By Robert Bradley Jr. – October 5, 2022
“ClientEarth attorneys have developed a legal summary help address carbon offsetting issues and why businesses that rely on them should prepare for legal action. “
“…“Quality” in the unregulated market for carbon credits can be difficult to achieve, and still harder to verify…. Another problem is simply that there isn’t enough room on the planet to grow the required number of trees … without harming the food supply. “
A recent article on ClientEarth, Why carbon offsets don’t work and the legal risks of marketing them, will send a chill down the spine of corporations (and others) trying to go “green” despite their natural dependence on fossil fuels. Fee? … “So-called carbon ‘offsets’ represent a major climate problem and pose significant regulatory risk to companies marketing them.”
The September 30 article begins:
If you recently bought a flight or filled up your car with gas, you may be offered a product to ‘offset’ the climate impact of your purchase. Although promoted as a solution to the climate crisis, this so-called ‘offset’ of carbon represents a major climate problem and poses a significant regulatory risk to marketing companies. they.
ClientEarth lawyers have developed a legal summary addresses carbon offsetting issues and why businesses that rely on them should prepare for legal action….
The carbon offset is determined as follows:
Carbon credits are calculated to remove or avoid 1 ton of CO2, which is equivalent to the amount of carbon dioxide emitted in a single flight from Paris to New York. The purchase of these credits contributes to projects that help reduce climate instability through funding new technological or natural solutions.
Native projects, unrelated to offsets, blessed by ClientEarth:
These natural projects could be valuable in combating climate change. Good examples support local communities and can help protect important natural ecosystems, such as forests, which act as ‘carbon sinks’ absorbing harmful greenhouse gases.
But these are problems, some of which have been described in yesterday’s post:
But “quality” in the unregulated market for carbon credits can be difficult to define and is still harder to verify. Usually described as a ‘wild west’ industrytoo many projects have been Find harm the interests of the local community and provide wrong claims to actually make a difference to how much CO2 is absorbed and stored.
Another problem is simply There is not enough room on the planet to grow the necessary number of trees to counterbalance current global emissions without harming food supplies. To do this, an oil and gas company plans to use one-tenth of the existing unused land globally to ‘offset’ its emissions. Up until now, boosting natural sinks would only get us to real levels by 2050 that would have been impossible without rapid and dramatic reductions in emissions.
Carbon credits are not offsets, the article continues, but contributions:
Carbon credits are not offsetting in the way that a profit offsets a loss. The The correct label for these credits is simply a donation to climate-friendly projects and not, as marketing for high-carbon products often claim, as a means to ‘offset’ the harmful climate effects of the things we buy.
Legal issues over such “greenwashing” are underway around the world.
The flawed nature of carbon ‘offset’ is attracting a host of regulatory risks: non-compliance, shareholder action, litigation and regulatory enforcement.
In the Netherlands, Shell was reprimanded twice in a row, the first time for advertisement ‘CO2-neutral’ car gasoline, then to try a different one request that carbon credits mean ‘CO2 offset’.
Dutch airline KLM is facing a court, which we are supporting, for violating consumer law with CO2 compensation marketing. Total Energies is facing a similar situation.
In Germany, a claim is being made against a list of companies for misleading the claim of ‘carbon neutral’.
In the US, financial regulators get attention in the carbon credits market. And in France, the government passed a new law that requires companies to clarify how emissions are actually being reduced before they are offset. The list goes on and on.
Various laws are in effect:
Prohibitions against companies that mislead consumers exist in consumer protection laws and advertising regulations in countries around the world. Use ‘carbon neutral’ or compensation marketingand give consumers the impression that the climate impact of high carbon products is being addressed, increases the actual risk of being found in violation of these prohibitions.
And for companies that rely on carbon offsetting in their corporate transformation plans, that range of risk increases – with company directors are responsible for miscommunication on the ‘offsetting’ impact it has on emissions reductions.
Carbon credits are not a “magic wand” and they do not focus on real emissions reductions. It is mitigation or bankruptcy….
The regulatory risks of offsetting marketing are growing – but there’s also the risk that we blow our chances of reducing real-world emissions if misguided schemes continue to mount.
To meet climate goals, financial support must be directed toward efforts to protect the world’s important ecosystems, as well as green technologies, and include big funding gap for climate loss and damage. This is where financial contribution through carbon credits can have a valuable role, but financial enhancement should not provide the wrong incentive to delay important mitigation measures. important…. The only way out of this crisis is to stop pumping out greenhouse gases at the current devastating rate. Blurring the image with fictional compensation only delays that important action.
Last comment
Radical environmentalists’ fight against “green cleaning” is a major front in the futile crusade to reduce CO2. Perhaps environmentalists should really shift their focus to wind, solar and grid-connected batteries instead. One primitive machinery hardly eco-friendly, and their donors are no more “green” than the average person who wants clean air and water.
Related
