Ashadi Hopper’s Post

Oooh, back to one of my favourite "sideline" sports - companies being sued for greenwashing. In this case, it's "misleading claims" but nonetheless fascinating, and is a great example of #notgreenwashing. Believe me, I'm aware of #greenwashing happening around Australia, and this is definitely NOT an example. I've been seeing the "issue" at the core of this case cropping up more frequently in the last 6-12 months, and it has to do with environmentally conscious people claiming that offsetting is somehow "bad" or "lesser" and not really being environmentally friendly. The CEO of #AustralianParentsforClimateAction says in this article: "Offsets were a form of "marketing spin based on creative accounting" and were fundamentally deceptive." Let me be clear, this statement is absolutely and fundamentally incorrect. Under current Australian law (energy, green, whatever law you want to look at), a renewable energy generator actually makes 2 things simultaneously - an electron and a green certificate. The only thing that makes the electron green is that certificate, without it, the wind farm / solar farm is making black energy (or energy with the same carbon intensity as the state in which it was made). So the "green" can be LEGALLY attached to any electron regardless of its origin, it just makes the electron that it was made with black when it is transferred. What the plaintiffs are conflating is a certificate of origin with an LGC. Seeing as how certificates of origin don't exist yet, they'll be waiting for a long time before they can successfully sue someone for not declaring that correctly. The other issue at hand seems to be that #AP4CA don't like (?) / object to (?) the term Carbon Neutral, and claim that it's confusing? I don't know how - the term carbon neutral s defined as "making or resulting in no net release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, especially as a result of carbon offsetting." Acknowledgment of the use of offsets is in the definition of the term! It is also very unclear as to what they expect the term carbon neutral to actually mean? Seriously, these are the people that give climate activism a bad name. (disclaimer - I worked for the defendant company a million years ago). https://lnkd.in/gQQUCjRk #burningcash #EA #energyaustralia

Oooh, back to one of my favourite "sideline" sports - companies being sued for greenwashing. In this case, it's "misleading claims" but nonetheless fascinating, and is a great example of #notgreenwashing. Believe me, I'm aware of #greenwashing happening around Australia, and this is definitely NOT an example. I've been seeing the "issue" at the core of this case cropping up more frequently in the last 6-12 months, and it has to do with environmentally conscious people claiming that offsetting is somehow "bad" or "lesser" and not really being environmentally friendly. The CEO of #AustralianParentsforClimateAction says in this article: "Offsets were a form of "marketing spin based on creative accounting" and were fundamentally deceptive." Let me be clear, this statement is absolutely and fundamentally incorrect. Under current Australian law (energy, green, whatever law you want to look at), a renewable energy generator actually makes 2 things simultaneously - an electron and a green certificate. The only thing that makes the electron green is that certificate, without it, the wind farm / solar farm is making black energy (or energy with the same carbon intensity as the state in which it was made). So the "green" can be LEGALLY attached to any electron regardless of its origin, it just makes the electron that it was made with black when it is transferred. What the plaintiffs are conflating is a certificate of origin with an LGC. Seeing as how certificates of origin don't exist yet, they'll be waiting for a long time before they can successfully sue someone for not declaring that correctly. The other issue at hand seems to be that #AP4CA don't like (?) / object to (?) the term Carbon Neutral, and claim that it's confusing? I don't know how - the term carbon neutral s defined as "making or resulting in no net release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, especially as a result of carbon offsetting." Acknowledgment of the use of offsets is in the definition of the term! It is also very unclear as to what they expect the term carbon neutral to actually mean? Seriously, these are the people that give climate activism a bad name. (disclaimer - I worked for the defendant company a million years ago). https://lnkd.in/gb8Hdb9W #burningcash #EA #energyaustralia

