Aim for Real Zero and Don’t Settle for Net Zero

​Aim for Real Zero and Don’t Settle for Net Zero
​
​By Alec Roberts

​Zero Carbon/Real zero

Zero Carbon, Real zero or “true zero” denotes that zero emissions are created or released and that total emissions of a business have reached zero through reduction of emitting practices, carbon removal, and avoided emissions, so no carbon needs to be captured or offset (Bernoville, 2022, Mowery, 2022).  For example, creating a zero energy, zero carbon or carbon positive home could be achieved through reducing energy demands through good passive design, smart purchases of systems and appliances, and energy-efficient behaviour, and through using renewable energy sources, either on site or purchased (Pipkorn, Reardon, and Dwyer, 2020).

In the context of energy generation, energy sources like wind and solar or a battery deploying electricity do not create carbon emissions to produce electricity and are referred to as Zero Carbon. For example, Great Britain’s Electricity system operator National Grid ESO is planning to operate a zero-carbon electricity grid by 2025 (National Grid ESO, n.d.).
​
Real Zero (which encompasses the terms Carbon Negative, Climate Positive and Climate Neutral) is the best emission performance a company could have, removing more emissions than they produce from the atmosphere or stopping them from being released to begin with and should be the goal for a company to be truly sustainable and play their part in tackling climate change (Mowery, 2022).

​

​Find out what Net Zero is and what some of the deeper implications of its use are.

​Net Zero appears to be a popular buzzword used by companies and governments expressing commitments to achieve ‘net-zero’. Is ‘net zero’ truly the optimal solution to stop the effects of global warming, as current net zero plans fall short of what is required? Climate experts are now urging companies to focus on real zero emissions (Mowery, 2022).

​What is Net Zero, Carbon Offsets and Carbon Credits?

A recent Australian poll by The Australia Institute found that around 60% of Australians had heard of Net Zero but just over one in ten (14%) actually knew what it meant (The Australia Institute, 2023).  So what is Net Zero? Mowery (2022) defines Net zero as “the act of cutting greenhouse gas emissions to as close to zero as possible while remaining emissions are reabsorbed from the atmosphere by forests, oceans, and carbon sinks through carbon offsets.”  So with Net Zero, “Greenhouse gas emissions are released, but are cancelled out by other activities like buying offsets” (The Australia Institute, 2023).

Climate Active (2019) stated that offset units are “used to compensate for emissions a business produces, to help reduce their carbon footprint” and are “generated by projects that reduce, remove or capture emissions from the atmosphere such as reforestation, renewable energy or energy efficiency”, where “One carbon credit is issued for each tonne of emissions avoided, removed or captured from the atmosphere.”  The idea behind these carbon credits is by investing in such projects, emissions are reduced.

Credits are purchased to enable a business to compensate for the emissions that they continue to make.  Issued or awarded carbon credits can be sold to businesses needing to ‘offset’ the equivalent tonnes of CO2-e (Carbon Dioxide Equivalent) they have put into the atmosphere. This allows them to temporarily say they have ‘neutralised’ their emissions even though they have not actually reduced emissions in their operations (Armistead and Hemming, 2023).

​

What are the problems with carbon offsets?

Carbon offsets have played a significant part in government and industry response to climate change since emerging from early global climate negotiations, with their popularity in part popular because they do not require major change to the status quo (Kuch, 2022).

Carbon offsets may not result in reduced emissions

A common criticism of carbon offsets is that they do not result in actual reductions in emissions and allow those organisations that have purchased the credits to continue to create the same level of carbon emissions. Kuch (2022) stated that there exists well founded concerns whether offset projects actually do reduce or soak up carbon, citing the long-running United Nations carbon offset scheme where as of 2017, 85% of credits did not actually reduce emissions.  Armistead and Hemming (2023) declared that there is significant evidence that at least 75% of Australian carbon credits are not resulting in real emissions reductions or are not ‘additional’ (such as credits being claimed and sold for not clearing land that was never going to be cleared anyway). They noted that most Australian carbon credits don’t come from planting trees, but from not cutting existing trees down or just putting a fence around them.

