The world we live in - is aiming for net zero enough?

There is a growing trend amongst companies to publish their efforts towards achieving net-zero. Is it a publicity stunt? Is it a response to changing regulations? Perhaps it’s a little bit of both. Some say that the motivation really doesn’t matter, as long as something is being done. The problem is – will it be enough to stem the tide on the ever-growing climate crisis? Is net-zero all that we should be aiming for?

We’re living with hotter summers and colder winters. Extreme weather events are damaging infrastructure and putting lives at risk. Basic resources such as energy and water are getting more expensive. Food is getting more expensive. Everything is getting more expensive. Finally, the reality appears to be hitting home. A habitable environment is not guaranteed.  As humans we need to be more conscious of our impact on the environment. Especially as it’s starting to get a little bit uncomfortable.

Is there value to net-zero

The premise with net zero is that it aims to balance the carbon emissions and inputs. Essentially, it’s saying that we haven’t made things any worse than they were before we extracted the resources needed to make a product. It’s a net gain and net loss. That may have been acceptable 70 to 100 years ago. When there were still enough resources to meet the needs of the worlds population and nature still had a chance to balance itself because biodiversity wasn’t under such a threat. That’s no longer the case.

There’s increasing evidence that the climate crisis is not just being spurred on by increasing carbon emissions. (Even though they have increased seven-fold in the last century and remain a major concern) It’s the fact that even if CO2 emissions level off, ecosystems are still being systematically destroyed. The natural world that has the ability to process CO2 is having its capacity reduced. Which means that there is still a net loss and the climate crisis is likely to continue to get worse.

What is a better solution?

There’s a legendary story relating to the reintroduction of wolves in Yellowstone National Park in the USA in 1995. It had a surprising ripple effect through the entire ecosystem of the park that hadn’t been predicted.  The initial aim of the project was to reduce the number of elk that were pushing the carrying capacity of the park. But no-one predicted the impact that the wolves would have on literally everything. From vegetation to other animal species, insects, birds and even the course of rivers. Now, almost 30 years after the reintroduction of the wolves, biologists are still astonished on the impact on biodiversity.

This example has very little to do with carbon emissions, but highlights what companies should be focussing on rather than just aiming to achieve net zero. Regeneration is significantly more impactful than net zero. Staying where we are isn’t the ideal, too much damage has already been done.

This year, in 2023, earth overshoot day will take place next week on the 2^nd of August. This means that human demand on planetary resources will be 1.7 times the carrying capacity in the year. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that staying where we are is unsustainable. Net zero is not enough. The demand needs to decline so that planetary resource capacity has a chance to recover. And the way to achieve this is through regeneration. Not carbon tax or carbon credits. But rather finding ways to increase biodiversity while reducing the demand on natural resources.

It's a more holistic approach, one that requires more thought and more input. Interestingly, there are some tech companies that aim to help be part of the solution. They’re developing software to help companies track their resource use and regeneration efforts. This is a big deal, because while some companies may be open to the idea, the big question they ask is how do they go about it.

What role can the resource sector play in regeneration?

There is a wealth of expertise that understands the complexities of managing resources, whether it’s processing or regeneration efforts. Like the tech companies seeking to support other organisations, there’s an opportunity to provide guidance on what to change in operations in order to have the most impact. Most critically it’s about changing the corporate mindset regarding resources and what’s valuable. For too long the scarcity economy theory has been touted as a good one as it’s leads to profitability for those that own the resources. But there’s broader economic value in protecting the diversity of resources. Not just for economic reasons, but for the sake of humanity.