Moving Beyond Carbon Neutrality

The conversation around sustainability and the environment has become buried in buzzwords. Namely, companies pursuing designations as “carbon neutral” or “net zero,” terms that sound good but don’t necessarily impact our world in a meaningful way. This ultimately can be a distraction from creating real change.

When we’re stuck on buzzwords, we get tunnel vision. This enables big splashy marketing campaigns with no substance to flourish. We are not able to greenwash or magically mass-balance our way to a better future. Instead, this requires transparent communication with clear targets and concrete progress to hold ourselves accountable.

Thinking differently about how—and why—we create

Truly impacting carbon emissions starts with a discussion of how and why we create. It’s important to examine the entire lifecycle of various products and discuss responsible design in its entirety. That means discussing what products are truly necessary, balancing their aesthetic or design appeal with how their creation impacts the planet—and what the lifecycle of that product might look like going forward.

The problem with carbon offset calculations

Eager to impress stakeholders and customers, more and more companies are looking to declare themselves “carbon neutral” or “net zero.” Many, however, are proving less eager to institute programs, change manufacturing practices, or work with suppliers in ways that will lessen their impact on the environment.

Instead, of the biggest companies in the world, two-thirds are using “carbon offsets” to meet their climate goals, according to Carbon Brief. Companies use carbon offsets as a way to counteract their greenhouse gas emissions, paying for trees to be planted or broad swaths of land to be restored. For example, an oil and gas company, airline, or other entity could pay for the protection of a part of a forest in South America.

But in recent years, several reports have called into question just how effective such credits actually are. One analysis concluded that some rainforest carbon offsets are essentially “worthless,” while others have uncovered scammers that have emerged in the suddenly high-dollar industry. A timber company “sold millions of dollars of useless carbon offsets,” discovered Bloomberg, while Fast Company pondered: “Carbon offsets have serious issues. Is it even possible to fix them?”

For many deep-pocketed organizations, carbon offsets are very attractive. They provide the ability to outwardly claim things like “carbon neutral” or “net zero” without actually addressing their internal approaches to producing goods—the processes, materials, and resulting pollution that make a lasting impact. To claim carbon offsets are sufficient is to ignore the carbon strategy hierarchy that is our path to preserving the planet.

Examining the hierarchy of carbon strategies

Rather than give lip service to the buzzwords, corporations should adopt a strict adherence to the hierarchy of carbon strategies. Often depicted as an upside-down pyramid, companies should start with prevention. The hierarchy looks like this:

• Don’t build: Otherwise known as “prevention” or “avoid.” We should examine if and when it’s appropriate to create new. At the moment, our obsession with newness continues to outweigh our environmental concerns. 
• Build as little as possible: Otherwise known as “reduction.” When we do create, we should be opting for materials and products that prioritize regeneration. 
• Reuse as much as possible: Find the products and materials that you can reuse and reuse again, lowering your overall impact on carbon levels.
• Build with low-carbon elements and processes: When you build, do so responsibly. Create only the most low-carbon products possible.

Toward a better way to build and consume

If we’re to move toward real impact, we first need better ways of measuring and discussing sustainability. Carbon neutral and net zero won’t cut it.

Gensler’s Product Sustainability Standards are one extremely valuable measure. It helps get to a determination of a product’s actual carbon impact, beyond the flashing-light distractions that are carbon offsets. Across 12 product categories, Gensler’s Product Sustainability Standards considers sustainability criteria “based on the carbon impact of the products’ materials and manufacturing processes, the volume we specify of that product category, and market readiness to demonstrate sustainability.” The standards are new, but already making an impact. Gensler says it has “witnessed shifts up and down the complex web of supply chains that extends from Gensler.”

That is progress, but we’ll need companies outside of that web to buy in, as well. Sustainability takes a concerted effort across public and private entities. When it comes down to it, responsible design and consumption isn’t going to be an easy label we can hang our hat on and call it a day. It’s beholden on designers, manufacturers, and consumers–the entire lifecycle chain–to learn more about the products we create and consume.

Author: Giulio Bonazzi