Megan Dyer

Adam Padgett

ENGL 102

January 31, 2017

Is a net-zero carbon footprint possible?

One of the biggest controversies today is global warming. People debate nonstop over

whether it is real and what its consequences could be. Along with that, people are also searching

for every possible way to become energy efficient and cut back on the carbon footprint. In my

preliminary research, I have found that many scientists are even calling for a complete net-zero

carbon footprint, but big oil is saying that this is just not feasible. I want to find out whether it is

or is not.

Is Net-Zero Carbon Goal to Rescue the Climate Plausible? was published in February

of 2015 and referred a lot to the then current UN climate negotiations. It brought up the varying

levels of climate change that scientists consider acceptable and the fact that to ensure these levels

are not surpassed, the world needs to act very quickly. The longest it says we can go without

reaching net zero is 2100, after that, the effects of global warming will be catastrophic. This

article references various agencies that have supporting evidence such as the Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change or the treaty talks in Lima, Peru and Geneva. Ultimately most talks

conclude that we need to reach net zero by 2050 and that this goal is not too unreasonable. It

references advisors for Shell and how even they agree the Paris treaty should aim for net zero but

that it may not actually be possible, and certainly not by 2050. Other studies are referenced

throughout the rest of the article supporting that it can be achieved and is necessary for the future
of our world. This article is clearly written with the values of reducing carbon emissions. It does

not seek to blame big oil like most environmental essays, but instead uses them to reinforce its

hope of reaching net-zero. The bias in this article is in favor or reducing carbon emissions which

is clear through the fact that it only ever talks about the positives of switching to energy efficient

life styles, not the negatives such as job loss for those in the oil industry or the costs of switching

over. This is not necessarily a bad thing that it is bias since it achieves its purpose by sticking to

the positives and being persuasive. In my next article published my Yes Magazine, titled

Worlds Greenest Office Building Makes Net-Zero Look Easy, an office building in Seattle

Washington is described. From its nonexistent parking lot, which encourages employers to bike

to its net-zero use of energy and water, this building is a model for proving that living net-zero is

possible. Even in the least sunny state, this building is able to be 100% solar. This building is

built in compliant with the Living Building Challenge. Its walls are made entirely of glass in

order to light even the center of the building so that no artificial lighting is needed, tenants walk

or ride bikes, there are showers fed by rain water on every floor, and there is no hookup to the

citys sewer due to composting toilets which compost waste to produce agricultural grade

compost. All of this only costed the developers one-fifth above average costs of an office

building of its class. The major values of this article are to stress that net-zero buildings are

possible, even commercial buildings like this one. There is bias in the fact that it makes people

think this is possible for all buildings but what about more rural areas where people have to

commute long distances, or even for citys where workers live out in the suburbs. It is no always

feasible for no parking lot and therefore zero net energy. This does not make this article any less

useful though because it is still a model for future companies to at least reduce their carbon

footprint by a lot. In It Takes a Village published by Rocky Mountain Institute discusses the
five key points for building net-zero buildings. It also discusses how the government is getting

involved in various states and the country as a whole to pass laws requiring net-zero building or

close to net-zero buildings for buildings in the near future. It also discusses how net-zero

building effect utility companies since many still operate on the grid and employ utility

companies to store their positive energy for a rainy day. The article also mentions net-zero

communities and how they are developing. There are already a few in the works in California,

Arizona, and Colorado. Communities hold larger challenges though in becoming net-zero such

as existing utility regulations forbidding neighbors from exchanging energy. The goal of this

article is to express how to mass produce net-zero buildings to make them cost efficient and

widely available across communities. The bias stems from the fact that although building these

buildings may not cost all that much more, we are ignoring the cost of demolishing existing

building and displacing the jobs or people who live in them. It acknowledges that there would be

challenges but massively understates them.

Some different lines of inquiry I might take might be How practical is it to achieve net-

zero, Why is it so urgent to reduce our carbon footprint?, or How can people achieve net-

zero?.

Overall these sources really agree that achieving net-zero is possible and is an urgent

issue. I have always thought that that would be good to decrease the amount of greenhouse gas

emissions I contribute to but I never really felt it was that important, these articles have started to

change that opinion. I am beginning to understand that this is a much more serious situation than

what I originally though. In order to write about this topic I need to do more research into the

effect of greenhouse gases and carbon emissions and how they affect our world. Also, how

becoming net-zero would help the damage already done.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20022015/net-zero-carbon-goal-rescue-climate-plausible

http://www.yesmagazine.org/planet/world-s-greenest-office-building-makes-net-zero-look-easy

http://www.rmi.org/winter_2014_esj_it_takes_a_village