Why net zero isnât good enough:
The idea behind net zero is that heavy-polluting companies can still emit CO2, but in turn, theyâll invest money into pro-climate, carbon-removal initiatives to âoffsetâ their emissions. Carbon offsets are the core of climate policies for a lot of big organizations, and they rack up carbon credits based on their investments. This process sets up a carbon market.
đž With carbon credits, thereâs no guarantee money flows to climate action and not financial players/intermediaries. Some CCs are traded 100x with no added benefit to the environment. Thereâs a lack of transparency about where the money is going. They are a cheap way out; easily exploited by companies who donât want to take meaningful action (i.e., actually reducing harmful emissions).
đ« A former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change declared net zero as a âdangerous trap.â He said this in part because companies have committed to relying on carbon removal technology to achieve net zeroâeven though that technology doesnât exist or cannot be scaled up to an impactful degreeâbased on the hope that one day, it might.
đł A very popular form of carbon offset is investing in tree planting, as trees intake CO2. But we literally do not have enough available land on earth to plant enough trees to offset our emissions. See John Oliverâs episode on net zero (itâs on YT) for more info.
So what do we strive for? Not NET zero, but close to ACTUAL zero. Some carbon emissions may always be necessary. But as long as we aim for genuine, emissions-reducing policies and not greenwashed practices aiming for a vague net zero, we got this.