The concept of net-zero has troubled us at Treehugger for some time. We first discussed it in terms of architecture and building, where, according to the International Living Future Institute’s definition, “One hundred percent of the project’s energy needs being supplied by onsite renewable energy on a net annual basis.” But in our post, “The Grid is Not a Bank,” I quoted Passivhaus architect Bronwyn Barry, who wrote, “The reality is that the grid does not have the capacity to store all excess energy generated in summer, so buildings employing this ‘fuzzy math’ still require that the grid supply their winter deficit.” 

Treehugger contributor Sami Grover has also asked: Is net-zero a fantasy? He discussed pledges from countries, cities, and companies, noting that “the very idea of net-zero has become a problematic excuse for inaction.” The problem comes in the second half of our definition:

How are these greenhouse gas emissions being removed? Is anyone actually doing it at scale? Or is it all just a dangerous distraction? Some big hitters are now questioning the concept. 

What Is Net-Zero?

Net-zero is a scenario in which human-caused greenhouse gas emissions are reduced as much as possible, with those that remain being balanced out by the removal of greenhouse gas emissions from the atmosphere.

The most interesting is a new and important website, Climate Uncensored, set up recently by Dan Calverley and Kevin Anderson, both formerly with the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. In a recent post, they note that the concept of net-zero started with buildings and apparently got co-opted.

Got some carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions you have to get rid of? Plant some trees or build a big machine to suck them out of the air. Both seem a stretch given the amount of CO2 we are emitting, but they note: “What were once considered fringe policies for their riskiness and highly-speculative nature are now a mainstay of the mitigation scenario and policy landscape, despite the continuing lack of evidence that they can be scaled up in time.”

I thought the mention of Passivhaus was interesting because Passivhaus Consultant Monte Paulsen told Treehugger earlier that it was all a numbers game and a setup from day one, and he knows numbers. “Check out the various commentary on the intergovernmental ’net-zero’ emissions targets,” said Paulsen. “They assume GHG remediation tech that does not exist. the target is BS and the COP knows it, but it was reportedly the only way to make the numbers work and get an agreement. Can’t blow a bigger hole in net-zero emissions (on a national scale) than that.”

In an MIT Technology Review article—titled “We must fundamentally rethink “net-zero” plans” and a subhead reading, “Corporate climate plans are too often a mix of fuzzy math, flawed assumptions, and wishful thinking”—journalist James Temple complains that many companies are planning to get to net-zero through shopping for offsets. “In other words, they can continue to emit planet-warming gases, so long as they pay someone else, somewhere else to make up for it,” wrote Temple. “And that’s where many of the problems arise.”

He suggests that instead, they must slash direct emissions (our radical efficiency plan), avoid offsets, and while he does support research and investment in carbon removal technologies, he noted:

Almost everybody is piling on offsets, even American late-night host John Oliver. There are a few exceptions; Nick Aster was Treehugger’s first chief technology officer and built the first Treehugger website; he is now the marketing director for global sustainability solutions provider South Pole. He published a defense of offsets and a critique of Oliver:

Loath as I am to disagree with our former CTO, as I noted in “Net-Zero Is a Dangerous Distraction,” it’s too late for this. “It is silly to say we will plant trees when parts of North America are under a pall of smoke from burning forests that were counted as offsets. It’s silly to say we have the technology to suck carbon dioxide out of the air when we have seen how well carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) works.” 

The only real solution is to radically reduce demand for fossil fuels and aim for absolute zero carbon dioxide emissions, or as we have also suggested, zero carbon without a net. We know how to do this; it’s just so inconvenient.

But, as Emily Partridge wrote in Architype: “We are in a climate emergency. We need to be completely clear, honest and truthful, use the knowledge and the technology we already have, and drop the greenwash.” 

The net is full of holes and it is time to get real about this.