As the federal Coalition continues its interminable internal debate over whether net zero emissions is even a thing, let alone a thing it can get behind, new reports have found that “real zero” is both technically feasible and economically preferable to its carbon-lite alternative in numerous hard-to-abate sectors.

“Net zero” targets a balance between greenhouse gas emissions produced and greenhouse gases removed from the atmosphere by 2050, and relies heavily on carbon offsets.

According to the Climate Action Tracker, as of October 2025, around 145 countries had announced or were considering net zero targets, including China, the EU and India. Australia, under the federal Labor government, has set a legislated target to reach net zero by 2050.

“Real zero”, however, means completely eliminating fossil fuels by replacing them with zero-carbon alternatives, rather than compensating for them with offsets, carbon dioxide removal or carbon capture and storage.

The concept, championed by Australian iron ore billionaire Andrew Forrest, is now a consecrated, overarching goal of Forrest’s mining and green metals giant, Fortescue.

Forrest, who describes net zero as a “con”, has committed $6.2 billion to Fortescue’s plan to achieve real zero by 2030, and is challenging other industrial giants to follow his lead.

For Fortescue, this means decarbonising its electricity supply, its road transport, its mining operations and even the massive trains that transport the ore to port.

Already, the company is deploying a range of technologies — wind, solar, battery storage, electric trucks and fast charging gear — to meet the real zero goal for........

© Pearls and Irritations