Carbon Neutrality
Understanding niche terminology can be frustrating and is certainly the case when it comes to carbon management and reduction terminology. At ACL we work with clients on diverse projects, but given the nature of our business carbon management forms a large part of our work.
Recently I was asked to confirm the difference between carbon neutrality and net-zero. The person asking was having difficulty discerning the difference between the two concepts, frustrated with the similarities and vagaries in definitions provided by “experts”. I understand exactly what our client was feeling. I remember looking at these terms for the first time several years ago, reading definitions from market leaders in carbon management and thinking “they’re the same thing, the words have been moved around a little bit but you’re saying the same thing!!”.
Our client made the inspired decision to enlist the help of Chat GPT to see if the open AI revolution could shed any light on the difference. This is what it came up with.
Both Carbon Neutral and Net Zero Carbon are concepts related to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but there is a difference between them.
Carbon Neutral refers to achieving a balance between the amount of carbon emissions produced and the amount removed from the atmosphere. This can be done by reducing carbon emissions as much as possible and offsetting the remaining emissions through carbon credits, carbon offsets, or other similar mechanisms. In other words, a business can be carbon neutral by reducing its emissions as much as possible and then offsetting any remaining emissions through the purchase of carbon credits.
Net Zero Carbon, on the other hand, refers to achieving a balance between the amount of carbon emissions produced and the amount removed from the atmosphere, but with a greater focus on reducing emissions. This means that a business that is net zero carbon not only offsets its remaining emissions, but also takes significant measures to reduce its emissions as much as possible, such as through the use of renewable energy, energy efficiency, and other sustainability measures.
In summary, while both concepts aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, being net zero carbon requires a greater emphasis on reducing emissions rather than just offsetting them
Firstly I appreciate the limitations of AI currently but its a fair reflection of the similarities my brain manufactured when I first started trying to understand the differences. As you can see, these are two very similar definitions which make it hard to understand if carbon neutrality or net zero is the best strategy or goal for a business
The key differences between the two are the type of offsets or carbon credits deemed acceptable under each term, and at what scale the term can be applied.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) explains carbon neutrality can be applied to individuals, organisations, companies, and countries. Net zero can be applied to the same scales but is the only concept that can be applied to the planetary scale. Net zero is also required to achieve global climate goals, which brings us on to the issue of carbon credits.
According to the UNFCCC the only carbon credits that can be used for net zero goals are those resulting in removal and permanent or long-term storage of carbon and other greenhouse gasses (GHGs). Of course that leads to questions about the definition of long-term but we’ll park that one for now. Carbon neutrality in comparison can use carbon credits from projects that prevent, reduce, or temporarily capture GHGs. From this perspective then carbon neutrality is a path towards achieving net zero but not the final destination.
Here are the key takeaways:
Both emphasise the need to reduce emissions as far as possible over time and offset remaining emissions.
Carbon neutral – carbon credits can compensate for remaining emissions by avoiding, reducing, or temporarily capturing emissions elsewhere.
Net zero – carbon credits must represent permanent or long-term removal of GHGs.