Parents, energy company settle over greenwashing claims
A parent activist group has reached a settlement with one of Australia's largest energy companies after mounting a court challenge claiming customers were misled about greenhouse gas emissions.
Parents for Climate was set to claim in the NSW Federal Court that EnergyAustralia misled more than 400,000 customers using its Go Neutral products.
It was claimed the company marketed the products as "carbon neutral" due to the purchase of offsets, saying consumers would have a "positive impact on the environment" by purchasing them.
But the court was told on Thursday the parent group would file to discontinue proceedings as a settlement had been reached between the parties, with a statement on the agreement to be issued on Monday.
Parents for Climate has more than 20,000 members.
The lawsuit would have been the first greenwashing case launched against an energy firm in Australia.
The charity, represented by Equity Generation Lawyers, was seeking a declaration that EnergyAustralia misled customers about greenhouse gas emissions, a corrective statement to customers and restrictions on its future marketing.
Parents for Climate chief executive Nic Seton said Australia's rules on environmental claims, including guidance issued by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, were not strong enough to prevent greenwashing.
"Our own analysis of energy companies here in Australia is that this practice is quite common and does need to change."
EnergyAustralia withdrew its Go Neutral products for new customers in November, but a spokesperson for the company said it was committed to offering customers clean energy solutions.
The company is one of Australia's largest energy retailers, with 1.6 million customers, and operates two coal-fired and four gas-fired power plants across NSW, Victoria and South Australia.
It ranked as Australia's third-highest emitter in 2023-2024, according to statistics from the Clean Energy Regulator, and produced 16.5 million tonnes of carbon emissions.
The Australia Institute said the federal government was failing to protect consumers and businesses from misleading claims and harmful practices.
It said the government promoted carbon offsetting and certified claims of "carbon neutrality" by big emitters through its Climate Active scheme.
The institute has filed a complaint with the consumer watchdog saying Climate Active may be misleading and deceptive under consumer law.
A parent activist group has reached a settlement with one of Australia's largest energy companies after mounting a court challenge claiming customers were misled about greenhouse gas emissions.
Parents for Climate was set to claim in the NSW Federal Court that EnergyAustralia misled more than 400,000 customers using its Go Neutral products.
It was claimed the company marketed the products as "carbon neutral" due to the purchase of offsets, saying consumers would have a "positive impact on the environment" by purchasing them.
But the court was told on Thursday the parent group would file to discontinue proceedings as a settlement had been reached between the parties, with a statement on the agreement to be issued on Monday.
Parents for Climate has more than 20,000 members.
The lawsuit would have been the first greenwashing case launched against an energy firm in Australia.
The charity, represented by Equity Generation Lawyers, was seeking a declaration that EnergyAustralia misled customers about greenhouse gas emissions, a corrective statement to customers and restrictions on its future marketing.
Parents for Climate chief executive Nic Seton said Australia's rules on environmental claims, including guidance issued by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, were not strong enough to prevent greenwashing.
"Our own analysis of energy companies here in Australia is that this practice is quite common and does need to change."
EnergyAustralia withdrew its Go Neutral products for new customers in November, but a spokesperson for the company said it was committed to offering customers clean energy solutions.
The company is one of Australia's largest energy retailers, with 1.6 million customers, and operates two coal-fired and four gas-fired power plants across NSW, Victoria and South Australia.
It ranked as Australia's third-highest emitter in 2023-2024, according to statistics from the Clean Energy Regulator, and produced 16.5 million tonnes of carbon emissions.
The Australia Institute said the federal government was failing to protect consumers and businesses from misleading claims and harmful practices.
It said the government promoted carbon offsetting and certified claims of "carbon neutrality" by big emitters through its Climate Active scheme.
The institute has filed a complaint with the consumer watchdog saying Climate Active may be misleading and deceptive under consumer law.
A parent activist group has reached a settlement with one of Australia's largest energy companies after mounting a court challenge claiming customers were misled about greenhouse gas emissions.
Parents for Climate was set to claim in the NSW Federal Court that EnergyAustralia misled more than 400,000 customers using its Go Neutral products.
It was claimed the company marketed the products as "carbon neutral" due to the purchase of offsets, saying consumers would have a "positive impact on the environment" by purchasing them.
But the court was told on Thursday the parent group would file to discontinue proceedings as a settlement had been reached between the parties, with a statement on the agreement to be issued on Monday.
Parents for Climate has more than 20,000 members.
The lawsuit would have been the first greenwashing case launched against an energy firm in Australia.
The charity, represented by Equity Generation Lawyers, was seeking a declaration that EnergyAustralia misled customers about greenhouse gas emissions, a corrective statement to customers and restrictions on its future marketing.
Parents for Climate chief executive Nic Seton said Australia's rules on environmental claims, including guidance issued by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, were not strong enough to prevent greenwashing.
