With the Paris Agreement in 2015, nearly 200 nations submitted plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Because it was clear, however, that these measures would not be nearly enough to meet the Paris goals, the agreement stipulated that states would submit commitments to more radical cuts five years later.

In the intervening years, storms, floods, drought and forest fires have made climate change a terrifying reality for increasing numbers of people. And last year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned of much worse to come if we exceed 1.5 degrees of warming.

Read more: IPCC 1.5 C degree report points to high stakes of climate inaction

To meet this goal, the IPCC said we must cut emissions to net-zero by 2050. Last November, the European Commission published a "strategic vision" to get there, which it's hoped the European Union will adopt at a summit in Brussels on June 20.

Read more: EU elections: Wake-up call for centrists amid euroskepticism, climate inaction

So what does "net-zero" mean?

Net-zero means a radical change across the entire economy, doing away with fossil fuels and other sources of emissions wherever possible. For the rest, every ton of CO2 we do emit must be matched by a ton that we remove from the atmosphere.

Read more: EU Commission president candidates clash on climate change, migration

Which sectors can and can't we "decarbonize?"

So far, experts say we've done the easy bit: Renewable electricity generated has plummeted in price and is already overtaking fossil fuels in some countries. But then things get more complicated, because power that comes and goes with the weather needs to be backed up with something more constant like biofuels — or nuclear, which the EU strategy expects to generate 15% of our power at net-zero.

Read more: Is the IEA underestimating renewables?

We will probably also need intelligent grid systems and ways to store electricity, such as giant battery plants. This technology isn't all there yet, but the power sector is still seen as relatively low-hanging fruit.

Harder to decarbonize, but to some degree still possible — with massive deployment of heat pumps and by converting renwable power to gas — are heating, shipping and industrial processes. But then there are planes and cows. Renewable-powered flying isn't on the cards yet, and our appetite for beef implies climate-killer methane.

Veggie discs and bloody beets: Future of meat Big appetite With climate concerns growing, many people are trying to reduce their environmental impact. Increasingly, they're turning to plant-based meats — and investors are taking notice. When Beyond Meat debuted on Wall Street in early May, share prices more than doubled the first day. "Investors recognize … a huge business opportunity," Bruce Friedrich, director of the Good Food Institute, told AFP.

Veggie discs and bloody beets: Future of meat Spot the difference Backed by Microsoft founder Bill Gates and stars like Leonardo DiCaprio, meat alternatives including Beyond Meat and Impossible Burger, seen here at left, use new food technology and ingredients like peas, fava beans and soy. Unlike earlier veggie burgers, these meatless patties are said to taste, look, smell and even "bleed" like real meat (the secret is beet juice). They can also be healthier.

Veggie discs and bloody beets: Future of meat Good for the planet But eating less meat isn't just a healthy decision. A 2018 WWF report said cutting animal products from diets would be a "relatively easy and cheap way" to fight climate change. A study by the University of Michigan found the Beyond Burger generates 90% less greenhouse gas emissions, requires 46% less energy to produce and has far less of an impact on water scarcity and land use than a beef patty.

Veggie discs and bloody beets: Future of meat Crowded market Beyond Meat is already sold in thousands of US supermarkets and restaurants, and major brands are also looking for a piece of the action. Nestle launched its take on the beef patty in Europe in April, and Unilever took over Dutch plant-based meat producer The Vegetarian Butcher in late 2018. Burger King is rolling out a Beyond Meat option US-wide, and McDonald's is testing its own vegan burger.

Veggie discs and bloody beets: Future of meat Not all positive Industrialized soy crops have been flagged as a contributing factor to widespread deforestation. As Brussels-based environment group Fern points out, more than 1 million square kilometers of land are used to grow soy, almost three times the size of Germany. Only a very small percentag of this, however, is used in meat alternatives. Most goes to animal feed.

