Net Zero

Human activity has unquestionably caused global warming, and every fraction of a degree increases risks to people, ecosystems, and infrastructure. The Paris Agreement aims to limit warming to 1.5–2°C, which requires stopping the buildup of greenhouse gases. Because CO₂ stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years, some impacts are already locked in, but reaching net zero would eventually stabilise and then slowly reduce temperatures. Adaptation alone isn’t enough, continuing to emit would worsen impacts and push systems past limits, so emissions cuts and adaptation must happen together.

The terms “net zero” and carbon neutral” are often used interchangeably during climate conversations. “Net zero” means cutting all greenhouse gas emissions as close to zero as possible, following a science‑based pathway (like the 1.5°C trajectory), and only using removals for the small amount of emissions that are truly unavoidable. Meanwhile, “carbon neutral” is looser, focusing only on carbon, allowing broader offsetting instead of deep cuts, and doesn’t require a specific reduction pathway or full reporting of all emissions.

The Greenhouse Gas Protocol is the world’s most widely used greenhouse gas accounting standard and defines three types of emissions. The first is Scope 1, or direct emissions that an organisation owns or controls directly. Scope 2 emissions are those that a company causes indirectly and come from where the energy it purchases and uses is produced. Scope 3 emissions are those that an organisation is indirectly responsible for up and down the value chain.

Current climate policies put us on track for about 2.8°C of temperature rise by the end of the century. Coal phase‑out, stopping deforestation, and shifting to clean energy are all far too slow, even though most net‑zero technologies already exist and are becoming cheaper. Reaching 1.5°C needs near‑100% clean electricity by 2050 plus major changes across society, with some carbon removal for the hardest‑to‑cut emissions.

Net zero targets face key critiques: they can overrely on removals or offsets, allow countries to outsource cuts to others, and push action too far into the future. Strong 2030 milestones and credible plans that prioritise real emission reductions are essential. (4)

Net zero target-setting is expanding rapidly across countries, regions, cities, and companies. However over 40% of non-state actors still lack targets, and many existing commitments remain weak (strong on process but thin on substance). National and subnational targets don’t always align, and credible implementation plans with strong near‑term milestones will be essential as the next round of NDCs raises global ambition.

Race to Zero is a campaign from the UN Climate Change High Level Champions to bring together non-State actors to take action to contribute to halving global emissions by 2030 in line with the Paris Agreement. It is the largest alliance working to meet the Paris Agreement targets, with more than 16,000 members.

Few organisations can reach their net zero goals relying solely on emission reduction, so many will rely on carbon offsets, especially as broad net‑zero frameworks like the Science Based Targets initiative require covering all direct and indirect emissions. Large investors are pushing major emitters to decarbonise, but without a universal standard for what “net zero” means, the offset market is rapidly expanding and evolving as carbon becomes a traded commodity.

There are ambiguous and lenient versions of net zero and, as previously explained, some pathways are better than others. This ambiguity creates real climate‑justice risks. Vague targets can justify delaying action, allow higher cumulative emissions and continued fossil‑fuel use, and pressure poorer countries to follow the same timelines as historically high emitters. Because 2050 is far away, weak or bad‑faith commitments can also be quietly rewritten, so early and ambitious mitigation is essential.

Clarifying what counts as “residual” emissions and who should reduce what is a core justice issue. Subsistence emissions that meet basic needs should not be cut before wealthy groups reduce luxury emissions, and poorer countries should not be forced into pathways that undermine development. Even if the world reaches net zero, deeper questions of fairness remain. Net zero is a milestone, not the end point of climate justice. (8)