\n\n“Corporations and countries around the world are promising to eliminate their contributions to climate change. But many of their targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions are prefaced by a slippery phrase: \u201cnet-zero.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
More than 130 countries<\/a> have set or are considering net-zero emissions goals, and many are stepping up as they prepare for next week\u2019s COP26 climate meeting<\/a> in Glasgow, Scotland. The United States<\/a>, New Zealand<\/a>, Costa Rica<\/a>, Japan<\/a>, and Argentina<\/a> all aim to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. The European Union aims to be \u201cclimate-neutral<\/a>,\u201d another way of framing net-zero. Even Russia<\/a> and Saudi Arabia<\/a> (the world\u2019s top oil exporter) now have net-zero emissions targets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Private companies are getting into the game, too. At least 20 percent of the 2,000 largest companies<\/a> have set net-zero emissions targets, including giants like Apple, Ford, and Microsoft<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But \u201cnet-zero\u201d is different from zeroemissions, and this nebulous term can obscure a lot of important differences in how countries and companies actually plan to limit their contributions to climate change.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n …<\/p>\n\n\n\n “When a country aims for net-zero emissions \u2014 as opposed to simply zero emissions \u2014 it\u2019s essentially promising to balance out its climate pollution, so that overall, it doesn\u2019t harm the global climate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For example, if a factory owner can\u2019t figure out how to eliminate their emissions with current technologies, they can pay to restore a mangrove swamp that will absorb an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide. If the mangrove absorbs roughly what the factory pollutes, the factory theoretically won\u2019t contribute to warming. (The idea of net-zero sometimes goes beyond carbon dioxide and accounts for other heat-trapping gases, like methane.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n In principle, the idea of net-zero offers countries and companies flexibility in meeting climate goals. But in practice, critics say that net-zero pledges delay meaningful reductions in greenhouse gases and provide cover to those unwilling to take immediate steps to limit emissions.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n …<\/p>\n\n\n\n “In the context of climate change, the atmosphere doesn\u2019t care where the emissions are coming from or where they go, just the overall quantity that makes it into the sky. So in theory, matching greenhouse gas outputs with withdrawals can eliminate impacts on the climate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, it takes a lot<\/em> of work to truly counter the damage of emissions. \u201cI think just saying, \u2018I\u2019m going to be net-zero,\u2019 with no concrete plans to achieve that goal, is not legitimate,\u201d said Kelley Kizzier<\/a>, vice president for global climate at the Environmental Defense Fund. \u201cWe have to understand what that company or country is going to do to make that a reality.\u201d” <\/p>\n\n\n\n …<\/p>\n\n\n\n “There is no substitute for reducing overall emissions. Preventing greenhouse gases from spewing into the sky in the first place is the most meaningful and straightforward way to curb humanity\u2019s impact on the climate. That means phasing out fossil fuels like oil and gas as completely as possible, as quickly as possible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This also has positive effects beyond mitigating climate change. A smokestack can pollute its neighborhood and make people sick, even if a forest is counteracting its CO2 emissions, for example. Compared to net emissions reductions, \u201cThe marginal benefits of [total] emissions reductions and avoided emissions are far higher,\u201d according to Broekhoff.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Another concern is that there are only so many options out there for balancing emissions. If too many companies and governments try to buy their way to net-zero emissions without making their own reductions, there won\u2019t be enough carbon-absorbing tactics to go around. The largest burden of reducing emissions may then end up falling on the people with the fewest means to do so.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A strong net-zero emissions plan should therefore have large and immediate reductions in absolute emissions at its core.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n …<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Despite these challenges, some experts say it is possible to create viable offsets with proper measurement and verification. And given the amount that humans have already polluted, it may soon be necessary not just to zero out human impacts on the climate but to achieve net negative emissions \u2014 that is, withdraw more CO2 from the air than goes in.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Every scenario for stabilizing the global climate around 1.5\u00b0C of warming involves net-negative emissions<\/a> after the middle of the century, the IPCC reported in 2018. Its low-end estimate was that humanity would have to withdraw 100 gigatons of carbon dioxide from the air by 2100, roughly double the amount that humanity produces in a year today. The high-end estimate was 1,000 gigatons.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n …<\/p>\n\n\n\n “many of the newer commitments are inward-looking, focused solely on emissions within national borders and ignoring their exports of fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Australia<\/a>, for example, published a proposal for achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 that relies heavily on investments in low-emissions technologies. But its interim target for 2030 hasn\u2019t budged. And while Australia\u2019s government expects domestic greenhouse gas emissions to fall, it remains the world\u2019s third-largest fossil fuel exporter<\/a> and will continue selling coal and natural gas abroad. \u201cAustralia\u2019s coal and gas export industries will continue through to 2050 and beyond, supporting jobs and regional communities,\u201d according to the plan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Similarly, Saudi Arabia is aiming for net-zero emissions by 2060 and is investing $186 billion<\/a> in cutting its emissions, but it expects to continue exporting oil in the meantime. Even the US has urged countries like Saudi Arabia to boost oil production<\/a> to stimulate the global economy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Norway, which is aiming to cut its domestic emissions by 55 percent by 2030, is also aiming to expand its oil and gas industry<\/a>. As long as these countries are extracting fossil fuels and inviting other countries to burn them, they\u2019ll never be able to credibly claim that they are having zero impact on the global climate. In fact, they\u2019re profiting from this destruction.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n