4 ms·

I wouldn't qualify "These commitments appear to rely on offsetting carbon emissions rather than decarbonizing directly" as greenwashing, although it is indeed a

by pingou 6mo ago

I wouldn't qualify "These commitments appear to rely on offsetting carbon emissions rather than decarbonizing directly" as greenwashing, although it is indeed a bit misleading.

defrost 6mo ago
As the full title asserts: 98% of all recent environmental claims and commitments from the world’s largest meat and dairy companies can be categorized as “greenwashing”, or intentionally misleading The claim that "ExampleCo will be net zero by 2028" is intentionally misleading if it's going to be an accounting trick rather than an actual real reduction in emmissions within ExampleCo's footprint. That's aside from many of the carbon offset schemes being bandied about really don't bear much in the way of close scrutiny. The "all talk and ineffectual action" in carbon offsetting is classic greenwashing though, surely?
- SpicyLemonZest 6mo ago
  What could "net zero" possibly mean other than "zero as a matter of accounting"? I definitely think meat and dairy companies should reduce emissions to the extent that they can, but you're not going to convince the cows to stop burping. If you accept the premise that people are going to keep on eating animal products (I'm aware that the authors may not!), offsets are the only option.
  - defrost 6mo ago
    Could be a language thing, I'm Australian and that quote from my comment in full was if it's going to be an accounting trick My intenty there was to distinguish between "net zero as a matter of legitimate above board easy to follow accounting that can be audited (and pass)" and "net zero via a smoke and mirrors accounting deception with a few divide by zeros and some of the same logic from the proof that 1==2". > but you're not going to convince the cows to stop burping. Well, no - but you / we can introduce kangaroo gut biota to cows.
- tpmoney 6mo ago
  It’s really only “misleading” to the extent that any offset/credit scheme is also misleading. Inherent in the words “net zero” is the fact that emissions will continue, but the claim is that something else will be done to make the total effect the same as if zero emission occurred. It’s no more misleading than “my net income was $X” is misleading because my gross income was $X + $Y.

by pingou 6mo ago

I wouldn't qualify "These commitments appear to rely on offsetting carbon emissions rather than decarbonizing directly" as greenwashing, although it is indeed a bit misleading.

defrost 6mo ago

As the full title asserts: 98% of all recent environmental claims and commitments from the world’s largest meat and dairy companies can be categorized as “greenwashing”, or intentionally misleading The claim that "ExampleCo will be net zero by 2028" is intentionally misleading if it's going to be an accounting trick rather than an actual real reduction in emmissions within ExampleCo's footprint. That's aside from many of the carbon offset schemes being bandied about really don't bear much in the way of close scrutiny. The "all talk and ineffectual action" in carbon offsetting is classic greenwashing though, surely?

SpicyLemonZest 6mo ago
What could "net zero" possibly mean other than "zero as a matter of accounting"? I definitely think meat and dairy companies should reduce emissions to the extent that they can, but you're not going to convince the cows to stop burping. If you accept the premise that people are going to keep on eating animal products (I'm aware that the authors may not!), offsets are the only option.
- defrost 6mo ago
  Could be a language thing, I'm Australian and that quote from my comment in full was if it's going to be an accounting trick My intenty there was to distinguish between "net zero as a matter of legitimate above board easy to follow accounting that can be audited (and pass)" and "net zero via a smoke and mirrors accounting deception with a few divide by zeros and some of the same logic from the proof that 1==2". > but you're not going to convince the cows to stop burping. Well, no - but you / we can introduce kangaroo gut biota to cows.
tpmoney 6mo ago
It’s really only “misleading” to the extent that any offset/credit scheme is also misleading. Inherent in the words “net zero” is the fact that emissions will continue, but the claim is that something else will be done to make the total effect the same as if zero emission occurred. It’s no more misleading than “my net income was $X” is misleading because my gross income was $X + $Y.