Home » Environment

Beyond Net Zero: Why Absolute Zero Is the Real Climate Target

As the climate emergency worsens, is net zero ambitious enough—or is it time to demand absolute zero emissions across society?

By Medha deb

Created on Sep 27, 2025

As the climate emergency worsens, is net zero ambitious enough—or is it time to demand absolute zero emissions across society?

As national commitments and corporate pledges to achieve net zero emissions multiply, the world is waking up to an uncomfortable truth: net zero may not be nearly ambitious enough. Amid climate emergencies and record-breaking temperatures, a growing chorus of scientists and activists contend that we need to abandon net zero for a more rigorous benchmark: absolute zero. But what do these terms really mean, and does aiming for net zero risk perpetuating dangerous illusions as the planet warms? This article explores the definitions, debates, and practicalities of net zero versus absolute zero.

What Does Net Zero Mean?

According to the globally accepted definition, net zero is achieved when the balance between the greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere and those removed from it is zero. Reaching net zero does not require ending all emissions. Instead, the focus is on drastically reducing emissions and then offsetting any residual output through removals, whether by planting forests, restoring wetlands, or using emerging technologies such as direct air capture and carbon storage.

Net zero = Emissions produced minus removals equals zero.
Offsets (such as tree planting) and technological removals play a major role.
The Paris Agreement requires countries to aim for net zero in the second half of this century to halt global temperature increases.

This approach acknowledges the practical difficulties of eradicating all emissions, especially in sectors like aviation, shipping, and heavy industry. Instead, it allows those hard-to-abate emissions to be balanced by equivalent removals elsewhere.

The Rise (and Problems) of Net Zero Policies

Major emitters, multinational corporations, cities, and even small businesses have set net zero targets spanning from 2030 to 2060. Examples include tech giants, governments, and industry groups. Net zero has become the climate commitment of choice for the public and private sectors alike, and has even spawned global campaigns such as the United Nations ‘Race to Zero’.

Net zero is widely accepted as a practical, flexible, and economically palatable target.
Many climate action plans center on a mix of emissions reductions and offset schemes, like reforestation, wetland restoration, and investments in unproven technologies.

Yet, as the world passes 1.5°C of warming, critics warn that there are substantial flaws and blind spots in the net zero idea:

Offset loopholes: Net zero enables continued fossil fuel burning if emissions are “balanced” somewhere else, incentivizing offset markets that may exaggerate actual climate impact.
‘Accounting tricks’ and greenwashing: Carbon credits and offsets, often used for net zero claims, can be poorly monitored and sometimes count reductions that would have happened anyway.
Delay of real action: The flexibility of net zero may defer challenging but essential steps, like eliminating fossil fuels or rethinking global supply chains, by relying on future removals.
Technological optimism: Net zero targets often assume the rapid development and deployment of humanity’s capacity to remove greenhouse gases, which remains largely unproven at scale.

Absolute Zero: A More Honest, If Daunting, Goal

The alternative, gaining traction among climate campaigners, is absolute zero: a world where no greenhouse gases at all are emitted into the atmosphere. Absolute zero means neither atmospheric balancing nor offsetting—just pure, uncompromising elimination of emissions. In practical terms, it is a commitment to stop burning fossil fuels, end most forms of non-renewable industrial activity, and radically transform food systems, transport, and manufacturing.

Absolute zero = No new emissions, no offsets, no exceptions
Applied across the entire value chain, including suppliers and users
Sometimes called ‘zero emissions’ or when applied only to carbon, ‘carbon negative’ (if more carbon is removed than added)

While challenging, the absolute zero philosophy draws from sobering scientific realities. Earth’s carbon budget is perilously small; even small ongoing emissions will accumulate, triggering more warming, sea level rise, and extreme weather. For some, absolute zero is the only honest response to the climate crisis.

Criterion	Net Zero	Absolute Zero
Definition	Emissions balanced by removals (offsets and technology)	No emissions at all
Offset reliance	High (removals, credits, nature-based, tech)	None (no offsets, total cessation)
Feasibility	Widely considered practical, but open to manipulation	Currently seen as extremely difficult, especially for hard-to-abate sectors
Environmental integrity	Variable—depends on quality of offsets and removal tech	Maximum—no emissions released
Examples adopted by	Governments, corporations, cities	Few, mostly campaigners and radical policy proposals

Why Isn’t Absolute Zero Mainstream?

If absolute zero is so robust, why have national governments and industries overwhelmingly chosen net zero as the target to enshrine in law and public pledges?

Economic disruption: Achieving absolute zero would require rapid closure or transformation of major sectors—aviation, cement, steel—that have no viable zero-carbon alternatives at present.
Political will: Voters and stakeholders may resist the scale of change that absolute zero demands (such as ending all internal combustion engines within a decade).
Technological gaps: For some sectors, zero emission technologies do not yet exist at a commercial scale.
Just transition concerns: Dramatic societal changes risk harming vulnerable communities unless equitably managed.

