The ‘Net-Zero’ Greenwash

13 July 2021 (Wall Street International)* — Every once in a while, a seductive term comes along to save the fortress of rulers from being taken down by disgruntled ‘subjects’. We’ve had concepts like ‘inclusive’, ‘sustainable’, and ‘participatory’, each hiding what is otherwise business as usual. The latest in this lineage is ‘net-zero’.

With the climate crisis and biodiversity loss so clearly visible that they are becoming impossible to ignore or deny (Trumpism notwithstanding), there is a scramble for convenient solutions, especially in governments and corporations.

Pathways that do not disturb the status quo are being sought and tread, strategies that do not challenge the current power dynamics in which nation-state governments and mega-corporations (including banks) control national and global economy, and yet appear to give them a nice green image. Net-zero has emerged as one of the favourites.

It is likely to be pushed strongly in the upcoming Climate Conference of Parties (COP26) and is already part of the discussions around the Post-2020 Biodiversity Framework that is being negotiated under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

In the case of climate, net-zero implies that if there is a certain amount of climate-changing emissions in one place, it can be ‘offset’ elsewhere in a number of ways, such as capturing the same amount in trees or the oceans. This does not necessarily entail reducing the emissions in the first place.

For biodiversity, the equivalent is ‘no-net-loss’, which means that the loss of an ecosystem or species somewhere is compensated by regenerating or protecting anew a similar ecosystem or that species somewhere else.

Suddenly, everyone is announcing net-zero or no-net-loss targets. G7 countries recently announced a collective target of reaching net-zero climate damaging emissions by 2050.