top of page

Zero carbon target is a mistake…

Every year we add carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere. Stopping CO2 emission is one part of the overall solution, but it is not enough as CO2 released is cumulative. I guess everyone understand the illustration of the bathtub which is continuously filling with a flow of water superior to what can be drained through the open plug of the bathtub.

In addition, CO2, when present in the atmosphere, doesn’t just vanish, it stays for a while (100 years in average). To limit global warming this is not enough to reduce, neither to stop (net zero), we should remove CO2. This needs to be the new target for industries. Net zero is one step, but what if the investments for net zero carbon aren't the same than for negative target ? we will loose money and time. This is why our ultimate aspiration should be on negative carbon.

Shouldn’t we say that zero carbon target /strategy is not sufficient anymore, and that we should focus on negative carbon target?

Several initiatives exist with Agroforestry, biodynamic agriculture ( which is not magic) or direct air capture, to negatively impact carbon dioxide emission for products.

And so, what about packaging?

Would it be possible to have packaging with a negative impact on CO2 emission. If a solution exists, it could be through bio based and compostable raw material. Something to explore further while EU commission is consulting on a new regulation on bio-based and Biodegrable & compostable plastics …



bottom of page