Latest news with #BioPak
The Advertiser
24-05-2025
- Business
- The Advertiser
Why the carbon offset 'swear jar' needs an overhaul
Carbon offsets seemed like an environmentally savvy investment for food packaging firm BioPak when the company invested in a solar power project in Southeast Asia. But over more than a decade, the project's price rose, its transparency fell and Gary Smith's firm started to question whether it was the best way to cut emissions. "My best description of carbon credits became a swear jar: I'm gonna do bad but I'll pay for it and then I'm all good, I can carry on," the BioPak chief executive told AAP. "You should be taking your funds and actively watching each dollar to see that it has an impact, in our opinion, and that's what we've done in our business." Rather than investing one per cent of the company's profits in carbon offsets, Mr Smith said it now spent money on ways to directly cut emissions from manufacturing, divert waste and educate consumers about composting. "We helped our partners rebuild a factory over the last 18 months and our energy use is 40 per cent of what it was - and that's a real impact," he said. "When I spent money on carbon credits, I had no measure to tell you that money resulted in carbon dropping from X to Y." The switch comes as more Australian companies scrutinise their investments in carbon offsets and whether it is legally sound to use them to claim their operations are carbon neutral. The re-think has been spurred on by power giant EnergyAustralia's apology to more than 400,000 customers as part of a legal settlement over alleged "greenwashing". But while the use, marketing and quality of carbon offsets is under scrutiny, some experts say there could still be a use for the system if there is significant reform. Carbon offsets are investments in environmentally friendly projects, such as renewable energy, revegetation or land care, that businesses can use to reduce their carbon footprints. Environmental group Parents for Climate triggered the latest wave of carbon offset soul-searching after reaching a settlement from its 2023 lawsuit against EnergyAustralia. Australia's third largest energy firm apologised to customers who felt misled by its carbon-neutral claims, clarifying that "offsets do not prevent or undo the harms caused by burning fossil fuels for a customer's energy use". The admission could be a game-changer for other high-polluting companies, the environmental charity's chief executive Nic Seton said, as it recognised carbon offsets did not undo emissions and should only be used as a last resort. "Not being able to make compensatory claims means companies are going to shift," he said. "There are a lot of companies out there making similar claims and we're very alive to that and we're going to be writing to all of them because we want to make sure they do it quickly." Green group Climate Integrity is also raising questions, sending a "letter of concern" to Red Energy to ask it to reconsider its "carbon neutral gas" product. The group set a Tuesday deadline for a response to its concerns, director Claire Snyder said, and will consider whether to take the company to court. "What action we take will be dependent on that response," she said. "We're really hopeful that they'll see the writing on the wall from the Parents for Climate case and reconsider using carbon neutral (as a) marketing term." Climate Integrity has also lodged a complaint with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission about Qantas's "fly carbon neutral" offering that relies on carbon offsets. A Red Energy spokesman said the company was aware of the debate about the use of offsets and it would aim to meet customer needs. Qantas was committed to helping people compensate for some of the emissions associated with their flights by supporting projects outside the aviation sector, a spokesperson said. The companies might be some of many considering how they use and market carbon offsets after the legal precedent, Environmental Defenders Office lawyer Kirsty Ruddock said. While complaints and challenges about the use of carbon offsets were not new, the legal outcome demonstrated the stakes, which could be raised if class action lawsuits followed, she added. "It highlights the risk that lawyers have been talking about for some time ... about whether or not you need to be cutting to the chase and doing what the science says and reducing your emissions first, before you look at offsets," Ms Ruddock said. "Offsets do still have a role to play, but at the moment it's a bit of a work in progress because of all the issues that have been raised or found." The federal government program that sets carbon neutral standards and certifies products and companies, Climate Active, has come under criticism from many sources who have accused the organisation of sanctioning greenwashing. The organisation has attracted attention for certifying fossil fuel companies as carbon neutral due to their purchases of offsets. Former ACCC boss Allan Fels has called for its practices to be independently investigated, while more than 100 businesses have resigned as members of the scheme over the past 18 months, including Telstra, NRMA and Australia Post. A review of the program was launched in late 2023 but changes are yet to be announced, which Carbon Market Institute chief executive John Connor said was disappointing. EnergyAustralia's admission was "the nail in the coffin for the first phase" of carbon offsets, he said. But with changes to the way they were rated, governed and used, they could still be a valuable tool to help businesses reach net zero in a second phase. "Some people are saying we should kill Climate Active but there are perverse consequences if we do that," Mr Connor said. "We shouldn't be making those sorts of claims and we shouldn't just be focusing on neutrality, we should be making sure (businesses use) fair-dinkum