🤔 What comes after net-zero? And should you care?

⚠️ The IPCC is clear: we have to achieve net-zero CO2 by 2050. This is and has been the global rallying cry since 2018.

📉 What is less talked about: net-zero is not enough. Because every credible IPCC 1.5 °C and most 2 °C pathway assumes we overshoot our carbon budget — and must therefore spend part of the second half of the century removing more CO₂ than we emit.

Some governments have already recognised it and are proactively developing roadmaps for this net-negativity.

🇸🇪 Sweden has gone furthest: it’s legally bound to reach net zero by 2045 and negative emissions thereafter.

🇫🇮 Finland is close behind, targeting carbon neutrality by 2035 and political intent to go negative soon after.

🇩🇰 Denmark proposed a 110 % reduction by 2050 (i.e. net-negative), though Parliament rejected the bill for now.

🇩🇪 Germany aims for net negativity around 2060, with interim targets for 2035–2045 in development.

🇪🇺 The EU Climate Law sets neutrality by 2050 and explicitly states the Union should aim for negative emissions thereafter.

🇬🇧 The UK has no legal net-negative date yet, but its Climate Change Committee expects Scotland to get there “well before 2050.”

🌳 And several small, high-forest-cover countries such as Panama, Suriname, Bhutan are already net-negative today.

🌍 I know it might seem odd to talk about net-negative when we are struggling so much to even reach net-zero. Still, I actually think it’s crucial and can inspire hope to think not just about dealing with the current emergency, but about the potential for climate restoration.

⬇️ With sufficient CDR, we could actually lower the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere sufficiently to reduce temperatures in the second half of the century. Note: none of this will matter if we don’t reduce emissions fast enough right now and cross irreversible tipping points.

❓ What is your take? Should we pay attention to net-negativity and embed it in climate policies?

Follow the conversation