Megan Dyer

Adam Padgett

ENGL 102

January 31, 2017

Humans Reach for Net-Zero to Save the Earth

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. This

topic intrigues me because even if you do not believe in global warming, most people still

want to be breathing clean air and therefore reduce carbon emissions. In my preliminary
research, I have found that many scientists are calling for a complete net-zero carbon footprint.
Net zero means that even if you do use energy, it is compensated by creating energy and therefor
reaching net-zero. I hope to find out more information regarding net-zero through my research.
Commented [PA1]: But is global warming really about
breathing clean air? In the cities we certainly have exhaust
in the air. So what is your primary objective here? To breath
clean air to reduce global warming? I think its feasible to
breath clean air but still have global warming as a problem.
In other words, is breathing clean air a significant enough
solution to also solve the bigger (and what I assume is your
primary) problem of global warming? Im thinking about how
persuasive this approach is.

Is Net-Zero Carbon Goal to Rescue the Climate Plausible? was published by Inside

Climate News in February of 2015 and referred 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 of Commented [PA2]: Okay, so it seems to be this article is
about the feasibility of reaching net-zero. Is 2050 not soon
enough for avoid certain consequences of global warming?
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. The bias is not necessarily a bad thing because

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.

Starting from small details such as 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 Commented [PA3]: Whats the cost of all this stuff?

building is constructed in compliance with the Living Building Challenge, the toughest set of

standards regarding eco-friendly buildings. 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 cost 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 to be this efficient, but what about more rural areas where people have to commute Commented [PA4]: Well, it certainly is possible, but I think
the expense might be the biggest set back.
long distances, or even for citys where workers live out in the suburbs? In cases like this, one

cannot avoid creating a parking lot and allowing people to drive. Regardless, this building is still

a model for future companies to reduce their carbon footprint.

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 buildings or close to

net-zero buildings for construction in the near future. In addition, the article 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 then 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 constructing

these buildings does not cost 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.

The first line of inquiry that came to mind regarding this paper is how practical is it to

achieve net-zero? The articles I found for this inquiry proposal all agree that net-zero is possible Commented [PA5]: Good question. Id like to read more
about what you mean by practical. What other
issues/complications are tied up in that word?
but they do create some suspicion. The first article referenced an advisor for Shell oil company

who claimed that although the goal should be net-zero, he does not necessarily think it is

possible and certainly not soon. Surely, there are other people who agree with him and therefore Commented [PA6]: Of course an oil company has this point
of view. It has a financial interest in delaying sustainable,
renewable sources of energy.
looking at their arguments to try to decide whether it really is practical would be interesting.
 Another question could be Why is it so urgent to reduce our carbon footprint? Both the

first and the third article mention deadlines for achieving net-zero. The first article is about when

we as human need to cut our emissions whereas the third focuses more on local laws that are

moving towards net zero. What these articles do not discuss is exactly what could happen if we

do not reduce emissions. Commented [PA7]: I wonder if the implication is: global
warming. So its kind of not need to be said since it is in the
subtext.
My third line of inquiry could be, How can people achieve net-zero? would be an

interesting line of inquiry because there are many ways to achieve zero emissions as discussed in

the second article. Many different factors had to be considered such as where to get their water,

how to make sure the whole building gets sunlight, and how to make sure people use energy

efficient forms of transportation.

Overall these sources agree that achieving net-zero is possible and is an urgent issue. I

have always thought that it would be good to decrease the amount of greenhouse gas emissions I

contribute, but I never really felt it was that important. These articles have started to change my

opinion as I begin to understand that this is a more serious problem then I originally thought. 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.

Megan, this is a really great topic. I like the angle you seem to be taking, which is: what

is the feasibility of going net-zero. I suspect youll need to address issues of available

technology, overall cost for the individual or company, and the role of the government (in, say,

investing in these companies; during the early years of the Obama administration, the federal

government invested in a solar company and it didnt work out so well.) There are certainly

some good and worthwhile questions here, and you certainly have this topic approved from me.
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