I’ve spent the past few issues (re)exploring the connection between human behavior and “climate action”. This theme reappears, so it’s essential to appreciate the difference between action and reaction, intention and outcome.

I learned from the process that different stakeholders interpret “net zero” differently. This creates problems in practice.

Let me summarize the conclusions of the past few installments so that you can understand the theme:

• Boeing vs. Tesla: Occupancy is the key to reducing your carbon footprint. It’s better for the environment to carpool than to buy a Tesla, and, in any event, it’s better to fly than it is to drive, as a rule.

• Crypto vs. Credit: Economics favors energy efficiency. The jury is still out, but choosing centralized transaction platforms versus distributed ones for carbon footprint reasons shouldn’t rely on one engineer’s model.

• Paper vs. Plastic: The classic environmentalism of choosing paper grocery bags as a “natural” and renewable resource fails to reflect the mathematical realities of a carbon footprint comparison. Choose plastic.

• Net zero pledges: Corporations who pledge to achieve net zero carbon emissions by some specific future rely on accounting to make their pledges whole. Offsets are ‘reverse carbon ransoms’ that do nothing to solve the essential problem.

These are all bad choices that people are currently making. But it’s not helpful to poke fun at human fallibility unless there’s a better choice.

The conceptual resiliency of “net zero” is central to answering this question, and, as is often the case, the adjective “net” is more important than the noun “zero”. The next couple of pieces will examine how my understanding of the phrase has changed.