If you define climate neutrality comprehensively and globally, you will not achieve it by 2050 either. That is why everyone defines climate neutrality as selectively and locally as possible. One is so attached to the illusion of the achievability of this goal.
The extent to which companies actually contribute to reducing greenhouse gases remains unclear in most cases.
At the United Nations climate conference in Sharm al-Sheikh, Federal Councilor Cassis once again emphasized that our country should be climate-neutral by 2050 at the latest. Climate neutral? If a term has such great political importance, one would expect that there would be clear definitions for it.
But far from it. In theory, one can say that climate neutrality creates a balance between emissions that are harmful to the climate and the absorption of carbon from the atmosphere in carbon sinks. But what does that mean in concrete terms for a country, a company or a product? Because now not only countries, but also cantons, cities, companies, airports, universities, mountain railways, coffee capsules or yoghurts should be climate-neutral.
The magic word is: compensation
Let’s stay with the companies. Since the beginning of 2022, Migros has described itself as climate-neutral, namely “in operation”. This means: Only the emissions caused by Migros itself are included in the calculation. Emissions related to the cultivation of food, animal husbandry, manufacture or transport of the goods sold by Migros, i.e. the upstream services, are only to be taken into account in the future.
But why can Migros already call itself climate-neutral, even though the greenhouse gas emissions in operation are only to be reduced by 80 percent by 2030? The magic word is: compensation. Practically all concepts of climate neutrality assume that one’s own greenhouse gas emissions cannot be reduced to zero or can only be reduced to zero in the distant future. However, the remaining emissions can already be reduced to zero by investing in emission-avoiding projects abroad, such as the construction of wind turbines or a reforestation project.
Migros offsets its remaining emissions in specially developed climate protection projects. In Thailand, for example, 1000 farming families are being trained in a more climate-friendly rice cultivation method. Because more than 10 percent of global methane emissions are due to traditional rice cultivation methods. According to Migros, thanks to the new method, methane emissions can be reduced by up to 60 percent. But does the reduction actually come about? And if so, was it also triggered by the training? Or is traditional rice cultivation shifting to other parts of Thailand instead?
There are no clear answers to these questions. As useful as the Migros projects are. To what extent a reduction in greenhouse gases is actually achieved remains unclear – and thus also the contribution to climate neutrality.
Of course, Migros is not a special case. Coop should also become climate-neutral next year thanks to corresponding compensation projects. And many others will follow. However, due to the proliferation of compensation, companies are starting to look a little more closely at the fingers. A court in New York came to the conclusion in October that the company Danone can no longer describe the Evian mineral water it sells as climate-neutral. Reason: The product does not live up to the expectations generated by this term.
Confederation, cantons, cities
But what about the state (federal government, cantons, cities)? They have to be more careful when it comes to compensation and are therefore not yet allowed to describe themselves as climate-neutral like Migros. The Confederation, cantons and cities have taken the liberty of neglecting the emissions associated with the promotion, cultivation or manufacture of imported products and energy sources.
The goal of climate neutrality, which is to be achieved by 2050, only affects the emissions occurring in Switzerland. However, according to the latest figures from the Bafu, these make up less than half of the total emissions caused by Switzerland. While the federal government’s long-term climate strategy emphasizes the importance of including emissions associated with imports, it does not provide an answer as to how and when this should be done.
Politicians and activists who have taken up the cause of climate neutrality pay little attention to such “details”. They prefer to argue about whether climate neutrality does not have to be achieved by 2040.
If the emissions generated abroad were actually taken into account, the following dilemma would arise: The more comprehensive, global and thus more honest the goal of climate neutrality is defined, the clearer it becomes that it will be achieved neither in 2040 nor in 2050. Nobody wants to be confronted with this unpleasant truth. So climate neutrality is defined as selectively and locally as possible so as not to destroy the illusion that this goal can be achieved.
In this way, Switzerland can actually become “climate neutral” in 2050 or maybe even as early as 2040. At the same time, global greenhouse gas emissions are continuing to grow. But we prefer not to deal with that. The main thing is to build houses in Switzerland according to the Minergie standard and drink coffee from climate-neutral capsules.
Mathias Binswanger is Professor of Economics at the University of Applied Sciences Northwestern Switzerland.