Talk:Carbon neutrality

Net Zero is not the same as carbon neutrality

This needs to be split out. There is good material (developed by consensus in the ISO process) within IWA42:2022 Net Zero Guidelines (which also should have an article created). Can see it at www.iso.org/netzero. Our2050World (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I've replied to you here on the talk page of WikiProject Climate Change: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climate_change#Net_Zero_vs_Carbon_Neutrality EMsmile (talk) 08:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

So in one, two or at most 3 sentences without jargon what is the difference please? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Net Zero is just Greenwashing. Real zero is needed for carbon neutrality. Rlsheehan (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I mean technically what is the difference? Chidgk1 (talk) 05:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@Chidgk1 @RlsheehanChiming in to agree with @Our2050World. Please see my explanation of the differences below. OxfordNetZero (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Net zero has stricter criteria than carbon neutrality in a few areas: the extent to which offsets can be used; timeline for claiming carbon neutral versus net zero; and types of offsets that can be used.

To be "carbon neutral", companies are allowed to balance any and all unabated emissions by purchasing offsets . To reach "net zero", on the other hand, entities must first reduce their own emissions as much as possible first, and then they can use offsets to balance remaining emissions . Therefore organizations can claim they are carbon neutral in the short term , whereas net zero is a longer term target. The other key difference is that net zero has stricter criteria for what types of offsets can be used to balance emissions. To be "carbon neutral", offsets can be based on avoided or reduced emissions credits (ie offsets from protecting a forest, or from energy efficiency retrofits) . However, to be net zero, offsets must be based on removals that are equal in magnitude and permanence to the emissions they balance . Few offsets on the market today meet this criteria. Achieving global and organizational net zero will require substantial investment in greenhouse gas removal and storage technologies.OxfordNetZero (talk) 11:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

---

I will also add that the terms serve different purposes. Net zero is a climate-science concept that describes what it would take to stop global warming . Experts have worked backwards from this premise to define and operationalize net zero for organizations, sectors, and regions .

Carbon neutral is often seen as an interim state in the journey to net zero . Another distinction is that products and services can be considered carbon neutral , whereas they cannot be called "net zero" unless the company itself is net zero. OxfordNetZero (talk) 11:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Really happy to see a knowledgeable group of people interested in improving Wikipedia. If you want to create a seperate article for the term or split the article, you can do it yourself :). The guiding principle is WP:BEBOLD. You can create a draft WP:DRAFT, or propose a page WP:split. In general, WP:BE BOLD!

I would encourage you all to make a user page. If I'm not mistaken, y'all are doing a project together? It would be good to be transparant about that. Decisions here are made by consensus, and off-wiki collaboration may make that more difficult (see these pitfalls). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Femkethank you for the information. We are a part of a wider team and did not mean to violate any rules. I will make a user page and consolidate our comments.

We will work on creating a separate article. Thank you. OxfordNetZero (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

As Femke says Wikipedia policy is that user-ids are for individuals rather than groups.

Thanks for the clear explanation of the difference. That explanation is good enough to be put in one of the articles if you have not done so already. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Please do take a look at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:OxfordNetZero/sandbox (if you haven't already). Our2050World (talk) 10:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Our2050World and I are working on a new page for net zero in my sandbox here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:OxfordNetZero/sandbox. Feel free to chip in/edit.

OxfordNetZero (talk) 10:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance @Femke! We aren't looking to violate rules, more to get some thoughts together at the same time as going through the Wikipedia learning curve. As @OxfordNetZero said, we would love all the support to get this important topic up and running. Is there anything else we should do to bring other voices in and reach consensus? Our2050World (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi all, I am not per se against creating a new article called "Net zero" but I'd also like to add a word of caution here: just because "net zero" is different to "carbon neutrality" does not necessarily mean that two articles are needed. We could also set it up so that "net zero" is explained better within carbon neutrality and then redirects to a particular section in that article. This is for example how I have done it for planetary integrity: if you click on that it takes you to a specific section within planetary boundaries.

Or another example is carbon credit which we are currently planning to merge into carbon offset. They are not the same but they have so many similar aspects that combining them in one is better. See discussion here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Carbon_offset#Proposed_outline_for_combined_article

A benefit of thinking of one article instead of two is that you would have a real incentive to improve carbon neutrality first before rushing off to create a new net zero article.

This can also be seen as an iterative process: why not first add content about "net zero" to carbon neutrality and later, when it grows, split it off to a spin-off article?

Either way, please work on improving the carbon neutrality at the same time. It probably needs it. I haven't looked at it in detail yet but I recently worked on carbon footprint and you can see from its revision history that I took out a lot of fluff, outdated stuff as well as content that overlapped too much with greenhouse gas emissions.

So if you do create a new net zero article, please ensure it doesn't repeat too much of the same content that is already at greenhouse gas emissions or at carbon accounting. EMsmile (talk) 11:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @EMsmilethank you for the insights. One key reason that we feel net zero should be its own page is that net zero--not carbon neutrality-- is what is required to reach the Paris Agreement and stop global warming. As mentioned above, carbon neutrality allows for an over-reliance on offsets. Given the state of removal technolgoy today, it is not feasible to scale up removals fast enough to reach our climate goals without deep reductions. So we feel it is extremely important to clarify these terms as they have wider implications for climate action and integrity. We will put a disclaimer that there is confusion in how they are used,and we will link to the carbon neutrality page when appropriate.

Also, thanks for pointing out the greenhouse gas emissions and carbon accounting pages-- I will try to limit any overlap there. 192.76.8.86 (talk) 09:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't logged in but this was me (OxfordNetZero)^OxfordNetZero (talk) 09:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I see your point but please don't look at your potential new article in isolation. It would be great if you could improve also this article, as well as the carbon offset article in parallel. At the end of the day, all these related articles need to fit together like a good puzzle game. We wouldn't gain much if we ended up with a great new article on net zero but had remaining crappy and confusing content at carbon neutrality and carbon offset... In some cases it might just be a matter of culling and condensing, removing outdated content, moving overly detailed content to country sub-articles etc. EMsmile (talk) 10:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the tips. I will make sure to look at the neutrality and offset pages carefully to see how to make everything fit together. And will add edits to each. OxfordNetZero (talk) 10:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the suggestion to improve articles in parallel, the long-term goal is of course to bring all articles up to a good level of quality but how to get there is up to you. Many new editors find it easier to work on one article at a time and that's perfectly OK. Any improvement anywhere is something to celebrate.

That said, might it be possible to make a single article that covers both carbon neutrality and net zero, and explain the similarities and differences throughout the article? I'm finding that explanations of the difference between carbon neutrality and net zero are intriguing but difficult to get my head around. It might be easier for the reader to understand the comparison if it's spread throughout an article rather than concentrated in one section.

If the idea of writing a single article for both topics hurts your head then don't worry about it for now. We can refactor things later. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

References

What to do about the long list of country examples?

I am unsure what to do about the section "Example of pledges". This could blow out more and more and might not be so suitable for a high level article on carbon neutrality. I've just moved some content that I felt was overly detailed to relevant sub-articles. In many cases, I think the content could be moved to the "climate change in country X" articles (which presumably didn't exist when this article was first created). We already have an overview table which is probably more suitable than a section for each country? EMsmile (talk) 10:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes the overview should be moved to the new “net zero” article and the countries to their own articles in my opinion Chidgk1 (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Practicalities of splitting Carbon neutrality and Net Zero

The net zero article is getting quite close to review for approval now. Can we start to identify blocks of texts/edits that need to be made in this article so they can sit alongside each other?

I am slightly worried that the changes and approval of the draft needs to be done in parallel. Our2050World 🌏 (talk) 11:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Carbon neutrality needs work but I wouldn't worry about the timing. When Draft:Net zero is ready, it will be fine to publish it and then work on Carbon neutrality.

Regarding improvements to make to carbon neutrality that would help the two articles sit alongside each other, anything that gets rid of spam and trivia would be helpful. Anything that fixes statements that are wrong or confusing would be helpful. One confusing statement is the first sentence, "Carbon neutrality is a state of net zero carbon dioxide emissions," It says CO2 emissions but links to greenhouse gas emissions. So which is correct - CO2 or GHG? There's also a contradiction with the third paragraph - the first sentence says carbon neutrality = net zero and the third paragraph says carbon neutrality ≠ net zero. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@User:femke, User:Clayoquot, User:EMsmile and anyone else interested:

I have created a draft of a new carbon neutrality page at the link below. It is based on the original page, but with some significant edits to improve clarity and accuracy. I also took out parts that were unique to Net Zero, which hopefully could have a new page. I still need to add some citations to it, but it is almost done.

