alt Hacker NewsAs 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?
Replies
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.
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.