The “carbon neutral conduct” proposed by Shell to motorists at the pump is greenwashing that must be sanctioned, believes Greenpeace, which filed a complaint Tuesday with the Competition Bureau of Canada for false and misleading information.
“Shell is promoting a product which does not, and cannot do, what it promises”, which constitutes a violation of the Competition law, writes the environmental organization in its complaint, that Press has obtained.
The oil company’s carbon-neutral driving program offers motorists who wish to pay a small supplement to offset the greenhouse gases (GHG) caused by their use of its fuels by purchasing carbon credits.
These credits finance the “protection of large natural areas threatened by deforestation [et] reforestation of devastated areas, ”says the company on its website.
However, “the reality is that Shell has not demonstrated the validity of its claim of carbon neutrality. [et] uses compensation from projects that have serious legitimacy problems, ”the complaint accuses.
The claims of the oil company are nothing more than “green propaganda” that deceives Canadian motorists, told Press Salomé Sané, Nature and Food Campaigner for Greenpeace Canada.
There are more and more consumers who are trying to adopt a more eco-responsible lifestyle and Shell, by projecting this very green image, very focused on this idea of carbon neutrality, [les incite] to perhaps buy more of its products than those of another company.
Salomé Sané, Greenpeace Canada
Greenpeace raises in its complaint that many issues undermine the effectiveness of voluntary offsetting projects for GHG emissions by planting trees, such as the lack of standardized regulations.
She adds the impermanent nature of these solutions, the benefits of which can go up in smoke if the trees planted are destroyed by a forest fire, or the risk of flight if the planting of trees is used as a pretext for cutting them elsewhere.
“Each company that wants to offset for its own emissions can determine its own rules,” explains Mme Sané. It is very problematic. ”
PHOTO PROVIDED BY GREENPEACE CANADA
Salomé Sané, Nature and Food Campaigner for Greenpeace Canada
The three projects funded by Shell’s carbon-neutral driving program all face “issues concerning the validity of their compensation claims,” Greenpeace wrote in its complaint.
The one in Darwoods, British Columbia, was notably criticized by the province’s auditor general, who concluded in 2013 that it did not provide additional protection – the project was part of Victoria’s carbon neutrality program.
The Cordillera Azul project, in Peru, is located in a national park where no deforestation was reported in the years leading up to its launch, while that of Katingan, in Indonesia, has been located since 2019 in a protected area, which ensures its protection independently of the compensation project financed by Shell, argues Greenpeace.
Delay the transition
Using the environment to sell a product like Shell does is the very definition of greenwashing, believes Jérôme Dupras, professor in the department of natural sciences at the University of Quebec in Outaouais and holder of the Canada Research Chair in Economics. ecological.
To say that we drive carbon neutral is not true. It suggests that we can continue our activities as if nothing had happened and that we can put a little bandage on it and that everything will be okay.
Jérôme Dupras, from the University of Quebec in Outaouais
We must “drastically reduce our GHG emissions” before thinking of offsetting or sequestering the rest, he recalls.
PHOTO OLIVIER PONTBRIAND, ARCHIVES THE PRESS
Jérôme Dupras, environmental researcher
Greenpeace laments that offsetting GHG emissions “delays the transition to renewable energies” and places the responsibility unduly on the shoulders of consumers.
“It is a problem that is much more global and for which, at the individual level, we have very little power to change,” says Salomé Sané.
Previous in the Netherlands
Greenpeace’s complaint to Canada’s Competition Bureau echoes a similar move in the Netherlands, where Shell’s carbon-neutral driving program is also offered.
The Dutch advertising watchdog concluded in August that Shell’s claims are misleading following a complaint filed by law students at the Free University of Amsterdam.
The Advertising Code Committee, whose decision is not binding, considered that the oil company cannot prove that it fully compensates for GHG emissions within the framework of this program.
Press reported last year that the Canadian launch of Shell’s carbon-neutral driving program had been the subject of some domestic criticism.
Read the article by Press
The Competition Bureau explains that it never confirms the initiation of an investigation or even the filing of a complaint, since it conducts its work in a confidential manner.
If it determines during the examination of a complaint that an investigation should be opened, the Bureau may, with the authorization of a court, conduct searches, seize files or examine witnesses under oath.
The Competition law provides that infringements may be punished by fines and even criminal penalties.
Shell declined to grant an interview to Press, its spokesperson Stephen Doolan indicated in an email that the company had not been informed of the filing of a complaint, adding that the oil company “takes its responsibilities of advertiser very seriously”.