Recommendations released at COP27 highlight greenwashing risks of ‘net zero,’ while falling short on carbon offsets and human rights
November 8, 2022
Sharm El-Sheik, EGY / Washington, DC — Today, the UN High-Level Expert Group on the Net-Zero Emissions Commitments of Non-State Entities (HLEG) published its long-awaited recommendations “to prevent net zero from being undermined by false claims, ambiguity, and ‘greenwash.’” The recommendations, which set out standards to guide credible net zero pledges and transition plans, were released during a panel chaired by the UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, and HLEG chair, Catherine McKenna at COP27. The HLEG unambiguously calls for an immediate halt to fossil fuel expansion; phaseout of coal, oil, and gas in alignment with a 1.5° no or low overshoot pathway; and an end to deforestation. Its emphasis on deep emissions cuts now leaves no room for reliance on speculative carbon dioxide removal technologies or other risky geoengineering measures. Despite these important recommendations, HLEG’s encouragement of the use of carbon credits and offset markets run the risk of fueling rights violations and delaying emissions reductions, in a system with mounting evidence of fraud.
Moira Birss, Climate Finance Director at Amazon Watch:
The High-Level Expert Group has done important work laying out a path for eliminating greenwash and lack of ambition in net zero pledges, and its recommendations include crucial elements like the rapid phaseout of all fossil fuels and the need for regulation to ensure credible climate action. However, the Expert Group’s recommendations fall short in placing too much faith in voluntary carbon markets, because carbon offsets do little to nothing for emissions reductions and forest protection, and often lead to Indigenous rights abuses. Credible net zero plans require drastic emissions reductions, direct support for ecosystem protection, and robust respect for the rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities.
Hana Heineken, Senior Attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL):
The Expert Group calls out the clear culprits of the climate emergency – the fossil fuel industry and their financiers — for using ‘net zero’ to greenwash their climate commitments, and rightly pegs ‘net zero’ to an unqualified fossil fuel phaseout and an end to fossil fuel financing. Critically, the call for regulation to ensure non-state actors are transparent about their climate footprints and held accountable for their climate actions and pledges demonstrates the need for enforceable measures to prevent greenwashing and spur meaningful climate action. Avoiding overshoot of 1.5ºC requires deep emissions cuts now, and leaves no room for reliance on fossil-fuel prolonging carbon capture and storage or other technofixes, which only delay needed climate action.
Highlights of the HLEG Recommendations:
- ‘Net Zero’ is tied to a 1.5ºC pathway with no or limited overshoot, and with global emissions declining by at least 50% by 2030, reaching net zero by 2050 or sooner.
- Priority is placed on urgent and deep reductions across the full value chain, including Scope 3 emissions.
- ‘Net Zero’ requires commitments to end reliance on and support for ALL fossil fuels, including “new supplies of natural gas and LNG exports,” without limitation or loophole. ‘Net Zero’ plans must not support fossil fuel expansion.
- ‘Net Zero’ requires commitments to end deforestation and peatland loss by 2025 and the conversion of remaining natural ecosystems by 2030 in operations and supply chains. Financial institutions must end support for companies linked to deforestation and eliminate agricultural commodity-driven deforestation from portfolios by 2025.
- Non-state actors must align their lobbying, including membership in trade associations, to the ends of achieving the 1.5ºC pathway with no or limited overshoot.
- Carbon credits “cannot be counted toward a non-state actor’s interim emissions reductions required by its net zero pathway.”
Lowlights of the HLEG Recommendations:
- HLEG still leaves room for non-state actors to make use of voluntary carbon credits. This is problematic because:
- The premise that carbon credits “facilitate much-needed financial support towards decarbonizing developing country economies” is questionable at best. In practice, there is little to no evidence that carbon credits have produced meaningful emissions reductions, and the distribution of financial benefits has been highly inequitable.
- While recommendations call for offsets to be “additional” and “permanent,” in practice, many land-based removals fail to be permanent due to human-induced and climate change-fueled fires and policy changes that lead to deforestation. Even offsets that are “additional” can still result in social and environmental harms such as land-grabbing.
- Voluntary markets provide no actual accountability or enforcement.
- The recommendations include a clear timeline for coal phaseout but no clear timeline for oil and gas phaseout.
###
Media Contacts:
– Cate Bonacini, press(at)ciel.org, +1-202-742-5847 (desk), +1-510-520-9109 (WhatsApp/Signal)
– Ada Recinos at ada(at)amazonwatch.org or +1.510.473.7542 (WhatsApp/Signal)
Photo by Eelco Böhtlingk on Unsplash