Latest news with #AmandaLarsson
Scoop
5 days ago
- Business
- Scoop
Dairy Industry Greenwashing Under Fire As Lawsuits Go Global
Press Release – Greenpeace Greenpeace Denmark has this week filed a formal complaint against Arla – Europes largest dairy producer – accusing it of 'systematic greenwashing.' The world's biggest dairy companies are facing a growing wave of legal action over misleading claims. Greenpeace Denmark has this week filed a formal complaint against Arla – Europe's largest dairy producer – accusing it of 'systematic greenwashing.' The case follows a similar lawsuit by Greenpeace Aotearoa against Fonterra, the world's largest dairy exporter, over false claims on Anchor-brand butter packaging. 'This is part of a global trend targeting greenwashing in the intensive livestock sector,' said Amanda Larsson, spokesperson for Greenpeace Aotearoa. 'Companies like Arla and Fonterra market themselves as climate leaders, while hiding highly polluting practices and lobbying against environmental protections.' Greenpeace Denmark has submitted a formal complaint to the Danish Business Authority – the regulatory body in Arla's home country – backed by extensive documentation showing that the dairy giant has significantly overstated its CO reductions. Arla claims to have cut supply chain greenhouse gas emissions by 13 per cent since 2015. However, according to the complaint, nearly half of that reduction occurred suddenly in 2016 when the company changed its calculation methodology without adjusting the baseline accordingly. Greenpeace Denmark argues that this methodological shift not only misleads consumers but also breaches financial reporting laws in both Denmark and Sweden. Arla's emissions reporting was previously criticised by Swedish media in 2022, after which the company pledged to review this issue. Yet two years later, Greenpeace Denmark has found that Arla's 2024 annual report still relies on the misleading baseline to present its emissions reductions. Greenpeace Sweden has also lodged two formal complaints against Arla. Meanwhile, in New Zealand, Greenpeace is suing Fonterra for promoting its butter as '100% New Zealand grass-fed,' despite allowing up to 20% of cows' diets to include imported palm kernel – a product linked to deforestation. 'We think shoppers would be shocked to know that the block of 'grass-fed' butter they pick up at the supermarket could actually be linked to the destruction of orangutan habitats,' says Larsson. 'Misleading claims like this are a real punch in the guts to people who are trying hard to do their part by shopping ethically – it's time for dairy giants like Fonterra and Arla to face the consequences.' These actions mark an escalation in global legal efforts to hold the livestock industry accountable. Last year, Danish Crown was found guilty of misleading pork ads, while a case against meat giant JBS in New York was dismissed. Still, the trend is clear: Big Dairy and Big Meat are under increasing scrutiny for false climate and environmental claims.
Scoop
5 days ago
- Business
- Scoop
Dairy Industry Greenwashing Under Fire As Lawsuits Go Global
The world's biggest dairy companies are facing a growing wave of legal action over misleading claims. Greenpeace Denmark has this week filed a formal complaint against Arla - Europe's largest dairy producer - accusing it of "systematic greenwashing." The case follows a similar lawsuit by Greenpeace Aotearoa against Fonterra, the world's largest dairy exporter, over false claims on Anchor-brand butter packaging. "This is part of a global trend targeting greenwashing in the intensive livestock sector," said Amanda Larsson, spokesperson for Greenpeace Aotearoa. "Companies like Arla and Fonterra market themselves as climate leaders, while hiding highly polluting practices and lobbying against environmental protections." Greenpeace Denmark has submitted a formal complaint to the Danish Business Authority - the regulatory body in Arla's home country - backed by extensive documentation showing that the dairy giant has significantly overstated its CO reductions. Arla claims to have cut supply chain greenhouse gas emissions by 13 per cent since 2015. However, according to the complaint, nearly half of that reduction occurred suddenly in 2016 when the company changed its calculation methodology without adjusting the baseline accordingly. Greenpeace Denmark argues that this methodological shift not only misleads consumers but also breaches financial reporting laws in both Denmark and Sweden. Arla's emissions reporting was previously criticised by Swedish media in 2022, after which the company pledged to review this issue. Yet two years later, Greenpeace Denmark has found that Arla's 2024 annual report still relies on the misleading baseline to present its emissions reductions. against Arla. Meanwhile, in New Zealand, Greenpeace is suing Fonterra for promoting its butter as "100% New Zealand grass-fed," despite allowing up to 20% of cows' diets to include imported palm kernel - a product linked to deforestation. "We think shoppers would be shocked to know that the block of 'grass-fed' butter they pick up at the supermarket could actually be linked to the destruction of orangutan habitats," says Larsson. "Misleading claims like this are a real punch in the guts to people who are trying hard to do their part by shopping ethically - it's time for dairy giants like Fonterra and Arla to face the consequences." These actions mark an escalation in global legal efforts to hold the livestock industry accountable. Last year, Danish Crown was found guilty of misleading pork ads, while a case against meat giant JBS in New York was dismissed. Still, the trend is clear: Big Dairy and Big Meat are under increasing scrutiny for false climate and environmental claims.
