Some weeks back I suggested that the term “carbon neutral” might need a shake-up because so many conflicting activities can result in a carbon neutral certification (see what I’m talking about here).
In a nutshell, you can a) reduce your emissions to zero and be certified carbon neutral, or you can b) pay to offset your emissions without reducing any of them, and also be certified carbon neutral.
Carbon Zero, No Carbon, Carbon Negative, and Climate Positive were some of the suggestions – so the reducers could be classed with one of these new terms to show they have no emissions baggage, whereas the offsetters would remain Carbon Neutral. Some of these terms are being used already for various things, so there’s a bit of word soup going on.
I love the suggestions – it does raise something I don’t love though: if we theoretically introduce a new term for the reducers, the offsetters get to carry on with their certification, while the true heroes have to do all the work to re-certify from Carbon Neutral to the new thing (plus all the work that’s involved with proving the new thing is credible).
I believe Carbon Neutral is on its way to becoming meaningless, so I wouldn’t be sad to see it replaced entirely. Just not sure of the complexities…
Loving this exploration though – anything you’d add?
For self-employed creatives, normal business traps are easy to fall into and overcomplicate things - but they’re totally avoidable when flying solo.
Learn how to keep things simple, enjoyable, and climate-smart in around 2 minutes a day by joining The Climate Soloist.