Climate Positive, Carbon Negative, and Net Zero: Clearing Up the Terminology
The terminology around climate commitments is confusing, and the terms climate positive, carbon negative, and carbon neutral are often conflated. Here is what each one actually means.
Carbon neutral means that an entity's net CO2 emissions are zero — they emit CO2, but offset an equivalent amount. There is no requirement to reduce actual emissions; offsetting alone can achieve carbon neutrality.
Net zero means reducing emissions by approximately 90% and using carbon removal (not avoidance offsets) for the residual balance. It requires deep decarbonisation as a prerequisite.
Climate positive (or carbon negative — the terms are used interchangeably) means removing more greenhouse gases from the atmosphere than are emitted. An entity that emits 100 tonnes of CO2e but removes 150 tonnes is climate positive by 50 tonnes.
The hierarchy from least to most ambitious is: carbon neutral (emissions balanced by offsets) -> net zero (90%+ reduction plus removal for residual) -> climate positive (net removal exceeds net emissions).
Confusingly, some companies use 'climate positive' to mean what others call 'carbon negative,' and vice versa. Microsoft uses 'carbon negative,' while IKEA uses 'climate positive' — both meaning they aim to remove more CO2 than they emit. The terminology is not standardised, which creates opportunities for misuse. Some companies have used 'climate positive' to describe products that are merely less harmful than alternatives, which is not what the term should mean.
What It Takes to Be Genuinely Climate Positive
Achieving genuine climate positive status requires three components: comprehensive emission measurement, deep emission reductions, and carbon removal that exceeds remaining emissions.
Measurement must cover all Scope 1 (direct emissions from owned operations), Scope 2 (indirect emissions from purchased energy), and Scope 3 (all value chain emissions including supply chain, product use, and end-of-life). For most companies, Scope 3 accounts for 70-90% of total emissions. Any climate positive claim that excludes Scope 3 is fundamentally incomplete.
Reduction must demonstrate that the entity is genuinely minimising its emissions, not simply purchasing large volumes of removal credits to overwhelm a high-emission baseline. A company emitting 1 million tonnes of CO2e that buys 1.1 million tonnes of removal credits can technically claim climate positive status, but this approach is less credible than a company that has reduced emissions to 100,000 tonnes and purchases 150,000 tonnes of removal.
Removal must involve verifiable, permanent carbon dioxide removal — not avoidance offsets. Credible removal methods include afforestation and reforestation with long-term permanence guarantees (100+ years); biochar production and soil application (which locks carbon in stable form for centuries); enhanced weathering (accelerating natural mineral carbonation processes); bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS); and direct air capture with geological storage (DACCS), which is the gold standard for permanence.
The cost barrier is significant. High-quality carbon removal costs $100-1,000+ per tonne of CO2, compared to $5-15 for typical avoidance offsets. This means climate positive status through credible removal is genuinely expensive, which is why so few companies achieve it. Those that do typically have high margins, strong brand incentives, and a genuine commitment to climate leadership.
Who Claims Climate Positive Status — and Is It Credible?
Very few major companies have made climate positive or carbon negative pledges, and even fewer have achieved them credibly. Here is an assessment of some prominent claims.
Microsoft pledged to become carbon negative by 2030 and to remove all historical emissions (all CO2 the company has emitted since its founding in 1975) by 2050. Microsoft backs this with a $1 billion Climate Innovation Fund, investment in direct air capture, and detailed annual progress reports. This is widely considered one of the most ambitious and credible corporate climate commitments, though the company acknowledges it faces significant challenges in addressing Scope 3 emissions across its supply chain.
IKEA has committed to becoming 'climate positive' by 2030, meaning it aims to reduce more greenhouse gas emissions than its value chain emits. IKEA has invested heavily in renewable energy, sustainable forestry, and circular product design. However, the scale of IKEA's supply chain (over 1,800 suppliers across 50+ countries) makes achieving comprehensive Scope 3 reductions extremely challenging.
Some smaller companies and startups claim climate positive status, but verification varies significantly. Without third-party auditing and transparent emission data, these claims should be treated with the same scepticism applied to any unverified environmental assertion.
The fundamental test for any climate positive claim is: does the entity publish comprehensive emissions data (all three scopes), demonstrate year-on-year reductions, use credible removal methods (not just cheap avoidance offsets), have the claim independently verified, and invest meaningfully in removal infrastructure? If any of these elements are missing, the claim deserves scrutiny.
Can Individuals Be Climate Positive?
In principle, an individual can become climate positive by reducing their personal emissions and purchasing high-quality carbon removal credits that exceed their remaining footprint. In practice, this is expensive but achievable for those willing to invest.
The first step is understanding your current footprint. The average person in the UK emits approximately 10 tonnes of CO2e per year, while the average American emits approximately 16 tonnes. CarbonCrux's calculators can help you estimate your personal emissions across diet, travel, energy, and shopping categories with country-specific data.
The second step is reducing emissions where possible. The highest-impact personal actions vary by individual but typically include: reducing or eliminating car travel (saving 1-4 tonnes CO2e per year); reducing meat consumption, especially beef and dairy (saving 0.5-1.5 tonnes); improving home energy efficiency and switching to renewable energy (saving 0.5-3 tonnes); and flying less (saving 0.5-3 tonnes per eliminated long-haul flight).
After maximising reductions, the remaining emissions can be addressed through high-quality carbon removal. At current prices, removing one tonne of CO2 through direct air capture costs approximately $600-1,000, while high-quality biochar credits cost approximately $100-200 per tonne. For someone who has reduced their footprint to 4 tonnes per year, achieving climate positive status through biochar would cost approximately $500-1,000 per year; through direct air capture, approximately $2,500-5,000.
While individual climate positive status is meaningful as a personal commitment, it is important to maintain perspective. Individual action, while valuable, cannot substitute for systemic change. The most impactful thing an individual can do beyond reducing personal emissions is to advocate for policy change, support businesses with genuine sustainability commitments, and vote for political candidates who prioritise climate action. Personal carbon removal is a complement to, not a replacement for, collective action.