Is this a fair interpretation of net zero? (With nice explanation of scope 1,2,3 carbon emissions)

Love this from Planet Mark, who are doing a Net Zero tour ahead of COP.

What do you think? Fair interpretation of Met Zero?

Perhaps if you don’t understand Scope of emissions may not be able to contribute. Here’s an explanation:

Scope 1: what you directly burn (e.g gas for heating, fuel for driving) Scope 2: the emissions to inherit from direct use of energy (e.g train journeys, Carbon from using electricity)

Scope 3: What someone else has emitted in the manufacture of products you’ve used (e.g. Carbon from manufacturing/delivering computer or car).

Scoping of emissions is useful as it indicates control over those carbon emissions with some being out of our control. What they’re suggesting is that we should get everything directly in our control to as near zero as possible and then we qualify for net zero.


Thanks for sharing, I think it’s a useful comparison.

I think not including Scope 3 in a definition of net zero Is a missed opportunity. Whilst not in direct control, most organisations have procurement processes that could include an assessment of their suppliers commitment to net zero. UK public sector bodies will soon start including a minimum 10% scoring on net zero for high value tenders.

The other thing I find problematic is reducing emissions “as much as possible”. It’s quite a subjective phrase as emissions can always be reduced further, its just a what cost it stops becoming acceptable. I think any standard needs to clearly define this and set a minimum emissions reduction threshold or offsetting limit.

1 Like

Completely agree Zac. Thanks for your analysis.