Is Net Zero enough?

Is Net Zero enough, or should we be aiming for a more ambitious target to not only achieve a neutral effect but start by trying to implement changes that will try to reverse some of the environmental impacts we are experiencing?

  • Hi Kathryn,

    I guess the answer is, it depends what we want to achieve. If we want to retain the environment that humans are living in now then, as I understand it, we will need to go beyond net zero - because of the (huge) inertia in the system just applying the brakes now is only going to slow the rate of change, not stop it.

    But given that there doesn't seem to be much will in the UK to even achieve net zero, if we could achieve that it would at least be better than nothing.

    It feels to me that the first step is making both those in influential positions, and those who vote for them, fully aware of the consequences of achieving better than net zero, net zero, and (of course) less then net zero, so that there can be a better informed decision as to what sort of future we want.



  • I think that we should always be more ambitious. As we all well know - not all plans will bear out, so contingencies should be put in place.

    In the IPCC model pathways, they say we need to further and that negative emissions will have to contribute in order to limit global warming to 1.5 deg C.