Furthermore, Morgan (2023) expressed that one tonne of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels is not equivalent to one tonne of carbon stored in the tree trunks of a newly planted forest as planting trees does not lock carbon away again deep underground and much of the carbon stored in land-based offsets does not stay store as forests can easily be destroyed by fire, disease, floods and droughts, all of which are increasing with climate change.  

The impacts of offsets on local people and ecosystems

​Feik (2023) questioned how do we use land for carbon abatement without causing detrimental effects on local populations or fragile ecosystems? Morgan (2021) noted that nature-based offsetting reliant on land use practices in the global south shifts the burden for emissions made by wealthier nations to those already struggling with the impacts of climate change and risks “human rights transgressions and detrimentally impacting already vulnerable communities.” For example, the Norwegian owned Green Resources forestry offset project in Uganda that resulted in violation of basic human rights of local residents and undermining their livelihoods, which helped give rise to the term “Carbon Colonialism” (Lyons and Ssemwogerere, 2017; Our Changing Climate, 2018).  

Poor quality nature-based offsets may result in adverse impacts on biodiversity, such as inappropriate tree planting on natural grasslands or peatlands resulting in a net carbon loss and loss of habitat for many species in these naturally open habitats (Nature-based Solutions Initiative, 2021). Knorr stated that the “massive amount of offsetting needed for staying within safe climate limits cannot be met by leaving nature alone.” which in turn demands using mostly fast growing alien species with devastating consequences for biodiversity (Dyke, Watson, and Knorr, 2021).

​Are Carbon Credits Greenwash?

​Without global vigilance around net-zero pledges and offsets, they are likely to be used as greenwashing and distraction by companies that aren’t prepared to lose profits to take the action necessary to help solve the climate crisis (Morgan, 2021). 

Carr (2022) noted that whereas carbon credits are a way to reduce carbon emissions and to quantify emissions and pollutants and therefore are a step in the right direction, just like most ideas, loopholes have turned carbon credits into a bookkeeping trick with credits used as a greenwashing tactic that allow companies to mislead customers without making any significant improvements to their business model.  Armistead and Hemming (2023) noted that “buying carbon credits year after year means that a business is not making the changes they need to legitimately help decarbonise the economy”.

The Australia Institute (2023) poll found that around half of Australians surveyed (48%) agreed that carbon offsets are greenwash and about three in five Australians (62%) agreed that carbon offsets help polluters look like they are reducing emissions even when they aren’t.

Dyke, et al (2021) declared that the concept of net zero has given licence to a “burn now, pay later” approach which has seen emissions continue to soar.  These market based approaches have been a windfall to the fossil fuel industry, emissions from which have only grown since offsetting approaches began (Kuch, 2022).

​

Offsets should be a last resort

Even according to the Australian government, the process of offsetting should be a last resort, with avoiding, reducing and substituting fossil fuels undertaken prior to considering offsetting (Feik, 2023).

Despite all these issues, offsetting can still have a small role, as some emissions cannot be avoided or reduced at present, given low-emissions technologies for industries like steelmaking and cement manufacturing are still scaling up (Morgan, 2023). However, these offsets must be strictly limited and set to progressively decline over time, as opportunities for genuine emissions reductions at the source are developed and implemented across industry (Morgan, 2023).
 
Morgan (2023) declared that offsets are not a solution and there is no substitute to actually ending the routine burning of fossil fuels. “The atmosphere doesn’t respond to good intentions or clever schemes. All it responds to is the volume of greenhouse gases which trap ever more heat” (Morgan, 2023).

Mowery (2022) sums it up, net zero is a first step for companies to become more environmentally friendly; however, it is not the optimal end result. “Organisations must strive to reach real or true zero emissions to be truly sustainable and do their best to keep the planet in conditions that will allow society and all life to thrive.” 