Veggie discs and bloody beets: Future of meat Health food? There are also nutritional concerns about these highly processed foods. Leading brands can have more than double the saturated fat and as much as seven times the amount of sodium as a lean beef burger. And environmental groups are worried about Impossible Burger's inclusion of GMO yeast, which adds a meaty flavor. Excessive consumption has been linked to cancer — but that goes for real meats too.

Veggie discs and bloody beets: Future of meat Today's special: Quorn tubes In Europe, meat alternatives may soon have to be sold as "discs," "tubes" and "slabs" as opposed to burgers, sausages and steaks. The EU Parliament's agriculture committee recently backed a move to ban producers of vegetarian food from using terms that usually describe meat. The full parliament will vote on the measure after the EU elections in late May. Author: Martin Kuebler



What are negative emissions?

That's where negative emissions come in. To meet the net-zero target, we will literally have to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere. The obvious way is with trees and plants, which do it anyway.

That means turning over vast areas of land to forest and wetlands, as well as looking at other natural forms of carbon sequestration. One idea is bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS): Energy crops, such as maize, absorb carbon as they grow. We then burn them (generating energy we can use), capturing the carbon they emit, so it can be buried or recycled rather than going back into the atmosphere. But this would require so much agricultural land it could threaten food security.

Read more: Carbon capture: Expensive, risky – and indispensable?

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology hasn't progressed much beyond the pilot-project stage, and has mostly been used with fossil fuel power plants or to capture industrial emissions.

And then there is direct air capture (DACCS), which splits CO2 from the air around us. But it's in even earlier stages of development than CCS.

What about carbon offsetting?

Leaving carbon capture aside, there is another way to reach the big zero: carbon credits. Rather than a country offsetting emissions it can't — or won't — get rid of against carbon sequestered on its own soil, offsetting schemes allow it to pay for things such as tree-planting or forest conservation abroad.

But the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change's REDD+ offset scheme has been criticized for lacking "environmental integrity" and violating indigenous land rights. And it obviously doesn't work if every country wants to emit more than their share. Ultimately, offsetting means some countries will have a negative balance — absorbing more carbon than they emit.

Sinking islands battle tides of climate change Paradise lost Small island nations around the world are already feeling the impact of rising sea levels. And probably none more so than the Maldives in the Indian Ocean, which is considered the lowest-elevation country on the planet. The average elevation of its 26 atolls is just 1.5 meters (5 feet) above sea level - so it wouldn't take much for the country to be rendered completely uninhabitable.

Sinking islands battle tides of climate change Underwater property Rising waters have already caused some islanders to flee their homes for higher ground. On the Kiribati islands in the Pacific, some villages have been completely flooded. Local farmers also have to worry about encroachment of saltwater on their crops. The ever-approaching sea means less surface area for agriculture, and a greater need to transport food from afar.

Sinking islands battle tides of climate change Temporary escape Around 113,000 people call the Kiribati islands home. Locals who've been displaced often end up on the main island of South Tarawa, which has a sea wall to protect low-lying properties on the shore from rising waters - but that's no permanent solution.

Sinking islands battle tides of climate change Keeping the ocean at bay The Dutch are famous for their efforts to fend off the sea - they built their first dikes to protect land from flooding more than 1,000 years ago. Today, a sophisticated system of dams and dikes allows two-thirds of the population live below sea level. Nevertheless, rising ocean levels are still a concern in the Netherlands, where there are future plans to fortify levees and build surge barriers.

Sinking islands battle tides of climate change Sinking world heritage Venice in northeastern Italy is no stranger to flooding - and according to experts, the iconic city will continue to sink. The Italian government has invested 9.6 billion euros ($7 billion) in the "Moses" water barrier project, designed to protect the city - a UNESCO World Heritage site - from rising oceans and high tides. The barriers are expected to be completed by 2016.

Sinking islands battle tides of climate change Crisis in the Caribbean Many small islands in far-flung corners of the ocean don't have the money to fund large-scale climate change mitigation. And often, they're not just facing rising seas - they're also under threat from increasingly frequent cyclones and hurricanes. In the Caribbean islands of St. Lucia and Dominica, frequent storms wreak havoc on local agriculture, including bananas and avocados.