"Our own analysis of energy companies here in Australia is that this practice is quite common and does need to change."
EnergyAustralia withdrew its Go Neutral products for new customers in November, but a spokesperson for the company said it was committed to offering customers clean energy solutions.
The company is one of Australia's largest energy retailers, with 1.6 million customers, and operates two coal-fired and four gas-fired power plants across NSW, Victoria and South Australia.
It ranked as Australia's third-highest emitter in 2023-2024, according to statistics from the Clean Energy Regulator, and produced 16.5 million tonnes of carbon emissions.
The Australia Institute said the federal government was failing to protect consumers and businesses from misleading claims and harmful practices.
It said the government promoted carbon offsetting and certified claims of "carbon neutrality" by big emitters through its Climate Active scheme.
The institute has filed a complaint with the consumer watchdog saying Climate Active may be misleading and deceptive under consumer law.
A parent activist group has reached a settlement with one of Australia's largest energy companies after mounting a court challenge claiming customers were misled about greenhouse gas emissions.
Parents for Climate was set to claim in the NSW Federal Court that EnergyAustralia misled more than 400,000 customers using its Go Neutral products.
It was claimed the company marketed the products as "carbon neutral" due to the purchase of offsets, saying consumers would have a "positive impact on the environment" by purchasing them.
But the court was told on Thursday the parent group would file to discontinue proceedings as a settlement had been reached between the parties, with a statement on the agreement to be issued on Monday.
Parents for Climate has more than 20,000 members.
The lawsuit would have been the first greenwashing case launched against an energy firm in Australia.
The charity, represented by Equity Generation Lawyers, was seeking a declaration that EnergyAustralia misled customers about greenhouse gas emissions, a corrective statement to customers and restrictions on its future marketing.
Parents for Climate chief executive Nic Seton said Australia's rules on environmental claims, including guidance issued by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, were not strong enough to prevent greenwashing.
"Our own analysis of energy companies here in Australia is that this practice is quite common and does need to change."
EnergyAustralia withdrew its Go Neutral products for new customers in November, but a spokesperson for the company said it was committed to offering customers clean energy solutions.
The company is one of Australia's largest energy retailers, with 1.6 million customers, and operates two coal-fired and four gas-fired power plants across NSW, Victoria and South Australia.
It ranked as Australia's third-highest emitter in 2023-2024, according to statistics from the Clean Energy Regulator, and produced 16.5 million tonnes of carbon emissions.
The Australia Institute said the federal government was failing to protect consumers and businesses from misleading claims and harmful practices.
It said the government promoted carbon offsetting and certified claims of "carbon neutrality" by big emitters through its Climate Active scheme.
The institute has filed a complaint with the consumer watchdog saying Climate Active may be misleading and deceptive under consumer law.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
3 days ago
- ABC News
Climate stability will require carbon removal on a large scale — are the existing methods up to the task? - ABC Religion & Ethics
If countries are to meet the Paris Agreement goal of holding 'the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels' and pursing efforts 'to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels', we're now told that reducing greenhouse gas emissions alone will be insufficient. Given our energy needs and the time it will take to transition to fully renewable sources of energy, Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) will also be needed, on a large scale. But there is considerable scepticism about CDR. In May, power company EnergyAustralia apologised to its customers after settling a Federal Court case launched by advocacy group Parents for Climate. In a statement published as part of the settlement, the company said: 'Burning fossil fuels creates greenhouse gas emissions that are not prevented or undone by carbon offsets.' There are several reasons why that might be true. One that critics frequently cite comes from the fact that the removals certified by carbon offsets can't be guaranteed to last as long as the emissions they are supposed to offset. Is this a good reason for dismissing CDR? CO₂ removal methods and the risk of reversal Broadly speaking, there are two types of CDR methods. 'Nature-based methods' use natural processes — like photosynthesis — to trap CO₂ in ecosystems such as forests, wetlands and farmlands. 'Engineered' methods, on the other hand, typically use advanced technology to capture CO₂ directly from the atmosphere or industrial sites. Both of these methods have drawn criticism. Some argue against investing in new carbon capture methods due to their high costs and technological uncertainties. Others argue that the benefits of nature-based solutions are profoundly limited, not least because of the short time horizon over which forests and other natural sinks can store carbon. The critics of nature-based methods are on to something. If the core idea of net zero emissions is balancing greenhouse gas additions and removals, we need the removals to last as long as the additions. However, the CO₂ we release today can persist in the atmosphere for centuries or even millennia. In contrast, many nature-based methods, like planting trees, might only store carbon for a few decades. This criticism highlights a genuine concern: merely planting a tree cannot be considered a valid offset if it eventually releases its absorbed CO₂ back into the atmosphere when it dies. This carries a 'reversal risk' — a risk that CO₂, once stored, will be re-released. However, while reversal risk is undoubtedly important, this doesn't mean that nature-based methods should be dismissed — instead, it means that they need to be managed well. Individual trees die, but provided a forest is properly maintained and managed over the long term, it can still act as a carbon sink. It's the continuous, deliberate maintenance of forests that ensures carbon is consistently captured, even if individual trees within the ecosystem die and are replaced. Additionally, reversal risk is not exclusive to nature-based methods. Engineered carbon removal methods and novel storage technologies also carry their own reversal risks. Storage facilities could fail, or novel technologies might prove less effective or reliable than initially expected. Investing all our resources in engineered CDR is problematic for another reason. Keeping within the 2°C carbon budget requires increasing the use of CDR now — and these technologies are not, even on an optimistic picture, going to be available at the scale required soon enough. Rather than being taken as grounds for dismissing these different CDR methods, we think these criticisms support a different conclusion. Each method on its own faces a serious problem — but they can complement each other, when used together. We must combine them strategically, using the strengths of each to offset the weaknesses of the other. Nature-based methods, if employed sensibly, offer the rapid, large-scale deployment that is needed now to help reduce peak global temperatures and slow warming trends. Engineered solutions, coming on stream later, have the potential for more secure long-term removals. These technologies, once fully developed, offer the prospect of more stable CO₂ storage options, significantly reducing the risk of reversal. What climate mitigation requires A number of companies recently announced they are leaving the Australian government's Climate Active carbon credit scheme amid concerns about its integrity. Some critics of carbon credit markets suggest that they operate simply as a way of allowing companies to buy the illusion of climate action, while continuing with business as usual. However, if the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is right, we will need emission reductions to be accompanied by CDR into the foreseeable future, and we will need well-functioning carbon markets to deliver it. Stabilising the consequences of human activity on the climate will require reducing emissions — but alongside this, it will also require both nature-based and engineered methods of CDR, situated within a well-governed carbon credit market. Christian Barry is Director of the Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University. Garrett Cullity is Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Centre for Moral, Social and Political Theory at the Australian National University Together with a team of international climate scientists and policymakers, they are authors of a new paper discussing these themes at greater length, 'Considering Durability in Carbon Dioxide Removal Strategies for Climate Change Mitigation', forthcoming in Climate Policy.
AU Financial Review
28-05-2025
- AU Financial Review
Before you trash carbon offsets, ask who pays for conservation
Let me put this right up front – this is not a defence of the federal government's Climate Active scheme. It is not perfect and should be improved. Nor is this an attempt to suggest that offsetting emissions using carbon credits is a substitute for actual emissions reductions. I am also not trying to defend companies that greenwash and suggest that the purchase of carbon offsets somehow neutralises the climate impacts of their business activities, or is a substitute for direct emissions reduction.
Sydney Morning Herald
25-05-2025
- Sydney Morning Herald
Greenwashing is rife in Australia, but could its days be numbered?
Have you ever ticked the box to 'fly carbon neutral', had something delivered via 'carbon-neutral shipping' or chosen to pay a bit extra to buy 'carbon-neutral gas' from your energy retailer? These green premium products are marketed to us everywhere. They target eco-conscious consumers wanting to do the right thing and create the impression that by paying a premium, the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere from flying, shipping or burning gas are neutralised or 'offset' with carbon credits. But the settlement of a recent court case has shown not only that this kind of marketing is misleading Australian consumers; it's also a form of greenwashing. This is a practice by which a business makes its products or services seem more sustainable than they are, usually in a bid to create a positive brand image or improve their reputation. According to a 2023 study by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, 57 per cent of businesses reviewed made concerning claims about their environmental credentials. This week, a case heard in the Federal Court of Australia offered us an up-close view of what this looks like in practice. In 2023, the advocacy group Parents for Climate first filed a greenwashing case against EnergyAustralia, arguing that the company's 'Go Neutral' gas product misled the more than 400,000 Australian customers who signed up. That's because the carbon offsets purchased by the company did not prevent or undo harms caused by burning fossil fuels. Loading In response to case, this week EnergyAustralia apologised to its customers and acknowledged that 'offsets do not prevent or undo the harms caused by burning fossil fuels for a customer's energy use. Even with carbon offsetting, emissions released from burning fossil fuels for a customer's energy use still contribute to climate change.' The acknowledgement from Australia's third-largest gas retailer that offsets don't neutralise pollution caused from burning gas marks a significant moment for corporate accountability. It also highlights the need for stricter rules on how companies use carbon credits and clearer guidelines around how they communicate this to customers and shareholders. Last year, Climate Integrity also referred Qantas to the ACCC for greenwashing, arguing that its 'Fly Carbon Neutral' option, which customers purchase for an additional fee, misleads customers about the impact of flying. Red Energy has also been approached by Climate Integrity regarding its 'carbon neutral' gas product, which uses a similar marketing tactic as EnergyAustralia.
