In 2015, the Paris Climate Agreement set a goal of achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 through a combination of renewable energy, efficiency gains, and carbon capture. Though humanity still has a quarter-century to hit that lofty mark, we appear destined to fail.

Countries, cities, businesses, and organizations worldwide followed Paris negotiators’ lead in pledging to reach Net Zero by 2050, and made bold claims that they would do so. But, just as science fiction writers can be overly optimistic with their visions of the future, so, too can diplomats forging a framework to tackle climate change.

Vaclav Smil is one of the leading thinkers on energy and the environment. Last year, the Distinguished Professor Emeritus in the Faculty of Environment at the University of Manitoba penned an extensive report for the The Fraser Institute, a libertarian-conservative Canadian public policy think tank. In it, he outlined numerous reasons why Net Zero by 2050 is highly unlikely.

He began with a glaring fact.

“Despite international agreements, government spending and regulations, and technological advancements, global fossil fuel consumption surged by 55 percent between 1997 and 2023.”

While fossil fuels make up a declining share of civilization’s overall energy mix, falling from 86 percent in 1997 to 82 percent in 2022, their use in absolute terms is still rising as humans demand more and more energy.

But why can’t we just electrify everything and replace fossil fuel energy with renewables and nuclear? We have the technology, after all. And 25 years is a long time…

Smil describes the enormity of this undertaking, and why a quarter-century is a blip on the timescale of energy transitions.

“The first global energy transition, from traditional biomass fuels such as wood and charcoal to fossil fuels, started more than two centuries ago and unfolded gradually. That transition remains incomplete, as billions of people still rely on traditional biomass energies for cooking and heating.”

Alright, but what if humanity aligns towards decarbonization? Well, that naive dream of cooperation is burst by real world actions.

“China is far from done with its massive use of fossil fuel: its coal output reached a new record in 2022 and the country approved the construction of 106 gigawatts of new coal-fired power, the highest capacity since 2015.”

India is almost certain to follow China’s lead as its 1.4 billion inhabitants insist on a higher standard of living.

And there’s another roadblock: incorporating intermittent energy sources such as wind and solar into an aged grid on a grand scale.

“The IEA has estimated that meeting the global decarbonization goals would require adding or refurbishing more than 80 million kilometres of transmission grids by 2040. That is the equivalent of the entire existing global grid in 2023.”

And then there’s the fact that humanity still lacks viable zero-carbon options for commercial processes that produce essential materials such as steel for infrastructure and ammonia for fertilizer.

“These two key material processes… would need an annual production capacity of some 135 million tons of green hydrogen by 2050. However, depending on additional needs for transportation and heating, from industries (from glassmaking to food preservation), and for peak electricity generation, the total demand for green hydrogen could be easily as high as 500 million tons by 2050, [requiring] about 25 PWh of green electricity, the total equal to about 86 percent of the 2022 global electricity use.”

And then we get to the matter of cost…

[McKinsey’s Global Institute’s] estimate of $275 trillion between 2021 and 2050 prorates to $9.2 trillion a year. Compared to the 2022 global GDP of $101 trillion, this implies an annual expenditure on the order of 10 percent of the total worldwide economic product for three decades.

Not since World War II has the world seen targeted spending on this scale.

Smil admits that while a complete transition to Net Zero is incredibly unlikely. It is possible.

“No natural laws bar us from making the enormous investments needed to sustain such massive annual shifts.”

But at the same time, we must dwell in reality.

“We should devote our efforts to charting realistic futures that consider our technical capabilities, our material supplies, our economic possibilities, and our social necessities—and then devise practical ways to achieve them. We can always strive to surpass them—a far better goal than setting ourselves up for repeated failures by clinging to unrealistic targets and impractical visions.”