This post is by Rebecca Newman who is studying for a BA in human geography and is a member of NAEE’s blog team. As ever with our blogs, Rebecca’s views are not necessarily those of the Association.
Education is constantly evolving, especially in environmental spheres as we learn more about our future and the consequences of global warming. This is accompanied by shifts in language surrounding climate change that can become confusing and seemingly interchangeable.
The concept of zero or net zero emissions have recently become topics of deliberation inciting many different definitions. The UN defines net zero as the act of not adding new emissions to the atmosphere, with emissions continuing until 2050 where they will be balanced by equal absorption from the atmosphere. This, therefore, pertains to the idea of ‘net zero’ where there will be emissions but through processes such as carbon sequestration there will no be longer an imbalance where excess carbon is produced[1].
This seems fairly simple and it would be if there were a global consensus on the definition. Even in the 2020 report ‘The race to zero emissions, and why the world depends on it’, the UN noted that there are significant clarity issues relating to the exact meaning of net zero[2]. This confusion needs to be rapidly addressed and widely understood if policies are to have a residing impact.
Delving further into the realm of carbon linguistics, in 2016 William McDonough developed the ‘New Language of Carbon’. McDonough suggests that carbon is now seen as the enemy due to the negative discourse surrounding terms such as decarbonisation, negative carbon and war on carbon. But carbon is the currency of photosynthesis which underpins life on Earth. To view it primarily as something negative – a chemical that must be eliminated – seems dangerous[3].
As such, a new relationship with carbon at a global scale must be formed. Not only will this clear up the confusion, but it will create a unified educational stance. As McDonough highlights “words drive actions”[4].
Concepts such as carbon negative are often grouped with net zero. It is usually defined as going further than net zero. For example, in a factory it would mean removing more carbon dioxide from the air than is emitted. However, Bhutan’s prime minister has indicated that his country is carbon negative because its existing forests sequester more CO2 than the country emits and Bhutan exports hydroelectric power[5]. But aren’t the trees having a positive effect on atmospheric carbon, and hydroelectric power a neutral one? Yet, at the same time some companies are now announcing they want to be ‘carbon positive’ by sequestering carbon through planting trees or producing more renewable energy.
Looking at the idea of ‘carbon neutral’, the European Union considers electricity generated by burning wood as carbon neutral — as if it only releases the CO2 that the trees had sequestered, or so the argument goes. This carbon neutrality relies problematically on the growth and replacement of forests that will demand many decades if not centuries of committed management.
Therefore, how can words inspire global action when their definitions are so blatantly contested. Even the value of carbon is up for debate. In the United States, it is classified as a commodity by the Bureau of Land Management, a financial instrument by the Chicago Climate Exchange, yet a pollutant by the Environment Protection Agency[6].
By inciting a new language of carbon, the climate conversation can not only become much clearer but it will recognise the material and quality of carbon so we can imagine and implement new ways forward. For example, many soil researchers are promoting the use of soil as a ‘photosynthetic bridge’ to enable climate restoration.
By changing the discourse surrounding the definitions surrounding carbon, education on climate issues will be much more successful. For instance, many school projects have made the decision to abandon the ‘net zero’ and just opt for zero carbon emissions through schemes such as the Green School’s Project[7].
References:
Maxime Pontoire “The race to zero emissions, and why the world depends on it”, United Nations (Accessed 2 September, 2021)
WBCSD, “The race to zero emissions, and why the world depends on it”, United Nations, July 2021
William McDonough, “Carbon is not the enemy”, Nature 539, 349–351 (2016)
Soo Youn, “Visit the World’s Only Carbon-Negative Country”, National Geographic, October 2017 (Accessed 14 September, 2021)
Green Schools Project, https://www.greenschoolsproject.org.uk/, (Accessed 13 September, 2021)
Footnotes
[1] Maxime Pontoire “The race to zero emissions, and why the world depends on it”, United Nations (Accessed 2 September, 2021)
[2] WBCSD, “The race to zero emissions, and why the world depends on it”, United Nations, July 2021
[3] William McDonough, “Carbon is not the enemy”, Nature 539, 349–351 (2016)
[4] McDonough, “Carbon is not the enemy”,
[5] Soo Youn, “Visit the World’s Only Carbon-Negative Country”, National Geographic, October 2017 (Accessed 14 September, 2021)
[6] William McDonough, “Carbon is not the enemy”, Nature 539, 349–351 (2016)
[7] Green Schools Project, https://www.greenschoolsproject.org.uk/, (Accessed 13 September, 2021)
………………………………
Rebecca can be contacted at: rebecca2001newman@gmail.