What does climate neutral mean? | DW Documentary

Video Statistics and Information

Video
Captions Word Cloud
Reddit Comments
Captions
Climate neutrality. Fewer emissions. Stopping climate change. That’s what everyone these days claims to be striving for. Climate neutral. Climate efficient. Climate whatever. Every term has climate at its heart. I also think it’s what we’re all working towards. A glimpse at supermarket shelves shows that “climate neutral” is now more fashionable than “organic”. Many products are labeled this way. Climate neutral is a very broad term, of course. Ultimately we should be aiming to live in a climate neutral fashion, to live sustainably. But it’s a controversial concept. The term has not been legally defined. And is climate neutrality even possible? I lack the imagination to figure out how it’s attainable in almost all economic systems. Sören Brüntgens and his son Hendrik are busy planting trees — for the climate. Brüntgens has been doing this for twenty years now. His business Plant my Tree acquires land all across Germany for reforestation. The company enables private individuals to offset their carbon footprint — for 175 euros a year. Brüntgens and his team plant 12 trees in return. We are ecologically transforming the woodland with the trees we are adding here. And we are pleased that we can create something here for future generations that will provide a habitat for wildlife and lots of oxygen. Trees absorb CO2 from the atmosphere during the process of photosynthesis, store carbon in their biomass and release oxygen. That’s good for the climate. The principle of offsetting is based on this idea. It compensates for the production of greenhouse gases. That’s why many companies also fund Brüntgens‘ reforestation projects. His business model — offsetting the carbon footprints of others — is successful because he earns money with every tree that he plants. His clients range from the local baker to Germany’s major blue chip companies. So what are their motives? Of course, there are those companies that say that they are doing it, on the one hand, because it helps nature, but also because it helps their image. Their motives are very diverse. But the biggest driving force is, no doubt, a love of nature. Everyone realizes things have to change. That we have to act now. Planting trees is a wonderful way to help. The companies who help pay for the reforestation are allowed to use a label that shows their involvement. Certainly, Germany’s woodlands can benefit from reforestation — no matter whether the sponsors are acting out of true conviction, or not. In many places, they are not in a good shape. These spruce forests in western Germany are infested with bark beetles — and will soon be cut down. Right next to it, the team is planting a mix of tree species. The sponsors see that as a meaningful step towards climate neutrality. But what does climate neutrality actually mean? The IPCC puts it like this: climate neutrality is: balancing emissions so they are equal (or less than) the emissions that get removed through the planet’s natural absorption. What they mean is: all economic activity releases CO2. To reduce these emissions to zero, you can either cut them yourself. Or you can offset your emissions — by compensating for them in other ways. By creating ecosystems like forests, for instance, which absorb and store carbon dioxide from the air. But how much CO2 does a single tree absorb? It is very, very difficult to assess how much they store per year because it is dependent on so many factors, such as the amount of rainfall. Rain is needed for photosynthesis. And it can’t be too hot either. Trees only start to store really significant amounts after eight or ten years. This sapling will need a fair few years to get up to speed in terms of storage. Height, girth and wood density also play a role — i.e the type of tree. There are various statistical models that (attempt to) gauge (precisely) how much CO2 a single tree can store. ?? They estimate that by the time it is 80, a mature beech has absorbed something in excess of a tonne of carbon dioxide. The tree absorbs some 12.5 kilos each year. We would have to plant 80 beech trees annually to offset one tonne of CO2. Yet in Germany about 11 tonnes are produced per capita each year. To offset that, more than 800 trees would have to be planted for each person. AND: all of these beech trees would have to live to be at least 80 years old, otherwise the sum doesn’t add up? Which is possible though — beeches are capable of living to be over three hundred years old. For the climate neutrality equation to work out, trees have to live a long time. On top of that, the wood cannot be burned nor can it rot. So you see: the carbon offsets of a forest are difficult to calculate. At the Technical University in Berlin, environmental scientist Matthias Finkbeiner is researching how to measure sustainability and environmental impact. He sees the biggest problem in guaranteeing that carbon dioxide is permanently removed from the atmosphere.. How can I ensure that the CO2 removed from the air remains, ideally, trapped inside “for ever”. Who is going to guarantee that the forest won’t be chopped down? And the moment that it is cut down, it triggers the process that leads to these CO2 emissions being released