Companies formulate firm climate goals on paper, but firm policies to achieve them are often lacking. A popular strategy is not to reduce emissions, but to offset them with forest, according to new research.
Working sustainably, while the greenhouse gases from factories and trucks continue to fly into the air: many large companies see salvation in it, according to a new study by two independent climate organizations – the new Climate Institute and Carbon Market Watch.
In it, researchers take a closer look at the climate goals of 24 large companies, plus the way they think they will achieve them. The ambitions and policy choices of well-known names such as Apple, H&M, Ahold, Microsoft and Google were examined.
Promises to comply with the Paris Climate Agreement have put many of the 24 companies on paper. They want to go green and emit ‘ net ‘ zero in the coming decades. How? That is often vague.
Promises to comply with the Paris Climate Agreement have put many of the 24 companies on paper. They want to go green and emit’ net ‘ zero in the coming decades. How? That is often vague. Fashion companies claim that they are going to use “sustainable materials”, without saying which ones.
And if it is known which choices companies are aiming for, that does not mean that they get praise from the researchers. For example, H&M wants to replace the use of coal in the production chain with biomass, while biomass is also controversial.
One of the researchers ‘ main concerns is the extent to which companies want to offset rather than reduce their CO2 emissions. The 24 multinationals aim to “make up” 23 to 45 percent of the greenhouse gases they produce through investments in tree planting and forest management.
For this, they buy compensation shares in reforestation projects. Their factories, the transport by ship and truck and the purchase by customers can therefore continue unchanged, is the conviction of the companies.
CO2 compensation is a controversial way to become more sustainable. It is true that the growth of trees brings climate benefits, but the trade in compensation rights does not appear to be watertight. Revelations by the British newspaper The Guardian recently exposed that compensation may involve “ghost rights” on a large scale. Compensation rights exist mainly on paper. The forests they promise represented little in practice.
Another side note from the researchers is that if large companies want to make up for more than a quarter of their emissions through forest, the earth does not offer enough space for this, according to previous research by Greenpeace. “The planned dependence on forest and land compensation exceeds the potential of nature in the world,” the researchers said.
Meanwhile, many large companies do not hesitate to state, on the basis of promises for both green energy and compensation, that they have their affairs in order to become “net climate neutral”. In fact, about half of the companies already sell services and products under the heading ‘climate neutral’.
For example, American Airlines advertises climate-neutral flights and construction group Holcim talks about CO2-neutral cement. Supermarket chains, including Ahold Delhaize, promote products on the shelves as climate neutral.
Although many of the companies surveyed score “reasonably” with their climate goals, they still do not get good report figures from the researchers. Their ambitions often do not cover all emissions.
Multinationals are gradually working on cleaner factories and, if necessary, also on cleaner supply of raw materials and transport of products. But they hardly have an eye for end-use emissions from customers. However, companies are partly responsible for this, as the verdict showed is the so-called ‘Shell case’. The judge imposed an “effort obligation” on Shell to ensure that emissions are also reduced for end customers. That is essential. That’s where most of the emissions are.
