Net zero has to grapple with a few chronic conditions:
1. A deficit of credibility. The Net Zero Tracker knows this one well, aka #greenwashing.
2. A surplus of confusion. Net zero concepts are complex and continue to evolve. Most are like Russian dolls: to see the one in view properly, you need to disassemble it and study the smaller ones alongside.
3. Finite attention and issue fatigue. Other priorities compete for limited individual and societal attention. But net zero is not a fad, it's the ball game. Getting used to the fact that stopping temperature rise at any level is both a marathon and a sprint is deeply unfamiliar.
4. The fallacy of division: An assumption that something that's true for the whole is also true for all of its parts. This merits more discussion.
To stop global temperatures increasing ineluctably, the world's gotta go to #netzero. At an individual entity level, that's not strictly true (but it wouldn't hurt). Current voluntary climate standards, and emerging mandatory ones, focus on actions inside a company's full value chain, otherwise known as scopes 1, 2 & 3. Every entity — be it Tokyo, Turkey or Total — has a direct role to play to reduce emissions.
But like debates on individual behaviour change, that's only one side of the coin. The other side represents the economic, political and behavioural influence that entities have at the collective level. As Katharine Hayhoe says, the most important thing someone can do about climate change is to talk about it. That's because talking is deeply political and influences society beyond our immediate spheres.
A new paper led by Kaya Axelsson usefully explores corporate 'Spheres of Influence', focusing on (a) products that help others avoid emissions, (b) purchasing power, and © policy advocacy. For example, in Kaya's words: 'The way standards are currently set up, a high-growth #renewables company might fare poorly because of the emissions generated in making turbines and solar panels, despite the fact these products help to reduce emissions globally.' A slightly provocative way to think about it: Should Tesla get some kudos despite not having a net zero target?
In a world that logically has to displace fossil fuels to achieve net zero CO2, this 'climate contribution' approach should be rewarded and incentivised, despite inevitable problems around quantifying its diffused positive impacts .
InfluenceMap already leads the way on the political aspect of Spheres of Influence. Its analyses spotlight companies that might look good inside the value chain but are blockers outside, e.g. lobbying governments to prevent or delay net zero-aligned policies. Meanwhile, the Science Based Targets initiative encourages this new approach, but does not yet validate or reward it.
We're in the contribution foothills. Let's talk about it more. H/t Oxford Net Zero, Claire Wigg, Matilda Becker and Kaya.
Paper: https://bit.ly/4dLQrhC Article by BusinessGreen: https://bit.ly/3X3xvFk