Talk:Net-zero emissions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Net-zero emissions article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Energy Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Environment Mid‑importance This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Climate change Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Section sizes Section size for Net-zero emissions (24 sections) Section name Byte count Prose size (words) Header Total Header Total (Top) 6,849 6,849 467 467 History and scientific justification 5,381 8,934 334 599 Types of greenhouse gas 3,553 3,553 265 265 Terminology 2,721 2,721 65 65 Approaches 791 11,790 73 825 Reducing emissions 4,432 4,432 246 246 Carbon removals and offsets 6,567 6,567 506 506 Implementation 2,092 12,857 166 881 Scopes of emissions sources 4,440 4,440 133 133 Timeframe 2,973 2,973 236 236 Comprehensive accounting 2,135 2,135 223 223 Standards for products 440 440 56 56 Financial impact 777 777 67 67 Politics 5,386 5,386 205 205 Effects 833 833 32 32 Targets 1,353 9,526 105 572 By country 211 211 0 0 Credibility 7,962 7,962 467 467 Challenges 18 4,503 0 397 Deferring present-day emissions reductions 1,886 1,886 196 196 Carbon credits 2,599 2,599 201 201 See also 362 362 0 0 External links 146 146 0 0 References 188 188 0 0 Total 64,095 64,095 4,043 4,043

The content of Carbon neutrality was merged into Net-zero emissions on August 23, 2023. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

On 29 August 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Net zero to Net zero emissions. The result of the discussion was moved.

.

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

@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)Reply

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)Reply

@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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply