Talk:Net zero emissions

Feedback
Hello! Asked to give feedback as part of an edit-a-thon.
 * References are everything. When you submit a draft for publication the reviewers will not accept unless there are three reliable sources that comply with a couple of criteria (see WP:42). They must be independent, reliable, secondary and talk about the topic in some depth. (For isntance, a source that dedicates a few hundred words to net zero to contrast it with carbon neutrality)
 * Make really clear what the difference is between this article and carbon neutrality. You're using the ISO standards as a delineation. Is that how it is commonly delineated? I always envisage net zero to be the global goal, and carbon neutrality something that may happen on a individual to larger level.
 * There should be an introduction. The first heading shouldn't appear till after a few paragraphs. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Our2050World 🌏 (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Our2050World, it's great to see you working on this. Regarding the difference between net zero and carbon neutrality, the IPCC addresses this in one of the FAQs: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/about/frequently-asked-questions/.
 * I think the main thing to clarify is what Scope 3 emissions are and how they are accounted for. Here in Canada, which is an oil and gas exporter, we constantly see claims that the next oil or gas project will have net zero emissions. The logic there is that the project has enough CCS, electrification, and offsets to make Scope 1 and 2 emissions net zero, and Scope 3 emissions are someone else's problem. This is the logic that Eric Reguly's comment about fossil fuel exports is referring to. It would be great to address this type of greenwashing. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 16:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I just had a look through the Carbon accounting article and it seems to say that there are several published standards for evaluating actor-net-zero, not just the ISO one.


 * I'm starting to think that perhaps we should cover global-net-zero and actor-net-zero in separate articles with a wp:disambiguation page. In the "Controversy" section, the criticisms are all about net zero claims for actors. We should make it clear that the concept of global-net-zero is not controversial, at least not among scientists or environmentalists.


 * I haven't fully thought things out yet but my gut tells me that actor-carbon-neutrality and actor-net-zero should be a single article. I'm not sure what the benefits would be of having separate articles for these terms. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 21:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think actor and global might be a good idea... @OxfordNetZero, what do you think? Our2050World 🌏 (talk) 11:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Or, are the issues for different types of actors different enough to warrant separate articles? Say you were asked two questions by two different people. One asks "How should I assess a corporation's claim that they will be net zero?" and the other asks, "How should I assess a country's plan to get to net zero?" Would you answer these two questions in a similar way? Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 16:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @ClayoquotI think you would answer them in a similar way; the main criteria hold for both--accounting should include all scopes, all greenhouse gas emissions, and there should be clear targets, plans, reporting structures, accountability etc.
 * @Chidgk1 I agree We should add a section though about how governments are operationalizing net zero, and which countries have net zero targets. OxfordNetZero (talk) 09:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Super. It's great to have you here! Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 15:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I also agree that a single article addressing global net zero and actor net zero (and, for that matter, action net zero), makes the most sense. NetZeroPhysicist (talk) 08:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi All, apologies if I get formatting wrong, I'm new to Wikipedia editing (although of course a long-standing user). Many sensible suggestions here, and a merged article indeed makes sense, although I would advocate a title "Net Zero and Carbon Neutrality" rather than the other way around because (a), for whatever reason, net zero seems to be the more rigorously defined concept, mostly because it is the term normally used by the IPCC and the scientific community, and (b) most national and corporate goals seem to be set in net zero terms rather than carbon neutrality terms (the most obvious and very important exception being China's). If editors think this would be a good idea, I'd also like to propose some text and an equation to explain the scientific justification for net zero based on statements in recent IPCC reports, unpacked at some length in this article https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-environ-112320-105050 NetZeroPhysicist (talk) 08:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you Femke! I will work on adding citations. I have made some significant edits to the layout. The introduction is (hopefully) clearer, and there is less focus on ISO.
 * We still need to add a section on Government net zero targets, coverage, and best practice. OxfordNetZero (talk) 10:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

-- Hi @femke, @Clayoquot, and anyone else interested:

I have created a draft of a new carbon neutrality page at the link below. It is based on the original page, but with some significant edits to improve clarity and accuracy. I also took out parts that were unique to Net Zero, which hopefully could have a new page. I still need to add some citations to it, but it is almost done.