I was wondering if you could please take a look and let me know what you think or edit it directly. If it looks good, I will attempt to upload it to the original carbon neutrality page.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Leanunu/sandbox#Standards_and_Certifications_BodiesLeanunu (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I am unsure what you mean with "If it looks good, I will attempt to upload it to the original carbon neutrality page."? Do you mean you would replace all the current content at carbon neutrality with your new draft? Or does it mean you would edit incrementally, i.e. remove and add a few sentences at a time, each time explaining your edit and why (a bit like what I did in the last few days at greenhouse gas emissions; I didn't add new content though, just re-arranged and culled). In general, I think it's almost always better to edit incrementally rather than in one big sweep. Unless you would argue that the current carbon neutrality article ought to be "blown up" (see WP:TNT)?

Regarding your draft, I have only briefly glanced over it; as you say, a lot of references are still missing. It reads in part a bit like an essay or WP:OR. But once you make all the statements verifiable with good references, that will improve it a lot.

Overall, thanks for all your work on this, always great to see new people join in this effort on climate change topics! EMsmile (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

" I think it's almost always better to edit incrementally" - I think this sounds like the right approach (more effort, but more transparent), if it's possible.

Re the draft style, @EMsmile, do you think there needs to be some more refinement on the sandbox before edits to the live page starts? Or shall "we" (not sure who "we" is) begin?

@Leanunu and I are looking to bring more people in to the Wikipedia universe to help also. Your guidance as well (as well as others) is really, really appreciated. Our2050World 🌏 (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

My gut feeling is that you and Leanunu have generally mastered the art of Wikipedia writing (but please include references each time, see WP:VERIFY and WP:Identifying reliable sources (science)!), so I would say go ahead with editing the live article. See also the comments and questions by Clayoquot above on 18 April; it seems you haven't addressed them yet (discussions on talk pages are very very important for Wikipedians).

Oh and another top tip: Be aware of the dangers of WP:close paraphrasing, and of course of copyright infringement. This is a problem that I've struggled to master fully - even after many years - and this, and other aspects, resulted in a WP:CCI investigation for all my edits which is still ongoing (see here)...

Great about bringing in more people to the Wikipedia universe, which tactic are you following for this? I have also tried this for years and have had only minimal success so far (please send me a message through the Wikipedia e-mail system if you want to discuss this aspect in more detail one on one; or on the talk page of WikiProject Climate Change perhaps). EMsmile (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@EMsmile Firstly, thank you! We are trying and the encouragement is much appreciated!

Agree on the references and will address this. I think the points from @Clayoquot have now been address here [[1]]. As well as the close paraphrasing/investigation - noted.

On the bringing more people in, I have been trying to get more people to subscribe to some of the brilliant Wikimedia foundation training sessions as well as letting a broad set of climate experts know how much of a problem the lack of a net zero page is. Love to talk further and thanks again for all your help! @Leanunu Our2050World 🌏 (talk) 07:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

How to deal with the criticism section

Now that we have a separate article on net zero, I have moved the criticism section to there (as it was talking about net zero) and then brought it back via an excerpt. However, I am unclear on whether this is good like this. It seems to me that the criticism usually applies to both, to the carbon neutrality concept and the net zero concept equally? Don't people who talk about these criticisms just use the two terms interchangeably? Or is there a clear difference in the way people criticise one concept versus the other? Pinging User:Boyd Reimer who worked on this criticism section in the past. EMsmile (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Only CO2 or all GHGs?

So is there consensus whether climate carbon neutrality (edit: I meant carbon neutrality) is only about CO2 or about all GHGs? It seems to me there is no consensus yet and therefore this should be made clear early on, already in the first paragraph of the lead. Or it might be like carbon footprint which some use for only CO2 (like IPCC) but the general trend is that it's for all GHGs. So far this does not come out clearly in the lead yet. (my recent changes to the first sentence of the lead tried to improve on that but I might have failed) EMsmile (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

All GHGs (unless you are the government of New Zealand) Chidgk1 (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Hmm now I am confused again as your question was about climate neutral whereas GB National Grid talks about carbon neutral https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/carbon-neutral-vs-net-zero-understanding-difference# Chidgk1 (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

WEF define for companies not countries https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/08/carbon-neutral-net-zero-sustainability-climate-change/ Chidgk1 (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

As a country Turkey buys a lot of coal from Russia (hey it is cheap now). But methane emissions from Russian coal mines go on their “net zero” target not ours. But if we were a company not a country they would go on our net zero target if I understand right Chidgk1 (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Or maybe double counted on both selling and buying companies? I give up now Chidgk1 (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)