Reality checks on "net zero" are coming fast and furious
Studies show that offsetting doesn't work. We should going for zero carbon without a net.
Three climate and earth scientists at the University of Exeter, James Dyke, Jamie Shutler and Peter Cox, sit on a panel advising the University on using offsets in its target of “net zero by 2030.” They have written an article on The Conversation: We have officially advised our University to ditch carbon offsets – and focus on cutting emissions. After reviewing all types of offsets and discussing the issue with professionals and academics, they write:
“We found no evidence that offsetting could make a meaningful contribution to our efforts to get to net zero. Instead, we concluded that offsetting is probably ineffective – and possibly a dangerous distraction [my emphasis] as it can lead to inaction on actual emissions reduction. We concluded that efforts should focus on working out how to leave more fossil fuels safely in the ground.”
They recommend that the University “redeploy funds that have been put aside for offsetting activities that result in emissions reductions” and “apply a laser-like focus on the acceleration of decarbonisation.” They conclude by noting:
“Continuing to stand behind the fallacy that carbon offsetting approaches will get us out of the climate crisis is now untenable.”
I wrote similar words in 2021 in a post titled Net-Zero Is a Dangerous Distraction, suggesting that “It's time to forget the net and go straight for zero emissions.” I concluded:
“The clear, honest, and truthful approach is to forget about net-zero. Just measure the carbon footprint of everything and make the choices that have the lowest upfront and operating carbon, and try and get as close to zero as possible. This is not just buildings; it is transportation, diet, consumer purchases, everything we do. And come up with a real number, because a net is full of holes.”
We have recently seen more evidence of how big the holes actually are. A recent study, Systematic assessment of the achieved emission reductions of carbon crediting projects, found:
“We estimate that less than 16% of the carbon credits issued to the investigated projects constitute real emission reductions, with 11% for cookstoves, 16% for SF6 destruction, 25% for avoided deforestation, 68% for HFC-23 abatement and no statistically significant emission reductions from wind power projects in China and IFM projects in the United States.”
A recent article in MIT News reviewed Direct Air Capture systems like the Climeworks project in Iceland. Nancy Stauffer of the MIT Energy Initiative notes all the challenges DAC faces, including scaling up, energy requirements, siting, and cost. She doesn’t mention the one I go on about, which is the upfront carbon emissions of building all that equipment. The MITEI study notes that “Using DAC to suck CO2 out of the air and generate high-quality carbon-removal credits can offset reduction requirements for industries that have hard-to-abate emissions.” However, it is expensive and removes a tiny amount of CO2. They conclude, “given the high stakes of climate change, it is foolhardy to rely on DAC to be the hero that comes to our rescue.”
I wrote when Climeworks opened:
“One really doesn't want to rain on the parade here, but the numbers don't work. It also plays into the hands of the net-zero crowd who think that we can solve our climate problems with techno-fixes that suck CO2 either out of the air or out of burning trees, or out of natural gas, instead of cutting emissions in the first place.”
Stauffer’s article is titled “Reality check on technologies to remove carbon dioxide from the air.” In fact, there seem to be reality checks coming fast and furious from all over.
We are also getting reality checks from storms, flames, and flood waters too, as Alex Steffen noted years ago.
Of course, we should keep planting trees, but stop pretending that they will, at some point, suck up the carbon we are emitting now. Our professors from Exeter suggest that we “Use nature-based solutions such as habitat creation and rewilding to help restore ecosystems and biodiversity rather than absorbing our carbon emissions.”
Instead of going for “net zero” or “carbon neutral,” let’s get realistic and aim for “zero carbon without a net.” We will likely never get there, but we should use the technology and knowledge that we have to reduce our carbon emissions as close to zero as possible. As the Profs say, “apply a laser-like focus on the acceleration of decarbonisation.” I always fall back on the SER framework: sufficiency, efficiency, and renewables. Or, put another way, we should stop burning things and use less stuff.
Because the reality checks show that we can’t offset our way out of this mess.
A problem I am having of late is I am quoting myself a lot; I have been writing about this stuff for twenty years now and worry I am getting repetitive. Here are some of the sources that have not been scrubbed from Treehugger:
The New Green Standard: Zero Carbon Without a Net What should our targets be in green building design? This is doable right now.
Carbon Positive or Carbon Negative? Net-Zero or Carbon Neutral? I'm Confused. It's time to have a big virtual convention and agree on some basic terms.
How 'Net-Zero' Targets Disguise Climate Inaction Just say no to 'net-out-of-jail-free cards.'
Forget Net-Zero, the Target Should Be Absolute Zero. A report from the United Kingdom shows how to to do it.
I think Lloyd employs confirmation bias when discussing offsets. He also conflates offsetting with industrial carbon capture projects, which may be too blunt of a categorization.
The journalism article from three obscure people from the UK’s Exeter University doesn’t seem to me to be a strong source—it’s opinion-laden and doesn’t link to higher-credibility studies. The three authors are a climate-modeling mathematician, a climate journalist, and a machine-learning specialist—none of them seem to have expertise in offsetting and carbon credits. Lloyd’s title is biased—about “studies” that show offsetting doesn’t work. Where, exactly, is this “study” from Exeter so that we may assess it? It’s basically an op-ed article from the internet.
The most credible article cited here is from Nature Communications. Although Lloyd cherry-picks a quote to support his position, this article claims that: “Carbon markets play an important role in firms’ and governments’ climate strategies.” And, contrary to abandoning them, the article states that “Carbon crediting mechanisms need to be reformed fundamentally to meaningfully contribute to climate change mitigation.” This study only looks at 14 offsetting studies, estimating effectiveness of only a fraction (1/5) of carbon credits. This is a more complex issue than Lloyd’s black-and-white approach here.
I agree that we should try to reduce emissions as much as possible, and we shouldn’t let promises of net zero distract us of this. However, I’m a realist in that I see that zero emissions, right now or in the foreseeable future, are elusive. Thus, offsetting plays a role, especially those projects that draw down carbon by rebuilding natural systems. Lloyd’s own behavior shows this—he is unable to model the zero-emissions lifestyle he advocates. I also agree that we need to build the science of carbon sequestration and accounting and weed out the bad offsetting actors and projects.
Cap and Trade is different than carbon offsets, and it did work with sulfur oxides from coal plants. In that situation they put a cap on sulfur emissions related to the total carbon burned, then slowly lowered the cap. If you wanted a higher cap you had to trade for an emission amount with a company that dropped lower than their cap. In this way they lowered the emissions through time. We have not done the same for carbon, at least not a clearly defined. The goal is to lower the total emissions as fast as possible, and so far the cap is not lower than the total emissions. To make this work you would have to cap a power company at emissions lower than they have at present, forcing them to get any additional power for their market from and alternative source. The weakness of this, as Lloyd points out, is the failure to account for embodied emissions in the new sources, and all of them have embodied emissions at this point.
This was meant as a reply to Alan Kandel, but I could not post it.