Class Notes | Carbon Neutrality

CLASS NOTES

Aug 31

⤏ WRITTEN AND RESEARCHED BY GISSELLE PERNETT AND EDEN HAIN
⤏ EDITED BY CIANA ALESSI AND FAYE ORLOVE

Class Notes is a recurring series exploring topics that we find hard to understand (purposefully or otherwise!). Started as Instagram infographics, Class Notes has shifted into a monthly Jr Hi the Magazine feature which you can read here!

Terms You Should Know

Carbon Dioxide: A colorless and odorless gas that absorbs and radiates heat into the atmosphere. CO2 is one of the greenhouse gasses and can be produced by burning fossil fuels, volcanic eruptions, and wildfires.

Climate Neutral: Creating a balance between greenhouse gas emissions and the removal of greenhouse gasses from our atmosphere. This can be accomplished by decreasing the amount of greenhouse gasses emitted by individuals and industry, increasing the prevalence of greenhouse gas absorbing technologies on the planet, and usually combining both (since there is no way to exist without creating the most prevalent greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, carbon dioxide).

Carbon Neutral: Creating a balance between carbon emissions and carbon absorption. Similar to “Climate Neutral” but with a focus on carbon and carbon dioxide.

Carbon Footprint: The total amount of carbon dioxide produced by an individual, corporation or country.

Greenhouse Gasses (GHG): According to the GHG Protocol, there are seven greenhouse gasses:

Carbon dioxide (CO2), which is mostly emitted by burning fossil fuels
Methane (CH4), which is mostly emitted by growing ruminant animals such as sheep and cows, and from landfills
Nitrous oxide (N2O), which is mostly emitted by growing crops (fertilizer usage) and livestock (manure)
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which are mostly emitted by refrigeration equipment
Perfluorocarbons (PFCs), which are mostly emitted by the aluminum industry
Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), mostly emitted by switchgear
Nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), mostly emitted in computer manufacturing

Greenwashing: Term coined by Jay Westerveld in 1986. Refers to brands, companies, and organizations that profit off of environmental consciousness without concrete climate actions to back up their claims. Basically false advertising.

Offsetting: Funding for environmental projects that reduce or remove greenhouse gas emissions.

Carbon Sink: Any large environmental infrastructure that absorbs carbon dioxide. Most notably soil, forests, and the ocean.

Fossil Fuel: Coal, oil, and natural gasses are fossil fuels. They are created over millions of years from sedimentary rock and fossilized plants to create the energy that fuels our homes and businesses. Since fossil fuels take millions of years to create, it is a nonrenewable resource.

Natural Gas: A fossil energy source composed of methane and ethane.

Paris Agreement: Legally binding international treaty on climate change adopted by 196 Parties in Paris in 2015. Created legal precedent to establish a series of actions and goals that prioritizes environmental longevity and infrastructure that combats weather disasters.

What does carbon neutral actually mean?

Researching this Class Notes started with us asking, “What does being CaRbOn NeUtRaL actually mean?” What we ended with was an office of writers (Eden and Gisselle) screaming, “When will the U.S. acknowledge the climate crisis?” Seriously, how long are we going to keep pretending these wildfires, melting ice caps, and hurricanes are normal? The good news is we found some answers to some of our questions. The bad news is…we also found even more questions.

Let’s dive in.

Greenhouse Gasses: What is so Confusing About Carbon?

“Why is it so hot?” — you, probably, when it’s 90 degrees in the middle of winter.

To conceptualize this, think of the Earth’s atmosphere as a giant greenhouse. In order to keep the Earth inhabitable, the atmosphere traps the heat from the sun to keep the Earth’s surface warm. This is known as the greenhouse effect. Once sunlight reaches the Earth, some of the energy is released back into space, while the remaining energy goes through the Earth’s atmosphere and is absorbed by the land and ocean. Once the Earth’s surface is warmed up, energy is released back into the atmosphere, where the majority is absorbed by the greenhouse gasses. Despite all the bad press the greenhouse effect gets, it actually occurs naturally and it’s actually positive and necessary for our wellbeing! Even armed with this information, we’re left with our original question: so why is it so damn hot?

