
not work for getting us on the way to zero, because
this version of low carbon relies on using fossil fuels
more efficiently. We certainly do need to improve
conservation and efficiency but that cannot be used
as a reason to delay converting the world economy
totally off fossil fuels.
Virtual zero carbon + some Negative carbon = Zero
carbon
- It has been mentioned that we can do virtual zero
carbon (@ 90% reduction of emissions) by converting
all fossil fuel energy CO2 sources to zero carbon
clean energy and stop deforestation.
- For negative carbon the scientists say we must
develop 'artificial carbon sinks' the main one being by

CO2 air extraction. We have technologies to take

CO2 out of the air. They are not being developed
because there is no money for it and no profit in it.
What is carbon neutral and net zero carbon?
- We are hearing increasingly about 'carbon neutral' or
'net zero'.
- Climate change experts such as a 2008 report by the
Global Carbon Project, suggest that carbon offsetting
can contribute towards climate change mitigation.
However these experts are taking a pragmatic
approach to mitigation in the hope that this will result
in some emissions reductions that may lessen the
impacts and may put us on the way slowly towards a
zero carbon world.
- We are on the very brink of planetary catastrophe - it
is far too late for slow improvement.
- This approach is the personal voluntary one of small
incremental steps towards less emissions. It is too
late for this approach and for 25 years the growing
environmental organizations and governments have
been promoting and educating this personal lifestyle
change approach. It has made no difference.
Emissions are higher and increasing faster than ever.
- To meet the scientific zero carbon requirements we
must make radical revolutionary changes in national

economies through radical revolutionary political

changes. Leading institutions and organizations must
lobby for these true zero carbon changes.
The way these terms are being used is very
misleading. The only real carbon neutral or net zero is
scientific virtual zero + negative carbon.
These terms are both used to mean the same thing.
It is impossible to get anywhere near zero carbon with
this approach.
Carbon neutral or net zero carbon emissions is being
understood to refer to achieving net zero carbon
emissions by 'balancing' a certain measured amount
of carbon released with an amount of carbon offsets.
This assumes that land use change can be designed
to take CO2 out of the carbon cycle. Buying enough
carbon credits to make up the difference is even
treated as a way to carbon neutral.
This is dangerously misleading. There is no such
thing as offsetting carbon emissions over the long
term. Radical emergency climate change mitigation
now is essential when we look at the fact that today's
emissions cause more global warming that will last
thousands of years.
The terrestrial carbon cycle recycles land based
carbon. While tree planting is highly desirable for
environmental benefits it cannot remove carbon from
the carbon cycle. The young trees will take up CO2 by
photosynthesis from the air as they grow, and will

return it to the atmosphere as they shed leaves,

decay and die in decades or centuries. Also tree
planting itself disturbs the forest floor releasing large
amounts of CO2. Our tree planting reforestation
practices tends to make artificial forests more
vulnerable to spreading forest fires.

In 2010, at the United Nations COP 16 climate-change

meeting in Cancn, countries agreed to reduce their
emissions by 2020 to a point that would prevent the
average global temperature from rising more than 2C
above pre-industrial levels. However, UN estimates show
that current trends would bring the world only 25-50% of
the way to this target.
The European Commission unveiled new energy and
climate targets for 2030 calling for a 40% reduction in
the blocs greenhouse-gas emissions from 1990 levels,
with 27% of energy to come from renewable sources. This
is an extremely important step, and more countries should
follow suit.
Two-thirds of electricity generation, and nearly 95% of the
energy consumed by the worlds transport systems, comes
from fossil fuels. Our energy security is increasingly tied to
the exploitation of unconventional fossil-fuel deposits like
shale gas, especially in the United States. Carbonintensive technologies remain more profitable than lowcarbon alternatives in many cases. And cash-strapped
governments continue to encourage oil and gas
exploration, in part because the rents received by some
account for a large part of their revenues.
True enough that changing is possible but at the current
slow progress in such limited time constraint, it is near to
impossible to reach the goal.

At the Paris climate conference (COP21) in December

2015, 195 countries adopted the first-ever universal,
legally binding global climate deal.
The agreement sets out a global action plan to put the
world on track to avoid dangerous climate change by
limiting global warming to well below 2C.
The agreement is due to enter into force in 2020.
1. Perfectible accord?
- Al Gore stated that "no agreement is perfect, and
this one must be strengthened over time, but
groups across every sector of society will now
begin to reduce dangerous carbon pollution
through the framework of this agreement."
- According to a study published in Nature June
2016, current country pledges are too low to lead
to a temperature rise below the Paris Agreement
temperature limit of "well below 2 C".
2. Lack of binding enforcement mechanism
- Although the agreement was lauded by many,
including French President Francois Hollande
and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon,
criticism has also surfaced. For example,
Professor James Hansen, a former NASA
scientist and a climate change expert, voiced
anger about the fact that most of the agreement

