Because Net Zero is nonsense
If a drastic reduction in fossil fuels in transportation is desired, replacing them with biofuels is a smart move. Relying instead on Zero Emission Vehicles — meaning no CO2 given off at all (sans·C vehicles) — is not so wise. Yet, having net·zero as a goal makes the ZEVs a necessity.
But aerial CO2 levels are a planet-wide issue and sans·C vehicles ill suit most of it. Not even a half·frozen land occupied by a motley assortment of humankind (as Canada may be described) find going that path easy. …Besides, it is not working. People increasingly regard them as more annoying than wonderful, expensive, and having unexpected costs.
………The major error in arriving at the concept of net·zero lies in treating all CO2 emissions due to human activity the same, heedless of the source of the C in the CO2. Yet, it matters greatly whether it is fossil C or biological C.
Consider how Brasil makes fuel ethanol. A very large area is devoted to sugarcane whose sugary juice is fermented — which many microbes would readily do, though ethanol is the chosen one. An ignorant choice perhaps, but never mind.
By weight, nearly as much CO2 is produced by the ferment as ethanol, and these two account for the sugar consumed. The gas is released into the air. Literally, back into the air, since all the carbon the plant uses was taken from the air as CO2 during photosynthesis. Naturally, even more bio·C is in the plant’s structural parts: its leaves and stock and roots.
Notice that a biofuel having bio·C cannot accumulate in the air, since plants remove far more C than burning the biofuel puts in. ..So when ethanol is burnt in an engine, that emitted CO2 is a cycling event. Contrast this with gasoline, a fossil fuel, where the C comes out of the ground and enters the air as a new entrant. ..Major difference.
Net·zero, being largely political, will fall into disrepute relatively soon. It claims to be based on the ‘best available’ climate science. Curious phrase that: clearly indicates some sort of better science, as yet unavailable, will arise. And so it will , for quite frankly: net·zero is illogical.
It is based on an association of total annual CO2 emissions over the decades with a slow, though steady, increase in the aerial level of CO2. Net·zero proponents say the cumulative amount of CO2 emissions matters, the piling up of total net annual emissions. But that figure results from the increased use of fossil fuels, and is not in itself meaningful.
This association is much the same as one an isolated rain shower has with cold air. Rain is cold, the air with it is cold, and that air spreads out as it hits the ground.* ..So an isolated rain shower coming your way is heralded with distinctly cool air. But cold air does not cause the rain, nor do cumulative total CO2 emissions cause the increase in the level of aerial CO2. The net·zero concept says we humans must stop putting any CO2 into the air — that is: net·zero CO2.
Suppose overnight all the CO2 emitted by human activity magically was not fossil·C, only bio·C. …What would change? …This is not a question net·zero believers would ask. But for those with some imagination and flexibility, it really is not difficult to see that aerial C would be dropping because plants take much more C from the air than the use of biofuels would be putting back in.
Net·zero becomes irrelevant. Major supplanting of fossil fuels with biofuels made from annual plant growth can do the job. ..This is the direction climate policies should adopt, doing so being good politics. Farmers would benefit from production of biofuels.
[* note: This includes any CO2 in the air, which means it is coming from high up to low down. Now an isolated rain shower is one thing, while a torrential tropical fall of rain over a wide area is quite another. A large amount of aerial CO2 may be coming down from high up in that event.]