Net Zero. It's a term touted by politicians, companies, and even the United Nations. But what does it actually mean and is it actually enough? Net zero, also known as being carbon-neutral, refers to when the greenhouse gas emissions of a country, business, building, or other entity are offset somewhere else. This usually means absorbing and storing CO2 from the atmosphere by planting trees, capturing and storing it as it is emitted by power plants, or other technologies. The idea is that for every unit of CO2 put into the atmosphere, the same amount is being pulled out. It should be noted that many of these technologies are untested at the scale required and many experts believe they won't be sufficient unless we also massively reduce our emissions in the first place. The United Nations Paris Agreement was made between 195 countries and aims to have the world achieve net zero by the year 2050.

Reducing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is good and certainly better than the previously widespread climate change denial. However, there are a number of serious issues with the concept of net zero and how it is implemented. First of all, it rarely goes far enough. Even if the world achieves net zero by 2050, it likely will not be enough to limit the rise in the Earth's temperature to 1.5°C. Scientist predict that passing this threshold could have catastrophic consequences for our planet and life on it. We should be going further by creating carbon-negative approaches that take more CO2 out of the atmosphere than is put in. Another issue is that net zero can encourage complacency. When you think about it, what is the point of having "net zero" emissions when one can simply minimise the amount of CO2 they produce in the first place? Why plant trees and install "carbon capture technology" to offset fossil fuel use when we can just switch to cleaner energy sources? The timescale is also a major issue. The UN target of 2050 is set too far in the future and gives change-makers an excuse to delay their plans and avoid commitment.

These issues become particularly concerning when "net zero" is combined with politics and capitalism. Businesses and politicians use the term to convince the public they are environmentally conscious when it couldn't be farther from the truth. Unfortunately, net-zero commitments, which once seemed a good idea, have become so distorted and abused they are largely meaningless.

What you can do: