Amidst the chaos, negotiations, and counter protests surrounding COP26 in early November
arose promises to be better in terms of emissions and environmental destruction. Hundreds of
countries pledged to halt deforestation by 2030, while leaders across the world vowed
reach net-zero emissions targets by certain dates. In the case of India, Prime Minister
Modi shocked the gathered negotiators with an ambitious pledge to achieve net-zero emissions
by 2070. While the United Kingdom has championed a net-zero by 2050 plan. But there’s a problem.
Net-zero emissions can mean vastly different scenarios depending on the context. Theoretically,
India, the UK or even fossil fuel companies that set net-zero emission targets can continue
spewing out greenhouse gases claiming that future carbon capture technologies will make
up for all of their emissions. So, today we unpack the implications of “net-zero”
pledges. What they mean, whether they’re effective tools, and whether they might actually
be doing more harm than good.
This video is sponsored by CuriosityStream, which now comes with Nebula for free when
you sign up using the link in the description.
What Does a “Net-Zero” Target Actually Mean?
A decade ago, an idea was brewing. One that was meant to encapsulate the dual task of
simultaneously reducing emissions and capturing greenhouse gases out of the air. Exploding
onto the world stage in 2015, the concept of net-zero climate targets took root quickly
during the Paris climate negotiations. “Net-zero” became the new climate buzzphrase for political
and corporate leaders alike. In theory, a net-zero strategy is a promising development.
When approached correctly, Professor of economics Matthew Potts and PHD candidate Oliver Miltenberger
write that for a country or corporation to achieve net-zero emissions it must “identif[y]
and reports all emissions it is responsible for creating, it reduce them as much as possible,
and then – if it still has emissions it cannot reduce – it invests in projects that
either prevent emissions elsewhere or pull carbon out of the air to reach a “net-zero”
balance on paper.” In short, the ideal path towards a net-zero target must foreground
emissions reductions, and then when all options for reductions are exhausted, carbon sequestration
techniques can be used as a last resort. The problem with net-zero goals, however, is that
there is no standard. One company may not reduce its emissions at all and rely on future
carbon capture technologies, while another country might heavily reduce greenhouse gas
output only supplementing with carbon negative options at the end. In most cases, however,
net-zero climate targets is just a buzzphrase for procrastinating until the very last second.
Or in the words of the satirical government ad by the Youtube channel thejuicemedia: “Net
Zero by 2050 means that instead of Being Honest this decade, by taking this path. We leave
the Being Honest part to the last minute by taking that path instead. As you can see,
both lead to Net Zero in 2050, but they’re very different journeys.” Because net-zero
can mean so many things, countries and corporations use these targets to continue polluting and
turning a profit on the bet that some massive carbon capture infrastructure will suck up
their emissions at the eleventh hour. Net-zero is yet another procrastination tactic, plain
and simple, and who better but oil and gas giant BP to show us why net-zero is a scam.
How BP uses net-zero to keep emitting: In February of 2020, as Covid-19 began to
shake the world, the CEO of BP stepped up to a podium surrounded by press and announced
something seemingly monumental: the fossil fuel giant BP would achieve net-zero emissions
by 2050. At first glance, this sounds extremely promising. A major oil company was going to
rid themselves of fossil fuels. For those who remembered BP’s greenwashed “beyond
petroleum” campaign in the early 2000s, however, this felt like deja-vu. Much like
two decades ago, BP’s new green initiative seems to be only green in words only. A look
behind the oil company’s new eco-drenched slogans and flashy green graphics reveals
very little has changed in their business practices. First of all, their net-zero claims
only apply to the direct emissions caused by drilling and processing oil and gas, and
not from consumer-side emissions of their product like car exhaust. This means that
BP could claim zero emissions by completely reducing emissions from their operations,
without even considering the polluting destruction of their gasoline or natural gas. But the
thing is, BP isn’t even reducing the emissions of their infrastructure and refineries. Under
the label of “net-zero” BP can continue emitting as long as it offsets those emissions
with massive tree-planting operations that are often rife with complications or some
future carbon sequestration technology that has yet to be tested at scale. In theory,
this means BP can continue business-as-usual practices up until 2049 and then in the last
year, try to suck up all the emissions it created by planting trees and using currently
unrealized carbon capture technologies. What’s more likely, however, is that when 2049 hits,
BP will just push their target further into the future, and in doing so, lulling us into
inaction. To add insult to industry, BP’s pledge “excludes more than 40 percent of
its oil production and 15 percent of its gas production.” A report from Inside Climate
News reveals that the BP pledge would only cut the emissions intensity of their products
by less than 30%. But even here BP is using wordplay to disguise inaction. Emissions intensity
is not the same as emissions. French fossil fuel giant, Total, for example cut their emissions
intensity by 6% but its total emissions rose by 8%. And with a target 30 years in the future
and very little enforcement protocols, BP can push the consequences of its climate destruction
down the line, all the while profiting off of its green image. In short, net-zero emissions
doesn’t mean zero emissions and BP knows it. BP is an extreme example of how companies
abuse the loopholes of the net-zero framework, but in a capitalist global economy, profit
and competition incentivizes this kind of greenwashing and political trickery. Under
capitalism it’s easier to make more money claiming you're not polluting than actually
not polluting.