​

​References

Armistead, A., & Hemming, P. (2023). The Safeguard Mechanism and the junk carbon credits undermining emission reductions. The Australia Institute. Retrieved 11 March 2023, from https://Australiainstitute.org.au/post/the-safeguard-mechanism-explained/

Bernoville, T. (2022). What is the difference between carbon-neutral, net-zero and climate positive?. planA. Retrieved 14 March 2023, from https://plana.earth/academy/what-is-difference-between-carbon-neutral-net-zero-climate-positive

Carr, B. (2022, April 21). Exposing the Carbon Credit and Offset SCAM. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.YouTube.com/watch?v=A5GAaCTwc9s

Climate Active. (2019). Carbon offsets. Retrieved 14 March 2023, from https://www.climateactive.org.au/what-climate-active/carbon-offsets

Dyke, J., Watson, R., & Knorr, W. (2021). Climate scientists: concept of net zero is a dangerous trap. The Conversation. Retrieved 13 March 2023, from https://theconversation.com/climate-scientists-concept-of-net-zero-is-a-dangerous-trap-157368

Feik, N. (2023). The great stock ’n’ coal swindle. The Monthly. Retrieved 13 March 2023, from https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2023/march/nick-feik/great-stock-n-coal-swindle#mtr

Kuch, D. (2022). Now we know the flaws of carbon offsets, it’s time to get real about climate change, The Conversation. Retrieved 11 March 2023, from https://theconversation.com/now-we-know-the-flaws-of-carbon-offsets-its-time-to-get-real-about-climate-change-181071

Lyons, K., & Ssemwogerere, D. (2017). Carbon Colonialism: The Failure of Green Resources’ Carbon Offset Project in Uganda. The Oakland Institute. Retrieved 14 March 2023, from https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/sites/oaklandinstitute.org/files/uganda_carbon_colonialism.pdf

Morgan, J. (2021). Why carbon offsetting doesn't cut it. World Economic Forum. Retrieved 16 March 2023, from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/09/greenpeace-international-carbon-offsetting-net-zero-pledges-climate-change-action/

Morgan, W. (2023). A tonne of fossil carbon isn’t the same as a tonne of new trees: why offsets can’t save us. The Conversation. Retrieved 11 March 2023, from https://theconversation.com/a-tonne-of-fossil-carbon-isnt-the-same-as-a-tonne-of-new-trees-why-offsets-cant-save-us-200901

Mowery, L. (2022). Net Zero vs Real Zero Emissions and What It Means for Your Business’ Goals. Green Business Bureau. Retrieved 14 March 2023, from https://greenbusinessbureau.com/topics/carbon-accounting/net-zero-vs-real-zero-emissions-and-what-it-means-for-your-business-goals/

National Grid ESO. (n.d.). What is net zero and zero carbon?. nationalgridESIO. Retrieved 16 March 2023, from https://www.nationalgrideso.com/future-energy/net-zero-explained/net-zero-zero-carbon
Nature-based Solutions Initiative. (2021). On the misuse of nature-based carbon ‘offsets’. Retrieved 16 March 2023, from https://www.naturebasedsolutionsinitiative.org/news/on-the-misuse-of-nature-based-carbon-offsets

Our Changing Climate. (2018, November 15). Can carbon offsets really save us from climate change?. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.YouTube.com/watch?v=xdW-6MXB0sI

Pipkorn, J., Reardon, C., & Dwyer, S. (2020). Zero energy and zero carbon homes. YourHome. Retrieved 14 March 2023, from https://www.yourhome.gov.au/live-adapt/zero-carbon

The Australia Institute. (2023). Polling – Carbon neutrality, net zero and carbon offsets. Retrieved 11 March 2023, from https://Australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Polling-January-2023-Carbon-neutrality-net-zero-offsets-Web.pdf
​