"Net Zero" is a term we've been hearing a lot lately.
Many companies are promoting their “Net Zero Goals” or using it in their advertisements and sales pitches.
But what should we really make of these claims?
We'll explore this question today— but be prepared, it will become somewhat troubling...
Today's Lesson: The Problem Of Net Zero
An interesting concept with many shortcomings
Number Of The Day
The term "Net Zero" gained popularity in association with the 1.5°C global warming target, as mentioned in a 2018 special report. However, until 2022, there was no official definition leading to some confusion between reducing CO2e, stabilizing CO2e levels, and avoiding temperature raises.
0
Sharing Ideas With Others
According to the ISO (International Organization for Standardization) as of 2022, Net Zero is defined as:
“[the] condition in which human-caused residual GHG emissions are balanced by human-led removals over a specified period and within specified boundaries.”
Let's break this down:
“Residual” - This implies that as much reduction as possible has already taken place.
“Are balanced by” - This phrase suggests that offsetting is necessary. In other words, carbon emissions must be counterbalanced by other processes that capture carbon.
“Over a specified period and within specified boundaries” – as we will see, this is interpreted, by some, as an opportunity to define parameters that align with their own goals.
A figure from Our World in Data (amazing website!), showing the distribution of CO2e emissions. Note that we surpassed 35 billion tons of global emissions. Overall we saw a relatively strong drop in overall emissions in 2020. Nevertheless, already in 2021 this trend reversed to increasing emissions.
As mentioned, Net Zero is sometimes confused with climate neutrality. Additionally, its association with the 1.5°C target is not entirely accurate.
In simple terms, Net Zero can be understood as the overall goal of preventing the addition of CO2e to the atmosphere.
How to Achieve It
ISO further explains:
“Human-led removals include ecosystem restoration, direct air carbon capture and storage, reforestation and afforestation, enhanced weathering, biochar, and other effective methods.”
These are commonly employed as carbon offsetting.
Given that some processes will inevitably produce greenhouse gases, planting trees that sequester a certain amount of CO2, one could theoretically offset the emissions we produce.
However, there are three other important terms related to reducing emissions:
Carbon Capture Technology (CCT) refers to the process of capturing carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions before they enter the atmosphere.
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) involves the long-term storage of captured CO₂ in geological formations deep underground, ensuring that it doesn't contribute to atmospheric greenhouse gases.
Carbon Capture and Utilization (CCU) focuses on transforming CO₂ into commercially valuable products, such as synthetic fuels (e.g., methanol, ethanol), building materials (e.g., concrete), and chemicals & plastics.
This Illustration gives an impression of the process. Of course, the topic is much more complex than this. If you are interested, here is an depth report. Otherwise, can read more here (the illustrations apparently originates from here).
It’s important to understand that the goal of Net Zero is not to reduce emissions to zero. For example, storing CO2 underground is an accepted method to reach Net Zero. Neither it aims at “metabolizing” emissions, the final goal is just to mitigate their impact.
The core issues with "Net Zero" all evolve around that fact that it leaves too many loopholes.
A Question of Interpretation
Take, for example, the phrase “over a specified period and within specified boundaries.” BP cleverly included only certain business segments in their Net Zero goals. Still, they promoted as reaching “Net Zero”.
And until 2030, they can claim to be on track for Net Zero - until 2029 when they decide to push their target to 2050. In contrast to financial reports, there are no standardized and empirically tested measures to report on Net Zero progress that would allow us to track progress.
We are sailing blindly - focusing on Carbon Accounting instead of trying to create comprehensive analyses which actions show a long-term effect without backlashes.
Are Numbers Real?
The accuracy of numbers and estimates is another matter. Can we trust them? To calculate Net Zero, we rely on estimates, emission factors, assumptions, and internal company reports.
We've previously discussed the issues surrounding carbon offsetting, and given that the majority of these projects are deeply flawed, the actual benefits of Net Zero actions are likely a fraction of what is expected.
This is a graphic from Clemson University in South Carolina. “The ultimate goal of the Sustainability Action Plan and the Clemson University Commission on Sustainability is to make the University carbon neutral by the year 2030” This graph is a few years old but to my mind very symbolic. Reducing impacts comes with effort or financial tradeoffs, this is why we normally do not see prolonged decreaes … Importantly, they already cut out all coal for energy generation (30% of total) until 2019!
BP tries to achieve Net Zero by simply acquiring a carbon credit issuing company and continuing their questionable practices, like creating credits for land that was never at risk of deforestation.
Additionally, the IPCC estimated that carbon capture technology would need to capture 5.4 billion tons of CO2 by 2050 to draw out guidelines. Currently, we are capturing only 35 million tons of CO2, which is less than 1% of the goal.
