Going slow on net zero

 From a Twitter thread by Ketan Joshi, talking about Australia's net zero target.  But the conclusion apply broadly.

First up, net zero targets are like many climate things. They can be good, or they can be delaying PR, depending on deployment style.  At the moment, countries and companies that have set net zero targets have almost universally not implemented actual policies or allocated capital that would bring about that as a reality. 

**But** without the target, we'd have nothing to whack them with, for not acting.

Ideally, here's what would happen:

- Gov announces 'net zero by 2050'

- Journalist asks self, 'what immediate change would signify that this is sincere'

- Journalists asks if that immediate change is implemented

- If not, the policy is presented as insincere

Here's what is going to happen. 

Scott Morrison will announce a net zero target, but it will be filled with a bunch of *extremely* predictable loopholes. 

I have predicted all of them here, for you.

Some conservatives, centrists and a bunch of energy and climate professionals will sagely nod their heads and say 'yes, this surely is a Step In The Right Direction'.

But the next step - rapidly reducing emissions and winding down the fossil fuel industry - won't get mentioned.

Australia's government will not: 

- Ban new fossil mines

- Plan to wind down coal and gas extraction (a huge chunk of Aus' domestic emissions)

- Phase out coal power by 2030; all fossils by 2035

- Ban combustion engine sales by 2030

- Ban new gas connections in homes

What is happening now is really just a bargaining and lobbying process to place a protective shield around emissions-intensive profit. This could well **increase** future emissions more than if there wasn't a net zero target

The self-reinforcing story when Joyce was appointed leader of the Nationals was that he'd stonewall. It was obviously incorrect then, and it still is now. He's actively trying to win protections for fossil fuel and methane intensive industry.

Two other key functions of a net zero target, for the Aus gov't: 

- Trying (in vain, hopefully) to fend off international pressure on emissions

- Staff retention.  Same reason News Corp and fossil fuel companies do greenwashy climate plans filled with stock photos of wind turbines. MPs, middle-management, underlings with a flickering flame of social conscience want to be reassured they're not The Bad Guys.

So: will the gov't be held to account by Aus media institutions for setting a net zero target, but not taking any actions to realise it?

Well, Aus has been projected to miss its 2030 (badly insufficient) Paris targets since forever. 

But: the gov CONSTANTLY lies and says they are. This is really a proper lie. This should be the easiest thing to counter. 

But....nope. It just gets let through 99% of the time.

Remember something important: net zero is a concept that is a very fancy way of saying 'do not add any more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. If you do that, the heating stops'

Why does such a simple concept turn into climate delay? There is a fight about three sub-components of that goal

- When that point is reached

- How rapid the transition to that point is

- What "net" means

None of this is surprising. Of *course* there was going to be bloody, wild and chaotic battle about this. We barely scraped through admitting the freaking **science** is real. Deployment and realisation - with all its political, corporate and cultural issues - is messier still