Sinking islands battle tides of climate change More severe storms The devastation caused by Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines last November is a clear example of how the unpredictability of climate change can make weather events more severe for islands. Many homes in the typhoon’s path weren’t built to withstand typhoons, which previously tended to strike the north of the country. More than 6,200 people were killed.

Sinking islands battle tides of climate change Paying for prosperity Some argue that poorer, less-developed countries are now suffering as a consequence of Western industrialization. At the recent climate conference in Warsaw, Philippines Commissioner Yeb Saño made a passionate plea for action, saying: "What my country is going through as a result of this extreme climate event is madness."

Sinking islands battle tides of climate change Floating in the floodwaters Although Bangladesh is on the mainland of Asia, it faces a huge risk from climate change due to its low-lying geography and population density. A mere 1-meter (3-foot) rise in sea level would cause half the country to be under water. Communities have started adapting to increased flooding by using floating agricultural technology to grow their crops.

Sinking islands battle tides of climate change A new brand of refugee There are fears sea level rises could eventually displace entire populations, creating hoards of climate change refugees. One idea floated by President Anote Tong of Kiribati some years ago was the possibility of building artificial islands for displaced locals to live on. Dubai - with its artificial island projects, like the one pictured here - may be able to help by sharing its experience. Author: Natalie Muller



How much traction does net-zero have in EU states?

In Europe, Denmark and Norway have enshrined net-zero by 2050 in law, while Sweden's climate legislation commits it to meeting the target by 2045. Still, all three Nordic countries either allow or don't explicitly rule out international carbon offsetting to reach the goal. Countries including France, Spain, the United Kingdom, Germany and the Netherlands are debating similar steps.

Read more: Sweden to end net carbon emissions by 2045

Why 2050?

The target year of 2050 is a negotiation between the necessary and the possible. The IPCC says if we cut global emissions to net-zero, we can still keep warming below 1.5 degrees. If we end up with net-zero by 2070, we can still hope for no more than 2 degrees.

Read more: How to make the world affordably carbon-free

Europe's share of the global target

Environmentalists say Europe, which is responsible for a disproportionate share of the CO2 that's been warming the planet since the industrial revolution began, must do better. Climate Action Network Europe, made up of 160 environmental and development organizations is calling for a 2040 deadline.

Read more: Have we already blown our carbon budget?

The European Commission's vision says the 2050 goal will make the EU "one of the first to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and lead the way the worldwide," implying that other countries will be less ambitious, and therefore that the IPCC's global net-zero target will be missed.

So, we still have a few decades then?

A zero-carbon economy won't be built in a day. The deadline is just over 30 years away. By then, our streets must be cleared of all combustion-engines. The Climate Change Commission advising the UK government says no new petrol and diesel cars should be sold from 2035 at the absolute latest. Meanwhile, several EU countries have new fossil-fueled power plants, which have an average lifespan of 50 years, either in planning or under construction right now.

Read more: Ifo study casts doubt on electric vehicles' climate-saving credentials

Most of what net zero requires is already technically possible. But the longer we take to change our systems and behavior, the heavier we will rely on the more dubious business of extracting carbon from the atmosphere.

Watch video 02:18 Share Can CO2 be stored? Send Facebook google+ Whatsapp Tumblr linkedin stumble Digg reddit Newsvine Permalink https://p.dw.com/p/18Xeg Video explainer: Can CO2 be stored?

Are there more important targets to shoot for?

Committing to net-zero makes it clear that cutting emissions isn't enough. It means there's no point in building natural gas infrastructure, for example, even if it would save a lot of emissions from coal. But talking about 2050 might give the impression we can leave the toughest jobs for last, betting on technologies that haven't been invented yet and future generations being able to stomach even more drastic change than we're facing now.

Read more: Europe's shocking failure to act on climate

Scientists say in terms of action, countries have to focus on targets for 2030, which under the Paris Agreement have to be made tougher and resubmitted by 2020. So far, Europe isn't even on track to reach the original goals it set back in 2015.