Conflicted public perceptions of different net-zero mitigation pathways between feasibility and desirability

Achieving net-zero carbon dioxide emissions by mid-century is a cornerstone of global climate policy, yet public perceptions of net zero remain underexplored. This study investigates how people perceive (1) the attainability and necessity of the 2050 net-zero target and (2) the feasibility and desirability of three illustrative net-zero pathways (carbon dioxide removal; low energy demand; carbon capture utilization). Through deliberative focus groups with ordinary people in Japan, we found that people view net zero as an unrealistic yet necessary benchmark, reflecting ambivalence toward its symbolic value as a policy target. We also found conflicting views on three net-zero scenarios between feasibility (‘what is possible’) and desirability (‘what is good’). Cost consideration was an underlying cause of different scenario perceptions—economic cost was seen as a ‘proxy for realism’ determining ‘what is possible under real-world conditions’ but it was left out of consideration for normative evaluation on ‘what is good for society and themselves’. In judgement over desirability, people were more concerned about environmental safety, policy effectiveness and impacts on their own ways of life. The study highlights tensions between feasibility and desirability in people’s minds, underscoring conflicted preferences for policy choices. Perceived realism of net-zero scenarios hinges on economic costs while desirability is shaped by environmental and lifestyle impacts, according to a focus group study conducted in Japan.