🌱 The Green Claims Proposal has recognized the issues with climate-related claims such as "#carbonneutral" and "#netzero". Although it increases transparency, it doesn't do enough to actually tackle the use of misleading claims based on offsetting. 2/
📜In the recitals, the proposal acknowledges that claims relying on offsets outside the company's value chain can be misleading due to inaccuracies, lack of transparency, and double counting and that emission reductions within a trader's operations should be prioritized. 3/
⚖️However, the legally binding articles don't explicitly bar companies from making claims with offsetting. Instead, the policy aims to increase transparency and accountability by requiring traders to separate their offsets from their own or their product's emissions. 4/
🔍Traders must also provide additional information on their offsets, such as whether they are reductions or removals, and confirm they are of "high integrity" and accounted for "correctly" – terms not defined in the proposal. 5/
🚧 While more transparency is always good, the policy misses an opportunity to regulate #carbonremovals for offsetting, leaving room for the potential misuse of carbon removal certificates, and increasing the risks of greenwashing and mitigation deterrence.
💡 The Green Claims proposal is a step forward in ensuring companies substantiate their environmental claims, but it must also rise to the challenge of preventing greenwashing by setting strict standards for using carbon removals for offsetting in environmental claims.
🌍 Stronger regulations are needed to ensure claims like 'carbon neutral' and 'net-zero' genuinely reflect a company's environmental efforts and that when offsetting is used, that carbon is stored on climate-relevant timeframes.
✅ To genuinely protect consumers and the environment, the Green Claims proposal must define what constitutes high-integrity offsets and provide clear guidelines on how and when they should be used.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh