Recently, many companies have pledged to go “net-zero.” “Net-zero” means the greenhouse gases a company emits are balanced by the greenhouse gases it removes from the atmosphere. The Paris Agreement suggests such goals. Although former President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from it, many companies feel the need to demonstrate they are pursuing the targets set in Paris, as we rejoined it under President Biden.

In theory, net-zero can be accomplished by reducing emissions or participating in activities limiting greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide removal, carbon sequestration, planting trees, or using “green” energy. Identifying and patronizing companies that pledge to adhere to net-zero goals is very important to those concerned about reducing the impact of carbon dioxide on the climate.

But are companies that pledge net-zero goals sincere? An analysis of public, corporate documents from 25 of the world’s biggest companies (which account for about 5% of global emissions) shows that 88% talk a good game but fail to deliver. In a report conducted jointly by the German NewClimate Institute and the Belgian Carbon Market Watch and published in the journal Nature, these companies provide few details. What they do propose will not achieve their net-zero goals.

Why pledge to a draconian goal that is not likely to be achieved? The Nature article laments the use of current methods that assess and monitor the goals set by these corporate entities, most of which are self-imposed and self-reported. The United Nations secretary-general, Antonio Guterres, will likely appoint a U.N. panel to measure and analyze carbon dioxide emissions from corporations, cities and nations. This is the top-down control for which the U.N. is famous.

But the underlying reason corporations set goals they do not intend to achieve is that virtue signaling sells. A company can claim that it “cares about the planet” or is “doing something to stop climate change,” and eco-conscious consumers will applaud and flock to buy its wares. The consumers will be smug in the knowledge that they are environmentally friendly — even though the company may not ever meet the environmental goals they set. Inaction replaces real action when all that is needed is to make it appear that the company cares about its climate goals. Real action is likely to be expensive and take much effort, so why follow through when the company can reap benefits without experiencing the costs?

The problem is that the costs of being an eco-conscious corporation are immediate — and the potential benefits of carbon dioxide reductions will be experienced only in the long-term, if at all. The immediate consumer response to its virtue-signaling is the company’s only short-term benefit. And if that benefit can be obtained without incurring long-term costs, so be it.

Long-term costs are quite expensive. Costs associated with energy and transportation are likely to skyrocket as soon as the company eschews fossil fuels, decreasing market share and adversely affecting the corporation’s bottom line. Other concomitant costs are associated with going net-zero that drive up prices. Isn’t it easier to say what is politically correct and make a half-hearted effort to show the public that the company cares — particularly when other corporations do the same?

Suppose a corporation chooses to actually reduce its emissions. In that case, the simplest solution is to buy carbon offsets — a sort of indulgence-peddling racket akin to selling indulgences in the Middle Ages. Carbon offsets can be used to plant a forest in South America, distribute energy-efficient light bulbs across Africa, or develop wind or solar energy projects, for a few examples. But there is no guarantee that the money paid will actually reduce the company’s carbon footprint, and even if it does, the reduction may not be immediate. For example, how long does it take for a South American forest to mature? Thus, paying for the indulgence of producing carbon dioxide allows the corporation the luxury of the perception of action without really doing anything — more virtue signaling.

But the real question is, “What does net-zero really mean?” Usually, companies calculate their carbon footprint based on production and distribution. But what about the consumption of the products? Oil companies, for example, can compute the carbon dioxide released by the extraction process, refining, and delivery to the consumer. But who is responsible for the carbon dioxide released when the product is consumed? Activists feel that cost should be the joint responsibility of the corporation and the consumer.

Determining the full extent of a corporation’s carbon footprint is a horrid nightmare, which satisfies the hardened activists only when our global production of carbon dioxide goes to zero. Since few really want to return to pre-Industrial Revolution conditions, then the issue of net-zero, carbon offsets, carbon neutrality, and carbon footprints becomes really only a virtue-signaling game. Provide lip service to the need for a “carbon-free” environment and spend a pittance to show you care. Remember, the goal here is not to save the environment. Rather, it is to transition us to a collectivist economy.

This piece originally appeared at WashingtonTimes.com and has been republished here with permission.