What Net Zero Actually Requires
The concept of net zero comes from climate science. The IPCC has established that to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, global CO2 emissions must reach net zero by approximately 2050. This means the total amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere must be balanced by the total amount being removed.
Critically, net zero is not a simple offsetting exercise. The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) — the most widely recognised standard for corporate net zero targets — requires companies to reduce their value chain emissions by at least 90% from baseline before using carbon removal for the remaining 5-10%. This means net zero demands genuine, deep decarbonisation: switching to renewable energy, electrifying transport fleets, redesigning manufacturing processes, and transforming supply chains.
The SBTi also distinguishes between near-term targets (which drive immediate action, typically 5-10 year reductions aligned with 1.5 degrees pathways) and long-term net zero targets. Companies must set both, with near-term targets validated against the latest climate science. As of 2024, over 4,000 companies have committed to setting science-based targets, though the quality and credibility of these commitments varies significantly.
For countries, net zero commitments are enshrined in law or policy declarations. The UK was the first G7 country to legislate a net zero target (by 2050), followed by the EU, Japan, South Korea, and others. China has pledged carbon neutrality by 2060. The critical question for all these pledges is whether they are accompanied by concrete policies, interim milestones, and accountability mechanisms — or whether they are aspirational statements without binding action plans.
Net Zero vs Carbon Neutral: The Critical Difference
The distinction between net zero and carbon neutral is not semantic — it represents fundamentally different approaches to climate action. Carbon neutral allows an entity to emit unlimited greenhouse gases as long as it purchases an equivalent number of carbon offsets. There is no requirement to reduce actual emissions, and the offsets can be cheap avoidance credits (like protecting a forest that may or may not have been threatened).
Net zero, by contrast, requires demonstrated emissions reductions first. Under the SBTi Net Zero Standard, at least 90% of baseline emissions must be eliminated through direct action before carbon removal can be used for the residual balance. Furthermore, the SBTi specifies that only carbon removal (physically extracting CO2 from the atmosphere) counts toward the residual balance — not avoidance offsets.
This distinction matters enormously in practice. A company can maintain carbon neutral status while increasing its actual emissions year on year, simply by buying more offsets. A company with a credible net zero target must demonstrate declining emissions on a trajectory consistent with 1.5 degrees warming, with verified year-on-year progress.
The quality bar for 'removal' is also much higher than for general offsets. Credible removal includes reforestation with permanence guarantees, biochar, enhanced weathering, and direct air capture with geological storage. These are generally more expensive than avoidance offsets, which provides an additional financial incentive for companies to reduce emissions rather than rely on removal credits.
Some organisations use both terms in their communications, which can confuse stakeholders. If a company claims to be carbon neutral today while targeting net zero by 2050, the immediate claim relies on offsets while the longer-term target requires genuine emission reductions. Understanding this distinction helps evaluate whether climate commitments represent real change or sophisticated greenwashing.
Which Net Zero Pledges Are Credible?
Not all net zero pledges are created equal. The Net Zero Tracker, an independent academic project, evaluates the robustness of net zero targets by governments and corporations. Their analysis reveals significant variation in pledge quality.
Credible net zero pledges share several characteristics: they cover all greenhouse gases (not just CO2); they include Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions (the full value chain, not just direct operations); they are backed by legislation or binding corporate policy; they include interim targets for 2025, 2030, and 2040; they specify how reductions will be achieved (not just when); they are independently validated (by the SBTi or equivalent); and they include transparent annual reporting on progress.
Red flags for weak pledges include: covering only a portion of emissions (like operational but not supply chain); relying heavily on future technologies that do not yet exist at scale (like carbon capture and storage for fossil fuel power plants); lacking interim targets or accountability mechanisms; being expressed as 'ambitions' or 'aspirations' rather than commitments; and being unaccompanied by near-term capital expenditure or policy changes.
Among major corporations, some standout examples of relatively credible net zero commitments include Microsoft (carbon negative by 2030, with $1 billion climate innovation fund), Apple (supply chain net zero by 2030, with verified supplier renewable energy programs), and Maersk (net zero by 2040, with orders for methanol-powered container ships already placed). Conversely, several major oil and gas companies have made net zero pledges that have been widely criticised for relying on unproven carbon capture technology while planning to increase fossil fuel production.
What You Can Do: Personal and Business Net Zero
For individuals, the concept of 'personal net zero' follows the same hierarchy: reduce first, then remove. The most impactful personal emission reductions (in most developed countries) are: reducing car travel or switching to an EV, reducing or eliminating beef and dairy consumption, improving home insulation and switching to a heat pump, flying less, and switching to a green energy tariff. These actions alone can reduce a typical Western carbon footprint by 50-70%.
For the remaining emissions that are difficult to eliminate (certain foods, essential travel, embedded emissions in products), high-quality carbon removal credits can bridge the gap. But the priority should always be reduction. A person who drives an SUV, eats beef daily, and flies frequently cannot credibly claim personal net zero simply by buying tree-planting credits.
For businesses, the starting point is measuring your full value chain emissions using the GHG Protocol framework. This includes Scope 1 (direct emissions from owned operations), Scope 2 (indirect emissions from purchased electricity), and Scope 3 (all other indirect emissions, including supply chain, employee commuting, product use, and end-of-life). Scope 3 typically accounts for 70-90% of total corporate emissions.
Once measured, set near-term reduction targets aligned with the SBTi's 1.5 degree pathway. Focus capital expenditure on the highest-impact areas: energy efficiency, renewable electricity procurement, supply chain engagement, and product redesign. Only after a clear reduction trajectory is established should carbon removal credits be used for residual emissions.
CarbonCrux's calculators can help you measure your personal footprint across diet, travel, energy, and shopping categories, giving you a clear picture of where your emissions come from and where reductions will have the most impact.