Despite these barriers, supporters of absolute zero argue that shying away from such a target amounts to conceding defeat—accepting continued warming and dangerous climate change for the sake of political and economic expedience.

Net Zero’s Offset Dilemma

The biggest flaw in net zero may be its opening for creative accounting—especially in the use and misuse of offsets.

Offset projects can exaggerate their benefits or count emissions reductions that would have happened anyway.
Some offsets (e.g., planting trees that are later cut down) do not guarantee permanent storage of greenhouse gases.
Companies and countries can keep polluting, provided they compensate through offset purchases, even when the underlying emissions are not reduced.

As the offset market grows, so does the risk of relying on accounting rather than true decarbonization. Absolute zero, by contrast, admits no such loopholes: only the elimination of emissions is allowed.

The Case for Absolute Zero: Is It Necessary?

The latest climate science paints a stark picture: even small, persistent emissions over decades add up, threatening irreversible damage. Critics argue that the net zero logic, focusing on future offsets or technological fixes, is far too optimistic and fails to account for ecological limits and feedback loops already baked into Earth’s climate system.

Protecting carbon sinks (like forests and oceans) is no longer enough if fossil fuel emissions continue.
Some feedbacks—such as thawing permafrost—may trigger further emissions, rendering emissions balancing futile.
Only absolute zero matches the scale and urgency of the climate emergency.

For these reasons, leading scientists and campaigners now argue that governments, companies, and institutions must set and pursue absolute zero targets, even if these force hard choices and rapid innovation.

Transforming Society for Absolute Zero

Moving from net zero to absolute zero would mean sweeping changes:

Energy: Phasing out all fossil fuels—no oil, coal, or gas. Full-scale adoption of renewables, electrification, and possibly nuclear energy.
Transport: Ending all combustion engines, replacing flights with high-speed rail, and redesigning freight logistics.
Industry: Fundamental changes to construction (cement and steel production), manufacturing, and chemical sectors.
Food and Agriculture: Ending intensive livestock operations, prioritizing plant-based diets, overhauling fertilizer use, and supporting regenerative agriculture.

This systemic transformation requires not just technological upgrade, but major behavioral, cultural, and political shifts. Governments and communities must plan for fair transitions to decarbonized ways of living and working.

Are There Intermediate Solutions?

Even supporters of absolute zero acknowledge that getting there is a process, not a single leap. Transitional targets—including aggressive energy efficiency, massive scaling of renewables, and tightly regulated offsets—offer stepping stones. But they caution that any interim pathway must keep genuine zero as the ultimate destination.

Phasing out high-impact sectors first (coal, oil extraction)
Prioritizing decarbonization where technically most feasible
Investing urgently in viable zero-emission alternatives

In this view, the problem with net zero is not that it’s transitional—but that too often, it becomes the permanent end point.

What Can Individuals and Organizations Do?

Scrutinize net zero pledges: Demand transparency about offset quality, baseline calculations, and timelines.
Push for genuine decarbonization: Focus on eliminating emissions rather than balancing them.
Support policies that prioritize the fastest reductions and strict regulation of offset markets.
Adopt and enable low-carbon lifestyles: Prioritize local sourcing, efficient transport, and reduced consumption.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q: What is the difference between net zero and absolute zero?

A: Net zero involves balancing greenhouse gas emissions produced with those removed or offset. Absolute zero means no new emissions are released into the atmosphere, making removal or offsetting unnecessary.

Q: Why are offsets controversial in net zero strategies?

A: Offsets can permit continued polluting while relying on future or poorly verified removals, enabling greenwashing and potentially delaying actual emissions reductions.

Q: Is achieving absolute zero possible for all sectors?

A: Most experts agree that absolute zero is currently unfeasible for some sectors, like aviation and heavy industry, due to technology limits. However, proponents argue that innovation and systemic change could make it possible in the future.

Q: Does focusing on net zero distract from meaningful climate action?

A: It can, especially when used to justify ongoing emissions through offsets. Critics say only a strict focus on absolute reductions will prevent further warming.

Q: What role do individuals play in this debate?

A: Individuals can demand clarity and ambition from policymakers and businesses, reduce personal emissions, and support societal shifts to zero carbon wherever possible.

Conclusion: The Honest Target in a Warming World

The climate emergency demands clarity—and honesty—about what it will actually take to prevent catastrophic warming. Net zero has provided a convenient rubric for national ambitions and brand strategies, but may risk lulling the planet into inaction. As the devastating effects of climate change accelerate, the case for moving beyond balancing acts grows more compelling. Absolute zero—demanding the end of all emissions, rather than their balancing—may be the only way to truly safeguard future generations.

References

Author

medha deb

Medha Deb is an editor with a master's degree in Applied Linguistics from the University of Hyderabad. She believes that her qualification has helped her develop a deep understanding of language and its application in various contexts.

Read full bio of medha deb