The net-zero fallacy? Brazilian NGO slams climate buzzword

Since the late 2010s, climate discussions and negotiations around the world have given significant weight and importance to two short words: net zero. 

The state of net zero is achieved when the amount of greenhouse gases emitted equals the amount removed from the atmosphere. If this seems simple, that’s because it is — and that’s part of the problem, argues Maureen Santos, an ecologist and professor at the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro (PUC-Rio).

Today’s climate negotiations and commitments around the world are largely centered on the long-term targets in the 2015 Paris Agreement, the international treaty on climate change signed at that year’s UN Climate Change Conference (COP21), held in the French capital.

As things stand, the shared long-term goals call for countries to neutralize their carbon emissions by 2050 — or, in the case of China, 2060. Originally, reaching this target meant reducing emissions, such as by transitioning away from fossil fuels or decreasing deforestation levels.

“In the case of Brazil, there is a clear way to cut emissions through reducing deforestation,” explains Ms. Santos, in an interview with The Brazilian Report. “When you cut down fewer trees, there is proven data that tons of carbon dioxide will no longer be emitted into the atmosphere.”

But for developed nations, she explains, things turned out differently. “Countries with a much more consolidated base in fossil fuels argued that the energy transition would be too difficult, which is when the [Paris Agreement] goals permitted carbon removal.”

The idea of carbon removal, the path toward net zero emissions, is far more abstract. The main removal mechanisms consist...