Should we just get rid of corporate net-zero goals?

In order to stave off the worst effects of climate change, experts say that we, as a planet, need to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. That has led countless companies to set their own corporate net-zero goals—and use carbon credits and renewable energy certificates to balance out their emissions—as a way to show their commitment to the climate. But a company getting to net zero on paper isn’t actually all that beneficial for the climate, argues a new paper from the Searchlight Institute, a centrist Democratic think tank. Instead of having a voluntary net-zero goal, it says, companies’ climate efforts should be based on causing “more clean energy and climate-related infrastructure to get built than would otherwise exist,” and what a business does—around investments or policy work—to bring that about. Net-zero goals incentivize the least impactful actions Already, we’ve seen the limits of net-zero goals, especially as the AI data center boom has caused some company emissions to increase. Research has found that carbon offsets don’t meaningfully reduce emissions. But as tech companies launch data center projects powered by new gas infrastructure, they’re buying up even more carbon credits to offset those emissions increases on their own balance sheets. A net-zero goal encourages this kind of ineffective behavior, says Jane Flegal, senior fellow at the Searchlight Institute and author of the recent paper, “Beyond Carbon Accounting.” A corporate net-zero goal may be well meaning, she says, “but the incentive structure of those commitments drives [businesses] to do the cheapest stuff, which is often the least impactful.” Take forest carbon offsets, which are cheap. The idea is that by investing in forest management or reforestation, a company can claim the carbon those trees will absorb to offset the emissions it produces. This carbon removal often isn’t permanent, though. Forests can burn in wildfires or suffer from drought, which releases the carbon those t