Carbon neutral and net zero goals are becoming more common in local climate plans, and that is a good thing. These goals point communities toward the scale of action climate science tells us is needed. The IPCC finds that limiting warming requires deep greenhouse gas reductions and reaching net zero carbon dioxide emissions globally. Pathways that limit warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot reach global net zero CO2 emissions in the early 2050s, while pathways limiting warming to 2°C reach net zero CO2 around the early 2070s.
For cities, counties, and state agencies, these goals can help connect everyday decisions to long-term climate outcomes. Building upgrades, fleet replacement, renewable electricity, land use, transportation planning, waste systems, public lands, procurement, and infrastructure investment all become part of a larger transition.
But as carbon neutral and net zero goals become more common, the accounting behind them becomes more important. The goal is not to make climate planning more complicated than it needs to be. The goal is to make climate progress easier to understand, easier to communicate, more likely to achieve the outcomes we need, and easier to trust.
A strong carbon neutral or net zero goal should answer a simple question: what counts?
Net Zero Is a Direction, Not Just a Number
The Paris Agreement calls for balancing human-caused greenhouse gas emissions with removals by sinks in the second half of this century. In practical terms, that means emissions need to fall sharply, and the remaining emissions that are very difficult to eliminate need to be balanced by credible removals.
That is why net zero goals matter. They help communities move beyond incremental progress and toward the level of change needed to stabilize the climate. They also provide a framework for aligning near-term work with long-term outcomes.
At the local level, that work can include improving building efficiency, electrifying heating systems and vehicles, expanding renewable electricity, reducing vehicle miles traveled, cutting waste, protecting trees and wetlands, restoring native landscapes, and improving public infrastructure.
The opportunity is encouraging: many of the actions that reduce emissions also improve communities. They can lower energy costs, improve air quality, make buildings more comfortable, strengthen local infrastructure, reduce flood risk, and create healthier public spaces.
Carbon Neutral and Net Zero Need Clear Boundaries
The terms “carbon neutral” and “net zero” are sometimes used interchangeably, but they are not always used the same way.
A carbon neutral claim may mean that reported emissions are balanced by direct reductions, renewable energy purchases, carbon sequestration, carbon removals, or offsets. A net zero goal is generally understood as a stronger long-term standard focused on reducing emissions as much as possible – typically at least 90% - and balancing remaining emissions with removals. ISO’s Net Zero Guidelines emphasize the importance of clear boundaries, transparent reporting, emissions reductions, and credible removals.
For local climate plans, the first accounting question is boundary.
Is the goal for municipal operations only, or for the entire community? A municipal operations inventory may include city buildings, streetlights, vehicle fleets, water and wastewater systems, and other government activities. A community-wide inventory may include residential energy, commercial energy, industrial energy, transportation, waste, wastewater, and sometimes land-sector emissions. A consumption-based inventory may go further by estimating emissions from goods and services used in the community but produced elsewhere.
Each boundary can be useful. A municipal operations goal helps a local government lead by example. A community-wide goal helps residents, businesses, utilities, institutions, and public agencies understand shared responsibility. The key is to name the boundary clearly. Carbon neutral municipal operations is not the same as a carbon neutral community.
The Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories provides a widely used framework for local governments to measure and report community-wide emissions in a consistent and transparent way.
Direct Reductions Should Come First
Direct emissions reductions are the foundation of a credible carbon neutral or net zero plan.
These include actions such as energy efficiency, building electrification, renewable electricity, fleet conversion, transit improvements, walking and biking infrastructure, reduced vehicle miles traveled, waste prevention, composting, methane reduction, and lower-carbon procurement.
These actions matter because they reduce emissions at the source. They also create local benefits that residents and elected officials can see and feel: lower operating costs, cleaner air, better buildings, more transportation choices, and more resilient infrastructure.
A carbon neutral claim is strongest when it is built on real reductions first. Offsets, removals, and sequestration may have a role, but they should not replace practical emissions reductions that communities can make now.
Utility Decarbonization Counts, But It Should Be Understood
Many communities will see emissions decline as the electric grid becomes cleaner. When utilities retire fossil fuel generation, add wind and solar, expand storage, and reduce grid emissions, local electricity-related emissions fall.
That progress should count. It is real climate progress that we should be supporting.
At the same time, it is helpful to distinguish utility-driven reductions from local actions. A community may benefit from a cleaner grid while still needing to improve building efficiency, electrify heating systems, reduce transportation emissions, and cut waste. Cleaner electricity makes these local actions even more powerful. Electrification, for example, delivers greater emissions reductions as the grid becomes cleaner.
The most useful climate dashboards show both stories: how much progress comes from a cleaner grid and how much comes from local policy, investment, and behavior change.
Renewable Procurement Requires Attribute Ownership
Renewable electricity is an important tool for carbon neutral and net zero planning. Local governments may install solar on public buildings, subscribe to community solar, enter green power programs, use power purchase agreements, or purchase renewable energy certificates.
The accounting depends on who owns the renewable energy attributes.
EPA explains that a Renewable Energy Certificate, or REC, represents the environmental and other non-power attributes of one megawatt-hour of renewable electricity generation. RECs are the tool electricity customers use to substantiate renewable electricity claims on a shared grid.
That means a local government should know whether it owns and retires the RECs associated with a renewable electricity project or purchase. If the RECs are retained, the renewable electricity claim is stronger. If they are sold or assigned to another party, the city may still support clean energy, but it should not claim those renewable attributes as its own electricity use.
Clear renewable accounting does not reduce the value of clean energy action. It makes the value easier to explain.
Biological Sequestration Belongs in the Plan
Trees, prairies, wetlands, forests, and soils can store carbon. They can also reduce heat, improve stormwater management, support biodiversity, protect water quality, and make communities more resilient.
These land-based strategies belong in local climate plans. However, if the plan counts on them for carbon reductions, they should be counted carefully. Carbon stored in living systems can change over time. Trees can die. Soil carbon can increase or decrease. Wetlands can be disturbed. Prairies need long-term maintenance. Drought, disease, invasive species, fire, development, and land management all affect carbon storage.
The GHG Protocol’s supplemental guidance for forests and trees helps communities estimate emissions and removals from forests and trees within community boundaries.
For local climate plans that include land-based carbon reductions, biological sequestration should be reported as its own category. It should not be used to offset or obscure fossil fuel emissions that can be reduced directly. Instead, it should be valued as part of a broader climate and resilience strategy: protecting existing natural carbon stocks, expanding tree canopy where appropriate, restoring prairies and wetlands, improving soil health, and managing public land for long-term ecological function. Communities that want to include biological sequestration in their GHG accounting also need to be prepared to track changes in their biological carbon stocks over time, so progress can be measured and reported transparently.
Removals and Offsets Should Be Transparent
Some emissions may remain difficult to eliminate, even after strong climate action. Carbon dioxide removal may help address these residual emissions, but it should not delay practical reductions. Removals should be reserved for the final emissions that remain after feasible strategies have been implemented.
Offsets and carbon credits can support mitigation beyond a community’s boundary, but they should be used carefully and reported separately from direct reductions. If included, plans should disclose the credit type, project location, whether it represents avoided emissions, reductions, or removals, and how it addresses additionality, permanence, leakage, double counting, and community impacts.
The Bottom Line
Carbon neutral and net zero goals are important because they point communities toward the scale of action climate science tells us is needed. They help translate a global challenge into local decisions about buildings, transportation, electricity, land, waste, infrastructure, and public investment.
Net zero is an ambitious goal. With clear boundaries and honest accounting, it can also be a practical planning framework.