Shift from carbon neutral to nature-positive

DesmondTutu once said, "He who remains impartial in the face of hardship partners with the oppressor."

Some people think we would have a better chance of reversing climate change if we stopped using plastic, switched to renewable energy sources, and stopped harming marine habitats. Sadly, this is not at all the case.

The negative effects of prior deeds are not always neutralized by acts of goodness especially if our goal is to transform the earth back into what it once was

In recent years, phrases like "carbon neutrality" and "nett zero" have gained popularity in discussions about climate change and public policy Carbon neutrality has been used as the primary benchmark in several attempts to establish climate goals by decision-makers and stakeholders However, for the reasons listed below, this is a poor strategy:

● We are prevented from striving to go above and beyond the bare minimum by the emphasis on carbon offsetting and footprint calculations Although carbon-neutral actions may be beneficial, they are merely a drop in the ocean when seen holistically When neutrality goals focus more on doing less harm than on being creative about having the greatest impact, the positive benefit is essentially nonexistent

● Carbon neutrality results from a limited viewpoint that holds specific businesses or individuals accountable for our environmental problems. Hence, only those who are guilty should make active contributions to improving the world.This is untrue, however, as the regeneration movement needs the participation of a large number of individuals and organizations.

● The preceding comment from DesmondTutu, to sum up, expresses it well. In circumstances with high stakes, remaining neutral is not the best course of action.At this time, the depletion and degradation of our planet's resources are at an unparalleled level. Being undecided about the subject is neither honorable nor practical. Each of us must choose a side.