Carbon neutrality: a promise everyone makes, but few keep
In 2025, not a week goes by without a major company, government, or airline declaring itself "carbon neutral" or on the road to "net zero". These announcements are multiplying at a dizzying speed — and yet, global greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise. How do we explain this paradox? The answer comes down to two words: myths and realities.
Understanding what carbon neutrality truly means — and what it does not mean — has become an essential skill for any citizen, consumer, or investor who wants to avoid being manipulated by clever marketing rhetoric.
What is carbon neutrality? A rigorous definition
Carbon neutrality, or "net zero", refers to a state in which the amount of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere equals the amount removed. In other words: what you emit on one side, you offset on the other, so that your net contribution to global warming is zero.
On paper, the equation seems simple. In reality, it rests on two pillars of very different natures:
- Emission reduction: consuming less fossil fuel, electrifying uses, optimising industrial processes, changing behaviours.
- Carbon offsetting: funding projects that absorb or avoid emissions elsewhere — reforestation, renewable energy, carbon capture.
The scientific consensus of the IPCC is clear: achieving global carbon neutrality by 2050 is essential to limit warming to 1.5°C. But how to get there — and above all the sincerity of the announced approaches — is a far more complex issue.
The 5 great myths of carbon neutrality
Myth 1: "Carbon neutral" means zero emissions
This is probably the most widespread misconception. Being carbon neutral does not mean emitting nothing. It means that residual emissions are offset by equivalent actions. A company that continues to emit 100,000 tonnes of CO2 per year can declare itself "neutral" if it buys 100,000 carbon credits. The question then becomes: are these credits truly worth what they claim to be?
Myth 2: Offsetting can replace reduction
This is the trap that many companies and individuals fall into. The logic is seductive: "I don't need to change my habits, I just need to plant trees." Yet scientists are unequivocal: offsetting can only be a complement to reduction efforts, never a substitute. Offsetting without reducing is like emptying an overflowing bathtub with a glass, without turning off the tap.
Myth 3: All offsets are equal
The quality of a carbon credit varies enormously depending on the project. In 2023, an investigation by the Guardian and Die Zeit revealed that 90% of carbon credits from Verra's REDD+ certification (tropical forest protection) were largely overestimated. Forests that were not actually under threat were used to generate credits sold to companies that used them to claim carbon neutrality.
To avoid this type of greenwashing, it is crucial to rely on projects certified by rigorous standards and on independent verification mechanisms. You can learn more in our article on how to distinguish greenwashing from genuine carbon offsetting.
Myth 4: Reforestation alone can offset fossil fuel emissions
Planting trees is often presented as the miracle solution. Forests do indeed absorb CO2 — but at a much slower rate than we emit it. An adult tree captures on average 20 to 25 kg of CO2 per year. To offset one tonne of CO2, you therefore need between 40 and 50 trees... for one year. And if those trees burn, are felled, or die from drought, the stored carbon is released back into the atmosphere.
Myth 5: Corporate "net zero 2050" targets are binding
In the absence of legal obligations in most countries, these commitments rely on corporate goodwill. A study by the NGO Carbon Market Watch published in 2024 analysed 25 major multinationals with net zero targets: fewer than a third had put in place a credible plan to achieve them.
Reality 1: Absolute reduction remains the priority
The Paris Agreement sets clear trajectories. To limit warming to 1.5°C, global emissions must fall by 43% by 2030 compared with 2019 levels. Offsetting can play a role for residual emissions that cannot be eliminated, but it cannot cover inaction.
The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), which validates corporate climate targets, requires companies to reduce at least 90% of their emissions before they can offset the rest. This is the minimum credibility threshold.
Reality 2: Offsetting has its place, but not just any way
Carbon offsetting is not inherently bad. When funded wisely, it can:
- Support vital projects in developing countries (access to renewable energy, clean cooking, biodiversity protection).
- Bridge the gap during the energy transition, for emissions that cannot yet be technically reduced.
- Mobilise private funding for climate actions that would not find public financing.
To learn more about the concrete mechanisms of offsetting, consult our complete guide to carbon offsetting.
Reality 3: The regulatory framework is tightening
Faced with the proliferation of unverified "net zero" claims, European and national regulators are taking action. The European directive on environmental claims ("Green Claims Directive"), adopted in 2024, now prohibits carbon neutrality claims based solely on offsets, without substantial prior reductions. Companies found in violation face fines of up to 4% of their global turnover.
"Carbon neutrality is not a destination, it is a journey. And that journey always begins with reducing, not offsetting."
— Ademe, Responsible Communication Guide, 2024
How to evaluate the sincerity of a net zero approach?
Whether you are a consumer, investor, or simply a curious citizen, here are the questions to ask when faced with a carbon neutrality announcement:
- Scope covered: does the commitment cover Scopes 1, 2, and 3 (including the supply chain)?
- Reduction trajectory: what percentage of emissions is actually being reduced by 2030 and 2050?
- Quality of offsets: are the projects Gold Standard or Label Bas-Carbone certified?
- Independent verification: does a trusted third party validate the reported figures?
- Transparency: is the data published openly and updated annually?
And what about us as individuals?
Individual carbon neutrality follows the same rules: reduce first, offset second. The average French person emits 8.9 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year. The target for 2050 is to get down to 2 tonnes. The gap cannot be bridged by carbon credits alone — it requires real changes: fewer flights, less meat, a smaller or electric car, a better insulated home.
That said, offsetting remains a valuable tool for taking action now on emissions that cannot yet be reduced. The key is to keep both eyes open: not using offsetting as an excuse to avoid reducing, and not rejecting offsetting on the grounds that it is always greenwashing.
Honest carbon neutrality is a journey, not a label. And that journey is one we all need to begin.