Two meanings

The term “Carbon Neutral” is thrown around today like “Y2K Compliant” was in the late 90’s.

It’s a term that absolutely has meaning, and at the same time can be totally meaningless.

A LOT of companies are claiming to be Carbon Neutral, and by definition some actually are.

But what’s the definition? There are at least two:

1. The balance between creating some emissions, then absorbing some other emissions.
2. Completely eliminating all emissions.

Maybe it’s just me, but there’s a colossal difference between those two. So much so, it’s crazy that the same term is used to describe them both.

Creating and absorbing emissions

A factory pumping toxic fumes into the air and dumping waste into the water, can join a carbon offsetting website, and pay money for someone to plant trees somewhere on the planet to, theoretically, “offset” the emissions and local pollution they generate.

It can continue to pollute, but as long as it continues to pay to plant trees to match it’s emissions, that genuinely equates to a definition of “carbon neutral”.

Completely eliminating all emissions

A similar factory that eliminates 100% of emissions from it’s operations, runs on 100% renewable energy, and removes 100% of waste, is also just carbon neutral.

That’s nuts.

A fresh start?

The term “carbon neutral” has become marketing guff – time to throw it out entirely and start fresh?