Net Zero VS. Carbon Neutral – which is better?

Lately I’ve been overly exposed to, and effectively seduced by the concept of carbon neutrality. This idea resonates on so many levels. After all, if our society can reduce its carbon foot print then the impacts of the effects of climate change (rising sea levels, desertification, drought, flood, etc) can be attacked–fundamental to desire to become carbon neutral involves the tacit acceptance that global warming and climate change are tied to increased levels of carbon emitted into the atmosphere via a wide variety of human sources.

But there is a problem. While there is a clear correlation between climate change and human behavior, there is no scientific agreement that there is a direct causal link between the two. Therefore, carbon neutral projects, which sound great on the surface have some weak underpinnings in the larger context. This leads to the consideration of net zero projects as an alternative.

Lately, I’ve been gravitating towards net zero energy projects because they are more directly tied to measurable data that can lead to such benefits as reduced operating expenses, reduced pollution resulting from less energy generation, and by default reduced Co2 in the atmosphere. While the two choices ultimately have similar benefits, the net zero projects offer a more direct rationale for such projects.

The second part of the comparison involves offsets. There are very few projects built to date that can offer an actual net zero or carbon neutral performance. In almost every situation, some sort of offsets are required to reach the goal of zero (whether it be energy or carbon). The difference here is in the options that each choice has to achieve their mitigation. Purchasing renewable energy is an option available to both. However, carbon neutral projects also have the luxury of additional options such as: a) planting trees; b) Not cutting trees down, or c) paying industries to not pollute. These additional options allow companies seeking carbon neutrality to purchase carbon credits. These strategies are weaker in my estimation because the research and scientific communities still have mixed findings on the impact of planting or maintaining trees as an effective carbon sink.

The third option, paying companies not to pollute, leads to strange economies such as in the Ukraine where factories are purposefully shutting down in order to sell their carbon credits, thereby impacting the local economy in a negative way. Net zero energy projects are more limited in mitigation strategies that focus on wind, solar, biomass, etc, thereby spurring investment in these important technologies. There are well established certifications available that further bolster the zero energy process adding credibility and avoiding real or perceived green washing.

Ultimately, I want to see carbon neutrality become a legitimate and effective vehicle for the design and construction industry seeking to reduce its impacts on the environment, but given the state of the economy, and the skepticism revolving around carbon neutrality, net zero energy projects are the desired choice.