A new study shows getting to net-zero emissions is doable. Here’s how.

By Editorial Board,

SCIENTISTS WARN that humanity must eliminate greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or risk devastating consequences. The International Energy Agency (IEA), a reputable international outfit of energy wonks, released last week a wide-ranging report arguing that such a transition is possible. It would just be very hard.

The agency rejects fantasies that everyone will suddenly eschew air conditioning and walk to work, figuring that behavioral change will drive only 4 percent of emissions cuts. Moreover, some 785 million people lack access to electricity. For them, the priority is getting this essential service, not how that happens. The goal must be to advance living standards everywhere while cutting the environmental impact.

This would require “a singular, unwavering focus from all governments — working together with one another, and with businesses, investors and citizens,” the report declares. An efficiency drive — changing the technology people use to build buildings, heat homes, produce goods and do practically everything else — would reduce overall global energy demand by 2050 while serving an economy more than twice as large. A massive renewables ramp-up would make solar the largest energy source, with photovoltaic capacity jumping twentyfold between now and mid-century. By 2030, the envisioned solar boom would require installing every day the generation capacity of what is currently the world’s biggest solar farm. Wind would leap elevenfold. Emissions-free nuclear power would continue to play a big role.

Electric vehicle sales would vault from 5 percent of the car market today to 60 percent in 2030. This would require building the equivalent of 20 of Tesla’s massive “gigafactories” every year this decade. Oil demand would drop so rapidly that companies would stop exploring for more, focusing instead on extracting oil from existing wells. While natural gas would play a large role in the transition, drillers and transporters of the fuel would slash emissions from leaky equipment.

All that is the easy part, relying on known technology that already exists at scale. Greening industry, shipping and aviation would require massive new investment in research and deployment. For example, not-ready-for-prime-time hydrogen technology could fuel power plants, trucks and ships, and biofuels could power planes. Much of this would happen after 2030, but only if concerted effort began now.

If every country followed the script, the IEA and the International Monetary Fund reckon that massive energy-sector investment would boost global GDP by 0.4 percentage points per year, and people’s total energy costs would rise only modestly as efficiency drove down how much energy they needed to maintain their lifestyles. Governments would need to spend a lot on research, power lines and efficiency programs, but they could not direct all the needed spending; market signals such as carbon taxes would be crucial to mobilize the massive private investment needed.

Of course, few governments, if any, are likely to follow the script as closely as necessary. The agency found that the Earth would warm 2.1 degrees Celsius by 2100 if every nation met its current commitments. That is much higher than the 1.5 degrees scientists recommend. On the other hand, it is also far better than if governments had done nothing. The world must not shy from the challenge.

Read more: The Post’s View: Biden’s climate plan is a risky bet for the planet Henry Olsen: Yes, climate activists want to reduce your beef consumption Eugene Robinson: Ignoring climate change hasn’t made it go away Marc A. Thiessen: An Obama scientist debunks the climate doom-mongers Greg Sargent: Joe Manchin, please listen carefully to what Mitch McConnell just told you