Why net zero is a scam As we’ve just seen, most net-zero climate
targets fail to truly face the climate crisis head on. Instead of focusing on emissions
reductions, which is a sure way of minimizing the amount of greenhouse gases in the air,
net-zero plans often rely on carbon capture and sequestration strategies, which either
come in the form of natural offsetting through tree planting or technologies like direct
air capture which are currently impractical at scale. In the case of nature-based sequestration,
most offsetting is doing more harm than good. In a Pro Publica investigative piece journalist
Lisa Song writes, “if the world were graded on the historic reliability of carbon offsets,
the result would be a solid F,” going on to site reports like a 2015 paper revealing
that 75% of carbon offsets from one carbon trading scheme were “unlikely to represent
real reductions, and that if countries had cut pollution on-site instead of relying on
offsets, global CO₂ emissions would have been 600 million tons lower.” In addition,
natural sequestration in the form of tree planting and forest preservation are fueling
new forms of green colonialism. Buying and “preserving” huge tracts of land, often
in the imperial periphery, corporations push local residents off of forests or grasslands
they might have lived on for decades. But even if these nature-based carbon sequestration
schemes were somehow effective, the sheer scale needed to make up for business-as-usual
emissions is ecologically impossible. In its quest to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050,
Royal Dutch Shell “plans to deploy more carbon offsets by 2030 than were available
globally in 2019.” And that’s just for one company, and won’t even make up for
all of Shell’s emissions. At the end of the day, net-zero targets are greenwashing
at best, and at worst they work to lock in decades of inaction and give rise to colonial
land grabs masquerading as carbon sequestration schemes. So, given the inefficacy of net-zero,
how do we carve a path to real zero emissions?
Towards a real zero Future goals must be focused on eliminating
emissions. There’s no two ways about it. Only ambitious emissions reduction schemes
from the imperial core and multinational corporations can pull us back from the precipice of climate
chaos. Real zero emissions targets force us to come to grips with destructive capitalist
pursuits. This means keeping all fossil fuels in the ground. It means building a 100% renewable
world instead of fossil fuels, replacing industrial agriculture with agroecological permaculture,
and embracing a simpler life instead of a consumerist one. But while we strive for a
real zero world, we must reduce the harm of false net-zero targets. That means pushing
for transparent pathways, tangible milestones, or even as one paper argues, separating targets
for emissions reductions and negative emissions. Because at their core, net-zero targets are
a gamble, and if we’re playing for the lives of billions of people, that gamble just isn’t
worth the risk.
If you want to learn a bit more about green colonialism and the consequences of carbon
offsetting, I’ve made a bonus section examining real world examples, but it didn’t mesh
well with this video. So, instead, I’ve uploaded that section as an extended edition
of this video on the streaming platform my creator friends and I built called Nebula.
The bonus content replaces this ad because there aren’t any ads on Nebula. And you’ll
not only see a lot of extended editions, exclusive content and ad free videos over on Nebula
from me, but also from channels like Second Thought, who just released the first episode
of his Nebula original series exploring the history, ideology, and contemporary resurgence
of fascism, it’s amazing and I highly recommend a watch. At its core, Nebula allows viewers
to support creators directly so they don’t have to worry about the pesky YouTube algorithm.
Nebula is awesome but it’s now made even better with our partnership with CuriosityStream.
CuriosityStream is the go-to streaming platform for thousands of top-tier documentaries, like
the two part series Climate Change by the Numbers, which dives into how we are able
to understand and track the climate crisis. And because CuriosityStream loves supporting
educational creators we worked out a deal where if you sign up with the link below,
not only do you get access to CuriosityStream, but you'll also get Nebula for FREE. And this
is not a trial, you'll have Nebula as long as you're a CuriosityStream member. What’s
even better is that CuriosityStream is offering a special deal for my viewers: 26% off their
annual plan - that's a little over a dollar a month for BOTH CuriosityStream and Nebula.
By signing up, you not only directly support Our Changing Climate, but you gain access
to thousands of documentaries and exclusive videos from your favorite creators
So if you want to support both Our Changing Climate and hundreds of other educational
content creators go to CuriosityStream.com/OCC or click the link in the description and sign
up for CuriosityStream and Nebula for just $14.79 per year, that's 26% off.
Thanks so much for watching all the way to the end! If you’ve already signed up for
CuriosityStream you can also support me by becoming an Our Changing Climate Patron. Just
pledging one dollar a month allows me the flexibility keep making more videos like this.
Thanks again for watching and I’ll see you in two weeks.