Tom Pashby reports on the complexities of net zero

30th March 2023

Public awareness of the climate and biodiversity crises reached a crescendo in 2018, with Fridays for Future, Extinction Rebellion and BBC documentaries by Sir David Attenborough driving demand for action from governments and corporations.

One of the most popular solutions which organisations of all shapes and sizes have chosen to pursue is net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, otherwise known as ‘net zero’.

This push towards net zero as a tool for change was in part driven by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2018 report on 1.5°C of global warming stating decadal deadlines for the levels of emissions reductions required to keep global temperatures within a range that is safe for human civilisation.

Since net zero became popular across the political divide in the UK and in many FTSE 100 and 250 corporations, it has attracted praise and criticism. It is liked for its simplicity on the surface – signalling a clear intent to reach overall zero emissions at some point in the future, without dramatically changing the operations of the organisation or state.

This simplicity hides huge complexity – for instance, around baseline years, voluntary action versus statutory requirements, the inclusion of scope 1, 2 and/or 3 emissions, and the range of other actions needed to deliver a habitable planet. There is also no blueprint for action that is shared across the board, despite the best efforts of many within our sector.

The fact that net zero can be viewed in this highly simplistic way allows organisations to purchase vast volumes of carbon offsets and claim to be carbon neutral, despite actively emitting greenhouse gas emissions and making no attempt to decarbonise their actual operations.

In January, The Guardian newspaper published the results of an investigation which found that more than 90% of rainforest carbon offsets from the biggest certifier were ‘worthless’ and may actually worsen the climate emergency.

When the UK government put its net-zero commitment into law, it set a deadline of 2050. This is in line with the science, but falls short when you consider the international climate leadership position the UK claims to hold. It also fails to take into account our historic contribution to the climate crisis and our responsibility for cleaning up the mess we have made.

The 2050 deadline has been viewed by many private companies as the minimum viable deadline to set their own emissions, with some setting separate deadlines for their scope 1, 2 or 3 emissions. It means that a company can claim to be leading the way on climate action because it may be the only one in its sector to have committed to net zero at all, and may only need to start decarbonising decades down the line.

“An investigation [has] found that more than 90% of rainforest carbon offsets from the biggest certifier were ‘worthless’ and may actually worsen the climate emergency”

Net zero has been grasped as a catch-all term to indicate environmental responsibility. The crisis we are in is not limited to the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and resultant warming. We are experiencing the sixth mass extinction event and net-zero commitments will potentially do nothing to protect the genetic diversity which we rely on for food and other ecosystem services.

Some companies take this into account and make sure that the living communities they touch are enabled to thrive. New rules from Defra mean that many developers will need to prove they are having a net positive impact on nature, under its biodiversity net gain framework.

Net zero also fails to guarantee action on climate justice. It allows organisations to think that we all have the same responsibility, whereas those in the Anglosphere and Western world should be doing more than our peers in the majority world. Doing more means spending more money and time and taking more risks, otherwise we will further entrench the colonial, capitalist mindset that landed us in the climate emergency in the first place.

Tom Pashby, AIEMA, is a digital journalist at IEMA


Subscribe to IEMA's newsletters to receive timely articles, expert opinions, event announcements, and much more, directly in your inbox.

Transform articles

Majority of environmental professionals fear green skills gap

Almost three-fifths of UK environmental professionals feel there is a green skills gap across the country’s workforce, or that there will be, a new survey has uncovered.

4th July 2024

Read more

Climate hazards such as flooding, droughts and extreme heat are threatening eight in 10 of the world’s cities, new research from CDP has uncovered.

3rd July 2024

Read more

Ahead of the UK general election next month, IEMA has analysed the Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, and Green Party manifestos in relation to the sustainability agenda.

19th June 2024

Read more

Nine in 10 UK adults do not fully trust brands to accurately portray their climate commitments or follow the science all the time, a new survey has uncovered.

19th June 2024

Read more

Just one in 20 workers aged 27 and under have the skills needed to help drive the net-zero transition, compared with one in eight of the workforce as a whole, new LinkedIn data suggests.

18th June 2024

Read more

With a Taskforce on Inequality and Social-related Financial Disclosures in the pipeline, Beth Knight talks to Chris Seekings about increased recognition of social sustainability

6th June 2024

Read more

Disinformation about the impossibility of averting the climate crisis is part of an alarming turn in denialist tactics, writes David Burrows

6th June 2024

Read more

David Symons, FIEMA, director of sustainability at WSP, and IEMA’s Lesley Wilson, tell Chris Seekings why a growing number of organisations are turning to nature-based solutions to meet their climate goals

6th June 2024

Read more

Media enquires

Looking for an expert to speak at an event or comment on an item in the news?

Find an expert

IEMA Cookie Notice

Clicking the ‘Accept all’ button means you are accepting analytics and third-party cookies. Our website uses necessary cookies which are required in order to make our website work. In addition to these, we use analytics and third-party cookies to optimise site functionality and give you the best possible experience. To control which cookies are set, click ‘Settings’. To learn more about cookies, how we use them on our website and how to change your cookie settings please view our cookie policy.

Manage cookie settings

Our use of cookies

You can learn more detailed information in our cookie policy.

Some cookies are essential, but non-essential cookies help us to improve the experience on our site by providing insights into how the site is being used. To maintain privacy management, this relies on cookie identifiers. Resetting or deleting your browser cookies will reset these preferences.

Essential cookies

These are cookies that are required for the operation of our website. They include, for example, cookies that enable you to log into secure areas of our website.

Analytics cookies

These cookies allow us to recognise and count the number of visitors to our website and to see how visitors move around our website when they are using it. This helps us to improve the way our website works.

Advertising cookies

These cookies allow us to tailor advertising to you based on your interests. If you do not accept these cookies, you will still see adverts, but these will be more generic.

Save and close