We are ending our Carbon Paradox series with boundaries: the Boundaries Paradox.

Every system has boundaries. Some are obvious: national borders, for instance. A company’s boundaries may include its machinery, buildings, and employees. They can also extend upstream and downstream across the value chain. A family’s boundaries might include parents, siblings, children, and perhaps your cousins.

Why does this matter for the climate? Because climate action—or inaction—is always measured within the boundaries we choose.

Take countries. By 2024, Switzerland had officially reduced its CO₂ emissions by 27.3% compared to 1990. But has it really? Today, Switzerland effectively “imports” around 3.75 times more carbon emissions than it produces domestically, largely through food, manufactured goods, and other products purchased abroad. One of the most effective ways for a country to “decarbonize,” paradoxically, is simply to relocate polluting industries elsewhere.

Or consider a utility company that owns two coal plants and two wind farms. What is the easiest way for it to hit its net-zero target? Sell the coal plants. The paradox becomes even sharper when listed companies sell high-emitting assets to private owners such as hedge funds. The emissions do not disappear—they simply move into structures with less transparency and less public scrutiny. Investors can no longer buy shares, attend annual meetings, or vote on corporate strategy.

The same logic applies to supply chains. How can a palm oil company guarantee that you receive a 100% deforestation-free product? By selling oil from its “good” mills to sustainability-conscious customers while directing the rest to buyers who ask fewer questions.

Well-intentioned climate targets can therefore produce unintended outcomes. When emissions are shifted outside the boundaries that targets measure, the emissions themselves often continue unchanged. In some cases, they become even harder to track—transferred to companies, jurisdictions, or markets facing far less scrutiny.