Cities “carbon neutral”airlines and tankers “carbon neutral”FIFA World Cup in Qatar “carbon neutral”… In recent years, thousands of companies have vowed to reduce – and then completely eliminate – their contribution to global warming. A rush towards “carbon neutrality”, a controversial concept and all the more attractive as no regulation or definition existed to ensure the credibility of these objectives. In the midst of this regulatory Far West where uninhibited greenwashing is rampant, Antonio Guterres warned on Tuesday, November 8: “no tolerance for greenwashing on carbon neutrality”he launched from Sharm el-Sheikh, in Egypt, where COP27 is being held.
On that day, the High Level Expert Group (HLEG), mandated in March by the UN boss, made a series of recommendations with a view to making the rule of law among the non-state actors who claim their “net zero” medal. Will they be effective or even sufficient? Franceinfo deciphers the four axes pointed out by the 18 experts mandated by the UN.
Abandon fossil fuels and activities that contribute to deforestation
This is the key condition for the credibility of players who commit to carbon neutrality. To be taken seriously in your “net zero” ambitions, you have to swear to move away from “environmentally destructive activities”, including anything that can lead to deforestation, the report insists. Similarly, cities, regions, financial organizations and companies “cannot claim carbon neutrality while continuing to build or invest in new sources of fossil fuels”. According to the International Energy Agency*, any fossil fuel extraction project started after 2021 is incompatible with the objective of the Paris agreement (+1.5°C by 2100).
During the presentation of the HLEG’s recommendations by its president, the Canadian Catherine McKenna, this anti-greenwashing announcement was greeted with applause. “It’s a strong statement, no doubt”reacts Thomas Day, specialist in private sector climate commitments at the NewClimate Institute*. But his organization, based in Cologne (Germany), was waiting for more than words. If the recommendations “send a good signal, there is nothing new here that is not already found in existing devices“, he deplores, citing the rules known as SBTi* (Science-based target initiatives), inherited from COP21 or even the criteria of the campaign”Race To Zero”, born from the COP25.
For Lucie Pinson, of the NGO Reclaim Finance, the message contributes however to stigmatize these projects, still numerous, incompatible with the international objectives. “As so-called carbon-neutral banks pour billions into new fossil fuel projects, it’s particularly encouraging that the group is getting the hang of it.”, she responded in a statement. The NGO points out in particular that the insurer AXA, which chairs the Net-Zero Insurance Alliance, authorizes the insurance of new gas exploitation fields. These institutions and companies must “[mettre] update their guidelines in light of these recommendations or they will lose all credibility,” again points out Lucie Pinson.
Fight against “the faults”
Castigating the greenwashing at the podium, Antonio Guterres did not fail to pin the companies whose commitments present “faults big enough to fit a tank of diesel through.” The authors of the report insist on the need for an effort of transparency. LLong-term promises must be accompanied by a precise plan, with objectives for each five-year period, like the States. They must also cover all the activities of a company: direct activities (scope 1), consumption of electricity and heat (scope 2) and all indirect emissions upstream and downstream of production, up to the gasoline consumed by motorists for an oil company (scope 3). TotalEnergies is thus suspected by experts, consulted by “L’Œil du 20 heures”, of having dismissed this last scope in the publication of its annual emissions.
For Thomas Day, transparency alone does not allow “to remedy the flaws in the existing devices and that the companies exploit”. Accustomed to going through the hundreds of pages of companies’ “carbon neutrality” plans, he evokes “accounting sleight of hand” and others “hidden flaws”with the example of JBS, a Brazilian meat processing giant. “The detailed plan presented by this company covers scopes 1, 2 and 3 well. But a footnote specifies that this concerns ‘all our farms’, implicitly excluding all those that are not wholly owned and operated by them . Which is the case for 99.9% of their farms”he breathes. “A ‘detail’ that goes under the radar of the devices that attest to the credibility of these plans.”
Whilea quarter of the 1,200 companies surveyed in twelve countries by the consultant South Pole* do not intend to publish their roadmap, the specialist regrets “that these recommendations are not accompanied by a monitoring mechanism and do not engage the responsibility of the actors vis-à-vis their commitments”. Worse, he thinks, “the language used here validates these mechanisms, which we know are insufficient, without reinforcing them”.
Reduce rather than “offset” greenhouse gas emissions
Another sine qua non for a credible objective of carbon neutrality: reduce greenhouse gas emissions as much as possible and not offset them by buying “carbon credits”, for example by financing reforestation projects or the development of renewable energies.
For the NGO Belgian Carbon Market Watch, “more needs to be done to ensure that companies report all of their emissions and do not reduce their excessive use of carbon offsets”. Similarly, for Thomas Day, these recommendations are also consistent with an existing system, initiative Voluntary Carbon Market Integrity, deemed ineffective in combating greenwashing by the NewClimate institute. This abusive use of carbon offsetting, despite the few existing rules, was also one of the main loopholes exploited by the 25 multinationals studied by experts in its Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor, detailed by The Guardian*.
He finally raises statements still “ambiguous”. “The press release states that carbon offsets should not be used until a company has achieved these short- and medium-term reduction targets, but no details of this commitment can be found in the report”he continues.
Prohibit lobbying to allow governments to legislate
On the new side, the report looks at the lobbying activities of non-state entities. It recommends prohibiting the promotion of speech aimed at “to undermine ambitious government climate policies, either directly or through trade associations or other structures”. “Today’s announcement is a watershed moment for corporate lobbying that has long stood in the way of government action”rejoiced Will Aitchison, of the InfluenceMap think tank.
Finally, in its last recommendation, the report calls on governments to regulate the “net-zero” commitments of these private partners. For Antonio Guterres, these tips from HLEG experts should help “build a regulatory framework“. And introduce the notion of constraint demanded by civil society actors, in particular NGOs. Projects are also being prepared by the European Commission. The report points out that “non-state actors can help governments achieve their national goals” and “allow them to raise them”, in accordance with their commitments. And for good reason, some companies emit more than some countries in the world: pFor the year 2019, the oil company BP said that these activities had released 1.4 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. This represents the accumulation of emissions from Moldova from the end of the 18th century to the present day.
Finally, failing to propose a binding framework, this report bearing the seal of the UN provides new evidence for civil society actors who wish to attack multinationals on their statements, assimilated to misleading advertising, notes Thomas Day. In a historic judgment rendered in 2021 in the Netherlands, Friends of the Earth obtained that the Shell tanker be forced by justice to lower its emissions, after pointing out the inconsistencies between the speech and the actions carried out by the multinational.
* Links followed by an asterisk lead to content in English.