Reasons why we have chosen 2020 as a date to have achieved a move to near zero emissions and below.

1. IMPLEMENTATION - How long?

Given that the fastest we could probably do the conversion in would be ten years, 2020 seems a reasonable goal, acknowledging the couple of years it will take to get the implementation going.

2. IMPERATIVE - The situation is already very bad

The faster we move, the less impacts climate change will have and the greater the chance we will have of avoiding the tipping point (some scientists believe we have already passed it, others say we have ten years).

3. FRAMING - Today vs Tomorrow

Given it will take ten years to crash implement a near zero emission plan, 2020 is something you have to start today, while 2030 is something you can do tomorrow or in fact in ten years time. A similar framing problem exists with the 2050 targets.

4. COAL and NUCLEAR - Closing the door

Very importantly for people/campaigns trying to shut down the nuclear and coal industries, the 2020 date closes the door given that both technologies would take over ten years to implement (the nuclear of course argues otherwise).

The 2030 goal opens the door for nuclear power plants and at least the idea of carbon capture and storage for coal plants.

Even if the 2030 date is just used to justify keeping exporting raw materials or to avoid doing something meaningful, it will mean that real solutions are postponed while the debate goes on around nuclear and coal, and this is time we don't have.

5. MESSAGING - Keep it simple and keep it consistent

A number of groups forming together around the Zero Emission Network and campaigning specifically on the Zero Minus goal have chosen a date of 2020 to go for near zero emissions, so it's good that we don't have too many different messages around this concept.

If the groups running "near zero" or "zero minus" targets are all on the the same page, the better it will be for our campaign given the difference of our targets when compared to the mainstream environment groups and the need to compete with them for media, public, political and policy space.