Why 'Net Zero' Is A Scam

In this Our Changing Climate climate change video essay, I look at why net zero emissions targets are a scam. Specifically I look at how the promises of net zero at COP26 will not actually mitigate climate change quickly. Net zero emissions does not mean zero emissions. Countries and companies like BP can use the net zero emissions goals and targets to continue burning fossil fuels and emitting carbon dioxide, ultimately fueling the climate crisis, while they rely on the false promise of carbon capture and carbon sequestration techniques like tree planting or technologies that haven't even been invented yet. Essentially, net zero emissions schemes allow for a worsening of the climate crisis because they are a procrastination technique for countries and corporations who do not want to reduce their emissions. Because of the vague definition of net zero, even fossil fuel companies like BP could call themselves net zero yet still continue with business as usual.

Check out other Climate YouTubers:

Timestamps:
0:00 - Intro
1:19 - What Does "Net Zero" Actually Mean?
3:41 - How BP Uses Net Zero To Keep Polluting
7:00 - Why Net Zero Is A Scam
9:19 - Towards Real Zero Emissions
10:29 - Sponsored Message
12:42 - Outro

_______________________

#NetZero #ClimateChange #ClimateCrisis

[OurChangingClimate]

💡 What solutions to the climate crisis do you think are the most effective?
👍 Consider commenting and liking the video!!! It really helps this video beat the pesky algorithm!

[beckyharris]

This is made even worse by the fact that the UK government has refused to release the document detailing its Net Zero Strategy's CO2 savings.

[loganwolv]

So net zero is basically like your average student that does nothing for the entire time, but on the last day it actually tries to study and we all know how that goes.

[a.randomjack]

'Profits is the deadliest of all addiction' It's an addiction because they want more more and more. For that goal, they will ignore reality, just like a compulsive gambler.
Thanks OCC. You very well demonstrated the #NetZeroScam

[michaelrch]

One thing I noticed in the video (which is very good btw) is that you list the methods for generating offsets (to get to "net zero") as tree-planting and direct air capture.
A few things to note though.
First, almost no one is bothering to pay for DAC. It's about $1000 a ton right now. Offsets are usually marketed at $10 a ton. We should wish that the only offsets were using DAC.
Second, the tree planting is fairly useless because it's effects will only kick in in 8-10 years. New forests aren't even carbon neutral in their early years. The trees respire more than the photosynthesize. Meanwhile we need real net reductions in emissions today.
Third, and this is the worst. Most offsets are no even as good as tree planting. At least those in theory remove atmospheric carbon.
Most offsets only pay to "abate" expected emissions. They assume a process is going to go on emitting. They assume that it is fixed unless offset funding is being applied and then the count any reduction in emissions as that process is slowed or stopped as an offset. So if an offset pays into a solar power project, then the "avoided emissions" from that solar power count as an offset. But that is highly questionable given that a) the project would probably happen without the offset funding anyway and b) the offset assumes that some carbon-emitting power was avoided. This is actually unlikely because a lot of the time, these solar projects are in poor rural areas and are bringing power to an area that didn't have any, or supplementing what little was there. They weren't using much fossil energy in the first place.
So the solar project only added power - it's didn't displace fossil energy.

You can see how in India, fossil energy is still growing rapidly even while solar and wind also grow.
So yes. Offsets that stand behind net zero are a con. The projects they fund usually deserve funding to hold down new emissions but they do NOT counteract emissions elsewhere.

[arcies]

I'm protesting the youtube corprate choice to remove the dislike button by not interacting with the site, but notifications by certain channels are an exception. Here's a comment for the algorithm; more people need to know about this.

[TheMrCougarful]

LOL my local government is committed to being "climate neutral" whatever that means. WASF.

[fortytwo]

It’s a marketing scheme created by big energy investors

[grmpEqweer]

If we could require the use of carbon-capture cement on new builds, it would probably be somewhat helpful.
But cars are just mostly bad. It's not just making the car, it's making the roads, it's making huge amounts of space in cities FOR the cars, which makes cities less livable for people and creates more of a heat island effect with all that pavement.
Electric trains and trolleys, run off a catenary, are far better. Those don't require batteries, can move a lot of people more efficiently, and they can be powered off renewables (or nukes if we ABSOLUTELY must, but I'd rather not).

[naive_person]

The more and more I learn about companies green facades they put up: the more sure I am that really at the end of the day the biggest impact I can actually have is to vote with my money, which largely translates to just plain and simple consume less. I have little to no hope in companies and governments to actually make meaningful changes in their operations tbh.

[Phrancis]

Nice shoutout to Juiced Media. They're hilarious, in a sad way. Well it's easy for politicians to make promises when they won't be in power or even alive to keep them.

[lazergurka-smerlin]

Not sure what we expected from a conference called COP

[lazyeyedwolf]

Yup because net zero doesn't mean zero emissions

[jeffharmed]

“Wind & solar are useful for
off-grid locations. But for where
there is a grid, they are useless,
serving only to impose irregularity
on the system” - Zubrin

[profkrumdieck]

I am a little older, and I remember the targets set by governments and companies under the Kyoto protocol. All of the targets required transition from growth in fossil emissions to decline. The targets countries set were usually some percentage below 1990 emissions levels by 2012. Obviously not one country has even come close to these targets. It's time to go beyond targets to engineering those transitions from growth to dial-down.

[LogicGated]

My Friday schedule of second thought followed by OCC is complete.

[mgs]

Good video and you tried to explain a set of very complex topics well: Net-Zero and offsetting. However, it feels like the video did not address an important issue which is also getting confused in the comments: there’s a difference in carbon neutral and net zero definitions, and there is an international standard supported by WFF, WRI, & UN: the SBTi Net-Zero standard. With this new definition, companies and countries will have to reduce emissions by 90% for all scopes to be Net-Zero! A big step in prioritising reductions as you mentioned these should be prioritised!
The video also doesn’t address many issues regarding offsetting, and should highlight that many projects support local and indigenous groups, woman’s rights, and carbon sequestration. This of course depends on the type of project, as there’s avoidance and sequestration projects with varying levels of effectiveness! The solutions provided at the end are spot on and totally agree, but in a 13min video it was impossible to address all the nuances of such a topic.
Think a video addressing some of the more recent developments on this and educating on various types of offsets and how they play a part in reaching net zero to prevent companies addressing everything on the 11th hour would be great to see!
Keep it up - love your channel

[tangjtl]

I just had to give a presentation on “many UK cities want to be net-zero by 2030, how can they do so?” For my masters program this week, where was this video a couple weeks ago? 😂

[matthewlopes]

THANK YOU! This is absolutely what people need to hear right now.

[David.Marquez]

Was waiting for this video ever since the UN Conference!