Why you’ll be hearing more about real zero in 2025

Despite the Trump administration sucking all the air out of climate conversations right now, real zero is still going to be the talk of 2025. Here’s why.

The science is clear: to limit long-term global warming to 1.5 degrees, we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 43% below 2019 levels by 2030. And right now that is looking very unlikely. In fact, at the end of 2024, climate scientists described the goal as “deader than a doornail” in reaction to the news that worldwide emissions from fossil fuels had increased another 0.8% for the year and 2024 crossed the 1.5 degree threshold for the first time.

A decade on from the Paris Agreement, it’s evident industry and big business aren’t doing enough to reduce emissions. Why? Because the fossil fuel sector’s rampant co-optation and misuse of the term ‘net zero’ has rendered many corporate (and nation state) climate pledges totally redundant. Limited adherence to science is leading to meaningless net zero pledges and over-reliance on carbon removals.

What is real zero?

‘Real zero’ (also known as true zero) is exactly what it sounds like: Science-based decarbonisation that actually phases out fossil fuel use without overreliance on false climate solutions like offsetting, techno-optimism or carbon capture and storage. 

What’s the problem with net zero? 

Net zero emerged from physical climate science, but was never suitable to be adopted by nation states – let alone corporations. The elevation of net zero to something that is ubiquitously viewed as the norm for corporate climate action was driven largely by the fossil fuel sector, because they saw an opportunity in the word ‘net’ to create a loophole rather than genuinely reducing emissions. 

As we’ve previously covered, net zero was initially intended as a global goal to  reduce their emissions as close to zero as possible as quickly as possible, with truly unavoidable residual emissions counterbalanced by projects that remove carbon from the atmosphere, like reforestation and regenerative agriculture. The end goal was genuine decarbonisation at the speed and scale needed to align with the Paris Agreement.

Instead, countries and corporations are offsetting emissions rather than rapidly reducing them. Corporations claiming to be on a path to net zero are increasingly relying on carbon credits to ‘balance out’ emissions rather than making the necessary operational changes to reduce them.

Another indicator that corporations are not taking net-zero seriously is how quickly leading banks have dropped their net-zero pledges in favour of short-term profits and political favour. 

Fossil fuel interests and proponents of net zero use obfuscation and debates around offsetting and removals as a delay mechanism. Real zero is a genuine attempt to cut through the complexity of all this.

Carbon offsetting 

Tonne for tonne carbon offsetting is not supported by science and in most cases doesn't represent real emissions reductions. Carbon credits are widely used to offset or compensate for emissions for burning fossil fuels on a tonne-for-tonne basis, largely through overseas renewable energy and nature-based avoidance initiatives. But the scientific evidence is clear that one tonne of carbon emitted is not the same as one tonne of carbon avoided through an offset program. It’s a false equivalence. There are also well-documented supply-side integrity issues of the voluntary carbon credit market. Research has found that up to a whopping 75% of Australia’s national carbon credits (ACCUs) don’t result in actual emissions reductions.

Oil and gas companies claiming to be on the path to net zero while expanding fossil fuel production is greenwashing, plain and simple, and shows us that net zero is not fit for purpose as a company-level climate goal. Australia’s current rules and regulations allow for the continued expansion of oil and gas projects, when the IPCC clearly states that fossil fuels need to be phased out, and fast, if we have any chance of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees.

Real zero is the only real pathway

If we want to ensure a livable planet, real zero is our only viable path forward. Where the technology exists and the solutions are ready to go, the goal for corporations (and governments) needs to be real zero. In sectors that are harder to abate – steel and cement, aviation and shipping, aspects of agriculture and land use – the focus still needs to be on reducing emissions as quickly and as close to zero  as possible, with removals reserved to counterbalance truly residual emissions.

As climate scientists James Dyke, Robert Watson and Wolfgang Knorr wrote for The Conversation in 2021: “Carbon reduction technologies and geoengineering should be seen as a sort of ejector seat that could propel humanity away from rapid and catastrophic environmental change…it should only be used as the very last resort.”

Removals and emissions reductions must be detangled from one another to ensure the integrity of climate action plans. This means separating targets for carbon emissions reductions out from any targets for removals.

The Fortescue effect

Real zero isn’t just pie in the sky thinking. From Lend Lease to Telstra, there are businesses already working towards this science-aligned best practice. In 2024 Australian mining giant Fortescue announced a commitment to real zero, with CEO Andrew Forrest labelling current net zero rhetoric as “a con to maintain fossil fuels”.

This is a vanguard position for a few reasons. With a plan to eliminate their scope 1 and 2 emissions by 2030, Fortescue’s real zero climate transition plan is ambitious and achievable, with the technology to reach their goal either already in existence or near enough. 

The plan also demonstrates a viable economic pathway to decarbonise the whole mining sector. Businesses, particularly in hard-to-abate industries like mining, often argue that net zero by 2050 is too hard or unrealistically expensive. Fortescue says they will not only reach net zero (which accounts for their scope 3 emissions as well) by 2040, but that spending $6 billion on phasing fossil fuels out of their scope 1 and 2 operations is a good financial investment. This message may ruffle some feathers, but it’s much needed in corporate Australia.