I was wondering if you could please take a look and let me know what you think or edit it directly. If it looks good, I will attempt to upload it to the original carbon neutrality page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Leanunu/sandbox#Standards_and_Certifications_Bodies Leanunu (talk) 18:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Femke @Clayoquot @EMsmile I hope I'm contacting y'all correctly... :) I went through this article and made it more factual, as well as added some notes about existing regulation. I'd like to get this posted today -- is there any more outstanding feedback that needs to be taken on board? Thanks! Shanag888 (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * By this article, I mean the net zero page, not the carbon neutrality page to be clear Shanag888 (talk) 08:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Pinging who has been involved with this. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 22:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks everyone for the great progress on this! I am very impressed by the quality of work done here. I'd say there are four must-haves before this is good to go:
 * 1) Greatly increase the prominence of the fact that net zero claims vary enormously in levels of credibility and most have low credibility. Make sure there are 3-6 sentences on credibility in the lead plus a few paragraphs in the body. Right now the article gives the impression that credible commitments are in place to eliminate 83% of emissions. Race to Zero puts this number at 7%.
 * 2) Make it clear that despite what the standards may ask for or "encourage", companies use the term to mean whatever they want it to mean. There are no laws regulating the use of this term as far as I know.
 * 3) Get rid of all sources that come from corporations, e.g. National Grid, Persefoni, and Tunley Engineering.
 * 4) Add a section explaining what the term "net zero" means when applied to fossil fuels. Nearly half of fossil fuel companies have a net zero target. What does this mean in plain language? Does it mean when you buy Shell gasoline, which has a beautiful net zero announcement, you are not contributing to global warming? Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 21:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is all great and clear, thank you @Clayoquot! I'll implement these changes today and ping you for review when they're in. Appreciate the feedback! Shanag888 (talk) 08:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Clayoquot -- these changes are all in! Please let me know what you think and if you have any more feedback. Thanks so much! Shanag888 (talk) 11:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow, super! I plan to review this today. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 18:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this is good enough to go live. I have made a request at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests#Uncontroversial_technical_requests . The request will probably be addressed in the next few days if nobody objects. I hope you've all enjoyed working on this so far and will continue to lend your wisdom to Wikipedia. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 23:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. SilverLocust 💬 05:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thank you @Clayoquot! Really excited and grateful to have been able to contribute to such a vital article about such a crucial concept. Thanks for all your help and guidance! Shanag888 (talk) 08:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks great! Super excited about this. Do you have any references for the last section Carbon Neutral Organizations and Events?
 * I also note the unresolved question below ("Countries") - I'll ping @OxfordNetZero and @Our2050World as it would be good to cover this in at least Net Zero or Carbon neutrality (whichever makes the most sense, I admit I'm not clear on the details of nations' net zero vs carbon neutrality goals). TatjanaClimate (talk) 09:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Leanunu, @Shanag888 @Clayoquot, @TatjanaClimate, @Femke, @EMsmile - thank you all so much for your contibution, this is great. I guess we should update the WikiProject Climate change group and encourage them to update links and related articles. We should also look to update the carbon neutrality page. What's the next steps on that? Thank you! Our2050World 🌏 (talk) 13:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Our2050World, @Clayoquot has already made a request for the above draft of the carbon neutrality page to go live (see above &https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests#Uncontroversial_technical_requests) which should be addressed in a few days. Do you have any insights on the discussion in "Countries" below? Would be good to move ahead with the Net Zero draft so that we can interlink the two articles as per @EMsmile below. Thanks! TatjanaClimate (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @TatjanaClimate I did not make any requests regarding the link you just posted. The request I did make was fulfilled before your comment above. Note that there is no longer a Net zero draft - it has gone live. Making a draft go live is referred to in wiki-jargon as "moving the draft to mainspace", and that's what I requested. Does this make sense? Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 16:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, just catching up then. TatjanaClimate (talk) 08:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Countries?
Here in Turkey our country goal is net zero but I understand China’s goal is carbon neutrality. Perhaps China is the only such country and it is as yet unclear whether they will change it to net zero? Will you discuss countries in this article? Chidgk1 (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)


 * China is an outlier here and it's not totally clear what they mean be carbon neutrality. We should have a section talking about countries and we can use a map (for example) that shows different countries targets and timelines, and whether or not they have adequate interim targets and plans. OxfordNetZero (talk) 09:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @OxfordNetZero @EMsmile So should the map and intro in Carbon_neutrality be moved here? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Your question from 1 April hasn't been answered yet. I am unclear about that table. User:Shanag888, what do you think? EMsmile (talk) 09:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Related work on the carbon neutrality article
Can you, User:Shanag888, please also do some work on the carbon neutrality article now to ensure the two articles interlink well with each other? Which is the parent article and which is the sub article, does this come out clearly yet? For example I find the first sentence of the carbon neutrality article confusing now: Carbon neutrality is a state of net zero carbon dioxide emissions. Should the net zero that appears in that first sentence now be wikilinked to net zero? If not, can there be a better first sentence? EMsmile (talk) 09:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes @EMsmile! I'm planning to work on updating the carbon neutrality page in the coming days. Thank you for flagging this specific change, I'll fix that now. Shanag888 (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Shanag888, to answer your question above on what to do next, I suggest finding some high-quality sources on definitions of carbon neutrality and adding those definitions to Carbon neutrality. It's usually easiest to start by writing a Definitions section and then summarizing that for the lead. Some definitions address issues such as scope, stringency, permanence of removals, and transparency, whereas simpler definitions don't mention these issues at all. I think it's important to say that there are varying definitions and to introduce these issues. If I understand things correctly, the distinction between the carbon neutrality and net zero standards will make sense only after the reader understands the issues covered in the detailed definitions that are published in the standards.

