Terms such as “climate neutral” or “climate positive” that rely on offsetting will be banned from the EU by 2026 as part of a crackdown on misleading environmental claims.
On Wednesday, members of the European parliament [MEPs] voted to outlaw the use of terms such as “environmentally friendly”, “natural”, “biodegradable”, “climate neutral” or “eco” without evidence, while introducing a total ban on using carbon offsetting schemes to substantiate the claims.
Under the new directive, only sustainability labels using approved certification schemes will be allowed by the bloc. It comes amid widespread concern about the environmental impact of carbon offsetting schemes, which have often been used to justify labelling products “carbon neutral”, or imply that consumers can fly, buy new clothes or eat certain foods without making the climate crisis worse.
“This new legislation puts an end to misleading advertising for supposedly environmentally friendly products and thus enables consumers to make sustainable choices,” said Anna Cavazzini, the Green MEP and chair of the Committee of the Internal Market and Consumer Protection.
“I am particularly pleased that claims such as “climate-neutral” or “climate-positive”, which are based on CO2 offsetting, have been completely banned from the internal market. Investments by companies in climate protection projects are welcome and of course they can still be communicated,” she said. “However, it should no longer appear that planting trees in the rainforest makes the industrial production of a car, the organisation of a soccer World Cup or the production of cosmetics climate neutral. This deception is now a thing of the past. This is a great success for the environment, the climate and consumers.”
The directive comes after months of negotiations over how environmental claims will be regulated in the EU, with a deal reached in September that was approved by law makers on Wednesday. Member states now have two years to introduce the new rules. Drop carbon offsetting-based environmental claims, companies urged Read more
In January, the Guardian published a joint investigation into forest carbon offsets approved by the world’s leading certifier that big corporations used for their sustainability commitments, finding more than 90% of offsets from a large sample of projects to be worthless.
Environmental NGOs have raised concerns about claims based on offsets, including the 2022 World Cup in Qatar which was advertised as a “carbon neutral” event.
“This agreement is a big step towards more honest commercial practices and more informed European consumers. The European Union is taking leadership in combating greenwashing,” said Lindsay Otis, a policy expert on global carbon markets at CMW. “Carbon neutrality claims have been shown to be unintelligible to consumers, and they must stop. Today marks the end of outlandish and baseless advertisements that tell European consumers that they can take carbon-neutral flights, wear carbon-neutral clothes, and eat carbon-neutral food.”
We’re only like 50 years late on this. But nonetheless, this is a step in the right direction.
The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is today.
Seems pretty apt for this one
Most definitely.
Aside from the fact that this legislation only comes into effect in 2026…
Granted, the EU nations are free to enact their own laws in advance of that, but if there’s something that should be byroucratically expedited, this feels like it.
Naturally, they gotta give time to check and see if a more conservative EU parliament will be elected and repeal it. /s
I wouldn’t have expected this from the EU. They keep surprising me with not being horrendously incompetent.
Yeah it took them quite too long to notice that the US doesn’t have any leadership (if it ever had it) regarding consumer protection in general. It took the EU really long, but it seems they’re finally starting to move their legs.
Removed by mod
This is great to see.
80% of carbon offsets are creative accounting at best and bold-faced lies at worst.
If you don’t agree I’ve got a ~a bridge~ I mean some Carbon Offsets for sale.
Reminder that neutrality was acceptable until this upcoming year. We must achieve carbon negativity now
Carbon negativity was a must 2 generations ago…
This is the best summary I could come up with:
On Wednesday, members of the European parliament [MEPs] voted to outlaw the use of terms such as “environmentally friendly”, “natural”, “biodegradable”, “climate neutral” or “eco” without evidence, while introducing a total ban on using carbon offsetting schemes to substantiate the claims.
It comes amid widespread concern about the environmental impact of carbon offsetting schemes, which have often been used to justify labelling products “carbon neutral”, or imply that consumers can fly, buy new clothes or eat certain foods without making the climate crisis worse.
“I am particularly pleased that claims such as “climate-neutral” or “climate-positive”, which are based on CO2 offsetting, have been completely banned from the internal market.
The directive comes after months of negotiations over how environmental claims will be regulated in the EU, with a deal reached in September that was approved by law makers on Wednesday.
Environmental NGOs have raised concerns about claims based on offsets, including the 2022 World Cup in Qatar which was advertised as a “carbon neutral” event.
The European Union is taking leadership in combating greenwashing,” said Lindsay Otis, a policy expert on global carbon markets at CMW.
The original article contains 454 words, the summary contains 186 words. Saved 59%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
good bot
I sell carbon offsets in the EU. This is terrible news.
for you, maybe
for the planet, nuh-uh
Depends on where on the scale between legit and scam your business is. I see three options:
- 1, It’s a scam: Terrible news for you, but good news for everyone else. In that case, your wellbeing is a sacrifice we’re willing to make.
- 2, It’s legit: Then it’s even good news for you, as it takes away the shady competition.
- 3, It’s legit, but still treated as if you’re the bad guy: That’s the interesting point. If that is the case, can you show where the ban fails?