Zero Impact refers to an action or undertaking that does not alter the natural balance of carbon dioxide (CO), methane or other polluting gases in the environmental system.

It also points out the lifestyle that can significantly reduce emissions of polluting and greenhouse gases in various ways:

• - Buying carbon credits.

• - Acquiring low-consumption and low-polluting cars and appliances.

• - Planting trees.

• - Reducing the possible impact, but maintaining a high standard of living.[1]​.

Taking into account that the human impact on the climate and the environment in general will never be zero, it remains a generally accepted concept today.

There are 2 main schools of thought.

It is argued that only institutions can contribute significantly to curbing the greenhouse effect, such as by building photovoltaic solar power plants and generating electricity through clean methods.

The other school of thought requires a collective effort, such as installing photovoltaic panels and microgenerators in homes, as well as reducing car use. This position affirms that each individual, in their own way, can contribute significantly to minimizing environmental impact.

There are many people who believe in the first school of thought and continue to carry on with their lives as usual. However, there are others who support the second school of thought and are moving to correct the mistaken belief that we can exploit all of the Earth's resources without generating negative consequences for the environment and ourselves.

Given the technological difficulties and costs associated with a drastic reduction in emissions, some defend the idea of ​​acquiring carbon credits from carbon sinks (forests and plantations) in the countries of the South of the world. This position is questioned by environmental associations,[2]​ which consider it a "shortcut" that allows the most developed nations to continue emitting CO, by simply purchasing credits in the emissions market. Furthermore, many carbon sink projects are seen as counterproductive, especially when associated with the creation of plantations.[3]​ For similar reasons, different environmental organizations and indigenous leaders[4]​ propose buying carbon credits in exchange for forest conservation commitments, as this could result in the sale of forests, dispossessing indigenous communities and, ultimately, generating conflicts with them.[5]​ From this perspective, it is advocated that everyone assume responsibility for their emissions and commit to reducing them,[6]​ instead of resorting to purchasing carbon credits.