We’re going back to basics. In a new series of explainer articles, we’ll return to some of the key ideas and issues underlying our work to reduce the art sector’s environmental impact. This week, we’re tackling one of the most commonly-used terms in the climate space to understand where it came from—and what it really means.

When we’re talking about climate change, climate targets, and the need to reduce our emissions, we hear a lot about how we need to reach ‘net zero’.

Many organisations, companies, cities, and countries have set their own ‘net zero’ targets, but the term has also been a focus for criticism and debate.

So where did the idea of ‘net zero’ come from? And what does it actually mean?

‘Net zero’ refers to the idea that the amount of greenhouse gases emitted should be ‘balanced out’ by the amount absorbed. Emissions can be absorbed by things like forests, soils, and oceans, and possibly some forms of technology.

If the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions is ‘balanced’ by absorbing the same amount, then the world reaches ‘net zero’: no new emissions are added to the atmosphere.

The concept of ‘net zero’ emerged from the UN climate talks in 2015. As governments struggled to agree on specific reductions, they reached a compromise: the world should reach ‘net zero’ greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

Importantly, ‘net zero’ is not a final target. ‘Net zero’ is a milestone on the longer path to reducing our global emissions to zero. ‘Net zero’ wasn’t a solution proposed by climate scientists: it was a political compromise to keep governments on track.

In fact, if we want to address the worst climate impacts, the point we really need to reach is ‘carbon negative’: the point where the planet’s natural systems are absorbing more greenhouse gases than we’re emitting, so that the store of warming gases in the atmosphere will start to reduce.

Even more importantly, ‘net zero’ was intended to refer to the global emissions created by society as a whole.

While ‘net zero’ is a way of understanding the balance of our emissions on a collective scale, it makes significantly less sense as a target for individuals or organisations.

Put simply, to reach ‘net zero’ as a global society, we need everyone who’s emitting greenhouse gases to reduce their emissions rapidly, and we need everyone who has responsibility for land, oceans, and other natural carbon sinks to help to defend and expand them.

It makes far more sense for each individual or organisation to focus on the element of the global balance sheet (emissions or absorptions) where they have the most influence or responsibility—rather than making them appear to ‘cancel out’.

In practice, though, many organisations and even countries have now set their own individual ‘net zero’ targets. These targets often use carbon offsetting schemes or rely on ‘carbon capture’ technologies that are not yet proven, do not work at scale, or do not yet exist.

Many organisations have set ‘net zero’ targets in good faith, and use the concept as a guideline. But in some cases, organisations can claim to have reached ‘net zero’ or to be ‘carbon neutral’ without having reduced their emissions at all.

It’s important to remember that reaching a global net zero target doesn’t require every organisation, company, or country to individually reach ‘net zero’ themselves. What matters is that everyone’s emission reductions, plus the carbon absorption from natural systems, add up to a global total of zero.

What does this mean for the visual arts?

For most people in the arts and culture sector, unless you own a park or a forest, reducing emissions is where you can have the biggest impact.

Many organisations have worked hard to set ‘net zero’ targets, or have followed guidance from governments, local authorities, or advisors. While there are issues with the concept of ‘net zero’ on an individual level, this doesn’t mean that ‘net zero’ targets should be scrapped immediately.

Instead, to make sure that ‘net zero’ targets are meaningful, visual arts organisations can focus on the reduction side, and include a minimum 50% reduction in emissions by 2030.

GCC advises against the use of offsetting schemes, but for those who have already included offsets in their ‘net zero’ targets, organisations like the Science-Based Targets Initiative advise that offsetting shouldn’t cover any more than 5-10% of your emissions. The focus should be on reducing emissions, not offsetting them.

Three years after the Paris Agreement and the introduction of ‘net zero’ as a concept, a UN climate report laid down a clearer target for holding global heating at 1.5 degrees: reducing global emissions by 50% by 2030, from a 2019 baseline.

This is why GCC asks all its members to use this as the minimum target when they sign up—and not a target that focuses on achieving ‘net zero’.

To make sure we have the best chance of reducing the global temperature increase and limiting the damage from climate change, we should all aim to reach as close to ‘real zero’ as possible—as soon as we can.