Abstract
The Net Zero Emissions (NZE) concept has created momentum for climate commitment made by national governments, cities, industries and individual companies. However, evidence of tangible decarbonisation is limited. Here we identify precarious differences between the scientific origin of NZE and its social representation in the wider public and explore the consequences of the resulting science-action gap for achieving global climate goals. A particular focus is given to ‘offsetting’, which is closely connected to the practical delivery of NZE but typically ignores that different types or carbon credits have different environmental efficacy. Revisiting the science related to the global carbon cycle demonstrates that a heavy reliance on any carbon offsetting that is not a permanent removal presents a real risk. Moreover, competition over scarce ‘removal credits’ distracts from the real tasks at hand, namely to rapidly decrease fossil fuel emissions, actively remove carbon through restoration, and protect existing terrestrial carbon sinks. Establishing separate targets for these distinct actions is an essential step towards disentangling current confusion. Whilst a ‘race to net zero’ may trigger innovation in the decarbonisation space, the restoration and protection of carbon sinks demands a collective approach where actors should focus on how to make real and verifiable contributions rather than claiming individual net zero scores.