The lead section of Carbon neutrality is currently very confusing IMO - its first two sentences give a definition that's the same as the definition of net zero, and then it says net zero is "broader" but I can't see how anything can be broader than what the first two sentences say. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 14:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I fully support what Clayoquot said. I actually have my lingering doubts whether it was wise to split off net zero into its own article (I think I had raised my concerns earlier on the talk page of carbon neutrality as well). I think both concepts could have been dealt with in one article, just like we have carbon offsets and credits as one article now instead of two (carbon credits used to be a separate article). If they have to be separate then let's at least get the distinction really clear between the two. We might also need to explain more that "colloquially, both terms are often used interchangeably although scholars have pointed out slight differences as follows..." or something like that. EMsmile (talk) 09:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As I've stated previously, I think the articles should be merged. But the carbon neutrality article is/was such a mess that starting from scratch, as our new colleagues did, was a reasonable first step. The question has been raised of what to do with examples of countries/organizations that have made pledges; I predict that whoever tries to figure out what example should go where will quickly join the pro-merge camp ;) Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 16:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link; I had forgotten that you had posted that. So we are both in the pro-merge camp. :-) And what's the deal with this draft article for carbon neutrality here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Leanunu/sandbox  It's in the sandbox of User:Leanunu - is that person part of a team effort with Shanag888? I am confused. EMsmile (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have added the merger tags now to get the discussion going. EMsmile (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * BTW I think ""colloquially, both terms are often used interchangeably although scholars have pointed out slight differences as follows..." is incorrect. I think the scientific sources tend to use the terms interchangeably, whereas some business and government policy sources say they are different in certain operational details. And colloquially, as you pointed out, they are used interchangeably. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 18:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I am strongly against merging the carbon neutrality and net zero articles - conceptually, accademically and practically they are different. Our2050World 🌏 (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact that they are (or could be) different is not necessarily a killer argument against having just one article, not two. Compare with the article carbon offsets and credits (used to be two articles) and sustainable energy/renewable energy (currently under discussion for a merger even though they are for sure not the same).
 * A possible solution could be to find a suitable article title for the merged article, such as carbon neutrality and net zero. If you say they are vastly different, and can explain the differences exactly, please head to the talk page at carbon neutrality and help me find answers to the section on criticism for both articles - the criticism for both concepts seem to be nearly identical. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carbon_neutrality#How_to_deal_with_the_criticism_section . Also see above on this talk page the question about the country section. Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 19:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I support a merge and your suggested title. Having one article might allow the difference between net zero and carbon neutrality to be explained more clearly. As we (well certainly me) don’t seem to understand properly ourselves we cannot yet explain clearly to readers. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding the proposed merge of Net zero into Carbon neutrality, I'm also open to it being done the other way, i.e. merging Carbon neutrality into Net zero. Whatever has the better structure and least amount of cruft will be the more practical merge target. We can figure out a title later. I also echo Chidgk1's comment.
 * My impression is that "carbon neutral" is used by music festivals and "net zero" is used by fossil fuels companies; the people who can afford it get the savvier PR people who know that net zero sounds better. Our job is to help the reader get past the PR speak. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 19:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's crucial to recall here that both the IPCC and UNFCCC (the latter as a result of the former) refer to "net zero" as the state that must be achieved to limit warming to 1.5 degrees. I am therefore fine with having carbon neutral be a sub-section of the net-zero page, but definitely not the other way around! Shanag888 (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @NetZeroPhysicist made some comments on this conversation above -- just repasting here!
 * Hi All, apologies if I get formatting wrong, I'm new to Wikipedia editing (although of course a long-standing user). Many sensible suggestions here, and a merged article indeed makes sense, although I would advocate a title "Net Zero and Carbon Neutrality" rather than the other way around because (a), for whatever reason, net zero seems to be the more rigorously defined concept, mostly because it is the term normally used by the IPCC and the scientific community, and (b) most national and corporate goals seem to be set in net zero terms rather than carbon neutrality terms (the most obvious and very important exception being China's). If editors think this would be a good idea, I'd also like to propose some text and an equation to explain the scientific justification for net zero based on statements in recent IPCC reports, unpacked at some length in this article https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-environ-112320-105050
 * It seems like there's alignment around merging the articles *as long as* the title/focus is still on Net Zero with Carbon Neutrality being a sub-page. What is the next step in doing that?
 * Thanks as always for your guidance Wikipedia veterans! @Clayoquot @Chidgk1 @EMsmile :) Shanag888 (talk) 13:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The instructions on merging say the discussion normally takes a week or more. Given that much of Europe and North America is currently on holiday I would let things run for at least two weeks. The question of what the title should be has gotten little discussion; there's definitely a need to discuss that further.
 * In order to move forward, I still think a useful next step would be to have the articles give comprehensive coverage of the multiple meanings of these terms. Readers come to these articles to understand what other people mean when they use these terms, which is not necessarily how top experts define them. Here are some sources saying Panama has achieved net-zero emissions; here's another source saying Panama is carbon neutral, and then there's reality, which is that Panama is nowhere near balancing its anthropogenic emissions with anthropogenic removals. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 05:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What you're getting at here is certainly the crux of the entire net zero transition @Clayoquot -- while net zero is the necessary goal, very few actors actually know how to get there yet, and no one could possibly know day by day what getting to net zero will mean for them from now through 2050 (especially in hard to abate sectors and for entire nations). It's difficult to describe this nuance without sounding too editorial in the article though. Do you have thoughts on how to overcome this?
 * I'm very happy to add in the Panama examples in the section about different net zero legislation. Could that work? Shanag888 (talk) 08:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm, you're giving us lots to think about. I'm not sure what you're proposing - maybe just give it a shot and we can tell you if it's helpful? The Panama example illustrates how incredibly varied definitions are. Not only do actors not know how to get to the goal - there isn't even the most basic consistency around what the goal is. Countries are putting themselves in the already-net-zero club if their land contains enough forest to absorb the CO2 that they emit, i.e. they're including non-anthropogenic removals in their accounting. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 14:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestions made above. A title of net zero and carbon neutrality (or net zero and climate neutrality?) would also work for me. Or is there an overarching term for both of them? As I was still confused about what's what, I went to Chat-GPT and asked there: "what's the difference between climate neutral and net zero?" (one could play around with different prompts to get better answers). It said, amongst other things: In essence, while both terms involve reducing emissions and offsetting impacts, "climate neutral" focuses on balancing the emissions of a specific activity or entity, while "net zero" is a broader goal that aims to balance all emissions on a larger scale, such as a national economy or global emissions. The transition to a net zero state is considered crucial in mitigating the effects of climate change and limiting global warming. It's important to note that achieving these goals requires genuine efforts to reduce emissions at their source rather than relying solely on offsets, as well as the development and implementation of sustainable practices, technologies, and policies across various sectors.. I feel a bit sad / surprised / annoyed / amused that Chat-GPT seems to do a better job for explaining these two terms than the two Wikipedia articles do (??)... Let's change that! EMsmile (talk) 07:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I think we're well on our way to changing that @EMsmile! I do think a crucial point here is that net zero is at this point the term that scientists and high-ambition, high-integrity actors are using, and we should normalize that over the term "carbon neutral" (which I think will have less and less relevance and use as it has less meaning). I feel strongly that the article title should be "net zero" and have carbon neutral be a sub-section / part of the history perhaps. Shanag888 (talk) 08:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding ChatGPT's answer, the first sentence is baloney and the second sentence is somewhere between wrong and meaningless. I think our discussions on this topic will be more productive if we leave ChatGPT out of it. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 17:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Moving forward with the merge
