Is net-zero or carbon-neutral really enough?

  • 22 February 2020
  • 2 replies
  • 113 views

The net-zero emission target, like the 1.5C warming limit, are potentially misleading #climatechange thresholds. Why don’t individuals or countries talk of, or aim for, #netnegative emissions? This will offset the existing emissions already damaging the environment.

The #netzero target should be, and the warming limit will be, exceeded. Surely the harder we push beyond the former, the less we will overshoot the latter?


By focussing on a target we risk being disheartened and fatalist as we inexorably pass the 1.5C limit. Neither threshold is a cliff edge! There is work to be done up to and beyond both of these thresholds...

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/climate-crisis-temperature-target-paris-agreement

2 replies

You may also find Greta's speech about reaching 'real zero' not 'net zero' interesting 👍

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsHZPT2E5tg

More talk of net negative goals is beginning, too- with one of the biggest players to talk about becoming climate negative by 2030 being Microsoft.

By 2030 Microsoft will be carbon negative, and by 2050 Microsoft will remove from the environment all the carbon the company has emitted either directly or by electrical consumption since it was founded in 1975.
Wow, that’s a great pledge from Micro$oft. Thanks for the info there @Nat!
...and a great quote from Greta there: Forget net-zero, we need real-zero!

Reply