Bogus carbon neutrality claims don’t just harm the industry, they harm the planet.
On 18 January this year the Australian consumer watchdog, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission or simply the ACCC announced they were taking action against GM Holden over their Saab ‘green’ claims, alleging misleading and deceptive conduct and false representations concerning ‘green’ claims made in the advertising of Saab vehicles.
The ACCC alleges that the Saab is Green advertisements were misleading and that Saab has breached sections 52 and 53(c) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 because:
- there would, in fact, be a net release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by the operation of any motor vehicle in the Saab range
- planting 17 native trees would not provide a carbon dioxide offset for any period other than a single year’s operation of any motor vehicle in the Saab range, and
- Saab vehicles do not have any attribute or attributes which contribute to reduced carbon dioxide emissions by those vehicles compared with Saab vehicles supplied prior to the publication of the advertisement.
When I first saw Saab’s “Grrrrrreen” ads near Sydney Airport i was sceptical to say the least. When I saw they had partnered with Greenfleet and the deal amounted to them planting 17 trees per car, I was sure this would all come undone for them. Despite what anyone will tell you, and I have tried to explain this directly to Greenfleet’s own management, 17 trees does not equal one car. It’s not even one car per year!
A typical Australian car causes the emission of around 30 tonnes of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) to make, and around 5 tonnes of CO2e to run for a year. It takes, on average, around 5 and a half native Australian hardwoods to sequester one tonne of CO2 and in order to mitigate against loss, fire, theft and so forth, you actually need a massive buffer forest in order to be able to generate real carbon credits such as the NGACs created by NSW Forests. Indeed the NGAC scheme goes beyond Kyoto requirements and ensures that:
- each NGAC represents one tonne of carbon dioxide stored for at least 100 years,
- the trees have been planted since 1990
- the trees weren’t planted on old growth forest cleared land (the land must have been clear prior to 1990)
- should the tree from which your carbon credit came come to any harm within 100 years of your purchase eg. Fire, disease, logging; that carbon credit will be replaced immediately from another source.
Ad-hoc tree planting schemes can not provide the same assurances as formally certified carbon credit programmes and even Greenfleet understand this. They are in-fact trying to gain formal accreditation for their re-vegetation projects right now. The figure os 17 trees per car is utterly indefensible and Saab’s blatant green-washing attempt has not only damaged their reputation, it has stained the reputation of the entire carbon offset industry. This is bad for us all as every little excuse people have to do nothing about the climate crisis we face is seized upon by people who, quite frankly, need no encouragement to do nothing about the problem. Every delay costs lives and brings us closer to the point where the warming we are experiencing now will flip into an irreversible state. And they we’re all screwed.
Much of the planet is teetering on a precipice right now. We can ill-afford this kind of green-washing. I’m no lawyer but it seems to me that if the ACCC find GM have indeed breached the law in this case then the whole world should be eligible to file a class action suit against them.
There’s a clear and stark warning here for companies wishing to capitalize on the green wave; do it properly. Carbon Planet works with companies the world over accurately measuring their emissions according to world’s best practice methods. We educate companies at both a board and staff level as to why this is important, what the numbers mean, ways to make a difference and in many cases achieve cost savings along the way. We retail and broker formally certified carbon credits to help businesses outsource the emissions reductions they can’t achieve through internal change. Our team comprises scientists and engineers. We protect companies from these kinds of green-washing claims because we apply rigour to our calculations and we only deal in verifiable facts and data. To do less is to risk everything. — DS
Technorati Tags: business, carbon credits, carbon neutral, carbon offsetting, Carbon Planet, cars, climate change, emissions reduction, emissions trading, forests, global warming, Greenfleet, greenwash, Saab, trees