NOT ZERO:How ‘net zero’ targets
disguise climate inaction
Joint technical briefing by climate justice organisations
OCTOBER 2020

Design by Marcela Teran, Liberation Works / Layout by www.nickpurserdesign.com

Far from signifying climate ambition, the phrase “net zero” is being used by amajority of polluting governments and corporations to evade responsibility,
shift burdens, disguise climate inaction, and in some cases even to scale up
fossil fuel extraction, burning and emissions. The term is used to greenwash
business-as-usual or even business-more-than-usual. At the core of thesepledges are small and distant targets that require no action for decades,and promises of technologies that are unlikely ever to work at scale, andwhich are likely to cause huge harm if they come to pass.

Key takeaways:• The term “net zero” is used by the world’s biggest polluters and governments as a façade
to evade responsibility and disguise their inaction or harmful action on climate change.
• “Net zero emissions” does not mean “zero emissions”, and should not be accepted at facevalue.
• There is simply not enough available land on the planet to accommodate all of the
combined corporate and government “net zero” plans for offsets and Bioenergy with
Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) tree plantations.
• Collectively, “net zero” climate targets allow for continued rising levels of greenhouse gas(GHGs) emissions, while hoping that technologies or tree plantations will be able to suckcarbon dioxide (CO2) out of the air in the future.
• By putting the burden for carbon sequestration onto land and tree plantations in global
South countries - which have done little to cause the climate crisis – most “net zero”
climate targets are effectively driving a form of carbon colonialism.
• Many governments and corporations have pledged to achieve “net zero” by a distantdate, further compounding the harm caused. “Net zero by 2050” is too little, too late.
• When assessing “net zero” targets, we must remember key questions of fairness andethics: Whose land? Whose forests? Whose emissions? Whose responsibility?
• Instead of relying on future technologies and harmful land grabs, we need climate plansthat radically reduce emissions to Real Zero.

Introduction
There is a growing global push for “net zero” climate
targets. Many governments and corporations havealready declared “net zero” climate goals. The UK
government as President of COP26 intends to use
the 2021 global climate summit to create pressure on
countries and corporations to announce new “net zero”
targets. Many organisations, media, and politicians
portray this as a positive signal that the world is on
track to avoid runaway climate breakdown, but this isfar from the truth.
Even though it may sound similar, the phrase “net zero
emissions” does NOT mean “zero emissions”. In almost
every case it means the exact opposite and is instead
used as a polluter-driven greenwashing scheme. Most
“net zero” targets involve vaguely-written plans withloopholes that allow emissions to continue rising - often
for decades - based on the assumption that in the future
new (risky, unproven and harmful) technologies will beable to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphereand compensate for or “zero out” those emissions. This“removal” process usually relies on the global South.
This means that the countries who are least responsible
for causing the climate crisis, and who already endure
the greatest impacts of the climate emergency,
would carry the additional burden of doing the work
global North or developed countries should be doing
themselves to reduce emissions.
“Net zero” targets should not be accepted at facevalue, nor be assumed to signify progress towards a
climate-safe future as governments and corporations
would have us believe. In fact, weak “net zero” targets
accelerate our dangerous trajectory towards runaway
climate change.
Civil society, media and governments must scrutinise“net zero” announcements to assess whether they1.

are committing to real action. Or, more likely, is thissimply a catchphrase requiring little real action on thetimescale needed? We must look beyond the slogans
and expose attempts to use the term to obfuscate,
distract or delay real emissions reductions. Strong
scrutiny and pressure are needed to deliver thetransformation necessary to bring emissions down toReal Zero and avoid climate chaos.

We need real action forReal Zero emissions
Planet Earth is already breaching so manyenvironmental tipping points that more than 1.5°C ofwarming may be locked in within the next ten years.1 To
truly do the hard work needed to avoid runaway climate
catastrophe, global North countries and transnational
corporations (TNCs) must rapidly stop polluting, andbring their annual emissions down to nearly zero, orReal Zero, within a decade.
Hugely ambitious interim milestones for 2025 and2030 are needed to get these plans on track. For
governments – particularly the wealthiest developed
countries with the largest historical responsibility forcausing the climate crisis - bringing down emissions toa meaningful Real Zero target requires restructuringmultiple sectors, including energy, agriculture,transport, housing and industry. At the same time,
biodiverse ecosystems must be protected and restored
to rapidly reduce emissions. And all of this must be
done while protecting human rights. The role of public
services and utilities must be re-organised, to allow for
integrated planning.
Climate action for Real Zero requires deep reservesof courage to challenge the economic models, broken
systems and corporate power that are at the root of theclimate and biodiversity crises.

Lenton, T. et al (2019), “Climate tipping points: too risky to bet against”, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03595-0

NOT ZERO: HOW ‘NET ZERO’ TARGETS DISGUISE CLIMATE INACTION

3

“Net zero” does not mean “zero”
So what does “net zero” mean, and how is it different from Real Zero? The answer lies in the detail.

Figure 1: How ‘net zero’ disguises the amount of actual emissions.

1.

+

0 Ton
CO2

_

0 Ton
CO2

= net zero CO2

All these illustrative emissions scenarios
result in “net zero” tons of CO2.
The first scenario involves no pollution.

2.

3.

+

+

10
Tons
CO2

100
Tons
CO2

_

_

10
Tons
CO2

= net zero CO

100
Tons
CO2

= net zero CO

2

Unfortunately, the “net” in “net zero” can disguise plansfor business-as-usual, or even more-than-usual. The
bigger the amount “netted out”, the weaker the target.
Our ability to permanently remove CO2 from theatmosphere is limited.2 It is dangerous to assume that
we can continue releasing large amounts of GHGs into
the atmosphere, and that the Earth will have enoughtechnological or ecological capacity to absorb all of the
GHGs released under all countries’ and corporations’“net zero” plans.
Instead of hoping to remove or “net out” GHGs, climate
targets must focus on bringing the amount of GHGs
produced as close to zero as possible, and minimising
the total amount of GHGs added to the atmosphere.
Key questions must be asked to reveal hidden loopholes
in “net zero” targets, including:

2.
3.

4

2

The second scenario involves minimal
pollution, and minimal CO2 removal.
The third scenario involves significant
CO2 pollution, and requires a lot of
removal of CO2. Relying on CO2 removal
will bring huge social and ecologicalharm and technological challenges.

•

When the “net zero” target is reached, how much
GHG pollution will still be taking place? Will GHG
emissions be reduced to nearly zero - or not?

•How much CO2 removal does the plan rely on toreach “net zero”? How and where will this beachieved?

•

Which sectors and GHGs are included? Some or all?3•

How many years or decades before a country or
corporation can claim to be at “net zero”?

•

Between now and the “net zero” target date, howmany cumulative emissions in total will have been
added to the atmosphere?

•

Will there be “overshoot”, i.e. accumulating
atmospheric emissions that take the planet to morethan 1.5°C of warming before the assumed CO2
removals take place, thus significantly increasing
the risk of crossing irreversible tipping points?

Dooley, K. & Kartha, S. (2018) “Land-based negative emissions: risk for climate mitigation and impacts on sustainable development” https://link.springer.
com/article/10.1007/s10784-017-9382-9
Kuriakose, J et al. (2019) “Setting climate targets: when is net zero really net zero?” http://blog.policy.manchester.ac.uk/energy_environment/2019/04/
setting-climate-targets-when-is-net-zero-really-net-zero/NOT ZERO: HOW ‘NET ZERO’ TARGETS DISGUISE CLIMATE INACTION

“Net” is a gamble
that comes with great
uncertainty and grave
potential harm
Unfortunately, a shocking number of government andcorporate “net zero” targets actually assume that vast
tree plantations, usually in global South countries, or
unproven technologies such as Direct Air Capture(DAC) or BECCS, will do the bulk of the work to offset
rising emissions.4
It is reckless to rely on futuristic technologies thatmany experts doubt will ever really work at therequired scale. Some of the approaches would requirehuge amounts of land for new monoculture tree
plantations, and would be likely to lead to conflicts
over food, water, ecosystems and livelihoods. Some
proponents envision hundreds of millions – oreven billions - of hectares of land being allocatedto bioenergy (for BECCS) or carbon-offset tree

plantations. Rural farming and Indigenous communities
in the global South are likely to be pushed off their land.
As a result, unprecedented landlessness, hunger andfood price rises would disproportionately affect people
and communities that have done little to contribute toclimate change, further compounding the already deep
injustice of the climate crisis.5
There is simply not enough available land on theplanet to accommodate all of the combined corporate
and government plans for offsets and BECCS tree
plantations. Large requirements for CO2 removal set
the stage for fanciful and dangerous “geo-engineering”
solutions.
“Net zero” targets can thus hide deep inequity andinjustice. Corporations, Northern countries and elites
plan to continue to burn fossil fuels while assuming thatthe forests and land in the global South will soak up
their emissions, and that frontline communities, womenand young people will pay the cost with their livelihoods
and even lives.

“Net zero” announcements make headlines. Credit: WhatNext?

4.
5.

ActionAid (2015) ”Caught in the Net: How ’net zero emissions’ will delay climate action and drive land grabs”, https://actionaid.org/publications/2015/
caught-net-how-net-zero-emissions-will-delay-real-climate-action-and-drive-land
ActionAid (2019) ”BECCS: A dangerous distraction”, https://www.actionaidusa.org/publications/beccs-a-dangerous-distraction/

NOT ZERO: HOW ‘NET ZERO’ TARGETS DISGUISE CLIMATE INACTION

5

Figure 2: Four illustrative model pathways developed by the IPCC
In 2018 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published the influential “Special Report on Global Warmingof 1.5°C.”6 The four graphs below show four different possible pathways for limiting warming to 1.5°C.7
The four scenarios show that the more GHGs released into the atmosphere through fossil fuel and industry (the grey area
above the horizontal line), the more would have to be removed from the atmosphere using agriculture, forests and otherland use (AFOLU - shown in brown) or BECCS – (shown in yellow) below the horizontal line.
Given the risk that BECCS may never work at scale and would cause immense harm, the only realistic and equitableoption for limiting global warming to 1.5°C is to cut fossil fuel emissions to zero as soon as possible, so as to minimise thetotal GHGs going into the atmosphere.

Key:

Fossil fuel and Industry

Agriculture, Forestry and other Land Use

Billion tonnes CO2 per year (GtCO2/yr)

P1: A scenario in which social, business and technologicalinnovations result in lower energy demand up to 2050 whileliving standards rise, especially in the global South. A downsizedenergy system enables rapid decarbonisation of energy supply.
Afforestation is the only CDR option considered; neither fossil fuelswith CCS nor BECCS are used.

Billion tonnes CO2 per year (GtCO2/yr)

P3: A middle-of-the-road scenario in which societal as well as
technological development follows historical patterns. Emissions
reductions are mainly achieved by changing the way in which energy
and products are produced, and to a lesser degree by reductions indemands.

6.
7.

6

Bio-energy with Carbon Capture and Storage

Billion tonnes CO2 per year (GtCO2/yr)

P2: A scenario with a broad focus on sustainability including
energy intensity, human development, economic convergence andinternational cooperation, as well as shifts towards sustainable andhealthy consumption patterns, low-carbon technology innovation,
and well-managed land systems with limited societal acceptability
for BECCS.

