Eve is here. While these greenwashing cases may seem flimsy, they have the advantage of being exposed and, among other things, potentially leading to the removal of executives. The potential for personal embarrassment and reputational damage is usually not something that well-funded senior management can adequately handle. And sufficient legal action along the lines below could even impact stock prices. soi disant corporate leaders.
False advertising claims being pursued in the United States appear to be a promising angle because plaintiffs can recover their attorney fees if they win. These arguments appear to apply neatly to misrepresentations under securities laws.
It is unfortunate that the pace of action on climate change has been so slow, but events like this will expose the flaws and cynicism in the much-publicized efforts of many companies and investors.
Felicity Bloodstock, freelance writer specializing in energy and finance. It was first published in crude oil price
The latest in a long line of oil and gas companies to be accused of greenwashing, Australia’s second-largest independent oil company has been accused by the Australian Center for Corporate Responsibility (ACCR) of misleading consumers about its decarbonization goals. is being sued by. ACCR is a shareholder activist group that has been buying shares in several high-emitting companies to encourage them to pursue the Paris Climate Agreement goals. It is not the first time that activist groups have accused oil and gas companies of greenwashing and misleading the public, but the outcome of the case could influence future legal action in the field.
Monday was the first day of Santos’ 13-day trial in the Federal Court of Australia. The lawsuit, which began in 2021, says Santos has a clear strategy to reduce emissions by 26 percent, to 30 percent by 2030, and to reach net-zero emissions by 2040. He claims there is no basis for this. says this is misleading or deceptive conduct and the company breaches Australian corporate and consumer law. The case is the first of its kind and could serve as a blueprint for future lawsuits against oil and gas majors in other countries.
ACCR lawyer Noel Hatley said: said“I will submit that Santos had no rational basis for making these statements.” Mr. Hatley said Santos’ climate change strategy was not a comprehensive path to decarbonization, but “was put together in a matter of weeks. It’s just a series of speculations.” ACCR cites additional examples to support its claim that Santos is deliberately greenwashing its oil and gas business, including Santos calling natural gas a “clean fuel.” Santos also described blue hydrogen, which is produced using fossil fuels, as “clean” and “zero emissions.”
Santos has often stated that its net zero plan relies heavily on the deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology to help decarbonise its operations. The company aims to expand oil and gas production while reducing emissions using CCS technology. However, ACCR alleges that Mr Santos made “various undisclosed qualifications and assumptions regarding the CCS process”. said Dan Gaucher, ACCR Director of Climate and Environment. said“Every day we read the annual and sustainability reports of different companies, and some of these claims are completely unwarranted…The important point for us is that every investor I think it’s becoming very difficult to distinguish between companies that are making genuine claims and those that aren’t.”
Santos is worth approximately $22 billion It operates both onshore and offshore in Australia, the United States, Papua New Guinea and Timor-Leste. The court’s decision is being closely watched by activist groups around the world who hope to put greater pressure on oil and gas companies to be more transparent about their future environmental impacts and efforts to combat climate change. ACCR expects the court to prohibit Santos from further deceptive practices and force Santos to issue a remediation notice regarding the environmental impact of its activities.
Earlier this year, California Attorney General Rob Bonta amended complaint It was aimed at encouraging some of the biggest companies in the oil and gas industry to part with the profits they made while misleading consumers about their contributions to climate change. Bonta-san in June filed a lawsuit American Petroleum Institute (API), BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell for deceptive practices. Bonta accused the companies of false advertising and possible greenwashing. press release said Companies allegedly used words like “clean” and “green” to trick consumers into believing their products were more environmentally friendly than they actually were.
Meanwhile, Italian oil giant Eni was sued last year for allegedly having early knowledge of the climate crisis. This was the first climate change lawsuit to begin in Italy. Several environmental groups have accused Eni of engaging in “lobbying and greenwashing” to encourage higher levels of fossil fuel production since 1970, despite knowing the risks posed by its products. denounced and called for legal action. The allegations are primarily based on research commissioned by Eni from 1969 to 1969. In 1970, we determined that increased use of fossil fuels could cause a climate crisis within just a few decades.
Report by Isvet Research Center said“According to a recent report by the United Nations Secretary-General, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by an average of 10% worldwide over the past 100 years, taking into account increased use of (fossil fuels). The increase could reach 25% and have a “catastrophic” impact on the climate. ”
A new wave of lawsuits is emerging in several countries around the world, demanding that oil and gas giants be more transparent about their environmental impacts and efforts to tackle climate change. Environmental groups and activists no longer support greenwashing, impose limits on the use of misleading language, and urge oil and gas companies to pursue actionable decarbonization with clear policies and medium-term goals to achieve. It is asking state and federal courts to compel the development of a strategy. their climate goals.
