Is Net Zero Actually A Fraud Used By Climate Criminals To Protect Themselves?

Photo by Ben Rosett on Unsplash

Or am I missing something?

As I understand it, Net Zero refers to achieving a balance between carbon emissions and carbon removal such that the amount of CO2 would remain constant. In balance.
Is that right?

Here on Earth there is an enormous ongoing torrent of CO2 emissions with the fossil fuel industry subsidized generously so that they remain profitable even now when the costs of extraction and processing exceeds revenue from sales. There’s an old fashioned term that applies here: “net loss.”

But…um…There is literally no meaningful extraction of carbon happening whatsoever. Any carbon removal going on is so infinitesimal that to call it a rounding error would be very generous.

I also see Net Zero as related to Carbon Offsets, which allows gigantic carbon criminals to pay a fee to organizations who (claim to) have reduced their carbon emissions and then keep abusing the Earth — ”guilt-free”…if everyone squints and applies very strong sunscreen.

My General Policy: Don’t Promote Terms Which Were Created To Help Justify Climate Abuse

Now, I may be missing something. I was being dubious but not facetious when I first suggested I might be misunderstanding something here.

I certainly might.

But the term Net Zero seems intentionally fraudulent to me. Like using math to distract and confound logic. Like if we used the term “Murderer Neutral” to describe a policy of freeing a murderer every time another murderer is executed. And then claiming we are getting the the problem of murder under control.

If you twist your brain into a pretzel, it makes perfect sense.

But it doesn’t.