Set separate targets for cutting emissions and for removing gas from the air, and never let removal replace cuts
Steps to make it happen
- Countries and companies set a target for how much they will cut the greenhouse gases they release.
- They also set a separate target for how much gas they will take out of the air.
- Removal is not allowed to cancel out the cuts that were supposed to be made.
- People count methods that store carbon in trees and soil separately from methods that lock it deep underground or in rock.
- Removal is used only to make up for the tiny amount of emissions that truly cannot be cut.
- Experts with no tie to the company or country check whether the gas was really removed and report the result.
- If a forest burns or the gas goes back into the air, the same amount must be removed again.
- When someone says "net zero," it becomes normal for everyone to be able to see what is inside that claim.
Water so far 💧 0
The proposal in detail
This proposal applies to countries that have promised to bring net greenhouse gas emissions to zero, to regional governments, and to companies above a certain size. Goals that have often been rolled into a single number would be split into two: a reduction target for how much actual emissions are cut, and a removal target for how much is taken out of the air. Each would be reported separately. Removal includes methods that use nature, such as planting trees and farming that stores carbon in soil, and methods that use technology, such as capturing carbon dioxide from the air and burying it underground, or reacting it with rock so that it hardens. These would be counted separately according to how long they can keep the carbon locked away. The reduction target must be met by reductions alone, and filling the gap with removal is not allowed. Removal may be used to offset only the remaining emissions that today's technology cannot cut, such as gases from some industrial processes and from farming. Where to draw the line on what counts as emissions that cannot be cut would be decided for each sector in a public process and reviewed as technology improves. In addition, when offsetting carbon dioxide that stays in the air for hundreds of years, the rule is to use removal that can lock carbon away for about as long. An independent third party would measure and confirm the amount removed, and if carbon returns to the air through fire, logging, or similar events, the party that reported it is responsible for removing it again. Countries and small businesses that lack the ability to measure would get simpler procedures and technical support.
BenefitsIt stops cuts from being put off and shows what promises really contain
Separating the reduction target from the removal target first closes the escape route of delaying today's cuts in the hope of uncertain removal in the future. Those who emit must face head-on the task of changing their factories, power plants, and the way they make products. Second, citizens, investors, and business partners can compare the contents of each promise more easily. Behind the same word "zero," the numbers show how much was truly cut, which makes it easier to see through green claims that are only for show. Giving removal its own targets also helps money and people flow steadily toward technology that locks carbon away for a long time and toward well-managed forest building. The rule that distinguishes by how long carbon stays locked away corrects the unfairness of treating removal that might quickly return to the air as equal to emissions that last for hundreds of years. Making responsibility clear when gas returns to the air also gives people a reason to improve the quality of removal. As a result, the books of climate action come closer to reality, and it becomes harder to leave an uncertain bill for future generations.
DrawbacksCosts may rise and overall cuts may slow down
The strongest point made by opponents is that, for the air, one ton cut and one ton removed have the same effect, so banning the swap takes away the freedom to choose cheaper and faster measures. If costs rise, countries and companies might set the targets themselves lower, and the total amount cut around the world could even shrink. Also, some countries and regions with a lot of forest have made income from protecting and growing forests to store carbon. If removal can no longer replace cuts, the money flowing to those regions may dry up, and the power to protect forests may weaken. Drawing the line on which emissions cannot be cut is also hard, and there is a worry that lobbying by each industry could bend the standards. A rule requiring removal that locks carbon away for a long time would depend on technology that is still expensive and scarce, and might create a situation where almost no means of offsetting is actually available. The work of measuring and reporting two targets and having a third party check them falls most heavily on countries and small businesses with little ability to measure.
Learn the background
Around the world, more and more promises are being made to bring net greenhouse gas emissions to zero. But the word "net" often mixes together, without distinction, the effort to cut the amount actually emitted and the amount taken out of the air by planting trees or by future technology. As a result, even when the zero promises look the same from the outside, it is hard to tell the difference between countries and companies that are truly cutting emissions and those that keep emitting and hope to cancel it out with removal. Carbon stored in forests and soil can also return to the air through wildfires, droughts, and changes in how land is used. How far technology that pulls carbon directly from the air can be used at large scale is still uncertain. If today's cuts are put off because people count on future removal, and that hope does not come true, the damage cannot be undone. Scientists point out that holding down temperature rise takes both large cuts and a certain amount of removal. That is exactly why a system is needed that grows the two as separate pillars without mixing them.
Choose them ready to accept their drawbacks too (up to 5)
It helps pay for the server and the AI's planting
This proposal was written in Japanese by AI (claude-opus-5-5, policy version 2026-10-15d) and translated by AI (claude-sonnet-5-5). Nobody has checked the facts. Read the original (日本語) How the AI writes