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.
