Net-zero isn’t enough

As the climate crisis continues to ravage communities and raise global temperatures, it can get exhausting to keep on fighting. It’s easy to feel removed from the movement when ideas like climate-centered policies and developing new, sustainable technology seem intangible. Despite being a Graham Sustainability scholar, a public policy student focused on climate policy and a member of a professional sustainability fraternity, I still experience burnout in the fight against climate change. No matter how sustainable I am or how much I advocate for environmentally friendly solutions, nothing will change on a global scale without massive action from corporations and governments. We do, however, have more influence on the environmental policy local to our communities. 

To put it plainly, the University of Michigan’s current net-zero or carbon-neutral goal isn’t enough. It’s vague in meaning, and though good intentions underlie the metrics, the policy leaves too much up to interpretation. To combat the climate crisis, the University needs to make more concrete sustainability goals and commit to net negative emissions.

The University currently aims to reduce emissions from purchased power to net-zero and establish goals for a wide range of indirect emissions sources by 2025. It has also pledged to eliminate direct greenhouse gas emissions by 2040 and establish a net-zero endowment by 2050. These goals, however, are already failing. And with three months left to reach the 2025 goals, little progress has been made. In fact, emissions may get worse. Scope 3 emissions, which include U-M-sponsored travel, are going to increase substantially with the expansion of the Big 10 Conference leading to increased plane travel to and from California, Oregon and Washington. 

Even though the University is unlikely to meet its current climate goals, the goals weren’t specific enough to begin with. The University’s 2050 net-zero endowment goal, for instance, leaves a lot up to interpretation.

The University already discontinued direct investments to companies that are the “largest contributors” to greenhouse gas emissions, while also ceasing investments in fossil fuels. Although this sounds great, the metric is arbitrary. The University could argue, for example, that a company ranked 10th on the scale of greenhouse gas emissions isn’t the largest contributor because there are nine more before them. This number should be quantified and publicized so the community knows exactly how far the plan extends.

Achieving net-zero emissions also relies on heavily investing in carbon offsets, a strategy in which the University balances its greenhouse gas emissions with off-campus carbon reduction. But carbon offsets are often referred to as an environmental scam. In practice, they take the blame off environmentally dangerous infrastructure without actually improving it. The University must invest in its infrastructure and emissions before looking at other ways to offset its carbon emissions. 

Net-zero goals are often associated with greater conversations of environmental justice, but much of this is greenwashing — a strategy in which organizations pretend to remedy climate change in order to improve their public image. Companies often have an agenda when they create climate plans: Caring about the environment is good PR, even if it’s performative. This leads many carbon neutrality plans to be vague and lack definite standards for emission reduction. For example, some countries do not track airplane travel as part of their scope 3 emissions goals, despite it being a considerable source of carbon emissions.

Underreporting has consequences. The people who are bearing the brunt of climate change are often the most disadvantaged — and the least able to combat vague climate plans. If the metrics by which we determine net-zero emissions aren’t comprehensive enough, they are ones most likely to suffer. Setting clear environmental goals isn’t about semantics, it’s about ensuring real people don’t have to suffer from performative greenwashing.  

The University of Michigan isn’t completely at fault for adopting a lackluster plan; net-zero plans are everywhere. They serve as the basis for sustainability initiatives because they give companies a feasible goal to strive for. Additionally, because technology is always advancing, it’s tricky to complicate a plan beyond net-zero emissions — the University can’t predict the impact of carbon capture systems before they exist.

This doesn’t mean the University shouldn’t strive for something better. We have a vast team of academics who recognize the impact of climate change. The University has the potential to break out of the net-zero mold and go further. 

Plans should be made to be adaptable. 2050 is more than 25 years away, so taking a look at goals every year or two will allow the University to evolve based on new technology. Next, the University needs to publicize every metric possible when creating its plans — straying away from vague markers like “largest contributors.” Last, the University needs to look past net neutrality and actually reduce the carbon levels emitted into the atmosphere. This means transitioning away from carbon offsets to sustainable systems that are not reliant on fossil fuels. 

As U-M community members, we have the chance to not only impact the University’s sustainability initiatives but also to impact what organizations around the world view as a good sustainability plan. By pressuring an institution that we have a unique relationship with, we can start to break down the barriers to sustainability and give the people a voice in creating a more environmentally sustainable future.

Eliza Phares is an Opinion Columnist who writes about U-M administrative policy and campus life. She can be reached at ephares@umich.edu. Her column “Campus Conversations” runs bi-weekly on Thursdays.

Related articles