Corporate greenwashing--misusing 'net zero' pledges

[Celerity]

Companies are making ‘carbon neutral’ claims based on dubious emissions offsetting and ‘insetting’—rather than actual cuts.

https://www.socialeurope.eu/corporate-greenwashing-misusing-net-zero-pledges



We cannot afford any more missteps if we are to achieve the goal set out in the Paris Agreement of limiting global heating to a maximum of 1.5C above pre-industrial times, so as to maintain a habitable planet. Society must collectively treat the climate crisis with the urgency it deserves, shifting to a green economy first and foremost by decarbonising production and consumption. Such a seismic shift requires the full involvement of every segment of society, including governments, citizens and—given their huge economic impact and carbon footprint—corporations. Companies have been under increasing pressure to be part of the climate solution, instead of continuing to be part of the problem.

Greenwashing explosion

Many businesses have responded to these calls by unveiling ambiguous ‘net zero’ climate pledges and vague climate strategies. Rather than the greening of business practices, however, these have largely comprised an explosion of corporate greenwashing. This was the overarching conclusion (again) of this year’s Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor. Produced by the NewClimate Institute, in collaboration with Carbon Market Watch, the report analyses the transparency and quality of the climate strategies of 24 global corporations which sell themselves as ‘climate leaders’. All these companies—which include such household names as Amazon, Google, H&M, Zara, Mercedes-Benz and Samsung—have set some form of ‘net zero’ target and many also make carbon-neutrality claims. Yet the report reveals that nearly all the current climate claims or future net-zero targets are misleading, exaggerated or false.

Dubious practices

Instead of committing to deep decarbonisation by setting credible pathways to reduce their own emissions, many companies are choosing to ‘neutralise’ them, through the purchase of carbon credits on the voluntary carbon market (offsetting) or, even more questionably, within their own value chain (so-called ‘insetting’). These dubious practices do nothing to cut current corporate emissions and the over-reliance on offsetting, or ‘insetting’, means that, together, the 24 companies analysed are committed to reducing their carbon footprint by only 36 per cent by the time they claim they will have attained ‘net zero’. To contribute their fair share to global climate goals, they would need to slash their actual emissions by at least 90 per cent by mid-century.

Claiming to compensate for emissions and ‘cancel out’ all associated climate harm is a highly problematic corporate practice, often based on poor-quality carbon credits and flawed science. For example, credits for avoided deforestation are some of the most widely used on the market but they lack one of the most important foundations of a carbon credit—permanence. Trees and other biological carbon sinks are susceptible to natural disasters, such as wildfires, which can quickly destroy a forest and release all the stored carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Any carbon-neutrality claim a company made based on purchase of such carbon credits would no longer be applicable. Yet, in spite of carbon credits literally going up in smoke, these companies can continue to make carbon-neutrality claims in perpetuity. This is because they use a questionable form of insurance, called a ‘buffer pool’, in which some credits created by forestry projects are set aside to compensate for such reversals.

Imprecise accounting....

snip


related


What in the world is carbon insetting - and is it any better for the planet than carbon offsetting?

https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/02/21/you-ve-heard-of-offsetting-but-what-in-the-world-is-carbon-insetting

snip

What are the problems with carbon insetting?

But insetting is vulnerable to the same integrity threats as offsetting, the NewClimate Institute report warns. The NCI analysed the climate pledges of 24 major multinational corporations. Many of these corporations tout their insetting programs - a development that threatens to undermine company climate strategies, the NCI states.

Because insetting all happens inhouse, it’s hard to scrutinise the methodologies that different companies use. It is hard to show that the emissions reductions are permanent - trees planted for emissions reduction may be logged later on, for example - and difficult to verify how the company is tallying its carbon footprint.

There are no global verification standards for insetting schemes. Advertisement of such unvetted schemes could give consumers a "false impression of the company’s activities' true climate impact.," per the NCI.

Can insetting be made successful?

Companies should be minimising their carbon footprint along their own supply chains. This premise - the central idea behind insetting - is sound. However, the concept can be used to obscure a company's true climate footprint.

snip

[thatdemguy]

1. I bet a lot of companies do fuzzy math

On this and money to make them selves look good. Its all about making people feel good so they invest, lie a little here or there and get new investors.

Sometimes thats a good thing, sometimes its a bad thing. Look at Tesla, it had great idea and worked. But they sure had to tweak some stuff. I wonder if places like the DOE or EPA have the ability to go after companies who lie about this still.