Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit

In collaboration with Sustainability Unlocked, NZT Project Lead John Lang delves into the evolution of the net zero concept, tracing its origins from a scientific principle into a key proponent of global economic governance.

The terms 'carbon neutral' and 'net zero' are still used interchangeably, but less so now that carbon neutrality's halo has been smudged. But what do they actually mean? And net zero of what? After discussing with a few colleagues, I've tweaked a graphic that aims to simplify the main differences between the oft-conflated terms: The term 'Climate Positive' now trumps 'Carbon negative' and 'Net Negative Emissions' — mostly for comms reasons. For scientists out there, I'm happy to take flak for that. And I've clarified that offsets can represent both reductions and removals to avoid confusion. As I type this I can hear Andy Reisinger and Joeri Rogelj's voices ringing in my head on the temporal dimensions of net zero. So just to be clear: Net zero CO2: The IPCC says that limiting heating to 1.5 °C by 2100 (with no/limited temp. overshoot) requires the world to achieve #netzero CO2 in about *the early 2050s* — alongside deep, immediate and sustained reductions in other greenhouse gases (GHGs). Net zero GHGs: Even in the most ambitious mitigation pathways, net zero GHG emissions are not reached until about *the early 2070s* — and some pathways that limit heating to 1.5 °C by 2100 do not reach net zero GHG emissions at all. As always, this diagram is a work in progress so let me know if I should adjust or add. For example, might it be more complete if I added (i) the temporal dimension, as above; and/or (ii) more context on the differences between emission reductions and removals? The online, more HD version lives on the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit's website: https://lnkd.in/ekrwuF-r Kaya Axelsson Alexis McGivern Oxford Net Zero Katharine Hayhoe

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

I'm looking forward to co-hosting a webinar on #netzerotargets with WRI Climate tomorrow at 3pm UK time. I'll be joining Clea Schumer, Leandro Vigna and Brynne Wilcox. We'll be discussing the latest data on targets, why intent and integrity is super-duper important (alongside actual implementation), and how best to track targets across our respective platforms, inc. the Net Zero Tracker and Climate Watch. Questions will be welcome. This is a popular event so please don't miss out. You can sign up here: https://lnkd.in/euud2bJ3 World Resources Institute Nick Hay Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit

I'm looking forward to co-hosting a webinar on #netzerotargets with WRI Climate tomorrow at 3pm UK time. I'll be joining Clea Schumer, Leandro Vigna and Brynne Wilcox. We'll be discussing the latest data on targets, why intent and integrity is super-duper important (alongside actual implementation), and how best to track targets across our respective platforms, inc. the Net Zero Tracker and Climate Watch. Questions will be welcome. This is a popular event so please don't miss out. You can sign up here: https://lnkd.in/euud2bJ3 World Resources Institute Nick Hay Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit

🇬🇧 onshore wind one of cheapest forms of energy available @RachelReevesMP's announcement ended a ban that had - in effect - been pushing up bills. ECIU's @jessralston2: ⬆️ onshore wind = ⬇️ gas power stations, ⬇️ 🇬🇧 foreign gas dependency https://bit.ly/4eQGVuP http

UK North Sea: what about all the jobs? 🧵 Number of jobs supported by oil and gas industry has already HALVED in the past 🔟 years: ❗ Approx 225,000 jobs lost since 2013 (Uplift, https://bit.ly/3KJQzkW, p7) That's 📉 from 440,000 to 215,000

🇬🇧 onshore wind one of cheapest forms of energy available @RachelReevesMP's announcement ended a ban that had - in effect - been pushing up bills. ECIU's @jessralston2: ⬆️ onshore wind = ⬇️ gas power stations, ⬇️ 🇬🇧 foreign gas dependency https://bit.ly/4eQGVuP http

UK North Sea: what about all the jobs? 🧵 Number of jobs supported by oil and gas industry has already HALVED in the past 🔟 years: ❗ Approx 225,000 jobs lost since 2013 (Uplift, https://bit.ly/3KJQzkW, p7) That's 📉 from 440,000 to 215,000

How much did missing #NetZero opportunities cost the UK in 2023? 🇬🇧 total missed savings - £3️⃣4️⃣bn (up to £2️⃣, 1️⃣0️⃣0️⃣ for households) 💷 Insulation 💷 Heat pumps 💷 Solar PV 💷 Renewables 💷 EVs 💷 Food prices https://bit.ly/486vDhe