Net-zero chat 💬
Remember our net-zero conversation with our climate research partners Åsa Löfgren and Sverker Jagers? This time, Business & Sustainability Analyst Michael brought up the topic of how different terminologies such as net zero and green transition can be quite misleading at times. It turned into a discussion around the three different scopes, hard-to-abate sectors such as agriculture, and Åsa suggesting to use the terminology "Paris-aligned". Why? "I know it’s not perfect, but it sends the signal that we know the path that companies need to take in order to move towards zero emissions according to the scientific targets", says Åsa.
Michael: Hi all 👋 I’ve been reflecting on how the terminologies “net zero” vs others like “green transition” are being used. Both can sometimes be fluffy and misleading. So, here’s a quick overview:
According to IPCC, the world needs to reduce emissions by half by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050 at the latest to keep the temperature rise at a max. of 1.5 degrees Celsius.
From companies to cities and countries, net-zero pledges are everywhere but whether they can be fulfilled is still up in the air. The ambition levels differ a lot and so does the terminology:
“Carbon neutral” encompasses scope 1 & 2 and leaves scope 3 out
“Net zero” includes all three scopes, with some degree of compensation and offsets
“Fossil free” means no fossil fuels are used
“Carbon negative” or “Climate positive” means that greenhouse gases are removed from the atmosphere to a larger extent than they were added
Åsa: Such a great topic to bring up, Michael 🙌 Most companies would want to be fossil free or carbon negative, but there are sectors that are hard to abate. For example in agriculture, livestock produces greenhouse gases that are hard to eliminate. So, net zero can mean both positive and negative CO2 emissions.
In a way, it can mean "we can continue to do whatever we have been doing and compensate for all the three scopes”. This slows down real climate action 😒
André: Can you exemplify the three different scopes of a company?
Åsa: Scope 1 are the emissions of the services and products the company is directly responsible for.
Scope 2 are the emissions from the electricity and heat used.
Scope 3 is "everything else": the emissions of external dependencies such as purchased products/services, and downstream activities which are indirect emissions from sold products/services.
Lisa: Such an interesting discussion 💡 So, that means that if everyone takes care of their scope 1 & 2 emissions, there would be no need to address Scope 3, right?
Michael: Exactly, Lisa! If you’d like to know more about the different scopes and tools for standard accounting for greenhouse gases, I recommend you have a look at the GHG Protocol.
Staffan: My reflection regarding terminology is that we should use what people understand and urge other organisations to move along as far as possible - using the terms that match what we mean. It’s such an immature market and some of these nuances can get lost in translation.
Åsa: Good point. I prefer the word “Paris-aligned”. I know it’s not perfect, but it sends the signal that we know the path that companies need to take in order to move towards zero emissions according to the scientific targets.
Michael: Interesting thought! Let’s discuss more next time we meet and thanks for all your input 👋
