Net zero: Opportunity or trap?
Alexandra Buylova, Mathias Fridahl, Naghmeh Nasiritousi, Gunilla Reischl
The race to net zero emissions that we have seen in the past couple of years gives rise to both hope and concern. The groundswell of net zero pledges includes for example the US target of achieving net zero emissions by 2050 and China reaching carbon neutrality by 2060. Economically important actors’ net zero initiatives, such as cities and business, are mobilized by the global campaign Race To Zero. As net zero targets become more prominent in climate action, the debate about the concept’s risks and advantages heats up. Recently, three respected climate scientists published an article titled “Concept of net zero is a dangerous trap”, in which they warn of the “fantasy of net zero”. This was followed by multiple Twitter threads and a response article by Richard Black and colleagues titled “Net zero: Despite greenwash it’s vital for tackling climate change”, where they argued for the need for “widespread strengthening of net zero targets”. Net zero has also received criticism from for example the climate movement Fridays for Future.
While the climate science is clear that the world needs to steeply reduce emissions and reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions in the second half of this century to achieve the Paris targets, a number of criticisms have been levelled against net zero pledges. One critique is that net zero pledges are too flexible in their definitions. As noted in a Nature editorial, “whereas the European Union’s pledge targets all [… greenhouse] gases, China’s plan focuses only on CO2 emissions and […] the US plan has yet to specify which gases are covered. Corporations making net zero pledges are being similarly flexible in their definitions.”
Another critique is that the growing commitments to net zero emissions push countries to bank on carbon dioxide removal (CDR) to deliver on a large scale. CDR methods, such as reforestation, direct air carbon capture and storage and bioenergy carbon capture and storage, or BECCS, are described by the IPCC as being “at different stages of development and some are more conceptual than others, as they have not been tested at scale.” Without steep reductions in emissions in the near future, large-scale CDR risks becoming a vital part of strategies to reach net zero and achieve the objectives of the Paris Agreement despite lack of assurance that the promises of future CDR can actually be delivered.
While net zero targets are important for mobilizing actors to take emission reductions seriously, it is vital that they are filled with meaning and that realistic plans are drawn up for how to actually realize the targets. Accurately predicting how technology may develop in the future is difficult, but it would be a dangerous gamble to expect the availability of large-scale CDR without proper plans for their realistic deployment. Net zero pledges are thus a tool for action only if they are accompanied with realistic plans of how they will be achieved, otherwise they risk distracting pressure for stronger climate action and delay important emission reductions. In order to assess whether net zero pledges represent an opportunity or a trap, it is thus important to scrutinize actors’ long-term climate strategies.
In July 2021 we published an analysis of the long-term low emission development strategies (LT-LEDS) of countries in order to map the role of CDR in addressing climate change. The study of these strategy documents gave us insights in how states view the role of CDR in their decarbonization strategies and how net zero targets will be reached. A focus on documents with a long-term perspective is useful as many CDR technologies are still nascent and thus do not appear markedly in shorter term policy documents, such as nationally determined contributions to the Paris Agreement
Our study of 25 national LT-LEDS submitted to the UN, as well as 23 interviews with climate experts, shows that national plans on CDR vary substantially across countries and generally lack in detail. Our analysis of the LT-LEDS confirms the flexibility surrounding the phrase “net zero emissions” as there is no definitive agreement on how these targets are put into practice. The content of two net zero commitments can be dramatically different, aiming for different timelines, covering different kinds of GHG emissions and removals, and relying on offsets to varying extents. In addition, we found that there are different understandings of the potential role of CDR in achieving the promised climate targets. Carbon sequestration in forests, soils, water biomass, and harvested wood products (HWP) dominate LT-LEDS narratives on CDR potentials today and in projections to 2050.
Moreover, the findings demonstrate that CDR is perceived to be necessary and desirable for achieving mid-century climate goals, but also reveal a variation in the intended role of CDR: as a panacea, that highlights CDR benefits, especially its ability to create headroom for slower emission reductions, yet risks mitigation deterrence; a necessary fallback to help reach mid-century climate targets, capitalizing on countries’ existing resources with concrete milestone targets and detailed plans of how to achieve them; and a chimera, with CDR in risk of being an illusion that distracts attention from concrete near-term mitigation actions, due to largely missing transparent targets and plans for implementation of CDR measures. The lack of details and missed opportunities to discuss policy interventions to drive demand and increase international cooperation on CDR are examples of this.
Only a few LT-LEDS propose an outlook towards net-negative emissions later in the century and refer to CDR as an opportunity to amplify climate action into the net-negative territory (e.g., Sweden, Canada, Finland). Therefore, CDR as a climate recovery strategy is less visible, and arguably not mature enough to be adopted by the majority of countries. CDR is positioned mainly as an opportunity for offsetting emissions.
As a communication platform, LT-LEDS are a recognized and highly visible channel for countries to communicate national climate goals to a global audience. Perhaps LT-LEDS is not the right forum for comprehensive policy discussions and the ambiguity of language can be used to achieve a strategic advantage. However, the lack of focus on detailed planning can also be described as a lost opportunity. LT-LEDS could accommodate the need for enhanced transparency in climate ambitions, including planning for CDR.
In sum, the language in the strategies is generally vague and public discussions on how to achieve net zero targets have barely been raised in most countries, even less on the role of CDR therein. Our study adds to the discussion of the concept of net zero. We agree that net zero targets are a sign of increased climate goals, and as such they have a value. The race to net zero puts pressure on countries to raise ambition. There is, however, much work to be done when it comes to transparency and clarity both with regards to net zero definitions and also the articulation of long-term goals and how they intend to be implemented.