decarbonisation plans." Carbon offsets seemed like an environmentally savvy investment for food packaging firm BioPak when the company invested in a solar power project in Southeast Asia. But over more than a decade, the project's price rose, its transparency fell and Gary Smith's firm started to question whether it was the best way to cut emissions. "My best description of carbon credits became a swear jar: I'm gonna do bad but I'll pay for it and then I'm all good, I can carry on," the BioPak chief executive told AAP. "You should be taking your funds and actively watching each dollar to see that it has an impact, in our opinion, and that's what we've done in our business." Rather than investing one per cent of the company's profits in carbon offsets, Mr Smith said it now spent money on ways to directly cut emissions from manufacturing, divert waste and educate consumers about composting. "We helped our partners rebuild a factory over the last 18 months and our energy use is 40 per cent of what it was - and that's a real impact," he said. "When I spent money on carbon credits, I had no measure to tell you that money resulted in carbon dropping from X to Y." The switch comes as more Australian companies scrutinise their investments in carbon offsets and whether it is legally sound to use them to claim their operations are carbon neutral. The re-think has been spurred on by power giant EnergyAustralia's apology to more than 400,000 customers as part of a legal settlement over alleged "greenwashing". But while the use, marketing and quality of carbon offsets is under scrutiny, some experts say there could still be a use for the system if there is significant reform. Carbon offsets are investments in environmentally friendly projects, such as renewable energy, revegetation or land care, that businesses can use to reduce their carbon footprints. Environmental group Parents for Climate triggered the latest wave of carbon offset soul-searching after reaching a settlement from its 2023 lawsuit against EnergyAustralia. Australia's third largest energy firm apologised to customers who felt misled by its carbon-neutral claims, clarifying that "offsets do not prevent or undo the harms caused by burning fossil fuels for a customer's energy use". The admission could be a game-changer for other high-polluting companies, the environmental charity's chief executive Nic Seton said, as it recognised carbon offsets did not undo emissions and should only be used as a last resort. "Not being able to make compensatory claims means companies are going to shift," he said. "There are a lot of companies out there making similar claims and we're very alive to that and we're going to be writing to all of them because we want to make sure they do it quickly." Green group Climate Integrity is also raising questions, sending a "letter of concern" to Red Energy to ask it to reconsider its "carbon neutral gas" product. The group set a Tuesday deadline for a response to its concerns, director Claire Snyder said, and will consider whether to take the company to court. "What action we take will be dependent on that response," she said. "We're really hopeful that they'll see the writing on the wall from the Parents for Climate case and reconsider using carbon neutral (as a) marketing term." Climate Integrity has also lodged a complaint with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission about Qantas's "fly carbon neutral" offering that relies on carbon offsets. A Red Energy spokesman said the company was aware of the debate about the use of offsets and it would aim to meet customer needs. Qantas was committed to helping people compensate for some of the emissions associated with their flights by supporting projects outside the aviation sector, a spokesperson said. The companies might be some of many considering how they use and market carbon offsets after the legal precedent, Environmental Defenders Office lawyer Kirsty Ruddock said. While complaints and challenges about the use of carbon offsets were not new, the legal outcome demonstrated the stakes, which could be raised if class action lawsuits followed, she added. "It highlights the risk that lawyers have been talking about for some time ... about whether or not you need to be cutting to the chase and doing what the science says and reducing your emissions first, before you look at offsets," Ms Ruddock said. "Offsets do still have a role to play, but at the moment it's a bit of a work in progress because of all the issues that have been raised or found." The federal government program that sets carbon neutral standards and certifies products and companies, Climate Active, has come under criticism from many sources who have accused the organisation of sanctioning greenwashing. The organisation has attracted attention for certifying fossil fuel companies as carbon neutral due to their purchases of offsets. Former ACCC boss Allan Fels has called for its practices to be independently investigated, while more than 100 businesses have resigned as members of the scheme over the past 18 months, including Telstra, NRMA and Australia Post. A review of the program was launched in late 2023 but changes are yet to be announced, which Carbon Market Institute chief executive John Connor said was disappointing. EnergyAustralia's admission was "the nail in the coffin for the first phase" of carbon offsets, he said. But with changes to the way they were rated, governed and used, they could still be a valuable tool to help businesses reach net zero in a second phase. "Some people are saying we should kill Climate Active but there are perverse consequences if we do that," Mr Connor said. "We shouldn't be making those sorts of claims and we shouldn't just be focusing on neutrality, we should be making sure (businesses use) fair-dinkum decarbonisation plans." Carbon offsets seemed like an environmentally savvy investment for food packaging