Billion tonnes CO2 per year (GtCO2/yr)

P4: A resource- and energy-intensive scenario in which economic
growth and globalization lead to widespread adoption ofgreenhouse-gas-intensive lifestyles, including high demand fortransportation fuels and livestock products. Emissions reductions
are mainly achieved through technological means, making strong
use of CDR through the deploymemnt of BECCS.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2018) “Special report: Global Warming of 1.5°C” https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/
IPCC graphic (2018) “Characteristics of four illustrative model pathways” https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SPM3b.png
NOT ZERO: HOW ‘NET ZERO’ TARGETS DISGUISE CLIMATE INACTION

Net zero by 2050 - toolittle, too late
The distant dates of many “net zero” targets suggestthat they are not at all serious or ambitious. Distanttargets of “net zero by 2050”- mean inaction or harmful
action continuing for decades. All too often, politicians
and business leaders declare “net zero by 2050” climate
goals to sound visionary, but without planning to takereal action during their terms in office. Instead they
can use these distant pledges to defer responsibility
for action to their successors, when it will be much toolate. (That is, if their successors even choose to abide by
the commitments and not repeal the targets.) The Paris
Agreement declared a global goal of reaching “a balance
between sinks and sources” of GHGs by 2050 (i.e. thatall GHGs being emitted in 2050 must be balanced out
through carbon “sinks” such as forests or other means),
this global target - when taken in combination with thecarbon budget to stay under 1.5°C - means that pollutersneed to get to Real Zero decades sooner than 2050.
Fossil fuel companies such as BP8 and Shell9 havedeclared “net zero by 2050” targets,10 touting themselves
as “climate leaders” . But plans show that they are
actually planning to extract and burn 120% more fossil
fuels than the limit for keeping the planet under 1.5°C
of warming.11 This shows just how dangerous “netzero” schemes really are. If carried out, these plans
will effectively make it impossible to meet the Paris
Agreement’s goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C.12

Carbon offsets – shifting
the burden instead of
reducing GHGs
“Net zero” targets often seek to compensate for GHGs
through the purchase of carbon credits, also known

8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.

as “carbon offsets”. But there is not enough planetarycapacity to remove and compensate for continued
rising GHGs. Therefore, it is impossible for “net zero”
plans that rely heavily on carbon offsets to keep us
under 1.5°C of warming.
Carbon credits or offsets tend to be purchased bycountries or corporations in the global North fromprojects in global South countries, far from where theGHGs were produced. Supposedly greener actors,
usually in the global South, are paid to do emissionsreducing activities on behalf of the purchasing country
or corporation with the “net zero” climate target.
Carbon offsets and carbon trading schemes meanthat polluters can continue business-as-usual without
making the changes necessary,13 yet still claim, as
individual institutions, to be on track for “net zero”
emissions.
International carbon offsets also tend to increase theburden of climate action for countries and communities
in the global South. When emissions reductions fromprojects in global South countries are purchased ascarbon offset credits by global North countries andcorporations, the countries where the projects arelocated are not able to claim those GHG reductions
towards their own national climate targets. After sellingcarbon credits resulting from GHG reduction activities,
those countries are still obliged to take additional
action to reduce their own GHGs, in order to meettheir Paris Agreement obligations - often at greater
economic and social cost.

A “net-out-of-jail-free card”
The above concerns mean that in almost every case,“net zero” pledges signify a lack of ambitious action.
Most actually serve to greenwash corporate plans thatwill cause great harm, including human rights abuses,
runaway emissions, and ecological destruction.

The Guardian (February 2020) “BP sets net zero carbon target for 2050”, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/12/bp-sets-net-zerocarbon-target-for-2050
AFP (April 2020) ”Green groups cautious as Shell unveils ’net zero’ plan” , https://www.france24.com/en/20200416-green-groups-cautious-as-shellunveils-net-zero-plan
Inside Climate News (July 2020) “What does Net Zero Emissions Mean for Big Oil? Not What You’d Think”, https://insideclimatenews.org/
news/15072020/oil-gas-climate-pledges-bp-shell-exxon
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) et al (2019) ”The Production Gap”, http://productiongap.org/2019report/
Oil Change International (2020) ”Big Oil Reality Check”, http://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2020/09/OCI-Big-Oil-Reality-Check-vF.pdf
Gifford, L. (2020) ”You can’t count what you can’t measure: a critical look at forest carbon accounting”, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584020-02653-1