I'm seeing a wp:rough consensus above that one article should cover both net zero and carbon neutrality and am in the process of merging Carbon neutrality into Net zero. For reference, I have copied the current Carbon neutrality article here: Talk:Net zero/Carbon neutrality August 23 2023. I do not see a consensus regarding article title, so I am leaving it "Net zero" for now and we can continue discussion if anyone wishes to change it. Personally I think "Net zero" works. Regarding the differences between the meanings of carbon neutrality and net zero, I have added sourcing which demonstrates that these terms are often used interchangeably. "They are the same" is a point of view held by some reliable sources, and "they are different" is a point of view held by others. As a neutral encyclopedia we try to describe different reliably-published points of view without bias. I've tried to do that and to make the "they are different" point of view clear. If you can think of a way to improve on it, please do. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 17:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I think Net zero is a much, much stronger article than Carbon neutrality was. ,, and  brought in first-rate sources and showed us how Wikipedia can cover this topic in a way that invites critical thinking around net zero claims. Thank you! Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 19:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much @Clayoquot! I think the new page looks fantastic. Very excited and grateful to have worked on this with everyone! Shanag888 (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I've finished copying in everything from Carbon neutrality that I think should be merged. I recommend not copying the Examples of pledges section. Having a section like this made sense in 2014 when there were just a handful of pledges; now there are thousands. The section makes attempts to summarize the decarbonization strategies of entire countries in a few sentences, which is really difficult to do well while avoiding greenwashing. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 18:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! EMsmile (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've looked these over only briefly, but a merge seems a defensible stance per WP:BROADCONCEPT. I'd urge being generous in which content is kept during the merge — it's a lot easier to trim than to create. Regarding the title, my main issue with "net zero" is that it doesn't specify that we're talking about climate change, as it's just a math term. It also feels more slogan-y than "carbon neutrality". Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 14:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Good points. How about if we retitle it to "Net zero emissions"? That would be clearer and perhaps address concerns about sounding slogan-y? Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 15:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd support that as an improvement over the status quo. I'd need to look into it more to develop an opinion about that vs. "carbon neutrality". Also, note that Carbon neutrality in the United States and any other subarticles should follow whatever lead we decide here. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 17:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd also support "Net zero emissions" as a better title (or "Net zero greenhouse gas emissions" (more precise but too long?). I am not sure if a sub-article such as Carbon neutrality in the United States would require changing though. And as far as I can see there are no other carbon neutrality per country articles. - I could imagine a sub-article called List of pledges for net zero emissions (or similar) which is something I mentioned also further down below when pondering what to do about that culled content with the country-specific examples. EMsmile (talk) 08:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * My view is that "Net zero" is the best way to describe the article. It is a well known term and although it could be used to mean "netting something to zero" other than greenhouse gas emissions, it rarely is. I just had a quick look at a few search engines (with all my locality and personal preferences disabled) and every result in the first few pages confirmed this stance. Adding "emissions", IMO, would detract from the concept by focusing on the calculation, rather than the breadth of the concept (fair share for example). Our2050World 🌏 (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The Google results are going to be filled with the emissions meaning of "net zero" because it's effectively a slogan (the EPA even capitalizes it/has logo branding), but we ought to be taking a broader/longer view. If someone in a different technical context might use "net zero" to refer to something different, we should take advantage of the WP:NATURALDISAMBIG opportunity. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 16:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * RM opened below, @Clayoquot@EMsmile@Our2050World@Shanag888@Chidgk1. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 16:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I definitely think "net zero" is the way to go -- this is the term that is used in the political and climate science spaces to describe the future concept that we are aspiring towards, and it's crucial to normalize that term and concept in order for the energy transition to be successful! So in as much as this article contributes to public awareness of the climate crisis and the best/only solution to it (getting to net zero) I think it's very important that the title remain as is! Shanag888 (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. For better or for worse, the climate issue seems to have co-opted the phrase "net zero" -- and, without wanting to get into the weeds of ongoing arguments, there is even scope for argument about whether we are only talking about net zero emissions (for CO2, we clearly are, but the picture is somewhat murkier for other gases). There is an argument to be made that "net zero" actually requires net negative CO2 emissions. These are ongoing topics among researchers, so I don't think unpacking all this in a Wikipedia article is sensible, which is why I just stuck to what drives global temperature change and how this indicates the need for at least net zero CO2 to halt global warming in the history and science section. As you can see, I've done my best to clarify that part -- hope it's better now. I think it is worth leaving in the equation for those who like equations -- it is clearly sub-headed so it is optional for those that don't. NetZeroPhysicist (talk) 08:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Examples of pledges
I am wondering a little about that long section on Examples of pledges. Some of that had been added quite recently. I wonder if there aren't at least some sentences there which could still be utilised in the new article. Or perhaps they should instead be moved to the relevant country articles, like climate change in Europe. EMsmile (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I would be very cautious about moving this content to the country-specific articles. I've seen many mistakes made in the past year in which content was copied between climate articles poorly, sometimes introducing major errors and inadvertent pro-polluter bias. A safer approach is to post suggestions on the talk pages of the articles where you think the content could go. W.r.t. adding actor-specific content to Net zero, I'd like to see criteria for selecting those actors, such as being used as an example in recent secondary scholarly literature. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 19:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * True. Here is the link to that old content about the pledges: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carbon_neutrality&oldid=1171515174#Examples_of_pledges . I am pinging a few people who had added content to there in the last two years and who look to still be active on Wikipedia now: User:Genetics4good, User:KarolinaJ161, User:Chidgk1, User:אלכסנדר סעודה, User:Batreeq, User:CplKlinger, User:ANLgrad, User:Asteramellus, User:Thomas Blomberg, User:TK synantropijny, User:Wikidea. Perhaps they would like to comment on whether any of their content could be sensibly utilised in this new article or if any of it could be moved to a country specific article. - I think some selected examples (with reliable sources) could perhaps be useful to have for this article to make it a bit more tangible for our readers and to point them into the direction where more information about such examples could be found. I wonder also if this table could find a new home somewhere, somehow (e.g. spin-off article with examples lists and tables?):, numerous countries/nations have pledged carbon neutrality, including: EMsmile (talk) 08:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps examples of different types of pledges - Turkey is an example of a 2030 target compared to business as usual (BAU) Chidgk1 (talk) 09:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for making the notifications. The old content about pledges is easier to copy from this subpage: Talk:Net zero/Carbon neutrality August 23 2023. Old versions of pages don't have section-level edit buttons, but subpages do. Unfortunately even the subpage I created doesn't have Visual Editor editing because it's in the Talk namespace and the WMF doesn't love us enough to give us visual editing there. If you want visual editing, you can copy it to user space or draftspace. Pinging in case she wants to ask the WNF to give us more love. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 14:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and moved Talk:Net zero/Carbon neutrality August 23 2023 to my userspace - not the most tidy solution but it means we can use both section-level editing and Visual Editor. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 14:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I wonder if a sub-article could be created for those pledges & examples that seem relevant/current/well sourced, a bit similar to this sub-article: List of carbon capture and storage projects? EMsmile (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Possible title for such a sub-article: List of pledges for net zero emissions. EMsmile (talk) 08:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

