By Kendra Pierre-Louis | Bloomberg
Engulfed in tranquil instrumental music and accompanied by picturesque nature scenes, the voice-over of a woman begins. She ponderingly expresses, “Isn’t it ironic that the love we have for our world, which compels us to explore it, sometimes results in harmful consequences? As we embark on our journeys, our perspectives widen, and now, with each flight we take, we can make a positive impact.”
This 2021 advertisement by Delta Air Lines Inc. emphasizes the company’s ambition to become the world’s first carbon-neutral airline on a global scale. Delta introduced this commitment in February 2020, along with a $1 billion investment plan spanning the next decade to address its greenhouse gas emissions. However, these assertions of carbon neutrality have become the focus of a class-action lawsuit that alleges Delta’s claims amount to mere greenwashing.
The lawsuit, filed on May 30 on behalf of all California residents who have flown with Delta since March 2020, states that “Delta’s representations of carbon neutrality are demonstrably false and deceptive.” Mayanna Berrin, a Nickelodeon writer and the plaintiff in this case, recently informed The Associated Press that she willingly paid a premium for Delta flights to “neutralize [the CO2 emissions]” associated with her travels for work and family visits.
Delta promptly responded, asserting that the lawsuit lacks legal basis.
At the core of this legal dispute lies Delta’s claim of carbon neutrality, which hinges, in part, on its utilization of carbon offsets. Offset initiatives aim to counterbalance carbon emissions by funding projects that absorb or prevent CO2. Several investigations have spotlighted concerns regarding the carbon offset market, and the lawsuit against Delta argues that the airline exaggerated or miscalculated the benefits of the projects it supports.
Delta is an appropriate defendant, as “they’re suggesting that it’s permissible to take a flight amidst the global climate challenge because we’re purchasing these offsets,” explained Shelley Welton, a professor specializing in law and energy policy at the University of Pennsylvania. She added, “This potentially misleads customers into believing that Delta has adequately addressed its share of the problem, despite this claim being at odds with scientific evidence.” Welton characterized this lawsuit as one of the first of its kind in the United States.
Delta clarified its commitment to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 and its shift in focus from carbon offsets to decarbonization efforts since March 2022. The airline has redirected its efforts to investing in sustainable aviation fuel, transitioning to more fuel-efficient aircraft, and implementing operational efficiencies.
According to Delta’s 2021 Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) report, the company allocated $137 million that year to offset approximately 30 million tons of emissions from its operations, including flights. The report highlights Delta’s carbon offset portfolio, which includes investments in renewable energy projects, landfill gas initiatives, and deforestation prevention.
Aviation contributes roughly 2% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and Delta’s internal analysis reveals that 98% of its emissions stem from aircraft usage. Under pressure to address this environmental footprint, many airlines are exploring decarbonization strategies. However, most of these approaches, such as sustainable aviation fuel and battery-powered planes, are not yet viable on a large scale.
Delta is not alone in relying on offsets. Shelley Welton noted, “When you look at the statistics, 40% of company climate pledges explicitly use these offsets, while only 2% explicitly exclude their use. This means that 98% of companies employ exactly the kind of offsets in question in the Delta lawsuit.”
Last year, Bloomberg Green conducted an analysis of over 215,000 offset transactions from the past decade, revealing that numerous companies, including certain airlines, heavily depend on offsets associated with renewable energy projects. However, with evolving renewable energy economics, many of these projects would have materialized regardless of offset purchases, failing to meet the critical requirement of “additionality.” A carbon project is considered additional only if it would not have occurred without the offset. The lawsuit against Delta cites Bloomberg Green’s investigation, claiming that the airline took credit for projects lacking additionality.
Jonathan Haderlein, the plaintiff’s lawyer, stated, “It is meaningless to claim you are offsetting emissions if you are receiving credit for outcomes that would have transpired anyway.”
Scrutiny of deforestation-related offsets has also revealed issues. Some protected forests were unlawfully deforested, while other projects overestimated the extent of protected land or failed to achieve actual CO2 reductions.
In relation to offsets associated with deforestation, assumptions are made regarding the perpetual presence of carbon-absorbing trees. However, as Freya Chay, who leads the carbon removal program at the data nonprofit CarbonPlan, pointed out, once these forests disappear due to factors like fire, drought, or harvesting, the stored carbon will re-enter the atmosphere.
This lawsuit against Delta emerges amidst a broader backlash against greenwashing, with regulatory agencies increasingly focused on consumer protection. For instance, the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority has banned advertisements from companies like Lufthansa, HSBC, and Shell for promoting their sustainability initiatives without acknowledging the polluting aspects of their operations.
Danny Cullenward, a research fellow at the Institute for Carbon Removal Law and Policy at American University, stated, “It is absolutely correct to view false climate marketing statements as a consumer issue.” Efforts by the Federal Trade Commission in the US to update its Green Guides specifically to address carbon offset and climate change-related marketing claims support this notion. The Green Guides aim to prevent marketers from engaging in “unfair or deceptive acts.”
Cullenward observed that greenwashing is often regarded as a concern primarily for environmentally conscious individuals. However, he emphasized that people worldwide are genuinely concerned about these issues and have a desire to take action. If companies deceive them with false claims, it constitutes consumer deception.
Companies accused of greenwashing often argue that they face punishment despite making earnest attempts to combat climate change. While acknowledging this perspective, Shelley Welton acknowledged, “These lawsuits only target companies that have made net-zero pledges, and there are companies out there that haven’t. On the other hand, it could be quite problematic for the climate movement if a multitude of companies claim they have climate change under control by making net-zero pledges without taking any real action.”
For more stories like this, visit bloomberg.com
©2023 Bloomberg L.P.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