NOT ZERO: HOW ‘NET ZERO’ TARGETS DISGUISE CLIMATE INACTION

7

Far from signifying climate ambition, the phrase “net zero”
is being used by a majority of polluting governments andcorporations to orchestrate escape clauses so as to evade
responsibility, shift burdens, disguise climate inaction,and in some cases even to scale up fossil fuel extraction,
burning and emissions. The term is used to greenwash
business-as-usual or even business-more-than-usual. At
the core of these pledges are small and distant targets
that require no action for decades, and promises oftechnologies that are unlikely ever to work at scale, andwhich are likely to cause huge harm if they come to pass.
Adding “net” to “zero” means a “get-out-of-jail-freecard” for polluters that is increasingly used to avoid ordelay reducing emissions altogether.

Fair and square - Do yourshare
The global economy has historically been heavily run on
fossil fuels, to benefit only a handful of predominantly
Northern countries and (TNCs). The wealth that thesenations and TNCs have accumulated is in itself a direct
result of colonialist, imperialist, racist, patriarchal
practices – the exploitation of ecosystems and peoples
across the global South - that sacrifice the many inthe name of the few and powerful. This concentrated
accumulation of greed and wealth has fuelled (quite
literally) the climate crisis, and continues to do so.
The climate crisis is therefore not an equal crisis. Those
who have contributed to it the least suffer the most.
Equally, the response to address the climate crisis
should not be one of equality (everyone must do thesame) but rather equity (everyone must do their fairshare).14 Global North countries must do vastly more,
and much faster than those with less capacity andlittle historical responsibility for polluting the Earth’s
atmosphere.15 All countries must rapidly bring down
their domestic emissions – i.e., those produced within
their own borders – to Real Zero. But developed
countries have an ethical obligation to do so faster,

14.
15.
16.
17.

8

and in addition support reductions to Real Zero in lessdeveloped, frontline countries as part of their fair shareof the global effort to address the climate emergency.16
For many developed countries predominantly in the
global North that have profited richly from a fossil fueleconomy, climate finance responsibilities may amountto even more than the obligation to reduce domestic
emissions to Real Zero. Developed countries must own
up to their climate responsibility and do the hard workof transforming because it is only fair – and because it
is in no-one’s interest that the Earth suffer the chaos of
runaway climate breakdown.

The role of biodiverse
ecosystems in climate
actionClimate action requires urgent efforts to protect andrestore the planet’s biodiverse ecosystems. Theseact as vital natural “sinks” for carbon dioxide, play a
critical role in the Earth’s carbon cycle, and regulate
atmospheric CO2 levels. However, accelerating rates ofdeforestation and degradation mean that land surface
areas with thriving, natural ecosystems are shrinking,further accelerating global temperature increase
and making local weather patterns more erratic. The
amount of land that ecosystems can cover globally –and therefore the CO2 they can sequester – is limited.
Studies show that biodiverse and natural ecosystems
sequester carbon more effectively than tree
plantations; are more resilient to drought, fire andflooding; and that the most effective means ofprotecting ecosystems is through safeguarding therights of indigenous peoples who are the traditional
guardians of their territories.17
Thus, using ecosystems to reduce emissions canonly be effective under an extremely limited setof conditions. Only ecosystems within a country’s
national boundaries should be included in a nation’s
accounting, and carbon sequestered by other

Joint civil society publication (2015) ”Fair shares: A civil society equity review”, http://civilsocietyreview.org/report/
Climate Equity Reference Calculator http://civilsocietyreview.org/report/
Friends of the Earth (web page) “Climate Fair Shares”, https://www.foei.org/climate-fair-shares
Climate, Land, Ambition & Rights Alliance (CLARA) (2018) “Missing pathways to 1.5°C: the role of the land sector in ambitious climate action”, https://www.climatelandambitionrightsalliance.org/report

