What does "net zero" actually mean?
Net zero means the total greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere are balanced by an equivalent amount removed, so the net addition is zero. It is deliberately different from absolute zero, which would mean emitting nothing at all.
Why the "net" matters. Some emissions are extremely difficult to eliminate with current technology — aviation, cement and steel production, shipping, and agricultural emissions from livestock and fertiliser. Net zero accepts these will persist and requires them to be balanced by removals: reforestation, soil carbon, direct air capture with storage, bioenergy with carbon capture.
What a credible net zero commitment requires:
Deep absolute reductions first. Frameworks such as the Science Based Targets initiative generally require cutting emissions by around 90% before residuals may be neutralised. Removals are for the remainder, not the bulk.
Full scope coverage. Scope 1 is direct emissions, Scope 2 is purchased energy, Scope 3 is the entire value chain — suppliers, product use, disposal. Scope 3 is usually the overwhelming majority of a company's footprint and the most commonly excluded. A net zero claim covering only Scopes 1 and 2 may omit 80% or more of the real total.
Durable removals, not cheap avoidance offsets. Storage must last on climate-relevant timescales.
A dated pathway with interim targets, not a distant commitment with no near-term obligation.
Where the term is abused. "Carbon neutral" is often used loosely for buying offsets while emissions continue unchanged. Advertising regulators in several countries have ruled such claims misleading. A 2050 target with no 2030 milestone commits nobody currently in post.
The physical basis is real. The IPCC finds that limiting warming requires reaching net zero CO₂ globally around mid-century, because CO₂ accumulates — stabilising temperature requires stopping the addition, not merely slowing it.