Why net zero isn’t good enough:
The idea behind net zero is that heavy-polluting companies can still emit CO2, but in turn, they’ll invest money into pro-climate, carbon-removal initiatives to “offset” 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.
💸 With carbon credits, there’s no guarantee money flows to climate action and not financial players/intermediaries. Some CCs are traded 100x with no added benefit to the environment. There’s a lack of transparency about where the money is going. They are a cheap way out; easily exploited by companies who don’t want to take meaningful action (i.e., actually reducing harmful emissions).
🚫 A former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change declared net zero as a “dangerous trap.” He said this in part because companies have committed to relying on carbon removal technology to achieve net zero—even though that technology doesn’t exist or cannot be scaled up to an impactful degree—based on the hope that one day, it might.
🌳 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 Oliver’s episode on net zero (it’s 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.