We hear a lot about “net zero by 2050” and other big targets to tackle climate change. It’s on the news, politicians talk about it, and it sounds like we’ve got a plan. But lately, I’ve been wondering if these big, official-sounding goals are actually making us ignore something much harder, and maybe much more important.
Think about it. We’re told we can keep growing our economies, keep buying more stuff, and just swap out our old energy sources for new ones. Go electric, recycle more, maybe plant some trees. It feels like we want to solve a really massive problem with changes that, for most of us, don’t feel that disruptive to our everyday lives or the way the world works.
But what if the real issue isn’t just how we power our lifestyles, but the amount of stuff we consume and the fundamental way our economy is set up to always need more and more growth? What if all the talk about “net zero” is a way to avoid the uncomfortable truth that we might just need to slow down, use a lot less, and rethink the whole system from the ground up?
It feels like setting a target date far in the future lets us put off the truly difficult conversations. The ones about whether our constant need for more is the actual problem. The ones about changing the very structure of our economy so it doesn’t rely on endless growth on a planet with limited resources.
Maybe instead of just focusing on hitting a number decades from now, we should be asking ourselves: Are we willing to consume less? Are we willing to change how our jobs and industries work? Are these big goals giving us a pass on the massive, uncomfortable shifts we actually need to make right now?
It’s easy to talk about future targets. It’s a lot harder to talk about changing our present lives and the entire game we’re playing. And I can’t shake the feeling that the easy conversation is getting in the way of the necessary one.