With more than 17,000 institutions worldwide, the carbon dioxide emissions produced by the higher education (HE) sector are globally significant and the need for reduction is apparent. Recent decades have seen the demand for HE expand rapidly. The United Kingdom HE sector, where emission reduction targets have been set, is used to demonstrate that appropriate target setting and legitimate emission reduction strategies are essential for meaningful change on a global scale. This study compares the carbon performance of 20 institutions in the English ‘Russell Group’ of research-intensive universities to their self-set targets, using three key performance indicators: full-time equivalent staff/student numbers, gross internal area and income. It was found that emissions increased for all but two institutions and consequently, targets are extremely ambitious and almost certainly unachievable owing to very high emission growth rates that inhibit future success i.e. London School of Economics’ emissions grew 143% since 2005/06. Observations are supported by a 10-point appraisal that measures the environmental value of each carbon management plan and the ‘reality check’ equation x-10, where x is institutional target and -10 represents a more realistic 2020 institutional target of 10%, to classify them as either pragmatic or ambitious by comparison. A paradox is highlighted: institutions that set realistic but relatively low targets can be penalised in league tables and lambasted for apparent lack of ambition even when they may be more likely to succeed in delivering environmental improvements. Although targets promote environmental measures, the results show that action should be favoured over rhetoric. The University of Southampton is used as a case study and forms the focus of a snapshot staff and student questionnaire, highlighting the range of electricity consuming activities (i.e. computer/laptop usage) increasing electricity demand and subsequent emissions. Increasing staff and student awareness on impacts of energy usage will promote a cultural shift in becoming more energy efficient to reduce emissions. It is clear that current carbon management plans are not a good indicator of future performance and that the English HE sector has underestimated the challenge of carbon emissions reduction. Given current trends, pledged targets seem unlikely to be met by English universities and the likely environmental costs may jeopardise the competitiveness of the sector on the global stage if it is not addressed. Methods for assessing Scope 3 emissions need refining and standardizing given they are likely to the most significant portion of a typical university’s carbon footprint. The use of appropriate key performance indicators to foster action and promote realistic target-setting is required at sector-level to achieve the 2020 goal