Chasing Net Zero Is Futile (For Now) — Invest Your Ambitions Into Changing Systems Instead
An essay by Dirk Paessler, founder/CEO of Carbon Drawdown Initiative, working on enhanced rock weathering and carbon dioxide removal since 2018.
Why sacrificing things for climate purity feels good but doesn’t move the needle — and what we need to do instead.
Let me be direct with you: your personal net-zero goal is almost certainly going to fail. So is mine. Unfortunately, so are most corporate and national net-zero targets for 2030. Not because we’re not trying hard enough. Because the systems around us haven’t changed fast enough. We need to change our approach!
And here’s what I want you to think about: if you invest effort and maybe even real money into being “net zero” in 2026, that is an honorable goal. It may calm your mind while looking into a scary, warming world with so many problems. But it is a purity trap. It’s a *feeling* decision, based on emotions. By sacrificing “bad-for-climate” things such as flying, eating meat, fossil fuel energy, etc... we try to convince ourselves that we’re doing something good. Maybe?
But the fact is: it doesn’t move the needle, because billions are deciding differently: most of them despite knowing better, and feeling bad about it. Can we get all these people to help us and feel better?
The system needs to change at scale, not just the behavior of a few
Reducing your emissions by not doing something is always an option. But it will in most cases not lead to systemic change because we can’t convince the majority to “not doing x” anytime soon. We need to reach a world where everyday actions are not decided by their emissions, rather where the “system” makes those actions climate-OK by default.
The key point: we need many more people to join, and we should invite them without expecting anyone to become a climate purist first.Flying is the perfect example. Global air traffic reached 9.5 billion passengers in 2024. By 2042, that number is projected to double to 19.5 billion. By 2050, air traffic will reach roughly 2.5 times the current level, driven overwhelmingly by growth in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. This will happen whether or not you personally fly in 2026.
Should we keep fighting for kerosene taxes, rail investment, and an end to aviation/fossil subsidies? Absolutely. But even the most aggressive demand-reduction scenarios still project substantial growth in global aviation, because that growth is coming from billions of people gaining the economic freedom and mobility that Westerners have enjoyed for decades. We cannot and should not deny them that. The systemic answer must work for a world with *more* flights, not fewer, because most flyers will simply not stop to fly.
So what’s the systemic answer? Make flying (much more) climate-compatible: with sustainable aviation fuels (SAF), with durable CO₂ removals for the residual emissions, and also by reducing contrails, too (these high clouds cause half of the climate effects of flying and are easily avoidable).
This starts with voluntary decisions now and should be followed by legally binding regulations. Not by asking individuals to ground themselves, while the other 9.5 billion flight journeys happen anyway. We will likely never have enough sustainable jet fuel production facilities to cover all flights with clean propulsion. Which means we need carbon removal alongside it. That's one of the systemic plays we should pursue.
From distant goals to system change today
Individuals and companies need to move from potentially useless net-zero targets in 2030, 2040, or some distant future — towards aiming for a system-change strategy today.
By putting your focus and your money into things that are tiny today but need to grow massively in the next decades, you have a chance to make an actual impact. That is what I believe, and it’s how I approach my decisions right now. This applies to mitigation (fewer emissions), adaptation (learning to live in a warmer world), and carbon removal… the field closest to my heart, where I spend most of my days. This is my systemic decision.
Admittedly there are risks when you become an “early adopter” of this concept. Some of the climate-positive approaches of today are so much in their infancy that they may turn out not to be viable at scale. But even if that happens: if your effort and money helped establish that fact, you have already made an actual impact. The only way to find out what scales is by trying it.
Think like it’s 2050
The stated (and very ambitious) goal of the Paris Agreement and the IPCC is to reach net-zero by mid-century — by reducing fossil fuels and moving towards renewables to achieve 80–90% less emissions while balancing the remainder with carbon removals. We have the technology for the first step, mostly. But the removals industry is in its infancy.
So here’s my suggestion: reduce your emissions where it’s already technically feasible today — e-mobility, green power, emissions-free heating — and then offset the harder-to-abate residual emissions with carbon removals. Even partially, based on what you can afford. Instead of sacrificing things that may actually be important to you.
Flying is almost the ideal example. Currently there is no viable path to zero-emission aviation at scale. But if just 1% of German air passengers offset their flights using durable CDR — which would make flights only 10–20% more expensive — we would increase global annual CDR purchases by 50% in one step. Just from Germany. That would make a huge difference for an urgently needed new industry!
And you would still be able to see our beautiful world and learn why we must protect it. See all the wonders of the world, visit distant relatives, go to a conference. Meet people from other cultures in other countries and help forge a more peaceful world. It remains wise to reduce flying — but not necessarily to zero.
Personal purity is individual virtue. I respect that!
System change is the climate action I want to win you over for (and I do not expect you to become a purist to join the movement, I am not a purist myself)!
Fly less, but not necessarily zero. Reduce where it’s technically feasible today. Remove what you can’t yet avoid. And put your ambition — your money, your influence, your voice — into changing the systems that make everyone’s net zero achievable. You will feel better, even without purism.
Most people have lives to live, kids to raise, bills to pay. A climate strategy that requires sainthood will never reach them.
With this approach you’ll be living in the future, where balancing your life (at least a part of it) with CDR will have become normal.
The climate doesn’t need more saints. It needs more deliberate customers.
This is the first in a series of posts. Stay tuned for more.
-----
Buy high-quality carbon removal from https://www.cdr-shops.com, our non-profit directory of high-quality CDR shops.
