Many governmental organizations and non-governmental organizations such as the United Nations have made pledges in recent years in response to the ongoing global climate crisis: net zero by 2050. This means cutting greenhouse gas emissions, which is the root cause of global warming, down to zero by the year 2050. Furthermore, the UN claims that in order to do so we must reduce it by 45 percent by 2030. Dozens of countries have taken steps towards this goal, but when we stop and analyze the situation we are in, does net zero seem like a plausible solution? 

 

The first reason why this is asked by people is because not a lot of governments prioritize net zero. Governments whose utmost goal is to import more oil pledging to reach net zero presents clashing ideals. We, as human beings, have gotten to this situation in the last twenty or so years. Our rapidly growing population, industrialization have made it look impossible to retrieve a circumstance we never really experienced. It all comes down to this; this goal is too ambitious and goals that are too ambitious end up never getting done. Think of it this way, when you aim to finish a book in an hour, you never end up finishing it. Instead you procrastinate and that one hour turns to five hours. However, if you had set a goal to read only fifty pages in forty minutes, you would most probably end up reading way more and perhaps finishing it in an hour. This is the exact scenario we are faced with today. There are so many industries, brands, companies that are not willing to step down or create green policies to better the situation. Our plastic consumption is far too much to cut down in three decades. We have been doing these things for far too long and it has turned into a habit. Just as an example to how grave the situation is, let’s take a look at Turkey:

 

Considering the political standings of Türkiye, the government has failed in effectively addressing the problem of climate change and greenhouse emissions. In 2020, Türkiye produced 369.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions with the carbon dioxide emissions per capita being 5.02 metric tons (2018). The main cause of emissions is the country’s primarily fossil run energy sector. Coal-fired power plants are the largest source of greenhouse gas. Other significant factors include vehicles running on diesel and petrol. The emissions are particularly high in overpopulated areas such as the big cities like Istanbul and Ankara. Agriculture also contributes to the problem as much methane is emitted by livestock. Türkiye is the world’s 20th largest emitter of greenhouse emissions (According to carbonbrief.org). By signing the Paris Agreement, it has promised to slightly reduce its future emissions, the deal is yet to be ratified. The nation has pledged a 21 percent reduction in emissions by 2030. (EDGAR, Potsdam, World Bank). Despite these ecological promises, Türkiye also intends to triple its coal capacity and open several nuclear power plants. In the age of which modern nations are making promises to make ecological advancements, Türkiye seems to be shifting backwards. Türkiye is one of the few countries that usually withdraw from attending formal negotiating blocs at the international climate conferences overseen by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It’s emissions have risen faster than any other country in the years between 1990 and 2013. The country’s carbon footprint is equal to 0.83 percent of global GHG emissions in 2015. 

 

The power industry of Turkey is the largest cause of its GHG emissions. It is heavily dependent on imported gas and oil, domestic production is quite small. It is particularly dependent on Russian fossil fuel imports. Turkey’s recent strategic plan indicates that it wishes to almost double the amount of domestic coal used by 2019. It plans to reach total coal-power capacity of 30 GW by 2023. However, these plans may vary partially due to protests and water shortages. Despite these negative aspects, Türkiye has one of the largest potentials among European countries for renewable expansion, particularly for wind and geothermal power. The government has drawn up many plans with intentions for overhauling the energy sector. Only 6 percent of it’s electricity was produced by renewable energy in 2015. The NDC intends to increase its capacity and wishes for solar capacity to reach 10 GW and wind to 16GW by 2030. If Turkey focused, spent time and effort into renewable energy rather than coal, the emissions would decrease easily. This currently, is not a route the government intends to take despite promises. 

 

This is just Turkey, there are hundreds of countries who make pledges and try to offer solutions for net zero, yet will definitely fail under the circumstances their governments are run in. Despite these negative remarks, there are countries that are trying to keep the promises they made, countries such as; Norway, The United Kingdom, Sweden, Denmark, Germany are well prepared to reach their goal of net zero emissions. Yet this is only considering their countries. In order to make a real difference, the greatest emitters, China, The United States should consider certain measures and changes in their policies. This is what these times entail, every country will eventually have to give up their rapid contribution to global warming and welcome green policies. This is crucial, fundamental not suggested but necessary for the survival of all species and earth as we know it. When these are put aside, net zero may be possible with proper co-operation. Until then, we as consumers should try to always opt for greener options.