The tree was planted on woodland near Mount Rainier National Park near Ashford, Wash., as part of a 520-acre project on private woodland that allows a private nonprofit to sell “carbon credits.” for individuals and companies that are hoping to offset their carbon footprint.
Ted S. Warren / AP file photo
hide captions
switch captions
Ted S. Warren / AP file photo
The tree was planted on woodland near Mount Rainier National Park near Ashford, Wash., as part of a 520-acre project on private woodland that allows a private nonprofit to sell “carbon credits.” for individuals and companies that are hoping to offset their carbon footprint.
Ted S. Warren / AP file photo
NEW YORK – Many of the world’s largest companies are not taking steps significant enough to meet their pledge to significantly reduce the impact of their greenhouse gas emissions over the coming decades.
That’s the conclusion of a NewClimate Institute’s new report, an environmental organization that works to combat global warming. Its researchers, who looked at the actions of 25 companies, concluded that many of them were misleading consumers by using accounting methods that made environmental targets become relatively meaningless or exclude significant parts of the business from their calculations.
Companies have committed to reducing emissions or offsetting them through techniques such as carbon capture afforestation in self-imposed periods from 2030 to 2050.
The authors chose to study corporate giants, including Amazon and Walmart, which have made bold climate commitments and who, due to their size, are seen as having particular influence separate. In recent years, large corporations have increasingly adopted commitments to significantly reduce their carbon footprints – an increasingly important priority for many of their customers, employees and investors.
The NewClimate Institute concluded that although many companies have committed to net zero emissions, the 25 companies they studied have jointly committed to reducing emissions by about 40% – not the 100% that everyone can afford. information from a network of companies – zero or committed to zero carbon.
“We were surprised and disappointed by the integrity of the companies’ claims,” said Thomas Day of the NewClimate Institute, one of the study’s lead authors. “Their ambitious-sounding headlines frequently claim to lack actual content, which can mislead both consumers and regulators, who are at the core of their strategic direction. . Even companies that are doing relatively well exaggerate their actions.”
Of the 25 companies the researchers studied, 24 are overly dependent on carbon offsetting, which is fraught with problems, the report said. That’s because carbon offsetting is often based on carbon removal projects like reforestation projects. These projects suck in carbon but are not ideal solutions because forests can be leveled or destroyed by wildfires, releasing carbon back into the air.
Most companies presented vague information about the size and potential impact of their emissions reductions, the report said, or may have exaggerated their renewable energy use.
The report calls Amazon’s goal of being carbon-free by 2040 unfounded. It said it wasn’t clear whether Amazon’s target only addressed carbon dioxide emissions or all greenhouse gases. The report also says it’s unclear to what extent Amazon plans to reduce its own emissions, as opposed to purchasing carbon offset credits that rely on nature-based solutions.
In response, Amazon said it has been transparent about its investments in nature-based solutions and countered that its bogus goals are based on offsets. The company says it is on track to power its operations with 100% renewable energy by 2025, five years ahead of its original goal of 2030. It also highlights initiatives. Others include deploying 100,000 electric delivery vehicles by 2030.
As an example of a false target, the report says CVS Health is likely to meet its 2030 emissions target without much effort because it compares that target to a base year that includes emissions. abnormally high emissions.
A CVS spokesperson responded that after the company merged with Aetna in late 2018, 2019 was the first full year of data the company could use as the basis for the new incorporated entity.
“By 2030, we plan to reduce our environmental impact by more than 50%, including reducing energy consumption and the use of paper and plastic,” the company said.
The NewClimate report said that Nestle, one of the lowest scoring companies, had an emissions reduction plan that included only a portion of its business and that its net zero targets were based on emissions. carbon. The company also provided few details about the renewable sources of electricity it is pursuing.
Nestle replied that its emissions reduction targets do not cover all of its activities, which is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2030, and that its factories and offices are growing. switch to renewable electricity.
“Too many companies are falling short when it comes to decarbonisation,” said Jonathan Overpeck, dean of the school of environment and sustainability at the University of Michigan, who had no role in the NewClimate report. The company’s decarbonization goals and plans for meeting them are generally less compelling than is necessary to succeed in stopping climate change.”
Some other outside experts argue that the NewClimate report is too critical of carbon offsets.
“Forest-based offsets are challenging, but they can be real and important,” said Christopher Field, director of the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University. “Overemphasizing decarbonization pathways without including offsetting slows overall progress and increases costs.”
The report noted a number of things it said companies were doing well. Shipping company Maersk received the best rating despite the challenges its industry faces in reducing emissions. The authors note that Maersk is pursuing alternative fuels and has partnered with a renewable energy company to set up an e-methanol production plant. Maersk did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Most of the companies studied, the report said, 15 of which had already outlined plans to reduce “Scope 1” and “Scope 2” emissions, which are emissions emitted by companies. out directly or by using electricity. But those companies didn’t address their “Scope 3” emissions; These include emissions emitted by suppliers or customers using their products. Scope 3 emissions account for an average of 87% of the total emissions of the 25 companies studied, the team said.
The report commends Walmart, which has pledged to go net zero by 2040, for following good practice by pledging to reduce its operating emissions to zero without using offsets and sets out Short-term goals for the cuts include using 100% renewable energy by 2035. But Walmart has been at fault for not including Scope 3 emissions. Walmart has a voluntary program to guide the Its product suppliers reduced their emissions and nearly a quarter of their suppliers participated, the report said.
Walmart responded that it has a goal of reducing or avoiding a billion tons of Scope 3 emissions and that it reports its progress publicly.
The report highlights that companies should be more responsible for reducing Scope 3 emissions. Maggie Peloso, an attorney involved in climate change risk management and environmental litigation, can be It is a challenge to track those emissions in supply chains, especially when working with smaller companies.
“It’s not always as easy as waking someone up and saying, ‘Hey, I want to know what your emissions from the factory are when you produce 100 boxes of stuff that you ship to my stores and I sold them,'” Peloso said.
Among the improvements proposed by the NewClimate Institute are companies focusing on short-term emissions reduction goals over the next five to 10 years. It also suggests that companies set specific emissions reduction targets with transparent accounting, rather than vaguely unrealistic targets.
John Reilly, who served as co-director of the Joint Program on Science and Policy for Global Change at MIT, suggests: “In terms of hope, perhaps companies are working tirelessly to create establish rules, procedures, and strategies to achieve their ambitious goals.
