You could say that adaptation to climate impacts and net-zero strategies are both crucial for addressing threats from climate change. Adaptation is a more realistic alternative in the short term because it focuses on managing the unavoidable climate changes that are already occurring or expected to occur, whereas net zero aims to balance emissions. It is a more ambitious long-term goal, but it requires not only significant IT technological advancements but also widespread societal shifts.
Managing the unavoidable impacts of climate change, such as rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and shifts in ecosystems, will require adaptation in the short and medium term. It relies on existing technologies and practices, making it more feasible to implement in the near term by building sea walls, developing drought-resistant crops, improving infrastructure for extreme weather events.
Net zero means reducing greenhouse gas emissions to achieve a balance between emissions produced and emissions removed from the atmosphere. To achieve a net-zero balance requires a fundamental shift in energy systems, transportation, and other sectors, which presents significant technological and economic challenges. Transitioning to renewable energy sources, developing carbon capture technologies, implementing sustainable land management practices. For most companies, net zero has become too complex, expensive, or out of touch with real-world operations – especially in a politically polarised environment where climate action is attributed to be the main cause of lack of economic growth.
However, Dukeries Eco Watch is among the voices proclaiming that net zero remains crucial for limiting global warming to 1.5°C (if that’s even a possibility) for which we need total, world and economy-wide emissions to fall sharply, with only minimal reliance on offsets. Net zero provides a planetary roadmap for systemic change – essential for governments, financial systems, and long-term innovation planning. At the company level however, rigid frameworks can backfire. The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), for example, requires a 4.2% annual reduction in absolute emissions, a challenge for fast-growing companies displacing higher-emission incumbents.
Chris Hocknell, director at sustainability consultancy Eight Versa stated: “A lot of companies have just hit the wall. They made a bold net-zero pledge, but once they crunched the numbers, they realised it might put them out of business.” He points out that companies growing lower-carbon alternatives – like green cement – may see emissions rise even while lowering sector-wide footprints.
In short, net zero makes sense for the world—but it doesn’t always make sense for how companies grow. It’s even arguable that climate targets should be seen as aspirations not absolutes, as best practice today may not be fit for purpose tomorrow.
Adaptation and net zero are not mutually exclusive; they are interconnected and need to be pursued simultaneously to effectively address climate change. Progress in net-zero technologies will reduce the costs and challenges associated with achieving net-zero targets in the future.
For more information, find us on Facebook: Dukeries Eco Watch.
Pauline Meechan, Dukeries Eco Watch