I work in corporate sustainability and can share the corporate perspective on this.... because I think it's both fascinating and super-fraught/complicated. "Net-zero" emissions is the hottest thing now since Larry Fink pushed it in his Blackrock letter at the beginning of the year (urging all companies to align their business for a net-zero economy, and to set net-zero goals). Unlike "carbon neutral" or other vague terms, "net-zero" actually has some definition to it, with strict rules set by the Science-based Targets Initiative (SBTi). To achieve "net-zero", you have to count all the emissions from your entire value chain (including the things that you purchase, employee's commuting, use of products sold, etc.)….reduce emissions to the maximum that you can, and then pull an amount of CO2 out of the air equivalent to your 'residual emissions' (those you can't reduce).
Every company is setting Net-Zero goals for 2030-2040, but nobody really has a clear roadmap to achieve them, because direct CO2 removals (bio or tech-based) is just not done at scale. That's where this FedEx investment comes in....companies truly committed to "net-zero" are investing huge chunks of money at various areas of venture capital and academia, hoping that they bear real options for carbon removal solutions in the next 10-20 years. It's a pretty liberal use of voluntary capital investment with no guaranteed pathway to payoff. In that sense, it's kind of stunning.
The more cynical view focuses on what it means to 'reduce emissions to the maximum possible' before doing removals (as required in Net-Zero). FedEx may mitigate/reduce all sorts of CO2 emissions and then says 'hey we've got no way to decarbonize this overnight air flight for rush shipping, we'll do some CO2 removals elsewhere.' The other way to 'zero-out' that shipment is to...not fly the plane (!). Certain business models may be fundamentally out of alignment with a net-zero world, and that's the problem. From that view, the investment in new tech for CO2 removals becomes a license to continue to operate. On the other hand..."it's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism"...and so an investment in these CO2 removals seems practical, prudent, and urgently necessary.
The context here was actually laid out pretty well in the WaPo today with a nice little quote from our dean Indy Burke:
Great post! I enjoyed reading your ideas/perspectives. However, not everything exactly landed with me - in particular, your perceptions of people. I was saddened by your beliefs that people don't care about nonhuman life nor future generations. I know people from all over the world, of many backgrounds and life experiences - and I don't know any that don't care about clean air, fresh water, healthy forests, healthy wildlife, healthy ecosystems, and future generations. Yes, they may have different political views/backgrounds or "solutions" to "problems" - but at the core - I'm not sure I believe people simply don't care? I think that's actually something between and shared across many cultures, communities, and populations. As for people's consumption habits, yes, I cannot justify everything nor exempt people from all accountability. But I don't think that's evidence of a lack of care. While I can't justify everyone's actions - people are "consuming" for a lot of reasons. And given that so many people do not have the ability to overcome/dedicate ample time and resources on their mental/emotional health, physical health, financial security, and life's abundant stresses/responsibilities - it's understandable to me that people react/cope in many ways (consumption or otherwise) - and that their dedication to the environment/climate change over more imminent personal concerns wouldn't seem logical to me. That kind of dedication often requires "more" from people - more research, more time, more effort - when maybe many don't have "more" to give. Yes, of course, there are exceptions! Anyway, just wanted to share some food for thought. Thanks, again for the piece!
I work in corporate sustainability and can share the corporate perspective on this.... because I think it's both fascinating and super-fraught/complicated. "Net-zero" emissions is the hottest thing now since Larry Fink pushed it in his Blackrock letter at the beginning of the year (urging all companies to align their business for a net-zero economy, and to set net-zero goals). Unlike "carbon neutral" or other vague terms, "net-zero" actually has some definition to it, with strict rules set by the Science-based Targets Initiative (SBTi). To achieve "net-zero", you have to count all the emissions from your entire value chain (including the things that you purchase, employee's commuting, use of products sold, etc.)….reduce emissions to the maximum that you can, and then pull an amount of CO2 out of the air equivalent to your 'residual emissions' (those you can't reduce).
Every company is setting Net-Zero goals for 2030-2040, but nobody really has a clear roadmap to achieve them, because direct CO2 removals (bio or tech-based) is just not done at scale. That's where this FedEx investment comes in....companies truly committed to "net-zero" are investing huge chunks of money at various areas of venture capital and academia, hoping that they bear real options for carbon removal solutions in the next 10-20 years. It's a pretty liberal use of voluntary capital investment with no guaranteed pathway to payoff. In that sense, it's kind of stunning.
The more cynical view focuses on what it means to 'reduce emissions to the maximum possible' before doing removals (as required in Net-Zero). FedEx may mitigate/reduce all sorts of CO2 emissions and then says 'hey we've got no way to decarbonize this overnight air flight for rush shipping, we'll do some CO2 removals elsewhere.' The other way to 'zero-out' that shipment is to...not fly the plane (!). Certain business models may be fundamentally out of alignment with a net-zero world, and that's the problem. From that view, the investment in new tech for CO2 removals becomes a license to continue to operate. On the other hand..."it's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism"...and so an investment in these CO2 removals seems practical, prudent, and urgently necessary.
The context here was actually laid out pretty well in the WaPo today with a nice little quote from our dean Indy Burke:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/03/05/more-than-50-companies-have-vowed-be-carbon-neutral-by-2040/
Great post! I enjoyed reading your ideas/perspectives. However, not everything exactly landed with me - in particular, your perceptions of people. I was saddened by your beliefs that people don't care about nonhuman life nor future generations. I know people from all over the world, of many backgrounds and life experiences - and I don't know any that don't care about clean air, fresh water, healthy forests, healthy wildlife, healthy ecosystems, and future generations. Yes, they may have different political views/backgrounds or "solutions" to "problems" - but at the core - I'm not sure I believe people simply don't care? I think that's actually something between and shared across many cultures, communities, and populations. As for people's consumption habits, yes, I cannot justify everything nor exempt people from all accountability. But I don't think that's evidence of a lack of care. While I can't justify everyone's actions - people are "consuming" for a lot of reasons. And given that so many people do not have the ability to overcome/dedicate ample time and resources on their mental/emotional health, physical health, financial security, and life's abundant stresses/responsibilities - it's understandable to me that people react/cope in many ways (consumption or otherwise) - and that their dedication to the environment/climate change over more imminent personal concerns wouldn't seem logical to me. That kind of dedication often requires "more" from people - more research, more time, more effort - when maybe many don't have "more" to give. Yes, of course, there are exceptions! Anyway, just wanted to share some food for thought. Thanks, again for the piece!