again. Sören Brüntgens and his team are aware of this problem. The areas of land that they plant are owned by a trust — that they set up specially for this purpose. The trees will not be utilized — at least for as long as that trust exists. The tree planting idea shows that climate neutrality is a bit of a slippery concept. Yet the label is everywhere — on supermarket shelves, for example, where there are loads of ‘climate positive’, ‘carbon neutral’ or ‘climate neutral’ products. Food manufacturers are clearly keen to claim their products do not harm the environment. But what is the truth behind these claims? The idea, ultimately, is that you reduce your emissions as far as possible and then somehow compensate for the remaining ones. But exactly how this is measured, which emissions are included and which possibilities really count towards cutting emissions — that has not really been defined, unfortunately. When companies say that their products are climate neutral, it is not quite clear what that means. They can use very different calculations to arrive at the claim of zero emissions. And no one is really checking. The fact that this concept is not legally regulated or standardized is, of course, a problem. It differs vastly. As a consumer I don’t really know what the substance of these advertising claims are. There are “cheap” solutions where people haven’t even attempted to reduce the emissions created making their product. And then there are others who have really made a big effort and they are sitting on the same shelf — making the same claims. The claim to be climate neutral is a pledge — or rather an assertion. The consumer goods industry is acting voluntarily. Apart from some sectors like mobility, heavy industry and fossil fuels there is no legal obligation in Germany to reduce emissions. So why are companies so interested in bearing this label? Innsbruck, Austria. Markus Zanier is the CEO of a family business. For more than 50 years, Zanier have been producing gloves. The company has been describing itself as climate neutral for three years. What is their aim? More customers? For me, the issue is itself important. Such a label doesn’t yet mean much to most consumers. We have just gotten the results of a survey that shows only 21 percent of consumers say that it is really important to them to support a climate neutral business — to buy their products. It’s a decision that I have made for our company, for our family. When Markus Zanier decided to make his company climate neutral — his son was four years old. I thought to myself back then — ok, if this is really going to work for generation number three, I want to leave behind a company that considers the coming generations and the environment, too. It’s clearly something close to Markus Zanier’s heart. That’s why he decided to embark on a long and difficult process. It’s time for the annual emissions “stock taking”. This involves checking all the phases in the production process. They first carried out a calculation of this kind in 2018. Seeing the company’s entire CO2 output in black and white was something Markus Zanier will never forget. Initially, it was a real shock — oh, God, what we are doing is a catastrophe, isn’t it? But there is no avoiding it. All life, all activity, all types of business create CO2 — that was the main takeaway for me. And what is important is that we adopt a more conscious approach. For Zanier that means: reducing emissions as much as possible — in the manufacturing process and the company offices. There are external consultants to help advise him what to do about the rest, like Munich-based Climatepartner, for instance. Moritz Lehmkuhl is the founder and CEO of one of the biggest organizations of its kind in Germany. There are many others, too. They are like climate neutrality consultants. They guide, evaluate and recommend suitable solutions. And they issue a label at the end. Step number one is the analysis — where are CO2 emissions being produced, what is connected with the product. Step two is then looking to see where emissions can be reduced or avoided. How can we effect change in the short, medium and long-term? For example, logistics, packaging — or using different materials. Different materials. The Austrian glove manufacturers Zanier say this is one way that they could reduce their harmful emissions. For example, by using recycled materials. Or a glove made partially from cork — which is sustainable because it grows back naturally. But the CEO is also having to rethink other areas, too. The company produces internationally. In Austria, Germany, but also in China and Vietnam. The supply chains are long and energy intensive. Logistics is, of course, an issue. We are currently switching to 100 percent e-mobility in our fleet. We are going to make big reductions there. Where we are also making big reductions is in printed matter — anything involving paper. But the individual company decides where it intends to make reductions and by how much. Also the extent to which it offsets its emissions is voluntary. There are no legal requirements (to do so). Professor Matthias Finkbeiner sees that as one of the core problems of the concept of ‘climate neutrality‘. Making comprehensive assessments of a company’s emissions or those related to particular products — and then reducing them effectively — is very expensive. Producing an environmental audit that holds water scientifically takes a great deal of effort. For us it would involve tracing the supply chain, really looking at where the raw materials come from. Even with relatively simple products consisting of two or three components it would cost 10,000 euros upwards. For complex products it could, of course, be a lot more. And some of the offset scheme providers who also earn money with offsetting have no interest in carrying out high-value audits. They practically give that away for free because the economic return is generated by the sale of CO2 certificates. For the environmental scientist Matthias Finkbeiner it’s clear the consultancy companies also earn money — not by avoiding CO2 emissions, but by offsetting them. CO2 certificates show that a certain amount of CO2 has been saved, usually in developing countries. The problem is that frequently CO2 audits and the provision of certificates are carried out by the same company. We still see cases today of very simple audits being carried out — even by some of the big market players — because the focus of interest is not on cutting emissions, but because I just need a figure that I can then offset. And some companies even sell the certificates at the same time. I’m not saying that everything that’s on the market today is all bad, but there are a lot of players which portray all these various steps very simply. ClimatePartner, Moritz Lehmkuhl’s company, also provides CO2 certificates and its own climate neutral label. Doesn’t the CEO think that there are too many offset projects and too few real reductions in emissions? I would describe climate neutrality more like a journey. Step one, we audit, set goals — and reduce and offset a lot of CO2 emissions. The amount offset has to be further reduced, of course. We need change management — to start concerning ourselves with the suppliers, with processes etc. That should never stop. You should never succumb to the temptation to say, I’m going to conduct an audit, make offsets — end of story. Climate neutrality is an ongoing process. Markus Zanier has clearly understood this principle. The Austrian glove maker says he aims to continue cutting his company’s CO2 emissions step by step. But Zanier needs carbon offsets, too. I always say that the carrot for us companies is to keep on reducing our own CO2 emissions. We will never be able to avoid them altogether. You have to be aware of that. But at some point when things have pretty much bottomed out — where you can’t reduce emissions any further — That’s what must be offset. The company supports carbon offset projects to protect the environment in the Alps and in China. This along with the reduction measures that they have implemented has led to them being classified as having zero emissions and earned them the label ?climate neutral‘. Climatepartner’s own climate neutral labels come with individual ID numbers. The idea is to give customers the chance to find out more about the ‘climate neutral’ project. What has been done, what measures have already been taken to avoid emissions, how were CO2 emissions offset? What projects are being supported? The idea is maximum transparency. And these are the steps that are repeated over and over again. To see every year how far you have advanced, how much you have reduced, how much you have avoided, what needs to be offset again. Participating in CO2 offset schemes abroad — like solar parks or wind farms - is another potential problem. Under the 2015 Paris Agreement, most countries are obliged to reduce their own emissions. That means that there is a danger that some of these projects are counted twice over, as so much carbon offsetting takes place internationally. If a carbon offset provider funds a renewable energy plant in a certain country, India or Brazil for instance, it is counted as a reduction in the carbon audit of a company or product. But who ensures that the country where the plant is located does not include it in its own climate audit? That reduction would then be counted twice. If these emission cuts are counted several times, there is the risk that we’ll all be climate neutral by 2050 on paper, but that the CO2 emissions in the atmosphere will keep rising. So climate neutrality may also lead to a paradoxical result. Nevertheless, companies that operate globally believe that the label is increasingly important. What should we think about these multinationals’ climate promises? Experts from the New Climate Institute have been investigating that question. The Cologne-based think tank develops ideas about climate change and investigates existing concepts. Carsten Warnecke is a partner at the non-profit company. In their latest study, he and his colleagues have taken a closer look at the climate pledges made by the world’s 25 biggest companies. They want to present themselves in a good light, so that they don’t lose certain segments of the market now that the climate issue is very high up on the agenda. We put ourselves in the consumers‘ position and say, OK, if the companies are claiming that, then they have to make the following information public and easily accessible. If a company says it aims to become climate neutral by 2040, 2030 or even 2025, then Warnecke