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 its terrestrial mining operations in the Pilbara.
Forrest argues that roughly 90% of Fortescue’s operations can be eliminated through the use of technology that already exists and is betting enough investment and intensive research and development can crack the nut on the remaining 10% in less than five years.
The series of reports published last week by Climate Analytics — and commissioned by Fortescue — set out to support this view by demonstrating that pathways exist to eliminate fossil fuels in key global sectors like power, shipping and transport.
“The central claim we set out to test — does an economic rationale already exist for rapid achievement of Real Zero — is answered in the affirmative,” the Climate Analytics report concludes.
“Real zero mitigation options bring more opportunities when compared to BAU in the sectors analysed – on cost effectiveness, on reducing risk and on enhanced energy and fiscal security. The task ahead is execution.”
The reports find that firmed renewable energy is now the cheapest form of energy in nearly every corner of the world and that the combination of cheap, abundant wind, solar and battery storage can drive the replacement of fossil fuels less easy to abate parts of the economy.
More specifically, the reports detail the progress of three sectors that it finds are already economically feasible under real zero, including heavy trucking, fertiliser production and steelmaking.
In the trucking report, Climate Analytics finds that in Europe, battery-electric long-haul trucks (BETs) are projected to reach cost parity with diesel equivalents by 2026, triggering a major tipping point for zero-emission transport. By 2030, total cost of BETs is expected to be 15-22% lower than diesel trucks.
“The early adoption of BETs leads to significant cost savings and emissions reductions, while companies that delay the transition risk being burdened with higher operating costs and missed opportunities for financial and environmental benefits,” the report finds.
“Early action is therefore crucial to securing a competitive advantage, meeting EU climate targets, and ensuring long-term sustainability in the European freight sector.”
The report on steelmaking finds that, in Japan, green hydrogen-based production could be cheaper than fossil routes by the early 2030s — even sooner with modest carbon pricing — while scrap-based electric arc furnace production is already cost-competitive.
“Contrary to what Japanese steelmakers and officials claim, real zero is preferable to a carbon-abated approach on cost-competitiveness, as well as energy and economic security,” the report says. “It can even improve on BAU conditions in some circumstances.”
The third report on green fertiliser finds that, in India, green ammonia for fertiliser production will carry only a marginal cost premium over grey ammonia (made from fossil fuels) in parts of the country by 2026, and will undercut grey ammonia in renewables-rich regions by 2030.
“The real zero pathway is not a distant aspiration but an imminent reality with clear benefits,” the report on fertiliser says.
“Green ammonia is on a clear trajectory to cost less: The primary driver of this transition is the dramatic and ongoing cost reduction in renewable energy and electrolysis technology.”
Forrest says the reports provides clear evidence that real zero makes economic sense for businesses like Fortescue and that fossil fuels are rapidly changing from being an economic necessity to a “financial liability”.
“This research confirms what we see every day at Fortescue – that eliminating fossil fuels makes solid commercial sense, even in the hardest-to-abate sectors,” he said in a statement released alongside the reports.
“The companies looking beyond their next quarterly result can already see it: eliminating fossil fuels isn’t a cost, but a huge opportunity.
“We’ve reached a game-changing tipping point – renewables are now the cheapest source of power.
“While politics has slowed the global energy transition, the economics have already overtaken it. Real zero is the winning business case.”
Republished from Renew Economy, 10 November 2025
The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.
Sophie Vorrath
Sophie is editor of One Step Off The Grid and deputy editor of its sister site, Renew Economy. She is the co-host of the Solar Insiders Podcast. Sophie has been writing about clean energy for more than a decade.