Thread by @timbolord

Important debate emerging on the meaning of “net zero” and whether the risks of it being debased as a prompt for climate action mean we need a new language / objective. My view – having worked on the UK legislation – is that it’s worth fighting for, for three reasons.

https://twitter.com/James_BG/status/1367057809968427011

First, net zero (rather than absolute zero) is the right objective. Absolute zero is not plausible in areas like aviation/agriculture – and it’s good that we have an incentive for development of negative emission technologies so we can reduce CO2 concentrations further in future.

Second, no matter what the terminology / objective, the problem that some people / orgs will try to debase the term, or present insufficient action as compliant with it, isn’t going away. So saying we have to be e.g. compliant with 1.5 degrees won’t solve the issue.

Third, net zero is a term that’s relatively easy to understand – and public / consumer understanding is reasonably high, at least compared to some of the other jargon we use on climate and energy.

Having said that, the risk is real that the “net” in net zero acts as a mask for inaction or delay. The fundamental issue (per @ketanjoshi), is that there is no good definition of what an “essential emission” which can’t be reduced actually is.

https://twitter.com/KetanJ0/status/1366698721862418441

I increasingly think there could be an argument for national legislation to place limits on how much negative emissions can be used in comparison to actual reduction – would force transparency on how much we are relying on negative emissions techs versus actual action today.