When will we Transition to “Net Zero”?

6 min readJun 22, 2023

ARAMCO (Saudi Arabia Oil Company: RasTanura refinery.

When “Big Oil” decides the time is right for its greatest benefit.

Financially, politically, socially, environmentally, including climate changes, our collective global-selves are linked to the agendas set by the major oil and gas (O&G) corporations: the top 10 are shown, below. They will determine when it is time for the 8 billion world’s population to transition to much lower CO2, and CO2 equivalent-Greenhouse Gases (GH).

Globally, the 10 Largest Oil Companies (April 8, 2023)

**Table prepared by Zack Florence. Link to information about ARAMCO:** **https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Aramco**

There’s little need to calculate the return on capital given the net incomes of those companies. What we can conclude is that they control large chunks of the world’s energy resources and money markets. All total ~$3.3 trillion market capitalization.

Top 10 Countries by GDP (gross domestic product)

To date in 2023, these are the world’s top 10 GDP numbers. Obviously, looking above, the market cap of the top 10 oil companies would be ranked at 4th or 5th in the world depending upon the day you did the numbers. That's lots of leverage.

United States (GDP: 20.49 trillion)
China (GDP: 13.4 trillion)
Japan: (GDP: 4.97 trillion)
Germany: (GDP: 4.00 trillion)
United Kingdom: (GDP: 2.83 trillion)
France: (GDP: 2.78 trillion)
India: (GDP: 2.72 trillion)
Italy: (GDP: 2.07 trillion)
Brazil: (GDP: 1.87 trillion)
Canada: (GDP: 1.71 trillion)

What is Net Zero?

For those who might have the incorrect impression that net zero means zero fossil fuel emissions, here is a quick definition from the IPCC glossary:

Net zero CO2 emissions
Net zero carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are achieved when anthropogenic CO2 emissions are balanced globally by anthropogenic CO2 removals over a specified period. Net zero CO2 emissions are also referred to as carbon neutrality. See also Net zero emissions and Net negative emissions.

Here is an important distinction to understand about “net zero”. While 196 countries signed the Paris Accord (2015) and recommended that increases in global surface temperatures be kept below 2 C, there is no mention of, for example, holding average global surface temperatures between 1.5 C and 2.0C or otherwise. That is a target that was set several years ago, and it looks doubtful temperature increases will be held at or below 1.5C. Legislation and protocols are being put in place around the world to slow the increase, often setting 1.5C as the target but wanting to hold warming below 2C. We can hope that sooner, rather than later, the emissions will be reduced enough that we will achieve reduced emissions levels so we have the technology and public will to reach net zero and maintain it.

It has been argued that effectively eliminating all carbon emissions is the only real solution. Given from where we have come and where we must be, it would, in my opinion, be prudent to set goals that are have better chance of being more rapidly attained and proceed from there.

A 20th Century Example that Provides a Model for Indicating When We are on the right Path to Net Zero

I was 2 years old when this transition was happening.

Let’s reframe the above image: let the Red trend be our adoption of technologies to remove CO2 emissions, and define the Black trend as the reduction in CO2 emissions. Here’s the conundrum: we don’t know where we are on this curve.

My families were farmers. One of my grandfathers bought his first tractor in 1935. However, the exponential growth beginning in the early-mid-40s did not occur because of farmers but rather greater refinery capacities, manufacturing and favourable marketing and finances: existential forces created an unrelenting demand for fossil fuels, namely, World War II (WW2), in Europe and the Pacific. By 1945 the military-manufacturing complex began winding down, men, mainly, were returning to work and/or college (like my Dad). Housing boomed and the world was ready for peace, prosperity and rest: my parents bought our first TV in 1953. The “good life” was now built around demands for energy; global warming and climate change were not anywhere on the radar. The Interstate transportation network (begun in 1956) in the US was designed for moving lots of vehicles, promoting commercial supply chains and putting people in cars travelling across the country. It’s been a wild and crazy ride for the past 75 years — — but the party is over!

Many Countries have put in Place Mitigation Programmes: here is how Canada is planning to bring down emissions and create CO2 offsets.

Source: https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/climate-plan/net-zero-emissions-2050.html

Canada is a major O&G producer. Politically and technologically reducing CO2 equivalents by 40% over the next 7 years will be a huge, major undertaking: as Canadian citizen I fully support the task ahead, most especially for my family.

How Do We Pay for Reaching Net Zero?

The answer is very simple. Look above to the table showing the 10 largest oil corporations. They are largely the sources of most of the emissions over the past 100 years, most especially the past 80 years. They, including the automotive industries, have a an obligation to get us to net zero. Both have enjoyed a very long and lucrative “friendship”.

“Big Oil” is Investing in Renewable Energy

Looking back at the “horses and tractors” graph. The rate at which the transition will occur, in my opinion, will heavily depend upon the amounts of investment, the new technology created and types of trade-offs that O&G corps are willing to contribute toward reaching net zero so we will not surpass 2 C. Let’s believe that we can begin seriously lowering the global surface temperatures by the end of this century.