Is 'net zero' really possible, and why are companies jumping on the bandwagon now?

Corporations that were on the fence about cutting greenhouse gas emissions jumped to the side of “yes” after the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Why? Because the panel’s goal of reaching “net zero” emissions – the point at which the emissions from an entity equals the amount of greenhouse gasses being taken out of the atmosphere” – is as snappy of a tagline as anything their marketing team could have come up with.

So what does it mean that Google, ExxonMobile, Microsoft and other companies have jumped on the bandwagon? 

The University of Delaware’s Kalim Shah, an expert on climate change policy, has some thoughts on corporate net zero targets. 

1. We should question why the language has changed in the last 5-6 years from lowering emissions or low carbon options to 'net-zero' when targets to meet lower emissions have not really been fulfilled in the first place. Part of the explanation could be to get ahead of would-be legislated pressure, so as to dissuade legislative efforts which would imply compliance requirements, whereas now, these pledges are completely voluntary.
2. Net zero is more technologically feasible in some sectors/ processes and not in others. In other words, there is likely not a technological fix for net zero in the aluminum smelting or iron or concrete making industries in the near future. 
3. Where net zero is less possible, emissions could be “offset” through various schemes like carbon credits of forest offsets. In this scenario, a U.S. facility has reduced most of its carbon emissions but can do nothing about its last 20% of emissions. The facility can gain this 20% in an offset credit by purchasing the right to conserve a forest tract in Costa Rica (which would be calculated as absorbing 20% emissions equivalent form the atmosphere) and hence the U.S. facility attains “'net zero.” The offset market could provide any benefits to developing countries, which see potential “offset markets” as a great opportunity for economic returns. This is very important since those same developing countries do not have funds to invest in climate mitigation actions, so if the offset market provides them with new funds, that can be diverted into climate mitigation actions. 
4. Lack of industry standards for measuring net zero – or perhaps more correctly, several competing methods of calculating net zero – can give some cover, for now, to firms that wish to greenwash. In effect, one firm's net zero may not be comparable to another's net zero. 
5. A company’s “emissions scope” must be examined closed. For example, does a firm’s net zero plan include direct emissions from engines or boilers but leave out “indirect emissions” from office vehicles?