You’ve probably noticed that a long list of countries, cities, and even corporations have rolled out net-zero emissions pledges as part of the larger effort to combat the climate crisis. In theory, these commitments are a crucial tool for reaching our global climate goals. In practice, they come with some big asterisks. Let’s break down why.

First things first: What does net-zero emissions mean?

Simply put, we remove the same amount of greenhouse gas emissions from the atmosphere as we have released. When anyone makes a net-zero pledge, this is what they’re promising to balance out. Many countries have set net-zero targets, but few have made them legally binding or fleshed out their details.

Why are net-zero pledges so important?

In 2019, a landmark United Nations report concluded that global emissions must peak by 2030 and then fall to zero by around 2050 if we’re to keep warming within a threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius—and avoid a climate catastrophe. Net-zero pledges orient the world toward that critical goal. Typically, they require a commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as much as possible and then sequester what’s left through carbon offsets.

Now you’re probably wondering about carbon offsets, right?

Say a company needs to hit net-zero emissions, but instead of shutting down its fossil fuel facility, it keeps the plant open and promises to offset its pollution by investing in a project that expands a forest. That project would be considered a carbon offset.

On paper, the investment might allow the company to reach its goal, but it doesn’t address the longer-term pollution, and the returns are far from guaranteed. It can take decades—or sometimes centuries—for forests to grow big enough to be effective carbon-storers. Forests are also subject to unpredictable damage, like droughts or wildfires, which then release carbon back into the atmosphere. We also run into a math problem: There simply isn’t enough available land for every country and corporation to rely on this offset. Yet most pledges include it to some degree.

Wealthy counties are more capable of this abuse because they can invest in offset projects elsewhere while continuing to pollute at home. In turn, developing nations, which are some of the most vulnerable to and least responsible for the climate crisis, are expected to take much more costly climate actions, like transitioning to renewables, in order to hit their own emissions targets.

Wait, then is net-zero still a good goal?

Yes, but it has to be backed by a concrete plan—one where we don’t punt true emissions reductions down the road by relying heavily on offsets. Hitting net-zero effectively will require a total phaseout of fossil fuels, steep increases in international climate financing, the complete electrification of our buildings and transportation systems, and overhauls to how we manage our food and land. In essence, a transformative commitment beyond the numbers.

Take a deeper dive: Learn more about the ins and outs of net-zero pledges here.

Like what you’re reading? Share Top of Mind with a friend.

NRDC Top of Mind is delivered to your inbox Tuesday mornings. View our newsletter archive.

Received this from a friend and want to subscribe? Sign up here.

Have an idea to share with us or a topic you want to read more about? Reach out at topofmind@nrdc.org.