Scoop
02-06-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Leading International Climate Scientists Rubbish Luxon's ‘Methane Review', Call On PM To Take Methane Seriously
According to the Financial Times report, leading climate scientists are accusing politicians in New Zealand and Ireland of using an 'accounting trick' that could undermine global efforts to fight climate change. Over 25 international climate change scientists have written an open letter to Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, calling out the Government for 'ignoring scientific evidence' and urging it to 'deliver methane reductions that contribute to the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees.' According to the Financial Times report, leading climate scientists are accusing politicians in New Zealand and Ireland of using an 'accounting trick' that could undermine global efforts to fight climate change. Specifically the use of 'no additional warming' as a way of setting methane targets would unjustly allow countries with large historic livestock emissions to keep polluting, while penalising poorer countries. Greenpeace Aotearoa spokesperson Amanda Larsson says, 'This is yet more international criticism of the New Zealand government's anti-science approach to tackling climate change. 'The New Zealand dairy industry is the country's worst climate polluter. Yet rather than responding to the climate crisis with action, the New Zealand Government is looking to sweep the problem under the rug with creative accounting.' The concept of 'no additional warming' is highly controversial because it focuses on keeping emissions at current levels, rather than reducing them. Quoted in the Financial Times article is Oxford University Professor Paul Behrens, who said: 'It's like saying 'I'm pouring 100 barrels of pollution into this river, and it's killing life. If I then go and pour just 90 barrels, then I should get credited for that'.' 'No additional warming' has also been criticised by New Zealand experts, including the independent Climate Change Commission and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. The open letter urges Luxon to listen to the Climate Commission's advice and strengthen action on methane. The Climate Change Commission recommends methane cuts of 35-47%. However, under pressure from lobby groups like Federated Farmers – whose ex-President Andrew Hoggard is now an ACT Party MP – the Government established a separate panel to review the methane target in line with this controversial tool. That panel landed on a much weaker methane target. Documents released under the Official Information Act show that the methane panel was established because the Climate Commission's independence meant the Government could not direct it to use 'no additional warming'. Ministry for the Environment officials advised at the time that 'no additional warming' was not in fact a matter of science, but a political decision. Larsson says, 'The Luxon Government chose to sideline its independent, science-based climate advisory body by setting up a separate review panel with the very narrow task of giving it the answers it wanted. No wonder international climate scientists are raising the alarm.' Further OIA documents show that the Methane Review Panel only met with agribusiness stakeholders, including a Groundswell-linked lobby group. Greenpeace says this is just the tip of the iceberg. The organisation has unveiled documents showing the startling level of influence that groups like Federated Farmers, Dairy NZ and Beef+Lamb NZ have had over government policy. This includes writing draft policy and communications plans for Ministers. 'Most New Zealanders are deeply concerned about climate change and the risk to their kids and grandkids,' says Larsson. 'They expect the Government to be using the best evidence from its appointed experts, not fudging the numbers to let the country's worst polluters off the hook. This is what happens when you let polluters write the policy.' The Government has indicated that it will make a decision on the methane target this year, ahead of the UN climate summit in the Amazon this November.
Scoop
02-06-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Leading International Climate Scientists Rubbish Luxon's ‘Methane Review', Call On PM To Take Methane Seriously
Over 25 international climate change scientists have written an open letter to Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, calling out the Government for "ignoring scientific evidence" and urging it to "deliver methane reductions that contribute to the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees." According to the Financial Times report, leading climate scientists are accusing politicians in New Zealand and Ireland of using an "accounting trick" that could undermine global efforts to fight climate change. Specifically the use of "no additional warming" as a way of setting methane targets would unjustly allow countries with large historic livestock emissions to keep polluting, while penalising poorer countries. Greenpeace Aotearoa spokesperson Amanda Larsson says, "This is yet more international criticism of the New Zealand government's anti-science approach to tackling climate change. "The New Zealand dairy industry is the country's worst climate polluter. Yet rather than responding to the climate crisis with action, the New Zealand Government is looking to sweep the problem under the rug with creative accounting." The concept of "no additional warming" is highly controversial because it focuses on keeping emissions at current levels, rather than reducing them. Quoted in the Financial Times article is Oxford University Professor Paul Behrens, who said: "It's like saying 'I'm pouring 100 barrels of pollution into this river, and it's killing life. If I then go and pour just 90 barrels, then I should get credited for that'." "No additional warming" has also been criticised by New Zealand experts, including the independent Climate Change Commission and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. The open letter urges Luxon to listen to the Climate Commission's advice and strengthen action on methane. The Climate Change Commission recommends methane cuts of 35-47%. However, under pressure from lobby groups like Federated Farmers - whose ex-President Andrew Hoggard is now an ACT Party MP - the Government established a separate panel to review the methane target in line with this controversial tool. That panel landed on a much weaker methane target. Documents released under the Official Information Act show that the methane panel was established because the Climate Commission's independence meant the Government could not direct it to use "no additional warming". Ministry for the Environment officials advised at the time that "no additional warming" was not in fact a matter of science, but a political decision. Larsson says, "The Luxon Government chose to sideline its independent, science-based climate advisory body by setting up a separate review panel with the very narrow task of giving it the answers it wanted. No wonder international climate scientists are raising the alarm." Further OIA documents show that the Methane Review Panel only met with agribusiness stakeholders, including a Groundswell-linked lobby group. Greenpeace says this is just the tip of the iceberg. The organisation has unveiled documents showing the startling level of influence that groups like Federated Farmers, Dairy NZ and Beef+Lamb NZ have had over government policy. This includes writing draft policy and communications plans for Ministers. "Most New Zealanders are deeply concerned about climate change and the risk to their kids and grandkids," says Larsson. "They expect the Government to be using the best evidence from its appointed experts, not fudging the numbers to let the country's worst polluters off the hook. This is what happens when you let polluters write the policy." The Government has indicated that it will make a decision on the methane target this year, ahead of the UN climate summit in the Amazon this November.
