Future-Proofing Net-Zero Pathways Through Geological Net Zero

Author: Elsie Andreyev

Climate experts are warning that a lack of alignment with scientific authority in expectations for net zero and carbon removals may lead corporations and countries to delay near-term emissions reductions and the difficult work that goes into creating solutions for high-carbon activities. 

Achieving net zero is attainable when countries and corporations embrace scientific expertise in guiding their efforts to reduce emissions, rather than solely focusing on profit motives. This collaborative approach can lead to meaningful progress in addressing climate change. 

Our planet naturally absorbs carbon dioxide through carbon sinks like forests, soil, and oceans. These natural biological sinks are considered passive forms of CO2 uptake because they don’t require human technology to function. Climate disruption happens when emissions rise past the point that natural biological sinks can absorb. Their uptake capacity diminishes when they are damaged or altered – either through deforestation, ocean acidification, or poor soil management practices. 

Natural biological sinks are not our only source of carbon removals. Geological carbon sequestration is considered a synthetic geological carbon sink because it involves compressing CO2 into liquid form and storing it in rock formations underground, thereby providing a permanent form of carbon removal. There are also technological forms of carbon capture like direct air capture machines.

In a new study, led by Professor Myles Allen and published in Nature in November 2024, the authors warn that our global net-zero strategy must seek to minimize peak warming because solely stabilizing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere would not cause a permanent halt in warming. They explain that this could be accomplished either by eliminating fossil fuels and fossil carbonate-derived cement production entirely OR by ensuring that any remaining fossil fuel emissions are offset through geological storage that can persist for centuries without human intervention. This concept is a more rigorous approach to net zero, which they introduce as Geological Net Zero.

Their paper presents two critical warnings: 

1. Relying on natural biological sinks to offset fossil fuel emissions is dangerous and uncertain. The burning of fossil fuels causes warming, and increased warming triggers positive feedback loops like the melting of permafrost or damage to wetlands. Positive feedback loops lead to further warming and may cause more damage to natural biological sinks than we are currently aware of or are prepared for. The absorption capacity of natural biological sinks would also naturally diminish as emissions drop. Relying on natural biological sinks to offset residual emissions from every corporation in the future is a dangerous assumption given that we don’t currently know how much capacity will be left over, if any, after our collective priorities are first addressed. Since emissions from activities like food production will be difficult to reduce, they should be prioritized when looking to natural biological sinks as an offset to reach global net zero. Restoring natural biological sinks should only be seen as an additional measure to the number one priority: preventing further warming by stopping fossil fuel emissions as quickly as possible and preventing further damage to sinks, particularly through deforestation.                                                                                                                                                                                         
2. Counting passive uptake from natural biological sinks as a carbon removal could mislead net-zero claims. Emitters that classify passive uptake from natural biological sinks on land they manage as a carbon removal may be able to declare net zero without actually reducing their active absolute emissions. Emitters who declare net zero have much less incentive to commit to absolute emission reductions after that point. As previously mentioned, this is a dangerous strategy given that humans burning fossil fuels has overloaded our natural biological carbon sinks leading to warming. Any extra warming is dangerous as it worsens feedback loops which cause further damage to natural biological sinks, and the best way to reduce warming is to stop burning fossil fuels. Even though the IPCC does not include natural CO2 uptake as a carbon removal, many countries and corporations assess their net-zero progress using broader definitions. The demand to meet policy requirements will put increasing pressure on countries to count larger amounts of forests and blue carbon sinks as removals. This approach will lull corporations and countries into a false sense of security because this strategy would only lead to a stabilization of CO2 concentrations which would slow down the growth rate of CO2 but not halt further warming.

The authors point out that aligning with Geological Net Zero as soon as possible would future-proof countries’ and corporations’ net-zero pathways because they would already be prepared for and accepting of a reality where reaching net zero requires immediate absolute emissions reductions – not depending on biological sinks – long before regulations eventually require it. 

They also stress that transparency in both greenhouse gas accounting and net-zero pathways is vital for understanding the full impact of reporting passive uptake as a removal.  Transparency must be seen as key to the success of net-zero pathways, not only because it would ensure scientifically grounded carbon removal strategies, but because transparency provides many benefits to countries, corporations, and their pathways. 

Transparent net-zero pathways: 

• Facilitate knowledge sharing and create roadmaps for others to follow
• Provide opportunities for cross-sector collaboration
• Help pinpoint hurdles that require more troubleshooting and research
• Demonstrate that transparency doesn’t have to be a risky endeavor as long as contingency plans are created and described
• Raise ambition towards net zero

The Climate Registry (TCR) understands the pivotal component that transparency provides to organizations which underscores all our work. That’s why we created the Net-Zero Portal (“the Portal”) to house net-zero and carbon neutrality targets as well as their pathways and strategies under one roof. It’s not enough to pledge to reach net-zero or carbon neutrality, organizations must show how they plan on accomplishing it and how they approach offsets and carbon removals. Organizations with pathways can tell the story of their net-zero journey in the Portal and show that they are prepared for all contingencies which helps insulate organizations from claims of greenwashing or greenhushing later down the line. The Portal provides information on the most important aspects of an organization’s pathway, their successes, and their challenges – giving others easy access to roadmaps they can follow and opportunities to brainstorm solutions together.

In order to effectively reduce emissions and build net-zero pathways, organizations must first understand where their emissions come from. That’s where TCR’s Carbon Footprint Registry (CFR) comes in. Members of the CFR have access to our carbon reporting software, emission factors, guidance documents, calculation tools, and 1:1 technical support via the Help Desk. After measuring their carbon emissions, organizations have the option of adding an extra level of transparency by completing our streamlined 3rd-party verification process which allows them to share their reports publicly. Credible carbon reporting is a key component of transparency in climate action which The Climate Registry provides a cost-effective solution for. 

Pushing for a global alignment with Geological Net Zero will encourage immediate emissions reductions and protection of carbon sinks, meaningfully improve business practices, and decrease or eliminate reliance on biological, technological, and short-term removal offsets as a lifeline. In order to mitigate catastrophic climate disruption and lay the foundation for a more resilient and equitable system, we must ensure our strategies remain aligned with scientific recommendations. Start your journey towards future-proofing your organization and its strategies by committing to transparency with The Climate Registry and our services.