NET ZERO MEANINGLESS WITHOUT NATURE’s SUPPORT

There can be no net zero without nature. Each year, the planet’s oceans, forests, soils and other natural carbon sinks absorb about half of all human emissions. They feature in dozens of national plans to limit global heating to below 2C. This week, however, the scientific architects of net zero have a warning: you have misunderstood mother nature’s role in our plan.
On Monday in the journal Nature, the researchers who developed the concept in 2009 say that vague net zero definitions could mean that the world only ends up meeting the target on paper while the planet continues to warm. By including naturally occurring carbon removals from forests, oceans and other natural sources as if they were human-caused in national plans, the scientists say that countries could, in effect, “cheat” their way to towards Paris agreement targets.
“We are already counting on forests and oceans to mop up our past emissions, most of which came from burning stuff we dug out of the ground. We can’t expect them to compensate for future emissions as well,” says Oxford professor Myles Allen, who led the study.
As Cop29 in Baku enters its second week, the researchers are urging governments at the summit to clarify their definition of net zero, underscoring the need for “geological net zero”.
What would that actually mean? And how would we do it?