History and scientific background details
I've removed the following content. I'm sorry, but I'm finding it so technical and dense that I believe very few readers will understand it. I don't think this level of detail is necessary in order for the reader to appreciate the need for net zero.Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 16:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The context of this sentence is that the anthropogenic (human-induced) change in global average surface temperature $$\Delta T$$ over a multi-decade time-period $$\Delta t$$ is given, to a good approximation, by $$\Delta T = \kappa_E[E_+E_+(\rho_F-\rho_E)C_E]\Delta t + \kappa_F(\Delta F+\rho_F F \Delta t)$$where the first term indicates CO2-induced warming and the second term indicates warming due to the net impact of other anthropogenic drivers such as emissions of methane, nitrous oxide or aerosol precursors.

The scientific justification of net zero is summarised earlier in the Summary for Policymakers of SR1.5, thus: "Reaching and sustaining net zero global anthropogenic CO2 emissions and declining net non-CO2 radiative forcing would halt anthropogenic global warming on multi-decadal timescales (high confidence)."

Of the variables in this equation, $$E_$$ is the average rate of CO2 emissions over this time-period from geological sources (such as fossil fuel combustion and cement production, minus any engineered CO2 removed to geological storage). $$E_$$ is the corresponding average rate of CO2 emissions from land-use change, agriculture and forestry minus CO2 removed by active interventions such as afforestation and nature-based solutions: it does not include CO2 uptake by the biosphere that occurs as a result of past CO2 emissions due to natural processes such as CO2 fertilisation. $$C_E$$ is cumulative CO2 emissions since pre-industrial times up to the middle of this time-period. $$\Delta F$$ is the change in net non-CO2 radiative forcing over this time-period (shorter timescale adjustments can be accounted for by taking $$\Delta F$$ as the difference between the decade prior to the beginning and decade prior to the end of the time-period) and $$F$$ is the average non-CO2 radiative forcing over this time-period.

Approximately constant coefficients include $$\kappa_E$$, the Transient Climate Response to Emissions, about 0.45 °C per TtCO2 (trillion tonnes of CO2); $$\kappa_F$$ is the Transient Climate Response to Forcing, about 0.49 Watts per m2 per TtCO2; $$\rho_F$$ is the fractional Rate of Adjustment to Constant Forcing, or the fractional rate at which global average surface temperature would continue to increase over the decades following a forcing stabilisation, which is about 0.3% per year; and $$\rho_E$$ is the fractional Rate of Forcing Decline under Zero CO2 Emissions, also about 0.3% per year.

