'Carbon neutral' and 'net zero' are terms that are sometimes used interchangeably. Both have the same goal - slowing down global warming by lowering greenhouse gas emissions.
So what's the difference? Well, 'carbon neutral' and 'net zero' refer to two different approaches for lowering carbon emissions, with net zero being considered as the more effective solution.
But there's much more to it than that. To give you a better idea, we've explained exactly what the difference is between 'carbon neutral' and 'net zero', why it matters, and analysed when the UK could reach net zero emissions.
What are the differences between 'carbon neutral' and 'net zero'?
The key difference between 'net zero' and 'carbon neutral' is that the aim of net zero is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to almost zero. However, being carbon neutral is more about compensating for CO2 emissions with carbon offsetting.
Carbon neutrality is also usually talked about on a smaller scale, by companies or businesses who want to limit or reduce their emissions. Net zero, on the other hand, is a global objective that will be achieved through the collective efforts of governments and the private sector.
Why is this distinction important?
The distinction between carbon neutral and net zero is important, because focusing on becoming net zero is a surer way to reduce global emissions than trying to be carbon neutral.
Although carbon neutrality can reduce emissions, it also relies heavily on carbon offsets, which environmental organisations, such as Greenpeace, argue do not work.Investigations by ProPublica and The Guardian found that the impact of many major carbon offset schemes, particularly those that involve reforestation, was overestimated.
This means large amounts of CO2 emissions are not actually being compensated for, if at all. A worrying thought when you consider that 24 out of 25 of the world's largest companies - often the biggest emitters - rely on carbon offsetting to achieve their carbon neutrality pledges.
Another criticism of the 'carbon neutral' mentality is that it gives companies and individuals a free pass to keep producing emissions, instead of focusing on reducing or eliminating them.
Carbon offsetting also pushes the burden of responsibility onto poorer countries, where many carbon offset programmes are located. This is particularly problematic when you consider that these nations tend to produce fewer emissions than wealthy countries, where the companies that fund the carbon offset programmes are typically based.
In short, instead of using unreliable carbon offset schemes to balance out CO2 emissions, it's much better to first focus on reducing emissions to net zero levels. It will be much easier to reach carbon neutrality through carbon offsetting when emissions levels are already close to zero.
