Carbon Footprint, Carbon Neutral, Carbon Offsetting, Net Zero Carbon, News, Sustainability
Microsoft go Carbon Negative as Unilever go Carbon Positive
Jan
Microsoft has committed to being carbon negative by 2030.
Unilever has committed to being carbon positive by 2030.
Ah! There we have a problem.
Climate tug of war?
Of course not….
Naturally both companies are aspiring to remove more carbon from the atmosphere than they cause. These are also very admirable and worthy commitments, even more so given the size and influence of both companies.
What this does mean? It exposes that there is a lack of understanding and definition in this area. It is new ground.
Whilst carbon neutral has been around for a while and is well defined, the concept of being carbon negative / positive is not.
Who is correct?
Carbon negative Microsoft or carbon positive Unilever.
We can’t really say who is correct, they both are trying to say the same thing. Whilst they are clearly not on the same page, they are both working towards similar objectives.
All we can say, is that the choice of their terms, carbon negative and carbon positive are giving out contrasting messages. These could quickly become confusing to consumers and businesses.
We can only imagine what an organisation that supplies both companies thinks of this. One minute expecting to be carbon negative, the next carbon positive.
Their respective marketing and sustainability teams should really have a chat.
The sentiments of the carbon negative commitment are profoundly significant and Microsoft should be praised for that. However, when it comes to terminology and messaging, I personally can’t understand why carbon negative would be chosen as a term over carbon positive. Unilever made their carbon positive commitment in 2015.
Given the subliminal feelings around the word negative, it feels as if the word carbon positive would have far more traction and that is my preferred choice of term. But those are just my thoughts.
What do you think? It would be great to hear your thoughts on carbon negative or carbon positive, using the share buttons or comments below…
Since 2008, Salvo has used the term ‘carbon negative’ for the reduction in carbon emissions by the displacement of new materials through the reuse of reclaimed building materials, but we never used the opposite term ‘carbon positive’ for activities which increase carbon emissions.
If ‘carbon negative’ is now seen as a bad thing perhaps it is not surprising that only 1% of the UK’s construction materials are reclaimed and reused.
The objective of Microsoft, etc, is, on balance, to remove carbon (as the dioxide) from the atmospere. The fact that the carbon will then be stored somewhere–in the biosphere, underground, etc–is secondary. Therefore the carbon-negative is more logical than carbon-positive.
Seeing that “negative” is–er–a negative word, we need a different word. “Carbon-removing” or “carbon-sequestering” are clumsier terms, but convey a less ambiguous sort of message.
I would suggest reference to other disciplines where positive means plus….eg ionic chemistry, electricity, negative equity: so would suggest that it is confusing to say carbon positive, when in fact what is meant is carbon reduction
Although marketing wisdom tells us using negative terminology is not ideal – carbon negative is the more intuitive term here – and one would argue that it is also mathematically correct – they intend to produce less of it.