What is Net Zero?
Author: Charlotte Akers
To halt the worst effects of climate change, nations have pledged to limit rising temperatures to 1.5C; scientists say this requires reaching net zero by 2050. But does net zero take into account the fundamental need to transform the growth-based economy and address hyper-consumerism and the global waste crisis?
Greenhouse Gas emissions are the result of burning fossil fuels, and one of the leading causes of global warming. Whilst our ecological breakdown is part of a series of interconnected crises, rooted in complex issues such as our broken relationship with nature, excessive consumption, and militarisation, there is no denying that we must rapidly decrease emissions in order to confront climate change.
To halt the worst effects of climate change, nations have pledged through the Paris Agreement to limit rising temperatures to 1.5C by 2050. Scientists say this requires cutting emissions by 45% by 2030 and reaching net zero, or carbon neutrality, by 2050.
Over 100 nations have committed to carbon neutrality and at least 20 percent of the 2,000 largest companies have set net-zero emissions targets, including giants like Apple, Ford, and Microsoft.
But what does Net Zero actually mean?
Put simply, net zero refers to the balance between the amount of greenhouse gas (GHGs) produced and the amount removed from the atmosphere. We reach net zero when the amount we add is no more than the amount taken away.
‘Zero emissions’ would mean not producing any greenhouse gas - that is, no carbon dioxide (CO2), no methane, no nitrous oxide or other greenhouse gases.
The key distinction here is that NET zero is basically a balancing act.
How do we achieve this balance?
Primarily, when people and organisations discuss Net Zero, they look at how to remove and/or capture greenhouse gases that have already been produced, or how to offset the damage of these emissions.
The most popular methods presented include Carbon Capture and Storage technologies, tree-planting and other nature based solutions, and offsetting through Carbon Credits and Carbon Trading.
Carbon capture and Storage Systems
Carbon capture involves trapping the carbon dioxide at its emission source, transporting it to a storage location (usually deep underground) and isolating it. There are even companies building machines that can suck carbon dioxide straight out of the air. However, many of these measures are expensive and technologically immature. Many industries and governments are making net zero pledges which depend upon the carbon capture capability of technologies that have not even yet been proven effective.
Tree-Planting
Technically, another form of carbon capture, plants and soils already remove CO2 from the atmosphere, and certain land management practices can increase their capacity to absorb and store carbon. Tree-planting is increasingly presented as a route to carbon neutrality, as trees take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
With tree-planting, however, it is incredibly important that it is done alongside those who best know how to manage and safeguard the land and forests. Often this requires working with indigenous communities and when tree-planting initiatives don’t do this, they can result in more damage than good.
Another critique of tree-planting finds that the balancing of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the carbon capture capability of trees has proven difficult. Many of the trees planted don’t grow nor reach full maturity, this means the carbon they initially capture is rereleased into the atmosphere.
For example, a recent study looking at a tree-planting initiative in the U.S.A. found that overlooking this imbalance between carbon emissions and carbon capture capability of trees had resulted in actually adding millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere (MIT 2021).
This doesn’t mean that we should be against tree-planting, but we need to be aware of the complexity of nature and ensure that we prioritise preventing continued destruction of forests.
“Instead of planting more trees, we should focus our efforts on stopping their destruction. Older forests with many species of trees do the best job of storing carbon.” - Charles Harvey, MIT Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering.
Carbon Credits / Trading
Both forms of offsetting, carbon credits and carbon trading rely on the idea that when you do something negative (i.e. emit GHGs), you can pay for someone else to do something positive.
In the case of Carbon Trading, you are basically ‘balancing’ your pollution by paying someone else to pollute less.
Carbon credits are increasingly popular with companies and individuals aiming for carbon neutrality / net zero. These credits are described as measurable, verifiable emission reductions from certified climate action projects. This can include tree planting and ecosystem restoration to theoretically capture your carbon, but also in some cases these can look like projects that are about community empowerment.
It is important to note however, that there is legitimate concern that government leaders and businesses can use this strategy to avoid reducing their own emissions in the long-term.
“Paying to offset emissions could yield climate benefits, but it could just end up as a way for wealthy corporations and countries to buy their way out of their climate obligations.” (Vox 2021)
Furthermore, reducing emissions is also a matter of climate justice: when we ‘offset’ the emissions in one region or sector, we are not offsetting the social and health impacts of the areas where that emission is taking place. A forest planted in one country will not prevent the health impacts of burning waste elsewhere.
Is Net Zero just greenwashing?
In essence, no: removing Greenhouse Gasses from the atmosphere is good. In implementation, yes: it is being used as an excuse to not take bold climate action in the near-term and is providing cover to those unwilling to take immediate steps to limit emissions.
Currently, the time horizon for net-zero targets — typically 2050 — is too far away. Indeed, India has just announced net zero for 2070, two decades later than the initial 2050 target.
In order not to be simply greenwashing, or offering empty promises, goals for ‘Net Zero by 2050’ need to be accompanied with immediate goals and short-term benchmarks along the way. Goals simply set for the arbitrary year of 2050 with no immediate plans particularly become an issue when polluters are banking on future carbon capture technologies which have not yet been proven effective.
Net zero does not mean zero emissions. It means wealthy polluters can continue to pollute, the economy can continue to grow, the global divide continues to widen, biodiversity continues to drop and ecosystems continue to be destroyed.
Is Net Zero a risky, balancing act?
A Case For Net-Zero:
The idea of net zero at its core is about balance. A net zero world in theory is a world we’d want to live in - the amount of greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide) that are added to the atmosphere would no longer be more than that which is taken out. Ecosystems are all about balance.
A Case Against Net Zero:
Net zero does not mean zero emissions. It means wealthy polluters can continue to pollute, the economy can continue to grow, the global divide continues to widen, biodiversity continues to drop and ecosystems continue to be destroyed.
The fact is, we are facing an ecological crisis, not just tackling climate change. Net Zero does not take into account the fundamental need to transform the growth-based economy and address hyper-consumerism and the global waste crisis.
In Conclusion…
We must embrace the complexity and nuance of the interconnected crises we face, and of their solutions. Of course, offsetting and tree-planting are great, but these are not the solutions that address the roots of global crises.
We can and must dream bigger and ensure governments listen to the demands of people who are having to fight for justice and a liveable future.
Climate action is complex because the climate crisis is the symptom of global systems that are broken. Therefore, solutions must be systemic and must centre societal transformation, ecological harmony and justice.
Learn more about a Just Transition and the global impact of our Waste and Consumerism by exploring our topics.