The fact that $$\rho_F \simeq \rho_E$$ means that the third term in the square brackets is approximately zero, and hence that net zero CO2 emissions, $$E_+E_=0$$, and declining net non-CO2 radiative forcing, $$\Delta F/\Delta t \simeq - \rho_F F $$, is sufficient to halt global warming, $$\Delta T = 0$$, justifying the SR1.5 statement. Despite this cancellation, the term $$\rho_E C_E$$ represents an important process. It is the "passive" uptake of CO2 by the biosphere and oceans that would continue for decades even if all human activity were to cease (called passive because it requires no active human intervention, although it might require very active protection of natural carbon sinks).
 * I agree with you. I was curious to know where this content came from and found it with the Who Wrote That tool. It was actually only added two weeks ago by User:NetZeroPhysicist in this edit. I wonder if there is anything there that could be rescued in a much simpler, lay person friendly, language (?). The reference that was used is a good one, and might contain other gems that we could utilise here ("Net Zero: Science, Origins, and Implications"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by EMSmile (talk • contribs)
 * I beg to differ: most people (even in UNFCCC circles) don't make much of a distinction between net zero emissions and stabilising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, which was the focus of policy before Paris. The policy implications are huge: stabilising concentrations of CO2 requires just a 50-80% initial reduction of emissions, which can then persist at a low and declining level for centuries. Halting warming requires emissions to be reduced to net zero. I've included a stylised figure, simplified from Allen et al (2022), to make this point, but given how suspicious many readers of Wikipedia still are of climate models, I would urge you to consider leaving in the equation as well so readers can appreciate the origins of this crucial balance between declining concentrations and deep ocean temperature adjustment for themselves. I appreciate this section will probably appeal to a different audience to much of the rest of the article, but that should be OK: there is plenty of much more complex content on Wikipedia. Can we at least leave it up for a short period to see what others think? NetZeroPhysicist (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I will look at your revisions and I hope others will too. To cover some procedural bases that might be of relevance here, Wikipedia's page on wp:Conflict of interest gives guidance on handling cases where someone wants to cite a paper that was written by themselves or by someone close to themselves. The guideline empasizes that this needs to be done with transparency, so if anyone is in this situation please say so. Take care, Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 21:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll be more specific: It's seems very likely to me that you have some sort of real-life relationship at least one of the authors of Allen et al paper. Let me know if I'm mistaken. I don't want to discourage you from contributing to Wikipedia. You clearly have a lot of knowledge that our community needs. It's just that a really common issue in academics' first contributions to Wikipedia is adding excessive detail about their own work in their narrow field. We all have blind spots regarding our own work. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 16:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have looked at your "Why net zero is not the same as climate equilibrium" section and I'm convinced that 99.9% of Wikipedia's readers will find it both incomprehensible and discouraging. Many will give up and abandon reading the article, which is why I strongly believe it should be removed. Gazillions of publications have been written that successfully make the need for net zero clear without looking anything like this.  As or the skeptics who don't believe climate models, math from climate science papers isn't going to change their minds. The goal of making a distinction between net zero emissions and stabilising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases is a good goal. I'll try to write a few sentences explaining that issue as plainly as I can. Note to other watchers of this article: Please speak up; I do not like to revert the same content twice without consensus. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 16:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * To make things easier: If nobody unconnected to the cited papers objects in the next few days, I'll assume the section does not have consensus for inclusion and will remove it on that basis. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 12:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Clayoquot that that content doesn't fit to this article but am wondering if it might fit in another Wikipedia article; have you thought about that, User:NetZeroPhysicist? Or maybe a very condensed version in a couple of sentences could still work (as per my earlier suggestion). Not sure which part of it could be "rescued" though or which other article it could be included. EMsmile (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This is very sad. Most people do not understand that net zero is not the same as climate equilibrium -- including many of the authors of the Gazillions of publications that you mention. In particular, most people do not realise that net zero requires atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide to fall, not stabilise, as was shown in the figure. There are many, many equations in Wikipedia articles. I simply do not believe that Wikipedia readers are incapable of reading this one. 2A00:23C6:B229:7201:4D58:37E6:C412:4E0F (talk) 07:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * In the spirit of compromise, as they say in the UNFCCC, how about we just include the figure (which was a lot more relevant to net zero than the current figure 1, which is just about general climate targets). Similar versions of this figure have appeared in many, many articles, although it is directly adapted from Allen et al (2022) for traceability.   2A00:23C6:B229:7201:4D58:37E6:C412:4E0F (talk) 07:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Including the figure could be a good compromise - thanks for suggesting that. To ensure that it's in line with the core policies of WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research, it will be necessary to cite a wp:secondary or tertiary source to support the claims shown in this figure. FaIRv2.0.0: a generalized impulse response model for climate uncertainty and future scenario exploration is a primary source, which is great in academic papers but Wikipedia is different - we actually want articles to be based on secondary sources.
 * I imagine the articles in which similar versions of this figure appear would make good citations - could you suggest any? I can't find a similar figure in Allen et al (2022) but maybe if you can point me to a specific page or figure number I will see it.
 * Also, when you said net zero requires atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide to fall you meant to say "net zero will cause atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide to fall" or "stopping warming requires atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide to fall", right? Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 00:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I removed or condensed the following. Some of this could be appropriate for a future article called, say, Scientific basis of net zero emissions. I really like NetZeroPhysicist's point about making a distinction between net zero emissions and stabilising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. In my rewrite I highlighted this distinction.

Why net zero is not the same as climate equilibrium
The scientific justification of net zero is summarised earlier in the Summary for Policymakers of SR1.5, thus: "Reaching and sustaining net zero global anthropogenic CO2 emissions and declining net non-CO2 radiative forcing would halt anthropogenic global warming on multi-decadal timescales (high confidence)."

To understand the significance of this conclusion, it helps to recall the focus of climate policy before the introduction of the concept of net zero, which was, in the words of Article 2 of the 1992 Rio Convention, "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system". The figure shows, using a simple climate model, that emissions (top left panel) can continue at a reduced level for many centuries after stabilization of CO2 concentrations (hence early climate policies like the 2008 UK Climate Change Act only committed to 50-80% emission reductions), but this fails to halt global warming (bottom left panel). Global average surface temperatures continue to increase for many centuries due to the gradual adjustment of deep ocean temperatures. The eventual warming reached is highly uncertain due to uncertainty in equilibrium climate sensitivity.

In 2009, it was recognised that reducing emissions to net zero (top right panel) allowed CO2 concentrations (middle right panel), and hence CO2-induced radiative forcing, to decline just fast enough to compensate for this deep ocean adjustment to give approximately constant global average surface temperatures on multi-decade to century timescales (bottom right panel). The following equation is helpful to understand the reason net zero CO2 emissions are needed to halt global warming, and that net zero is not the same as climate equilibrium. The human-induced change in global average surface temperature $$\Delta T$$ over a multi-decade time-period $$\Delta t$$ is given, to a good approximation, by $$\Delta T = \kappa_E[E_+E_+(\rho_F-\rho_E)G]\Delta t + \kappa_F(\Delta F+\rho_F F \Delta t)$$where the first term indicates CO2-induced warming and the second term indicates warming due to the net impact of other human-induced climate drivers such as methane, nitrous oxide or aerosols.

The variables in this equation (which depend on human activity) are as follows: $$E_$$ is the average rate of CO2 emissions over this time-period from geological sources (such as fossil fuel combustion and cement production, minus any engineered CO2 removed to geological storage). $$E_$$ is the corresponding average rate of CO2 emissions from land-use change, agriculture and forestry minus CO2 removed by active interventions such as afforestation and nature-based solutions: it does not include CO2 uptake by the biosphere that occurs as a result of past CO2 emissions due to natural processes such as CO2 fertilisation. $$G$$ is cumulative CO2 emissions since pre-industrial times up to the middle of this time-period. $$\Delta F$$ is the change in, and $$F$$ is the average, net non-CO2 radiative forcing over this time-period.