Even worse, many of the existing carbon capture and storage plants are heavily subsidized by taxpayer mmany, and some even assist oil companies by injecting CO2 underground to extract more oil. A list and description of currently planned projects can be found here.
The reduction of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) facilities can probably be attrituted to a difficult economical climate (pun intended). A short article outlining the current stand of CCS and how it works you can find here.
What Are We Really Protecting?
As mentioned before, Net Zero evolved around temperatures and thus, mainly green house gases in the atmosphere. Of course, whether Net Zero is sufficient to combat climate change remains uncertain.
Although it is estimated (!) that 99% of carbon stored underground is safe for 1,000 years, Net Zero does not efficiently address the reduction of other environmentally harmful pollutants.
Therefore, the concept is not a solution as it certainly does not encompass overall environmental protection. While CO2 levels may correlate with resource depletion and environmental degradation, these issues are largely beyond the scope of Net Zero. Thus, even if carbon capture technology advances, we may not be making significant progress on broader pollution and resource exhaustion.
A Conceptual Problem?
Finally, pushing for “zero” without a robust regulatory framework incentives greenwashing and false claims. Worse, with carbon offsetting still considered a viable option (despite its ineffectiveness), true emission reductions are often deprioritized!
Reusing and recycling to create a circular economy are only encouraged insofar as they are clearly quantifiable…
A graph from Climate.gov, on past and future carbon dioxde emissions. SSP stands for Shared Socialeconomical pathway. Whereas SSP1 denotes Sustainability ("Taking the Green Road"), SSP5 relates to Fossil-fueled Development ("Taking the Highway"). Climate.gov states: “Plausible future socioeconomic pathways for annual carbon dioxide emissions. A shared socioeconomic pathway is an internally consistent set of assumptions about future population growth, global and regional economic activity, and technological advances. Models use these pathways to project a range of possible future carbon dioxide emissions; for simplicity, the image only shows the only the mean value. NOAA Climate.gov graphic adapted from figure TS.4 in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report Technical Summary.”
It is already 2024, and we are far from achieving environmental sustainability. And the raw numbers don't suggest that Net Zero is within reach either. Apart from an overwhelming attempt by the EU to make sustainability reporting obligatory, Net Zero remains a wobbly term anyone can use.
Applying The Knowledge
In essence, you cannot blindly trust any Net Zero claim.
Without deeper investigation, it's impossible to know which processes and aspects are included. Furthermore, it’s difficult to verify their actual performance and whether they will meet their goals.
Most Net Zero targets are likely unattainable. Therefore, don’t get too excited by such claims. Instead, ask what impactful actions they are taking to move toward Net Zero because too often companies and politics use Net Zero as a marketing strategy (as long as economic circumstances allow for it).
Graphic adapted from a report by “Net Zero” and the University of Oxford on the Global Net Zero Progress. In a revised version of their principles, Oxford states: “The vast majority of current offsetting approaches are not getting us any closer to net zero emissions” says co-author Injy Johnstone, Research Associate at the Oxford Sustainable Finance Group in the Smith School and researcher at Oxford Net Zero"
Why will support for Net Zero goals persist?
Human nature is always in search of solutions, especially when we are personally affected. When people feel compelled to improve things—such as those in positions within the IPCC—distinguishing between wishful thinking and genuine innovation can be challenging, if not impossible.
Upcoming Lesson:
Energy Use In Laboratories
Asking You
How many tons of CO2e are released per person on the planet each year?
Personal Note From Patrick, The Editor Hello Reader, beautiful to see you. If you have not yet, add your opinion about these lessons! Takes literally just 2 minutes and it would help a ton! Getting back, probably every sustainability guide contains some tips on how to reduce energy consumption. The issue: often these are neither exhaustive nor do they share practical experiences as to how these changes can be achieved. Therefore, let us dive in and overcome those two shortcomings. Today's...
Personal Note From Patrick, The Editor Hi Reader I am glad to have you around again! I hope it is a pleasure for you too. It would be great to hear from you because we would like to collect some testimonials. These will help to make more scientists realize the value of sustainability! Please click right here, to do your good deed for today : ) In our lesson, we talk about the relation of Energy Consumption to Scopes 1,2 & 3. I would advise you to check out the “Asking You” section, I think...
Personal Note From Patrick, The Editor Dear Reader, sweet to see you! Today, we have another exciting lesson with a lot of interesting quantifications for you! Especially since the war in Ukraine we saw how increasing energy costs can curb research. However, electricity impacts are not straight visible and complex to understand. This is why I thought I let's resolve these difficulties! Today's Lesson: Energy Consumption Understanding electricity in the laboratory Number Of The Day According...