Let’s go back in time to the start of the Industrial Revolution (1760-1840), when the concentration of greenhouse gasses (GHG) started climbing significantly. This increase of human-made production of GHG emissions (especially carbon) has generated even more heat for the atmosphere to trap. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Inventory of U.S Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, ”In 2020, CO2 accounted for about 79% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities.”

We produce carbon everyday. Aside from you know — breathing — we also emit carbon by driving, buying overpriced iced coffee, getting on planes (Taylor’s version) and burning fossil fuels to produce heat and electricity. Although there’s no official answer to how much carbon should be in the atmosphere, research shows levels of carbon between 280–350 parts per million are ideal. As of July 2022, NASA reported the global average level of carbon dioxide was 419 parts per million. Tragic…ally close to 420. Yes, our carbon production has officially adopted a hustle culture mentality.

TL;DR: Since it is the greenhouse effect’s literal job to slow heat from escaping the Earth’s atmosphere, as long as carbon production increases, global temperatures will continue to rise.

Carbon Neutral vs Net Zero

You’ve heard these buzzy words from corporations who have been promoting their carbon neutrality initiatives for the last decade, with more working towards net zero emissions in recent years. According to the Climate Pledge (co-founded by Amazon) over 200 companies have pledged to reach net zero carbon emissions by the year 2040, but what do these promises actually mean?

Carbon Neutrality: This doesn’t mean a company is promising to produce less carbon emissions, it just means they’re pledging to remove the carbon they emit at an equal amount to the carbon they produce. Removing carbon from the atmosphere can be accomplished in a variety of ways (thanks, scientists!), but the most common approach to reaching carbon neutrality is through funding environmentally conscious projects aka carbon offsetting (remember this for later). Technically, this means a corporation can claim to be carbon neutral without actually reducing their carbon emissions…or really doing anything other than signing a check.

Net Zero Emissions: This means reducing ALL greenhouse gas emissions to zero, or as close to zero as possible — achieving zero GHG emissions is more difficult to accomplish. While carbon can be contained by a multitude of effective options, many other gasses have no known methods for capture. For example, the exhaust from our refrigerators (hydrofluorocarbons or HFCs) have no current mode of capture. Before 2021, there were no set guidelines for companies to claim net zero emissions and each corporation could develop their own standards. And if there’s one thing we all know about corporations, it’s that they always tell the truth, *especially* when no one is holding them accountable. Fortunately, the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) developed the first Net-Zero Corporate Standard which created key requirements corporations should meet before claiming net zero.

Focus on rapid, deep emission cuts: Decarbonization must come from a company’s entire value chain emissions, including those produced by their own processes (scope 1), purchased electricity and heat (scope 2), and generated by suppliers and buyers (scope 3). Most companies will require extensive decarbonization of 90-95% to reach net-zero under the Standard
Set near and long-term targets: Companies attempting to be net-zero must set both near-term and long-term goals. This means making rapid emissions cuts now, halving emissions by 2030, and, by 2050, organizations must produce close to zero emissions. Companies must also neutralize any remaining emissions that are not possible to eliminate
No net-zero claims until long term goals are met: A company is only considered to have reached net-zero when it has achieved its long-term goal. Most companies are required to have long-term goals with emission reductions of at least 90-95% by 2050.
Go beyond the value chain: The SBTi recommends Companies go further by making investments outside their net-zero goals to help alleviate climate change elsewhere. Investments should be in addition to deep emission cuts, not instead of them

Adapted from Science Based Target’s “The Net-Zero Standard

Carbon Sinks and Offsetting

Since we produce so much carbon, there must be a way to get rid of it, right? Yes! Is it going to take a while? YUP. The largest naturally occurring carbon capturers are carbon sinks, also known as oceans, forests, and soil. Carbon sinks capture all carbon through a process known as sequestration — a fancy way of saying carbon is absorbed by natural occurrences, keeping it away from the Earth’s atmosphere. Although carbon sinks are an effective way to remove carbon from the atmosphere, the problem still lies within rapidly increasing emissions from human activity.

Naturally occurring carbon sinks can reach a carbon limit. For example, oceans absorb about 30–50% of carbon, but too much carbon in the ocean can lead to acidification. Even though you may think big problems require big solutions, we’re happy to report that size does not matter! Tall trees and large oceans are not our only options, people. We encourage you to be creative and put on your monopoly hat because any vacant lot is ripe with opportunity! Just look at what our friends at Muddy Heaven are doing with their backyard. If you have an empty strip of dirt in your neighborhood, consider building a native garden to cultivate with your friends!

Now that nature is working overtime and we’ve discovered that sharing a picture of your dog on Instagram will not get you a tree planted in your honor, what do we do? Well, most companies — like Microsoft, Amazon, and Delta Airlines — will allow you to purchase carbon offsets to counterbalance their carbon footprint. Essentially, carbon offsets allow corporations to fund other people’s environmentally conscious projects. Spoiler alert: Mr. Delta is not personally planting trees in developing countries. But someone else does care about, like, reforestation and investing in renewable energy sites, and that’s enough to compensate for the amount of greenhouse gas emissions corporations produce. This is how so many companies are able to declare carbon neutrality.

Offset credits can be purchased from online companies like Terrapass and Gold Standard and allow you to choose which project you help fund. Some of these projects are tree planting excursions, others enhance clean water access. Does this sound like throwing money at a problem and expecting it to go away? Do all these tree planting projects work if they’re going to burn in a climate change induced wildfire and produce even more CO2? These are all valid questions and we applaud your scrutiny.

For a carbon offset to actually be effective, it must be:

Real: Quantified emissions reductions must have actually occurred (not be projected to occur) and are not merely artifacts of incomplete or inaccurate accounting.
Permanent: Reductions (or removals, in the case of sequestration) should be permanently removed from the atmosphere, and/or be backed by replacement mechanisms if they are re-emitted to the atmosphere (i.e., are “reversed”).
Additional: Reductions should be the result of a response to the existence of a market for such reductions; that is, they should not be reductions that would have happened anyway (aka “surplus”).
Verifiable: Reductions should result from projects that can be accurately monitored and verified.
Enforceable: Reductions should be supported by legal instruments that define their creation, provide for transparency, and ensure exclusive ownership.

— The Role of Carbon Offsets in Cap-and-Trade by Gary Gero (June 2009)

Although carbon offsets seem like a better-than-nothing solution, there’s still a lack of regulation and accountability in this practice. So when you see that a corporation claims to be climate neutral because of their commitment to carbon offsets (cough, cough, tax breaks they can advertise cough, cough), just know that this claim is mildly untrue, to put it lightly. Ultimately, judgment on the validity of a carbon offset is up to the buyer.

Greenwashing

Greenwashing is the greatest marketing tactic since drug commercials started listing side effects faster than your brain can pick up on what you just bought. Similarly malicious, Greenwashing is the act of dressing up a product in the jargon of being good for the planet, but with no basis in reality or evidence that your purchase did…anything! Think: H&M conscious collection. This false advertising is actually illegal in countries in the European Union — in fact, fast fashion retailers ASOS and Boohoo are currently under fire in the UK for this exact reason.

But here in the USA, we still have to decipher symbols on product packaging and read lengthy “Green Commitment” pages on various brand websites. Who has the time? For many people, it’s much easier to accept the vague claims on the product tag and move on with our day. Starbucks is a perfect example of the hypocrisy behind so many companies crying “green.” In 2018, Starbucks released a “straw-less lid,” as part of its sustainability drive, however, this lid contained more plastic than the old lid and straw combined.

