The meaning of “net zero” is murky and much muddled with another term: “carbon neutral”. The two are linked - but they are certainly not interchangeable, as is widely believed. If you are confused, feeling like you need some help, you are in the majority. So below, amongst some provocation, some clarification.
Published standards are a good place to start, and fortunately, we have one (PAS2060) which more-or-less clarifies the meaning of “carbon neutrality”. To summarise (and to help you avoid having to read it), businesses need only measure their emissions, hit their reduction target, and (at a minimum) offset the remaining scope 1 and 2. Voila, carbon neutral. But even this simple summary introduces jargony terms which require brief explanation.
Let’s consider a vineyard as an example. Its scope 1 emissions are those relating directly to its operations – diesel for a tractor, gas for a boiler, refrigeration gas for a cooling system. Its scope 2 (indirect) emissions are those resulting from fuel combusted elsewhere, the energy from which is imported for use on site (electricity being the typical example). Scope 3 emissions, on the other hand, include emissions that result from activities upstream (think of the energy used to make fertilizer) as well as downstream (the manufacture of glass bottles, freighting, and recycling of glass post-use). Inevitably, scope 3 emissions dwarf scope 1 and 2, and although linked to our vineyard (through a long chain of events that ultimately see you sipping a Shiraz at home), they are attributable to suppliers, distributors, retailers, and others.
We must halve emissions by 2030, an ambitious time frame which requires the setting of SMART targets and immediate actions to reach them.
So, is it acceptable that our vineyard could address its scope 1 and 2 and claim carbon neutrality? Strictly speaking, yes. But consumers who hear about a carbon neutral vineyard may be forgiven for assuming that this applies to the entire bottle of wine. Given the scale of the scope 3 problem, this is clearly not the case! Worse, it is also possible that the existence of this confusion may be convenient for many an unscrupulous business, content to exploit the lack of clarity to build green credentials at minimal cost. But consumers are catching on, and the cost of greenwashing is now financial as well as reputational. Businesses beware the carbon neutral claim, be it PAS2060 compliant or not. Do it (it’s better than doing nothing) but be very honest about the scope 3 exclusions.
Enter net zero.
Net zero takes a much more holistic view which includes the Everest of scope 3. According to the Science Based Targets Initiative, success means reducing all emissions by around 90% and then offsetting the rest. If our vineyard were to make a “net zero by 2050” pledge, it would be setting itself up for a challenging time. The main problem being that our humble winemaker may have little influence over the industrial behemoths which run packaging, international freighting, and retail. Success will depend on action and commitment from all these players. But it will probably also depend on government support for the rapid establishment of green hydrogen infrastructure to revolutionise glass manufacture and shipping. Or if not green hydrogen, then perhaps an even more nascent technology? Perhaps nuclear fusion?
This goes well beyond installing solar panels on the winery roof, and upon learning of the scale of the task, our well-intentioned but very pragmatic winemaker may, hands thrown in the air, reject the entire notion of net zero. “No way am I committing to this when the carbon isn’t even from my business! How can I have blind faith in stuff that doesn’t even exist yet?!”
Worse, our vineyard owner (fingers now locked behind a downward looking head) may discard any previously held hope of being able to make a meaningful difference to the climate problem. A sad result, particularly as our weather-dependant farmer has a far deeper appreciation of the climate crisis than most.
Is there a happy middle ground between the mediocrity of carbon neutrality and the Neverland of net zero? Looks like we might need one. An approach which could help us ensure the ongoing habitability of our still-quite-pleasant planet. What does The Science demand? Apparently, we must halve emissions by 2030. Seven years. An ambitious time frame which requires the setting of SMART targets and immediate actions to reach them. This seems far more meaningful than the 2050 pledges commonly quoted. In fact, I’d suggest that Net Zero by
2050 is not a target at all. Rather, given its longer-than-my remaining-career timespan, I would call it a vision, ambition, or aspiration, and given the distant deadline, perhaps a problem that the next sustainability guy can deal with?
Half-By-2030. Every business. Every sector. Everywhere. Focussing on its own direct emissions. Could all players within a value chain commit to this Half-By-2030 target? This is not a new idea, certainly. But the novelty might be found in
how we go about it. Can our vineyard owner, fists now clenched, and head held high, get to carbon neutral (even if only in the narrow PAS2060 way) whilst inspiring his or her suppliers to also make the Half-By-2030 pledge? Can a supplier’s firm commitment become an essential component of their ongoing business relationship? And can our winemaker inspire his or her suppliers to challenge their own suppliers in the same way?
If so, our winemaker might be making a difference after all, perhaps without caring too much about nomenclature or rubber stamps. Let’s all consider this. Because it is largely through carbon conscious procurement, that we will catalyse commitment beyond our own. To win climate action from those who, by virtue of their own significant contribution to value chain emissions, most need to make it.
Perhaps our winemaker would install solar panels on the winery roof anyway-- because that is something that can be done now, and that’s going to help.
