It’s probably the most well known climate change term (well, after climate change, obvs). And yet, have we really stopped to wonder what the implications of this and many others banded about in the international space are for the future? Leading activists like Greta Thunberg have been critical of its promise, famously saying ‘forget about net zero, we need real zero’ at the World Economic Forum Conference in 2020. So if Greta’s comment is valid, what is ‘fake’ about net zero activity? It is useful to think of the path towards net zero in a series of time horizons; near term (2030), medium term (2050) and long term (2100 onwards). Of course the steps down this path at each stage impact the others, so deviations, delays and even backtracks ripple outwards.

So if net zero were a character in a marvel movie or kids action film, who would they be? Good witch of the North, Wicked witch of the west? We’ll unpack some key terms before reflecting on some optimistic (yes, i do occasionally shed my cynicism) and concerning aspects of net zero. I make some personal arguments at the close of this piece which, as always, I point out as just this, and not necessarily directly inferred from my academic readings, just some novel thoughts. Ready to go full Scooby Doo on ‘Net Zero’ to unmask its true colours? To the Mystery Machine!

5 key definitions you might need:

1. Net zero. Achieving an exact balance where there are no additional net anthropogenic (human) emissions (Levin, 2019). Depending on what follows Net Zero is what is being referred to, e.g. net zero carbon emissions refers to no additional net carbon emitted, net zero methane meaning no additional net methane. Yes i know this seems common sense but you would be wrong to think that assumptions aren’t made in public discourse that when ‘net zero’ is used it means the whole enchilada of Greenhouse gases (GHGs) when often the political and scientific discussions are around carbon only.
2. Climate neutrality. ‘living in a way which produces no net GHG emissions’ (UNEP 2008). Therefore this would achieve net zero GHG but this term encompasses the holistic ways in which humans enable this outcome, not just the outcome itself.
3. Decarbonisation. the reduction of carbon emissions within industrial processes and energy manufacturing (Rogelj, 2015). A similar friend to decarbonisation that tends to sit alongside is carbon intensity; how much carbon is emitted from a given process denotes how intensive it is. To decarbonise something is to reduce its carbon intensity. Onwards!
4. Climate resilience. Different to climate neutrality, this term has a few definitions depending on the scientific origination (since the concept of resilience is used across physics, psychology, biology and other ‘ologies’ I’m sure). Both meaning for a system’s bounce back ability to a statement and also its capacity to transform itself to respond to future change and improve its functioning in doing so. Therefore, applying this to climate change then, it is how in some ways our ecosystems can retain their current state and also in other ways how they have capacity to adapt. Sound familiar? It’s mitigation and adaptation combined, check out my other blog for a quick reccy on these.
5. Unabated carbon emissions. You may come across this one. Essentially it refers to all human derived CO2 emissions in to the atmosphere that are not balanced by CO2 removal from the atmosphere (sequestration) by means of carbon capture – negative emission technologies (NETs, more on these shortly). Carbon capture can happen naturally through the carbon cycle, with things like rocks, organisms and the ocean or through new technologies we are developing

Net zero implications – the hero

Here are just some of the positives that I rank as top, making Net Zero a Clarke Kent or Peter Parker:

Net Zero policy uptake. As of today (March 2023) there are 135 nations that have committed to a Net Zero future, equating to 88% of global emissions and 85% of the population (Net Zero Tracker, 2023). That’s not bad going, but of course remember that there is no legal obligation for those nations to follow through, but the ‘peer pressure’ (Allan & Ovary, 2019) of the international audience watching. Nonetheless Net Zero has quickly diffused across political boundaries and served as a common thread for countries to unite on (Avengers Assemble!!)

Shifting wealth. There is a new ‘carbon market’ upon us. But it doesn’t come in the previous form of money in exchange for fossil fuel emitting carbon, rather the opposite, payment to remove it. Carbon credits are recognised as possible monetary exchanges for national and international investments. Often these credits are given to reforestation or afforestation projects, or protection of vital natural carbon sinks. As these natural sinks tend to be in poorer, developing economies there is a legitimate opportunity to shift wealth; away from the fossil fuel Western Big 7 and to the developing economies that have often been the victims of the fallout. Referred to as Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) projects, these present an optimistic ‘turning of the tide’ (Locatelli, 2014) economically speaking.

Enables hard to decarbonise sectors to still ‘green up’. No getting around it, some sectors are down right hard to reduce their carbon intensity, take infrastructure as an example. Its fairly simple to put a metaphorical stake in the ground now and construct buildings in keeping with a climate neutral approach from here on out, but what about all the millions of houses standing now already? That’s a pretty big retrofit job, and who’s going to finance that? Tricky indeed. However whilst these hard transitions take place there is still the option for investment stakeholders in these sectors to ‘offset’ their emissions by funding green initiatives that total their emissions. It means these sectors aren’t off the hook, but are still able to pay back their carbon debts whilst they overcome challenges on their decarbonisation journeys.

Net Zero implications – the villain

Ok enough of the good stuff, what’re the NZ baddies plotting?

Over relliance on NETs. Yes back to the business of NETs. These include both natural negative emission technologies (trees, mangroves, plants etc.) as well as tech we are looking to develop further over time. In fact, all of the climate models that look at scenarios where we manage to limit warming to 1.5 degrees, all rely on NETs to get us ther (Minx, 2016). Some of the most popular horses in the NET field include direct air capture with carbon capture and storage (DACCS) and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), which either use chemical reactions to bind the CO2 out of the atmosphere or photosynthesis through organic matter absorption respectively.

Whilst these sound convenient, several studies have analysed their potential and the IPCCmodel reliance on them, finding that they are nowhere near the scale that is required to hit 1.5 (Minx, 2016). Moreover it’s a dangerous strategy to play generally. To assume we’ll get these technologies to a very advanced level in future is high risk, and that can only be mitigated through actually decarbonising now, as quickly as possible. NETs may be the red herring, and to fall for that trap may well play into the hands of large corporates and energy companies who find decarbonisation just too inconvenient to act on with the necessary urgency.

Offsetting or avoiding? Whilst offsetting can generate alternate income sources for developing communities it could also have a dark side: acting as a ‘get out of jail card’ for companies and governments to continue business as usual from an emissions standpoint. Whilst we know the journey towards climate neutrality is anything but easy, it doesn’t justify the ‘do nothing’ option. And it also doesnt get us to Net Zero…(let me explain). Regardless of whether the most optimistic projections of protective measures on natural carbon sinks occur and we manage to reclaim a substantial amount of land to handover to forests and the like, it still only gets us a very small percentage of the way to balancing current global GHG emissions (Mann, 2021). In other words, the carbon parts per million (PPM) in the atmosphere is still going to climb rather than fall, which is obviously not where we want to go folks.

‘What about offsetting through investing in green innovation!?’ I hear you cry. Well, firstly, some investment offsets have been criticised because they don’t fulfill the criteria of actually making an impact (I.e. to offset is to make something happen that wouldn’t have otherwise), as is rumoured the case with FIFAs offset choices (BBC World Series, 2022). Secondly, back to the strategy, it’s still quite risky to continue the source of the problem as is and place all bets on developing an adaptive solution. Reducing risk must involve mitigation that cuts out carbon from our existing processes, I wouldn’t want to gamble with a planet full of 8 billion people and a complex climate system that we definitely play second fiddle to.

Allows for less urgent short term decarbonisation. Net Zero targets, as said previously, are bundled up as short, medium and long term. However, the definitive targets sit in the post 2050s portion of this century, therefore absolute measurements come later. Sure there are indicators, but the ‘consequences’ still sit after the target has been missed, not before (alas, Batman can’t catch the villain before they’ve tried to takeover the world, however much of a vigilante he is). Therefore, from a purely incentives based analysis, Net Zero inaction consequences may rank lower down than more imminent issues, let’s take the Ukraine-Russia war as a good recent example here. Carton describes this as ‘The political economy of delay’ whereby it appears less costly than other aspects to delay Net Zero activity (Carton, 2018). Of course this is a smoke screen, as the delay is hugely costly but the full force not felt until it is perhaps too late…

