Net-Zero vs Real Zero

"Net zero" means emissions minus removals equals zero. "Real zero" means no emissions at all. The difference is not semantic: it determines whether fossil fuels have a long-term role in the energy system. A net zero framework permits continued fossil fuel use if offset by CDR. A real zero framework demands complete elimination of fossil combustion. Most climate pledges use "net zero," and the choice matters.

The accounting question. A cement plant emitting 1 million tons of CO2 per year is "net zero" if paired with a DAC facility capturing 1 million tons per year. But the DAC facility costs $400-1,000 per ton, adding $400 million-$1 billion annually to cement costs. Is this a viable long-term strategy, or is it an accounting fiction that preserves fossil infrastructure while deferring the real transition?

The sectoral reality. For electricity, real zero is achievable: renewables plus nuclear plus storage can eliminate combustion entirely. For steel and cement, real zero requires hydrogen reduction or novel chemistry that is years from commercial scale. For aviation, real zero requires synthetic fuels or electrification, both currently impractical for long-haul flights. Net zero is a pragmatic acknowledgment that some sectors cannot reach real zero on any near-term timeline.

Is "net zero" sufficient, or should policy target real zero?

Sector by sector. For electricity, real zero should be the target because the technology exists. For heavy industry and aviation, net zero (with verified, permanent removal offsets) is the realistic near-term goal. The danger is applying "net zero" to sectors where real zero is achievable, using CDR as an excuse to avoid available solutions.

---