NOT ZERO: HOW ‘NET ZERO’ TARGETS DISGUISE CLIMATE INACTION

countries’ ecosystems should not be counted.
Measures must protect and restore natural domestic
ecosystems, and safeguard the rights of indigenous
peoples and local communities. And because
ecosystems can be cut down or lost to climate change,
meaning that their storage potential is temporary andnot permanent, carbon sequestered in ecosystems
should be counted transparently and separately fromindustrial emissions.18 It is also important to note thatfor indigenous peoples and local communities theseecosystems are means of survival, and have spiritualand other purposes, far beyond the carbon value inthe trees.

and that our only hope is strategies such as BECCS
and carbon markets, or dangerous geo-engineering
approaches, even if they are risky and won’t work.
The truth is we are out of time, for the half-measuresand dangerous distractions that underpin most“net zero” action plans. Our only hope is to quickly
implement real people-based solutions that lead toReal Zero emissions. Despite what polluters want us tobelieve, these real solutions do exist and will work when
implemented to scale. These solutions will not only
avoid runaway climate change, but they will restore
balance to nature and drastically improve peoples’ lives.

Only under these conditions, and if industrial emissions
are sufficiently lowered, can the sequestered carbon
in these ecosystems realistically help contribute tonational emissions being brought down to Real Zero.

They include things like:•Transitioning to 100% renewable energy systems
that are democratically controlled, creating newjobs and protecting workers.

We need real targets
based on real solutions•

agroecological practices, ending perverse subsidies
and the use of artificial fertilisers.
•with making cities less reliant on cars and morebike-friendly.
•

The corporations and global North countries thathave predominantly caused climate change want us
to believe that their “net zero” pledges and unproven,dangerous schemes will save us. Many do recognise
the urgency to act – but believe that we are out of time

18.

Investing in infrastructure for electric mass public
transport that is free or heavily subsidised, along

Failure to take climate action is now ranked as thegreatest threat to humanity. Net zero makes this threata reality.
It is clear that simply announcing a “net zero by 2050”
goal is not a commitment to serious climate action. In fact,
in many cases these announcements are made to cover
up a lack of real action. Sadly, most “net zero” claims aresmokescreens at best, and at worst, deliberate deceptions
that contribute to emissions, injustice, racism, patriarchy,colonialism, and capitalism.

Shifting from industrial agriculture to

Publicly investing in retrofitting old, inefficientbuildings and ensuring efficient heating and coolingsystems in all new buildings and houses, throughpublic policies that make them affordable for all.

Simply announcing a “net zero by 2050” goal is notenough to show a serious plan for climate action.
Rather, particularly when made by corporations andglobal North countries, it is a public proclamation of theunethical, irresponsible failure to act. If we are to havea chance of avoiding runaway climate breakdown weneed targets that require real action, and that employ
real solutions to get us to real zero – fairly - and fast.

McLaren et al (2019) ”Beyond ’net zero’: A case for separate targets for emissions reduction and negative emissions”, https://www.frontiersin.org/
articles/10.3389/fclim.2019.00004/full

