Is Carbon Neutral Good Enough?

I admit it, I’m conflicted about climate change.

I believe that global temperatures are rising, CO2 levels are rising, and that mankind has had a large impact on both of those. I believe that global temperature and CO2 level rise are not good things, and that they could have some very serious consequences; and I also believe they are important things that require our concerted attention. Yes, I know that there is a lot of discussion regarding the validity of the science, the scientific consensus et al, and that there is a lot of politically-motivated information and misinformation being thrown at us from both sides of the political spectrum. It’s an unfortunate and confusing fact about the climate change discussion today, as it were. This article is not about that part of the discussion.

I’m not conflicted that man is causing some level of significant climate change. We are. My conflict comes from the prescriptions to solve it.

Like many of you reading this, I’ve spent the better part of 20 years in the renewable energy and electric vehicle industries. Throughout my time in these industries I’ve always simply assumed that we were part of The Climate Solution, and with each year that went by I could count the incremental progress we were making. When I started in solar, the U.S. market was the equivalent of about 5000 homes/year, and in 2018 that number had increased to 300,000 homes/year, mixed between homes, commercial buildings and utility-scale power plants. That’s phenomenal growth, and I’m proud of playing a role in that growth.

Looking forward, I’ve continued to pursue the carbon neutral goal that has become our mandate. I’ve been an advocate of continuing solar and other renewable incentives, as well as energy efficiency, electric vehicle, energy storage and other clean energy programs. Carbon neutral has been our rallying cry for decades, and all of these technologies have banded together to form the fabric of our collective vision. If we deploy these technologies at-scale across the globe, doesn’t that solve our climate problem?

Unfortunately, no. Not even close. And that’s my conflict.

If we are to believe the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC), the governing body publishing climate science and offering scientific consensus on global warming, then the holy grail for our climate change pursuits is global temperature management. Their recommendation has been to keep our global temperature rise to no more than 1.5–2o C in order to avert significant and irreversible climate damage. In their detailed analyses, they’ve shown how various mitigation methods could be used to help us lower our global temperatures (see graph below), and they lay out the limitations of the various alternatives. When I look at the reports and their analyses, I’m struck by the severe limitations of the approaches we’ve been prescribing (i.e., solar and renewable proliferation). In fact, all of the IPCC models acknowledge that it’s not enough to eliminate the growth of our greenhouse emissions — to be carbon neutral — but that we have to actually remove carbon from the atmosphere. In other words, if we continue with our carbon neutral trajectory and solarize the entire world (and spend the trillions it will take to do so), it will only have a negligible effect on our global temperature rise.

If reducing global temperatures is our new holy grail, then carbon neutral doesn’t get us there. And if carbon neutral isn’t enough, we have to reset our vision towards carbon negative.

Viewing our next 20 years through a carbon negative/lower global temperatures lens, it’s hard to fully support the current trajectory of renewable energy spending. I understand the “it’s better than doing nothing” narrative…but is it? It feels like it distracts us from the true goal of temperature reduction. Why spend trillions on global prescriptions that don’t cure the disease? Why continue to arm an energy race we know we’re ultimately going to lose? Can we continue to support announcements of carbon neutrality by 2050 as signs of progress? Why not redirect those efforts towards efforts we believe will have the greatest effects?

Reconstructing our global energy systems towards a carbon neutral future will take us 30 to 50 years and will cost us trillions. If we look at the IPCC numbers, can we afford to wait that long to realize the results? It doesn’t seem so. It feels like we should be advocating for carbon negative technologies in a big way NOW. Yes, let’s continue incentives like the Investment Tax Credit and other things to maintain some of our current solar momentum, but let’s advocate for huge investments in new, carbon removal technologies that we can deploy on a global scale.

Carbon neutral is out. Carbon removal needs to be in.

Marc Cortez is a 20-year veteran of the solar energy and electric vehicle industries, and is the founder and CEO of Liquid8, a water conservation startup.