consists of "promises" or aims and not firm

commitments.
- Institutional asset owners associations and thinktanks such as the World Pensions Council (WPC)
have also observed that the stated objectives of
the Paris Agreement are implicitly "predicated
upon an assumption that member states of the
United Nations, including high polluters such as
China, the US, India, Brazil, Canada, Russia,
Indonesia and Australia, which generate more
than half the worlds greenhouse gas emissions,
will somehow drive down their carbon pollution
voluntarily and assiduously without any binding
enforcement mechanism to measure and control
CO2 emissions at any level from factory to state,
and without any specific penalty gradation or
fiscal pressure (for example a carbon tax) to
discourage bad behaviour. A shining example of
what Roman lawyers called circular logic: an
agreement (or argument) presupposing in
advance what it wants to achieve."

Surprising new statistics show that the world economy is

expanding while global carbon emissions remain at the
same level. Is it possible that the elusive decoupling of
emissions and economic growth could be happening?
The statistic is startling. In the past two years, the global
economy has grown by 6.5 percent, but carbon dioxide
emissions from energy generation and transport have not
grown at all, the International Energy Agency (IEA)
reported last month. CO2 emissions in Europe, the United
States, and most stunningly China have been falling.
What is going on?
These numbers raise a key question of huge importance if
nations are to avoid the worst effects of climate change: Is
the world on a path toward decoupling economic activity
from carbon dioxide emissions?
Put another way: Is the idea of a future of green growth,
with prosperity rising and emissions falling, real? Or as
some fear, is it a dangerous myth?
When the United Nations holds an official signing
ceremony for the Paris climate agreement on April 22, the
hope is this high-profile event will ensure political
momentum for meeting the Paris pledge to halt global
warming at well below two degrees Celsius. But even
climate scientists elated by the Paris agreement agree
that, even with political will, the task will be extremely
tough. Many are unsure whether to be optimists, keen to

show the job can be done, or pessimists, determined to

ensure nobody thinks it will be easy.
In its analysis last March, the IEA, a body linked with the
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD), reported that global CO2 emissions from energyrelated activities have not risen since 2013, staying at 32.1
billion tons even as the global economy grew.
This surprising decoupling of emissions from economic
activity was led by the two largest emitters, China and the
U.S., which both registered declines in emissions of about
1.5 percent.

Isn't actual zero carbon impossible?

- It is impossible for us, with our current knowledge, to
stop all CO2 emissions from human activities.
- For example we have no way at present to stop all
CO2 emissions from agriculture. Zero carbon
therefore today means virtual zero carbon (at least a
90% reduction of carbon emissions.
- We can make major reductions in agricultural carbon
emissions because today's agriculture is so carbon
intensive and carbon emitting.
- Research shows that organic farming methods are
the best for carbon balance.
- There is no reason to think that if large resources are
applied for research into converting all our carbon
sources to zero carbon services and technologies we
could not redevelop for a true zero carbon world. This
is a possibility for the future that we must work
towards.
- The best that we can achieve with today's knowledge
is what the scientists call 'virtual zero' carbon
emissions - at least a 90% reduction. Low carbon or
net zero carbon could also mean this
- To achieve actual zero carbon in the scientific sense
the scientists say we must develop the capacity for
'negative carbon' emissions, meaning we have to
extract some CO2 directly out of the air and secure it.

- Right now we are planning on leaving it too late. The

best proposals are for virtual zero by 2050 and for
actual zero after the end of this century.
- The net effect of virtual zero carbon and some
negative carbon is true zero carbon.

In the current status quo, the time limit set to reach the
goal of net zero carbon emission is by around 2050, which
is 34 years away from now. A huge capital and massive
amount time is required in order to achieve zero carbon
emission.
So whats happening now is that the developed countries
could reduce their carbon emission but at a very slow rate.
Given the limited timeframe, not even the developed
countries could reach the goal set by this agreement.
If so, then what about countries like India and Africa which
are ranked as part of the highest poverty rate in the world?
How in the whole wide world could they find such huge
amount of money to invest in researching for methods to
promote zero carbon emission? What do you expect for
countries like them to do? Just sit back and watch?
There are even countries, like Australia, suggested on
cutting off electricity to reduce carbon emission. Let us get
this straight. Would you mind if we switch off the aircond,
right now?
So what does all of these got to say? That its really hard
to achieve a true zero carbon emission, even if it is to be
implemented in the next century. It is highly unrealistic and
instead, we would agree to reduction of carbon emission
to a certain percentage because at the end of the day,