Talk:Net-zero emissions

.

Delete the criticism section and add a politics section?

The content of the criticism section seems dated, as nowadays criticism is from politicians arguing on spurious economics that the costs of net zero would outweigh the benefits for their country. Or they say only the costs will affect their voters, or just don’t mention the benefits at all. So perhaps we should have a section entitled “Politics” to explain why they are doing so? For example there might be moderate benefits for each of the millions of people in UK, except for a few thousand blast furnace workers who might lose their jobs and might be politically powerful.

As Putin doesn’t need to worry about politics presumably only Mark Carney could make a proper economic argument for his country ditching the net zero target, if it was politically advantageous for him. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I started reorganizing the Criticism section and ended up merging all of it with other sections. Ideally every section in an article should be NPOV; critical points of view shouldn't be saved until the end. A discussion on costs/benefits would be a good addition. If you're offering to start one, thank you :) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Have been typing and swiping too much lately. Need to give my hands a rest. Perhaps someone can excerpt economics in from another artticle? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I feel for you! Good for you for taking a break and taking care of yourself. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I see we now have a section called "moral hazard" instead. I am wondering if this section title is suitable here. As a layperson reader and non-native speaker I struggle with "moral hazard" and don't know what it means. NB: the term "moral hazard" is not picked up in the section itself; it's just in the section title. Could we come up with a section heading that captures it better? Previously it was "criticism", and I know this is not great either (as per WP:CRIT). But perhaps "Challenges" would be simpler - would that capture it? - Also I find the first paragraph under that heading to be too detailed, with too many quotes, and too much from one particular (and weak) source. EMsmile (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Tony Blair Statement

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/apr/29/phasing-out-fossil-fuels-doomed-to-fail-tony-blair-climate

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/30/tony-blair-anti-net-zero-anti-woke-corporate

https://institute.global/insights/climate-and-energy/the-climate-paradox-why-we-need-to-reset-action-on-climate-change

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cq80974l402o

should we mention the debate in the article? I think we should (also because Nigel Farages Reform UK party received many votes in the 1st May 2025 United Kingdom local elections (before the election: 128 seats in 0 councils; since the election: 805 seats in 10 councils (805 of 1,641 council seats). 62.143.250.202 (talk) 06:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

If some WP:SECONDARY analysis appears it may be due, but just as news it's just another politician bloviating. Bon courage (talk) 06:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

First paragraph might confuse readers?

@Leon Arundell I understand you wanted to make the first paragraph more correct but I am concerned it may now confuse readers. Suggest we move the info down. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Moving down the discussion of the distinction between total and annual emissions would work.

To avoid confusion, the article could initially refer to "net-zero annual emissions," rather than "net-zero emissions."

Please make an appropriate edit to the article, or invite me to make an edit. Leon Arundell (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

@Leon Arundell Thanks - please go ahead with your ideas and I would be interested in what other people think too. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I believe the annual isn't needed, and isn't typically used in sources (which don't use the word emissions either typically, just net zero, the article is needs to be moved back to its WP:COMMON name imo). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I've rewritten the first paragraph into plain English. Hope it sticks this time. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Will global warming stop once we reach global net zero?

The lead says:

“Once global net zero is achieved, further global warming is expected to stop.”

but https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/16/1427/2025/ says:

”Global mean surface temperature and precipitation are projected to continue rising even after CO2 emissions cease.”

These sentences seem to contradict each other. So is the lead out of date or am I missing or misunderstanding something? Chidgk1 (talk) 08:31, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Hmm maybe our article is assuming global net zero by 2070 (India’s target)? Whereas they are using “shared socio-economic pathway (SSP)3-7.0 scenario, which involves the reduction of fossil and industrial CO2 emissions to zero by 2250”. Hopefully (SSP)3-7.0 is extremely unlikely?Chidgk1 (talk) 08:42, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

There's a hierarchy of evidence. This paper uses a single climate model, whereas the statement of net zero resulting in no further warming uses multimodel comparison. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:48, 15 September 2025 (UTC)