stresses it must be evident how that goal will be attained: Mainly by cutting emissions? Or solely via carbon offsets? The New Climate Institute findings show that most companies lack transparency here. We have come across a lot of negative stuff here — where a lot of energy has been invested by companies to muddle things, to cover things up, so they can make these assertions. For example, furniture manufacturers who say I have stored carbon in my furniture — and it is permanently stored there. And there is so much wood in our furniture that the bottom line is that we have negative emissions. But how long does this furniture last? Is it equivalent to the carbon released to help create them, stored in a form that would last millions of years? We all know how quickly we replace our furniture these days. It doesn’t work like that. There are even airports that can claim to be climate neutral. Like Hamburg Airport. Here emissions have been reduced by 80 percent since 2009. E-vehicles are used at the airport and it runs its own combined heat and power plant, and there is green electricity, too. But it is important to bear in mind that the airport only regards itself as responsible for ground operations — not for what happens in the air. As stated by law. The emissions caused by the air traffic within Europe are, in fact, already covered by EU emissions trading. But this example shows that often only elements of a product or a company are climate neutral — such as the production, but not the logistics or distribution. The choice to reveal this or not is voluntary. Participation, after all, is also entirely voluntary! This is an unregulated market which was created by private players. It’s not state monitored, nor state regulated. There are good standards and good initiatives, but there is also a lot of uncontrolled growth — some very, very bad stuff. And for non-experts it’s quite difficult, or almost impossible, to find your way through this jungle. It remains impossible for consumers to really get to the truth behind climate neutral labels or marketing claims. The state gives companies far too much leeway. Sören Brüntgens and his son Hendrik are on the road in western Germany’s Eifel region. Across Germany, Brüntgens and his team have planted more than 1.2 million trees in the last few years. The condition of the reforested areas has to be reviewed regularly. Oh, look, the oaks. They have also made it. They are the first oaks we planted — about 12 years ago. I used to just run down here and play in the hay. And now you can’t even make your way through here anymore. This is the oldest reforested area created by Sören Brüntgen‘s company. I can’t say exactly where the first tree I planted stands — somewhere here. I don’t know how old I was — maybe eight or so. It’s always really special to see the trees here and how much they’ve grown. It’s great. Both men know that climate neutrality cannot be achieved by planting trees alone. But Sören Brüntgens believes it‘s not an option to do nothing. And with every tree that he plants he is also making a contribution towards biodiversity. Plant my Tree is not saying the solution is to plant trees and everything will be fine. That’d be far too easy and too good to be true. It’s only one step on the way to a greener, healthier future. One path to a better future. It’s not just companies and multinationals that have the aim of net zero emissions — entire states have declared this their goal. And they want to achieve it quickly. That, according to experts like Matthias Finkbeiner, is exactly where the problem lies. This pressure and push to achieve such an ambitious goal so quickly can sometimes mean that the right measures are not implemented in reality. I prefer someone who says I am going to reduce emissions gradually and attempt to become climate neutral by 2050 than someone who says that they will be climate neutral by 2030, but who has no idea how — and just buys CO2 certificates. It would be constructive to say I have these remaining emissions, and I have quantified them and this is why I cannot reduce these emissions yet. That makes things transparent. Then you could say, we are trying to reach climate neutrality by this date, but we can only guarantee a 95 percent reduction by then. Full transparency is constructive. It sounds less ambitious in public, but it would be significantly better. Climate neutrality is a key term in international climate policy. But when it comes to how it’s done, things tend to be a bit more difficult. That has a lot to do with the fact that implementation is mainly voluntary and unregulated. The climate neutral label is hard to pin down — and can easily be used as just another greenwashing strategy.
Info
Channel: DW Documentary
Views: 156,956
Rating: undefined out of 5
Keywords: Documentary, Documentaries, documentaries, DW documentary, full documentary, DW, documentary 2022, climate change, environmental protection, climate neutrality, carbon neutral, label, offsets, greenwashing, green washing, climate, climate neutral, carbon offset, climate change documentary
Id: hx6wFq9B-BM
Channel Id: undefined
Length: 27min 31sec (1651 seconds)
Published: Tue Nov 08 2022
Related Videos
Note
Please note that this website is currently a work in progress! Lots of interesting data and statistics to come.