firm BioPak when the company invested in a solar power project in Southeast Asia. But over more than a decade, the project's price rose, its transparency fell and Gary Smith's firm started to question whether it was the best way to cut emissions. "My best description of carbon credits became a swear jar: I'm gonna do bad but I'll pay for it and then I'm all good, I can carry on," the BioPak chief executive told AAP. "You should be taking your funds and actively watching each dollar to see that it has an impact, in our opinion, and that's what we've done in our business." Rather than investing one per cent of the company's profits in carbon offsets, Mr Smith said it now spent money on ways to directly cut emissions from manufacturing, divert waste and educate consumers about composting. "We helped our partners rebuild a factory over the last 18 months and our energy use is 40 per cent of what it was - and that's a real impact," he said. "When I spent money on carbon credits, I had no measure to tell you that money resulted in carbon dropping from X to Y." The switch comes as more Australian companies scrutinise their investments in carbon offsets and whether it is legally sound to use them to claim their operations are carbon neutral. The re-think has been spurred on by power giant EnergyAustralia's apology to more than 400,000 customers as part of a legal settlement over alleged "greenwashing". But while the use, marketing and quality of carbon offsets is under scrutiny, some experts say there could still be a use for the system if there is significant reform. Carbon offsets are investments in environmentally friendly projects, such as renewable energy, revegetation or land care, that businesses can use to reduce their carbon footprints. Environmental group Parents for Climate triggered the latest wave of carbon offset soul-searching after reaching a settlement from its 2023 lawsuit against EnergyAustralia. Australia's third largest energy firm apologised to customers who felt misled by its carbon-neutral claims, clarifying that "offsets do not prevent or undo the harms caused by burning fossil fuels for a customer's energy use". The admission could be a game-changer for other high-polluting companies, the environmental charity's chief executive Nic Seton said, as it recognised carbon offsets did not undo emissions and should only be used as a last resort. "Not being able to make compensatory claims means companies are going to shift," he said. "There are a lot of companies out there making similar claims and we're very alive to that and we're going to be writing to all of them because we want to make sure they do it quickly." Green group Climate Integrity is also raising questions, sending a "letter of concern" to Red Energy to ask it to reconsider its "carbon neutral gas" product. The group set a Tuesday deadline for a response to its concerns, director Claire Snyder said, and will consider whether to take the company to court. "What action we take will be dependent on that response," she said. "We're really hopeful that they'll see the writing on the wall from the Parents for Climate case and reconsider using carbon neutral (as a) marketing term." Climate Integrity has also lodged a complaint with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission about Qantas's "fly carbon neutral" offering that relies on carbon offsets. A Red Energy spokesman said the company was aware of the debate about the use of offsets and it would aim to meet customer needs. Qantas was committed to helping people compensate for some of the emissions associated with their flights by supporting projects outside the aviation sector, a spokesperson said. The companies might be some of many considering how they use and market carbon offsets after the legal precedent, Environmental Defenders Office lawyer Kirsty Ruddock said. While complaints and challenges about the use of carbon offsets were not new, the legal outcome demonstrated the stakes, which could be raised if class action lawsuits followed, she added. "It highlights the risk that lawyers have been talking about for some time ... about whether or not you need to be cutting to the chase and doing what the science says and reducing your emissions first, before you look at offsets," Ms Ruddock said. "Offsets do still have a role to play, but at the moment it's a bit of a work in progress because of all the issues that have been raised or found." The federal government program that sets carbon neutral standards and certifies products and companies, Climate Active, has come under criticism from many sources who have accused the organisation of sanctioning greenwashing. The organisation has attracted attention for certifying fossil fuel companies as carbon neutral due to their purchases of offsets. Former ACCC boss Allan Fels has called for its practices to be independently investigated, while more than 100 businesses have resigned as members of the scheme over the past 18 months, including Telstra, NRMA and Australia Post. A review of the program was launched in late 2023 but changes are yet to be announced, which Carbon Market Institute chief executive John Connor said was disappointing. EnergyAustralia's admission was "the nail in the coffin for the first phase" of carbon offsets, he said. But with changes to the way they were rated, governed and used, they could still be a valuable tool to help businesses reach net zero in a second phase. "Some people are saying we should kill Climate Active but there are perverse consequences if we do that," Mr Connor said. "We shouldn't be making those sorts of claims and we shouldn't just be focusing on neutrality, we should be making sure (businesses use) fair-dinkum decarbonisation plans." Carbon offsets seemed like an environmentally savvy investment for food packaging firm BioPak when the company invested in a solar power project in Southeast Asia. But over more than a