Beyond zero

As promised, I’d like to add a personal musing that cropped up as I went through my academic readings on this topic, making clear these are inferred and not picked up directly through scholarly research. And it’s rather a philosophical one (stand aside Nietzche). The concept of ‘zero’ is about balance, ‘giveth and taketh away’. But that’s not what we need now, we need to go beyond zero. This is through a few perspectives:

1. We need to respond to carbon PPM, not stay the same. If we commit to a complete balance, the carbon in the atmosphere still isn’t going anywhere fast, taking 100s too 1000s of years to naturally be removed, allowing plenty of time for warming. Therefore whilst the narrative around mitigation through a Net Zero philosophy is of merit, we still need to accept the need to adapt and put in place measures to adjust to that changing future. It links back to the notion of ‘resilience’ in that a resilient system isn’t one that just bounces back to the status quo, but enhances itself to achieve transformational resilience (Bettini, 2014). And of course that number at some point has to start dropping, it has to go beyond zero.
2. Keeping things at zero implies that we have an equitable system that reacts and feels the implications of climate change the same way, but that is far from the truth. It’s well know that climate change impacts certain societal groups much more so than others (the poor, women, disabled, the list goes on). Is it fair to keep the system at zero when it isn’t in an equal state across the whole? shouldn’t we strive to provide more support in vulnerable areas? Maybe it’s semantics but the implications of net zero may be playing straight into those in power – wanting to maintain current power dynamics instead of recognising and reducing disparities.

Wrapping up…

So, reflecting on the two sides of Net Zero, where do we place it? The uptake has been tremendous, inspiring international action and potentially distributing wealth more equally across the globe through the promise of the new green carbon market. But the implications of Net zero are huge, as a whole incentivising short term complacency and a lack of real transition (merely paying a fee to have the privilege of continuing to emit Greenhouse gases). We know the lowest risk strategy is in seriously doubling down on decarbonisation, not hoping other people or technologies will solve this crisis. Adding my personal two cents, I object to Net Zero implying we want to keep the system as is, it needs to change through adaptation to inevitable climate change, but also should change to address widespread social injustices.

So, I’d classify Net Zero as the stereotypical Scooby Doo baddy. They seem harmless, often the one who called the gang out in the first place. And yet it’s only later on that we realise they were the one eyed, tentacled cyclops scaring people away so that they could take the family estate for themselves. So my advice? Beware the promises of Net Zero in justification of ‘carbon trades’ or future emission reductions through extremely embryonic NET technologies. Governments, companies, communities – we must all engage in decarbonisation, now, not tomorrow. To go beyond zero and subtract the damage already done. (And remember, those naughty industries will get away with it too, if it weren’t for you meddling kids. Time to hold institutions accountable, not individuals)

References:

• https://zerotracker.net/
• Locatelli T., Binet, T., Gitundu Kairo, J., King, L., Madden, S., Patenaude, G., Upton, C., Huxham, M., ‘Turning the Tide: How Blue Carbon and Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) Might Help Save Mangrove Forests’, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, 2014 (43), 981-995.
• Rogelj, J., M. Schaeffer, M. Meinshausen, R. Knutti, J. Alcamo, K. Riahi and W. Hare ‘Zero emission targets as long-term global goals for climate protection’, Environmental Research Letters 10(10) 2015, p.105007.
• Levin, K., T. Fransen, C. Schumer and C. Davis ‘What does “net-zero emissions” mean? 8 common questions, answered’, World Resources Institute (2019).
• European Academies Science Advisory Council ‘Negative emissions technologies – what role in meeting Paris Agreement targets?’, EASAC policy report 35 (2018).
• Minx, J.C., W.F. Lamb, M.W. Callaghan, S. Fuss, J. Hilaire, F. Creutzig, T. Amann, T. Beringer, W. de Oliveira Garcia, J. Hartmann and T. Khanna ‘Negative emissions—Part 1: Research landscape and synthesis’, Environmental Research Letters 13(6) 2018, p.063001.
• Mann, M.E., ‘The New Climate War’, Scribe, 2 (2021).
• The Climate Question, ‘Will football tackle the climate crisis?’, BBC World Series (2021).
• Carton, W. ‘“Fixing” climate change by mortgaging the future: negative emissions, spatiotemporal fixes, and the political economy of delay’, Antipode 51(3) 2018, pp.750–769.