Greening Up, or Just Greenwashing?

PARIS (AFP) — From big tech to Big Oil, global corporations in all sectors are churning out climate action plans to reduce carbon footprints and adapt to tomorrow’s low-carbon economy.

At Davos’ annual conclave of the rich and powerful, “It is all that anyone is talking about,” Alain Roumilhac, CEO of ManPowerGroup France, said Wednesday.

But many of these seemingly ambitious pledges are more greenwashing than green, experts say. The tsunami of eco-initiatives sparked by a rising tide of climate anxiety range, for the most part, from doubtful to deceptive, they say.

Smoke billows from a plant just outside Paris, France, on Nov. 13, 2019.  (AP Photo/Michel Euler)

One planet-saving idea with serious traction among titans of industry — including major fossil fuel companies such as Shell, BP and ENI — is planting trees, which absorb and store carbon dioxide as they grow.

“We are facing a planetary climate crisis and trees are one of the most effective ways to sequester carbon,” Marc Benioff, founder and chairman of cloud computing powerhouse Salesforce, said in the Swiss resort.

Even notorious climate sceptic Donald Trump, also in Davos, backed a “trillion trees” reforestation scheme hailed by global media as a silver-bullet solution when unveiled last year by Swiss researchers.

The plan calls for covering nearly 3.5 billion acres — an area larger than the continental United States — with foliage.

Big business in general has jumped on the tree-planting bandwagon, with many signing up to “offset” schemes that allow them to continue pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

But the Swiss study, published in the  journal Science, came in for a severe drubbing from peers, with four top experts — writing in the same journal — dismissing it as “incorrect scientifically and dangerously misleading.”

“Heroic reforestation can help, but it is time stop suggesting there is a ‘nature-based solution’ to ongoing fossil fuel use,” Myles Allen, head of the Climate Dynamics Group at the University of Oxford, told AFP at the time.

“There isn’t.”

The study’s long list of flaws, according to Allen and dozens of other scientists, includes overestimating the CO2-absorbing capacity of trees, overlooking the possibility that their dark canopy will absorb the Sun’s radiation, and that much of the land earmarked will be needed to feed 10 billion people in 2050.

The authors of the study defended their findings, but described it as a thought experiment more than an action plan.

“Sometimes these climate policies are decent, but often — and especially when it comes to the financial sector — they are incremental or voluntary moves,” said Greenpeace executive director Jennifer Morgan, who is participating in several Davos events this week.

“Greenwashing is misinformation, a blurring of reality, and given the urgency of the climate emergency, we have no time left for spin or hypocrisy.”

Microsoft announced a plan last week that would not only allow the software giant to become carbon neutral within a decade, but to erase its entire carbon footprint since its creation in 1975.

But here again, the claim depends on blanketing large swaths of the planet with dense foliage, as well as technologies that do not yet exist on a meaningful scale, such as machines that suck CO2 directly out of the air.

Without these compensating measures, Microsoft’s CO2 emissions — which it estimates at 59 million tons per year — would be reduced by just over half in 2030.

Perhaps even more problematic are highly lucrative deals that Microsoft has supplying major oil and gas companies with state-of-the-art tools to boost extraction rates and supply forecasts.

Last year, for example, ExxonMobil said it would use the software giant’s cloud technology to analyze oil reserves in its Permian Basin project in the U.S. Southwest.

“You simply cannot claim to support ambitious climate action one moment and then continue to cozy up to industries that are at the core of this crisis,” said Sriram Madhusoodanan, deputy campaigns director at Corporate Accountability, a watchdog group.

That same type of cognitive dissonance crops us across all sectors of the economy.

The industry-led Alliance to End Plastic Waste, for example, is investing $1 billion in recycling, but at the same time its members are spending many times that amount to open up new plastics production.

Pledges like Microsoft’s are often accompanied by lobbying efforts to ward off government regulations, resulting in an unenforceable web of voluntary corporate commitments, according to some experts.

“A totally voluntary and unregulated corporate responsibility approach facilitates the diffusion of greenwashing,” researchers led by Lucia Gatti from the Universita della Svizzera Italiana concluded in a peer-reviewed study last year.

Some governments have started to crack down on greenwashing.

Last week, Italy’s Competition and Marketing Authority fined Italian oil and gas giant ENI a maximum 5 million euros for deceiving consumers about its “green diesel” claims in advertising.

On Monday, the International Energy Agency reported that the oil and gas sector worldwide spent less than 1 percent of capital investment in 2018 outside their core business areas, such as on renewables.

In December, the European Union tightened the rules for which financial investments can be labelled “environmentally sustainable.”

“The EU’s green standard means that people can no longer be sold fake green investments,” said William Todts, executive director of watchdog group Transport & Energy.

© Agence France-Presse

%d bloggers like this: