The concept of net zero is establishing itself as a new standard of integrity, where carbon neutrality has been undermined by accusations of greenwashing. Beyond the wording, the challenge lies in achieving and demonstrating real emissions reductions within one’s own value chain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As a climate action strategist, I have been observing for several years the inevitable demise of a concept undermined by greenwashing: carbon neutrality. It is gradually giving way to a more rigorous approach: net-zero. This change is not merely symbolic. It draws a clear line between promises and real action. A recent article<\/a> by the Trellis Group sums up this turning point very well: \u201cRIP, carbon neutral.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n For a long time, being carbon neutral was based on a simple promise: a company could, in theory, erase its pollution. In my work, I have seen how reassuring this promise of carbon neutrality could be to organizations, even if they left their actual emissions virtually unchanged. The mechanism they used was offsetting. For every ton of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted, the company purchased a carbon credit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This credit was a certificate attesting that an equivalent amount of GHG had been reduced or removed from the atmosphere elsewhere.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main appeal of this system was its accounting simplicity: one ton emitted minus one ton offset resulted, on paper, in zero impact. It was easy to explain and report. But this simplicity hid a twofold problem.<\/p>\n\n\n\n First, offsetting diverted attention from the real issue: reducing emissions at the source.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Second, several independent investigations and scientific analyses have shown that a significant portion of carbon credits were of dubious quality, with little or no real effect on the climate, as documented by organizations such as Carbon Market Watch<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It was this combination\u2014minimizing the importance of one’s own emissions while relying on often ineffective offsets\u2014that made the claim of carbon neutrality so problematic. Legislators began to respond.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Canada, for example, Bill C-59<\/a>, passed in 2024, amended the Competition Act<\/em>. From now on, environmental claims must be backed up by rigorous evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the European Union, \u201ccarbon neutral\u201d claims are prohibited<\/a> when they are based solely on offsets. The message to companies is clear: buying credits is no longer enough; you have to reduce your own emissions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is why a new rule, which is more demanding and more credible in the eyes of both regulators and the public, is becoming the norm: net-zero. The term \u201cnet-zero\u201d is clearly distinct from \u201ccarbon neutral\u201d in that it requires deep reductions at the source, before any use of offsets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The net-zero approach is based on a simple principle: first reduce emissions at the source, ambitiously, in line with the requirements of climate science. This \u201creduction first\u201d principle is now the golden rule<\/a> promoted in particular by the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), a global benchmark for corporate climate targets.<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe old rules of the game: deceptive simplicity<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The new rule: direct and controlled action<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n