Claims of "carbon neutrality": a significant step backward for the Climate and Resilience Act

Some very bad news has just come out regarding legislation on carbon-neutral claims for products.

The Climate and Resilience Act passed today represents a significant step backward in terms of greenwashing and claims of “carbon neutrality,” contrary to the original spirit of the law.

The text initially adopted by the National Assembly provided as follows: ""It is prohibited in an advertisement to falsely claim that a product or service is carbon-neutral, has no negative impact on the climate, or to use any other wording with a similar purpose or meaning."

This ban was based on the fact that The concept of carbon neutrality for a product or service has no scientific basis.

The Senate had subsequently amended the provision, by providing for exceptions for claims based on "certifications grounded in standards recognized at the French, European, and international levels."

But the text's passage through the Joint Committee of the Climate and Resilience Act has not only stripped the bill of its substance, but worse still, hasallow claims of carbon neutrality, subject to compliance with unambitious criteria, a relic of a bygone era (that of the Kyoto Protocol, which is now outdated) and based on the time-honored "measure-reduce-offset" approach:

“It is prohibited to claim in an advertisement that a product or service is carbon-neutral, or to use any wording with an equivalent meaning or scope, unless the advertiser makes the following information readily available to the public:

“1. A greenhouse gas emissions inventory that includes both direct and indirect emissions from the product or service;
“2. The approach whereby greenhouse gas emissions from the product or service are first avoided, then reduced, and finally offset. The greenhouse gas emissions reduction trajectory is described using quantified annual progress targets;
“3. The procedures for offsetting residual greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with minimum standards established by decree.”

So this is a measure:

• which has a negligible impact and insidiously encourages greenwashing, given the lack of rigorous criteria, while far more serious efforts to define carbon neutrality are still underway.
• absurd, because unlike a company, a product cannot “reduce its emissions” or “be on a reduction trajectory”
• inadequate for the challenges at hand: there is no mention whatsoever of the role of this product in a carbon-neutral world.

Thus, based on this definition, it would, in principle, be entirely possible to declare a barrel of oil or a long-haul flight “carbon neutral.”

This law therefore enshrines a a counterproductive and potentially dangerous interpretation of the fight against climate change, based on the idea that the problem can be solved through incremental improvements to existing products, rather than a fundamental break with established practices.
Once again treating "compensation" as a last resort in the face of the alleged impossibility of further reductions will only delay the realization of the problem.

While the climate emergency would actually call for a genuine debate to collectively decide what kinds of products and services a low-carbon society would—or would not—need, this bill is content to remain at the lowest level of ambition.

For more information on our Net Zero Initiative work to define a collective, ambitious, and transparent carbon neutrality framework, please visit: https://www.carbone4.com/publication-referentiel-nzi