Here in the USA, lawmakers are too busy deciding if the climate crisis is real to make changes in the economic sector. Until our lawmakers decide to do anything, here are 3 ways you can make sure you never fall for Greenwashing again:

Greenwashing Sins

Plan A Earth’s How to Spot Greenwashing names the six cardinal greenwashing sins as: The sin of no proof, the sin of the hidden trade-off, the sin of vagueness, the sin of irrelevance, the sin of lesser of two evils, and the sin of fibbing. The “sin of no proof” corresponds to an ecological claim with no scientific evidence, insisting that a product must have easily accessible information supporting their claims, or support from verified third parties.

A “hidden trade-off” occurs when companies label a product as sustainable based on a small set of attributes, (e.g. bottle made out of 70% recycled plastic) while at the same time leaving other characteristics aside. (e.g. carbon emissions released, energy used during the manufacturing process, transportation method) Note: This does not take into account a product’s life-cycle. Before making a purchase, we must ask ourselves, “Through which processes are these products made, from which materials are they produced, how is the waste disposed of, and how is it disposed of at the end of its life?”

The “sin of vagueness” is described as the use of “fluffy-language.” Terms like “all-natural” or “eco-friendly” are vague and do not represent a product’s environmental impact. Often misunderstood by consumers, vague attributes are not inherently sustainable.

Of course, it’s quite dramatic to denote these devices as sins like devout Catholics, however, the creation of these criteria are extremely helpful as a consumer to decode all the sneaky ways greenwashing is weaponized by aesthetically pleasing Instagram boutiques. But if you’re feeling particularly feisty, you can use this handy index of sins to bully corporations on social media and create the first greenwashing superiority complex.

Now what?

The hardest part about discussing climate change is deciphering who is actually responsible for fixing all of this. Is it the consumer who falls for their every purchasing whim? Is it the corporation who advertises their line of products, creating a material addiction mindset? Is it the law makers who prioritize capital over the creation of Earth saving legislation? And why is it that, more often than not, it’s those who pollute the least that are trying to make the biggest change?

Through our research, we kept finding the same sentiment over and over again: How can you change your impact on the climate if you’re not honest about what’s actually happening to the planet? How can you change your impact on the climate without verifiable forms of accountability? It’s easy to think “nature is healing” by a few visual queues. Less smog in the air. Birds un-bloated by breadcrumbs. Water returning to dried lake beds. But scientists would rather we focus on more tactile pursuits: calculating our current emissions, and then decreasing them. Fortunately, we can help scientists in this mission! Pressuring corporations to publicize their emissions is something we can collectivize around.

Maybe one day there will be an accredited and recognizable Cruelty Free Bunny or Fairtrade Man for the Net Zero movement that will help us decide where we spend our money. We would love to see something on a package which signifies that a product has been made by a corporation whose emissions have peaked, safely disposes of their waste, and accounts for all their GHG emissions. Maybe it also signals that they donate accordingly to UN certified nonprofits that help the Earth. We don’t think we’re far off from this point, but with enough pressure on the right people (reprimand Starbucks, not your friends) we can get there.

SOURCES AND ADDITIONAL READING

Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks from the United States Environmental Protection Agency

The Causes of Climate Change from NASA

Greenhouse Effect 101 by Melissa Denchak

What is the ideal level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for human life? By Andrew Moseman and Noelle Selin

Vital Signs from NASA

Net Zero Carbon by 2040 from The Climate Pledge

A Round-up of Carbon Projects Around the World by Lee Beck, Olivia Azadegan and Rowan Emslie

The Net-Zero Standard from Science Based Targets

Climate Change Factsheets of Information Unit on Climate Change

The Role of Carbon Offsets in Cap-and-Trade by Gary Gero

Circular Economy Action Plan from European Commission