NOT ZERO: HOW ‘NET ZERO’ TARGETS DISGUISE CLIMATE INACTION

9Examples of Real Solutions that get us toward Real Zero (adaptedfrom briefing made in 2019 by DCJ members and others).19
Real climate solutions
This list illustrates just some examples of real solutions and policy tools countries should use immediately
to effect meaningful change, though they will all play out at different time scales (further underscoring theneed to implement them immediately and alongside behavioural and consumption changes). Many of these
are already implemented at local and national levels. Several of these measures can be easily implemented
directly, while others require international cooperation.
Behavior, consumption, and equity• Drastically target the excessive and wasteful consumption of corporations and wealthy elites.
• Reduce absolute levels of energy use and overall consumption amongst the richer part of the world’s
population.
• Ensure just transitions across all sectors that ensure workers are able to move into new, secure green jobs.
• Ensure these kinds of real solutions are made possible in developing countries that have done the least
to cause climate change, in line with fair shares and Common But Differentiated Responsibilities.
Renewable energy• Plan for and transform energy systems away from centralized corporate-controlled fossil fuels andother harmful technologies such as nuclear, mega-hydro, and biofuels to clean, safe systems thatempower people and communities.
• Implement policies, public investments, and incentives for a just and equitable transition to 100 percent
renewable energy (by 2030 for developed countries), that enables energy democracy, creates newjob opportunities, encourages distributed renewable energy, promotes local control and community
ownership, and protects workers and communities most affected by extractive economies.
• Implement climate finance, technology and capacity schemes under the UNFCCC, and other means to
support, in accordance with countries’ fair shares, enabling developing countries to rapidly move to 100
percent renewable energy.
• Remove intellectual property rights or other barriers to affordable and accessible environmentallysound technologies.
Fossil fuels• Create an immediate moratorium on all new fossil fuel extraction.
• Develop treaties and legal agreements for an equitable, rapidly managed decline of existing fossil fuels.
• End producer subsidies promoting fossil fuels.
Education and participation• Enhance and expand environmental education relating to the sustainable use of resources and climatechange in school curricular, to facilitate people’s participation in climate action and to develop the real
solutions needed to address the climate crisis.
• Ensure access to public information in a manner that is accessible and understandable, and thatempowers people to participate in developing climate solutions.

19.

10

LIFE - Education, Sustainability, Equality, WhatNext?, Corporate Accountability, Global Forest Coalition, Don Lehr, Indigenous Environmental Network, &Plataforma Boliviana Frente al Cambio Climatico (2019) “Real Solutions for Real Zero: How article 6.8 of the Paris Agreement can help pave the way for 1.5°C”,
https://www.corporateaccountability.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Article-6.8-of-the-Paris-Agreement-A-Non-Market-Approach-to-1_5_v4_FINAL.pdf

NOT ZERO: HOW ‘NET ZERO’ TARGETS DISGUISE CLIMATE INACTION

Food & land
• Leave the ecological integrity of natural ecosystems unharmed and conserve biodiversity.
• Secure land and tenure rights for indigenous peoples and local communities.
• Rapidly transform industrial agriculture towards agroecological practices through proper incentives
and policies combined with removal of perverse subsidies, and phase out artificial fertilizers.
• Promote and support ecosystems- and community based solutions to address climate change, including
agroecological farming systems, and community conservation of biodiverse ecosystems, such as but
not limited to grasslands and forests. These are community based solutions that protect biodiversity
and ecosystem integrity while safeguarding food sovereignty and rights, all while providing substantial
mitigation benefits.
• Vastly scale up ecological restoration to recover natural forests, peatlands, and other degradedecosystems for both climate and biodiversity, through securing of land and tenure rights for indigenous
peoples and local communities, proper public policies, and public financing.
• Embrace community governed forest conservation by passing governmental policies that support securityof tenure and access to land, sustainable agriculture, food sovereignty and sustainable livelihood
options that respect rights and traditional knowledge of Indigenous peoples and local communities.
Housing• Create public investment schemes that ensure retrofitting of old inefficient houses and passive heating
standards for all new buildings.
• Set new standards for high-efficiency cooling with targeted measures to ensure affordability for all.
Transport• Invest in infrastructure of electrified, mass public transit, with free or heavily subsidized fares.
• Make cities car free and subsidize bikes and electric bikes.
• Set stringent emissions standards for all new cars with e.g. 10 percent tightening per year. Ban sale offossil fuel cars (by 2030 in developed countries).
• Ensure major public investments in electric trains.
• Immediately ban expansion of airports, particularly in developed countries.
• Set new standards for high-efficiency cooling with targeted measures to ensure affordability for all.

NOT ZERO: HOW ‘NET ZERO’ TARGETS DISGUISE CLIMATE INACTION

11www.actionaid.org / www.corporateaccountability.org / www.foei.org / www.demandclimatejustice.org / www.twn.my / www.whatnext.org