Just when we thought "offsetting" was the solution to carbon-neutrality ... "Terms such as “climate neutral” or “climate positive” that rely on CO2 offsetting, will be banned from the EU by 2026, as part of a crackdown on misleading environmental claims". Eco-friendly product claims not backed by scientific evidence & approved certification schemes, will also come under scrutiny. The new regulations are expected to target "generic environmental claims", such as - Green - Nature's friend - Nature friendly - Energy efficient - Biodegradable Sustainability just got more complicated! A big step towards honesty and transparency. #sustainability #greenwashing #greenhushing

Finally steps in the right direction of a more sustainable and transparent future…

🥳♻️ Great news for the environment!! I'm not a big fan of governmental regulations of any sort, but I'm actually happy about this 🤗 Carbon neutral, or worse plastic neutral, labels on consumer products are the most misleading claims out there. Stop the greenwashing and offsetting BS. ⛔️ Time to develop actual, sustainable products. Circular economy is the only real sustainable option ♻️🌎 #circulareconomy #sustainability #greenwashing

The EU’s recent rulings on Emissions Settings is a real change in how we view real sustainability credentials. No more can Companies make vague environmental claims about their emissions using offsets. It acknowledges that the real work of achieving true sustainability is hard, and brands and businesses owe it to their clients, suppliers and customers by being honest with them. At Ocean Material®, we work with all our partners to help them achieve this goal, acknowledging that honest communication and collaboration is the pathway to establishing trust. 🌍💚 #Sustainability #EUGreenDeal #Collaboration #Transparency #OceanMaterial https://lnkd.in/ezjPaw33

Exciting news on the sustainability front! 🌿 The European Parliament has just given the green light to anti-greenwashing legislation, marking a significant step forward in promoting transparent corporate communications. It's a call for all of us in the realm of corporate communication to ensure our messages align with genuine sustainable practices. Let's embrace this opportunity to lead with transparency and integrity in our storytelling. Read more about this milestone ➡️ https://lnkd.in/dQfAfDme #Sustainability #CorporateCommunication #Transparency #Greenwashing #EURegulation 🌐✨

If you're a manufacturer, you better make sure you can substantiate your green claims! Terms like "climate neutral" and "climate positive" that rely on offsetting will be banned by 2026. The European Parliament voted to outlaw the use of terms such as "environmentally friendly," "natural," "biodegradable," and "eco" without evidence. Carbon offsetting schemes can no longer be used to substantiate these claims. Only sustainability labels using approved certification schemes will be allowed. This move aims to address concerns about the environmental impact of offsetting and ensure consumers can make informed and sustainable choices. #EURegulations #EnvironmentalClaims #Sustainability

EU institutions reach deal on anti-greenwashing legislation Representatives from the three EU institutions agreed last week on new rules to prevent companies from making misleading environmental claims. The European Commission had presented the initiative on empowering consumers for the green transition in March 2022, which aims to complement new legislation on making products more sustainable by design. The final deal bans businesses from claiming that their products or activities are “climate neutral” or “carbon neutral” when such affirmations are based on unverified CO2 offsets. This comes after companies are increasingly using carbon offsetting schemes (such as planting trees) to make up for their CO2 emissions and to sometimes appear greener than they really are. But campaigners and scientists have been increasingly scrutinizing those schemes and pointed to flaws in their efficiency and transparency. The final version of the legislation also prevents companies from using labels such as “biodegradable,” “eco-friendly” or “green” if they don’t have substantial and publicly available evidence to back their claims. #greenwashing #climate #carbonneutral

A big step towards the prevention of B-road and sweeping claims. Environmentally friendly? Sustainable? 40% of claims were unable to very with evidence and unsubstantiated. Evidence, data is so important. Making noise about green claims, the environment and eco when it comes to your products is now under scrutiny. “Under the new agreement, the EU’s rules will be updated to ban generic environmental claims such as “environmentally friendly” or “climate neutral,” unless proof of “recognised excellent environmental performance” is provided, along with claims that a product has a positive or reduced impact on the environment based on emissions offsetting. The new rules also prohibit the use of sustainability labels that are not based on approved certification schemes, and also includes rules addressing early obsolescence.” Everyday we move closer to change. If you can’t prove it, don’t claim it.