The coefficients in this equation (which are approximately constant) are as follows: $$\kappa_E$$ is the Transient Climate Response to Emissions, about 0.45 °C per TtCO2 (trillion tonnes of CO2); $$\kappa_F$$ is the Transient Climate Response to Forcing, about 0.49 Watts per m2 per TtCO2; $$\rho_F$$ is the fractional Rate of Adjustment to Constant Forcing, which is about 3% per decade; and $$\rho_E$$ is the fractional Rate of Forcing Decline under Zero CO2 Emissions, also about 3% per decade.

The fact that $$\rho_F \simeq \rho_E$$ means that reducing net CO2 emissions, $$E_+E_$$, to zero would stop CO2 emissions from causing any additional global warming, although warming caused by past CO2 emissions would still persist. The second term shows that net non-CO2 radiative forcing needs to decline at a rate $$\rho_F$$ to stop non-CO2 climate pollutants causing additional global warming: hence the SR1.5 statement above.

Although often neglected (because it is approximately balanced by the $$\rho_F G$$ term), the term $$\rho_E G$$ is important. It is the "passive" uptake of CO2 by the biosphere and oceans that would continue for decades even if all human activity were to cease. This passive uptake, which is not classified as a directly human-caused removal by the IPCC, draws atmospheric CO2 concentrations down (middle right panel of the figure) just fast enough to stop any further global surface warming under net zero CO2 emissions.

Hence net zero does not refer to a stable climate equilibrium state, but a dynamic balance between the ongoing adjustment of the global carbon cycle and ocean heat content. Although global average surface temperatures would stop rising, other aspects of the climate system, such as sea level, would continue to change for centuries after net zero emissions is achieved. The size of the $$\rho_E G$$ term (approximately one quarter of current emissions after net zero is achieved in a 1.5-2 °C scenario) demonstrates the importance of protecting natural carbon sinks in a warming climate.

Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 23:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Short description?
Should we add a short description? I hesitate to set one up and am mindful of long discussions like what we had on the talk page of sustainable energy. Or maybe it's easier than I am thinking. EMsmile (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes I think it needs a short description Chidgk1 (talk) 09:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Done: "Level of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions" Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 14:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 29 August 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) EggRoll97 (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Net zero → Net zero emissions – Following from discussion above, the current title is just a mathematical term that does not directly communicate that the article is about climate change. The proposed title would provide natural disambiguation, as well as sounding less slogan-y. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 16:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as nom. I'm also still open to "carbon neutrality" or other alternatives if anyone wants to argue for them. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 16:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:PRECISE. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Mild support mostly because our naming convention is to use nouns. Either option is fine to me though. I find 's comment above regarding fairness to be interesting. I don't think issues like fairness are big enough to make "net zero" significantly better than "net zero emissions", but if you'd like to add more exploration of these issues within the article that would be great. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 01:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * for WP:NOUN. Good policy citation that supports this. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 14:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. I would also suggest "Net zero CO2 emissions" as being more precise. It's also an important aspect of the science that this refers to CO2 and not short-lived greenhouse gases. Pagw (talk) 08:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Or "Net zero carbon emissions" Pagw (talk) 14:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "Net zero (emissions target)" could also perhaps be in line with having "Net zero" as a distinct term whilst making it clear that it refers to an emissions goal. Pagw (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "Net zero carbon emissions" sounds fine to me. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 14:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Adding “CO2” or “carbon “ to the title would not be accurate. Limiting climate change requires net zero emissions of all greenhouse gases, and pledges by some country and other actors reflect this. The “Types of greenhouse gas” section in the article currently refers to this fact but it needs yo be made more clear and prominent. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 18:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, good point. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose because the current article title (Net zero) clearly identifies the subject is short, natural, distinguishable and recognizable (taken from wp:precise /title). Net zero is how reliable sources refer to it. “Net zero emissions” is longer, less natural (including in pages linking to the article), equally as distinguishable (there isn’t a mathematical “net zero” article and I doubt there ever would be), it is very recognisable and is likely to become more recognised as we move through then “decisive decade”. Our2050World 🌏 (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Also oppose! I definitely think "net zero" is the way to go -- this is the term that is used in the political and climate science spaces to describe the future concept that we are aspiring towards, and it's crucial to normalize that term and concept in order for the energy transition to be successful! So in as much as this article contributes to public awareness of the climate crisis and the best/only solution to it (getting to net zero) I think it's very important that the title remain as is! Shanag888 (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * it's crucial to normalize that term and concept in order for the energy transition to be successful Our goal on Wikipedia is not to make the energy transition successful. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 14:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I broadly agree with Sdkb. The page Sdkb linked to is heavier reading than what seems needed here; a lighter and shorter page is Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. When it comes to language, if something sounds like it was written by brand-building professionals we generally run in the opposite direction. On language issues we actively try to be where "normal" is now, not where anyone aspires it to be. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 21:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support because "net zero emissions" strikes me as more precise, more encyclopedic, less jargon-y, less of a "lobbying" term. Are there several meanings for "net zero"? If so, we could set up a disambiguation page. - Somehow I still like the term "carbon neutral" as to me it seems to be the commonly used term in the media and so forth but don't feel strongly about it and am happy to be overruled by those who know this topic better. EMsmile (talk) 10:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Difference in target coverage of emissions
In paragraph 2: "Country-level net zero targets now cover 92% of global GDP, 88% of emissions and 89% of the world population"

In paragraph 3: "While 61% of global carbon dioxide emissions are covered by some sort of net zero target"

These seem to be at odds (88% of emissions and 61% of carbon dioxide emissions). What's the reason for this difference and can this be briefly explained? Markmuetz (talk) 09:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Well spotted. Might be to do with emissions not covered by country targets, like international aviation and shipping. Or one sentence might just be out of date. Or one source might be stricter about what counts as a net zero target. If you have time you could investigate and update the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, I will dig into the references at some point to see if I can clarify. Markmuetz (talk) 08:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Net zero emissions - CO2 and other greenhouse gases
I copied the following post from my talk page as it would benefit from input from more people. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 17:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I just saw your reply to my comment on the talk page for Net zero emissions saying "Adding “CO2” or “carbon “ to the title would not be accurate. Limiting climate change requires net zero emissions of all greenhouse gases...". That part of the discussion was closed so I just thought I'd explain here that this is not the case. See e.g. https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-news-climate-pollutants-gwp/, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0026-8. Pagw (talk) 08:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this up. Those two sources are both wp:primary and slightly old, but I looked at some recent secondary sources and I think you have a good point and my statement was overly simple. The IPCC glossary does not have an entry for "net zero emissions"; it has separate entries for "net zero CO2 emissions" and for "net zero greenhouse gas emissions". Each of these things is a thing. It's not correct to say that "net zero emissions" always means "net zero CO2 emissions" - I got that part right. However, it's also not correct to say that it always means "net zero GHG emissions" - you got that part right. The first paragraph  should be rewritten to reflect the fact that "net zero emissions" can mean either thing.
 * As to whether limiting climate change requires net zero emissions of all greenhouse gases, I'm not sure how to write about this. Fankhauser's paper says "the temperature implications of the net-zero concept when applied to non-CO2 climate drivers are less clear than they are for CO2 alone, depending on the specific mix of drivers". Rogeli's papers say net zero GHG emissions are a target if warming is to be limited to 1.5 degrees.. Does anyone have ideas for explaining the significance of "net zero GHG emissions" neutrally and succinctly? Pinging u|InformationtoKnowledge and u|Femke. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 17:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes OK I see "net zero" is used to refer to net zero GHG emissions more often than I thought.
 * I think the best scientific account is that net zero CO2 emissions with constant emissions of short-lived GHGs would give approximately stable global mean temperature over at least multi-decadal time scales. Net zero GHG emissions would result in cooling, tending towards stabilisation of global mean temperature at a lower level on those time scales. So people with different goals may advocate for one or the other. It would probably be a useful thing to explain in the article. Pagw (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that's almost right. The IPCC says "A.2.2. Reaching and sustaining net zero global anthropogenic CO2 emissions and declining net non-CO2 radiative forcing would halt anthropogenic global warming on multi-decadal times scales (high confidence)." So the "constant" in your first sentence should be replaced by "declining" if I understand things correctly. Yes, this would be good to explain in the article. Want to give it a shot? Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 17:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Also for context, we should make it clear that the IPCC and everyone else agree that immediate deep reductions in all GHG types are necessary, and in some ways reducing methane is even more urgent than reducing CO2. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 18:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Unreliable source caution
Just a heads-up to save embarassment: a report by issued this week by Civitas, a London think tank, has been cited heavily by Conservative-aligned media in the UK. Serious errors in methodology have been identified in the report (for example, confusing megawatts with megawatt-hours, billions with trillions) so neither it nor the media that reported it should be considered a reliable source. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * “There is no reason to suppose Civitas’ figures will turn out to be right … But they are an important contribution to a debate.” - I love it. Thanks for sharing! Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 16:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This story would make a good addition to the Civitas (think tank) article. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 16:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Add "starting line criteria"?
I'm wanting to add the UN's minimum requirements for net-zero pledges within their "race to zero" campaign, termed "starting line criteria". However, this article is not specific solely to the U.N. criteria, even if leaning heavily on it (or so it appears).

If the minimum requirements for "race to zero" are added, as well as what percent of orgs are meeting/not meeting them, where would that be best placed within the article? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 02:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Dunno - Be bold and add the info - someone else can always move it later if they want Chidgk1 (talk) 06:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, please go ahead and be bold. Ultimately, the "Credibility" section would be a good home for this kind of thing. We say in the lead and in this section that most net zero claims have low credibility. The Race to Zero criteria are one of the ways that the credibility of claims is assessed. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 22:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

How does this article relate to the low-carbon economy one?
For anyone watching this page, could you please have a look at the low-carbon economy article as well, and check if the two articles interlink well? Do they duplicate some content? Are the methods for getting to a low-carbon economy the same as those to get to net zero emissions? Is net zero emissions really just the "more extreme" / "more ideal" case compared to low-carbon economy? And how do we define "low"? See also talk page there. For example, I have written there in the lead this sentence, do you agree?: An even more ambitious target than low-carbon economies are zero-carbon economies with net zero emissions. An example are zero-carbon cities. EMsmile (talk) 09:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Find a better image for the lead?
[[File:IEA_WEO_2022_Global_Warming_by_Scenario.png|thumb|Estimated global warming by 2100 associated with various scenarios:

Green dots: The International Energy Agency's proposal for reducing energy-related emissions to net zero by 2050 is consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5°C.

Yellow dots: Net-zero pledges and other pledges to reduce emissions would limit temperature rise to around 1.7°C.

Blue dots: Since many climate pledges are not backed by policies, policies announced as of 2022 would limit temperature rise to around 2.5°C.

Red dots: Before the 2015 Paris Agreement, the world was on a trajectory for global warming of 3.5°C.

]] I think the image that is currently used in the lead (see on the right) is far too difficult to read and understand. It took me a long time to figure out how those bubbles related to the temperature increases. I suggest we move it further down and find a better image for the lead. Or if not, can someone either make the image clearer or at least improve the caption? I just don't think it works for a lead image if the reader needs to study the caption in so much depth to figure out what this image is trying to show. EMsmile (talk) 10:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC) EMsmile (talk) 10:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)