Here’s a thread on why financial institutions need to make promises for ZERO Fossil Fuels and not just “net-zero” (by @ZanageeArtis of @ThisIsZeroHour w/ info from @ciel_tweets) (1/7)
There are too many loopholes in net-zero for it to be adequate for climate justice. Net-zero allows companies and banks to shroud their impacts on emissions and continued expansion of fossil fuels @ZanageeArtis @ciel_tweets (2/7)
ciel.org/reports/too-ma…
ciel.org/reports/too-ma…
The “net” in net-zero refers to the idea that while some greenhouse gas emissions continue, natural or artificial sinks absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, resulting in zero overall emissions. @ZanageeArtis @ciel_tweets (3/7)
What we need is tangible and permanent elimination of fossil fuel emissions and an end to fossil fuel production. Net-zero allows production and expansion of fossil fuels to continue because offsets allegedly eliminate those emissions (4/7) @ZanageeArtis
We know that those emissions still impact local air and water and are released into the atmosphere just the same, regardless of whether more trees or other offsets are purchased (5/7) @ZanageeArtis
Net Zero by 2050 simply means a pledge that in 30 years’ time, governments will offset that year’s pollution – with no guarantee they will substantially cut emissions in the preceding decades (6/7) @ciel_tweets corporateaccountability.org/resources/the-…
@ThisIsZeroHour for financial institutions and governments around the world to commit to actual zero, and end false promises based on technology that doesn’t exist and nature based offsets that don’t eliminate harm for BIPOC communities locally (7/7)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