decade, the project's price rose, its transparency fell and Gary Smith's firm started to question whether it was the best way to cut emissions. "My best description of carbon credits became a swear jar: I'm gonna do bad but I'll pay for it and then I'm all good, I can carry on," the BioPak chief executive told AAP. "You should be taking your funds and actively watching each dollar to see that it has an impact, in our opinion, and that's what we've done in our business." Rather than investing one per cent of the company's profits in carbon offsets, Mr Smith said it now spent money on ways to directly cut emissions from manufacturing, divert waste and educate consumers about composting. "We helped our partners rebuild a factory over the last 18 months and our energy use is 40 per cent of what it was - and that's a real impact," he said. "When I spent money on carbon credits, I had no measure to tell you that money resulted in carbon dropping from X to Y." The switch comes as more Australian companies scrutinise their investments in carbon offsets and whether it is legally sound to use them to claim their operations are carbon neutral. The re-think has been spurred on by power giant EnergyAustralia's apology to more than 400,000 customers as part of a legal settlement over alleged "greenwashing". But while the use, marketing and quality of carbon offsets is under scrutiny, some experts say there could still be a use for the system if there is significant reform. Carbon offsets are investments in environmentally friendly projects, such as renewable energy, revegetation or land care, that businesses can use to reduce their carbon footprints. Environmental group Parents for Climate triggered the latest wave of carbon offset soul-searching after reaching a settlement from its 2023 lawsuit against EnergyAustralia. Australia's third largest energy firm apologised to customers who felt misled by its carbon-neutral claims, clarifying that "offsets do not prevent or undo the harms caused by burning fossil fuels for a customer's energy use". The admission could be a game-changer for other high-polluting companies, the environmental charity's chief executive Nic Seton said, as it recognised carbon offsets did not undo emissions and should only be used as a last resort. "Not being able to make compensatory claims means companies are going to shift," he said. "There are a lot of companies out there making similar claims and we're very alive to that and we're going to be writing to all of them because we want to make sure they do it quickly." Green group Climate Integrity is also raising questions, sending a "letter of concern" to Red Energy to ask it to reconsider its "carbon neutral gas" product. The group set a Tuesday deadline for a response to its concerns, director Claire Snyder said, and will consider whether to take the company to court. "What action we take will be dependent on that response," she said. "We're really hopeful that they'll see the writing on the wall from the Parents for Climate case and reconsider using carbon neutral (as a) marketing term." Climate Integrity has also lodged a complaint with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission about Qantas's "fly carbon neutral" offering that relies on carbon offsets. A Red Energy spokesman said the company was aware of the debate about the use of offsets and it would aim to meet customer needs. Qantas was committed to helping people compensate for some of the emissions associated with their flights by supporting projects outside the aviation sector, a spokesperson said. The companies might be some of many considering how they use and market carbon offsets after the legal precedent, Environmental Defenders Office lawyer Kirsty Ruddock said. While complaints and challenges about the use of carbon offsets were not new, the legal outcome demonstrated the stakes, which could be raised if class action lawsuits followed, she added. "It highlights the risk that lawyers have been talking about for some time ... about whether or not you need to be cutting to the chase and doing what the science says and reducing your emissions first, before you look at offsets," Ms Ruddock said. "Offsets do still have a role to play, but at the moment it's a bit of a work in progress because of all the issues that have been raised or found." The federal government program that sets carbon neutral standards and certifies products and companies, Climate Active, has come under criticism from many sources who have accused the organisation of sanctioning greenwashing. The organisation has attracted attention for certifying fossil fuel companies as carbon neutral due to their purchases of offsets. Former ACCC boss Allan Fels has called for its practices to be independently investigated, while more than 100 businesses have resigned as members of the scheme over the past 18 months, including Telstra, NRMA and Australia Post. A review of the program was launched in late 2023 but changes are yet to be announced, which Carbon Market Institute chief executive John Connor said was disappointing. EnergyAustralia's admission was "the nail in the coffin for the first phase" of carbon offsets, he said. But with changes to the way they were rated, governed and used, they could still be a valuable tool to help businesses reach net zero in a second phase. "Some people are saying we should kill Climate Active but there are perverse consequences if we do that," Mr Connor said. "We shouldn't be making those sorts of claims and we shouldn't just be focusing on neutrality, we should be making sure (businesses use) fair-dinkum decarbonisation plans."
West Australian
23-05-2025
- Business
- West Australian
Why the carbon offset 'swear jar' needs an overhaul
Carbon offsets seemed like an environmentally savvy investment for food packaging firm BioPak when the company invested in a solar power project in Southeast Asia. But over more than a decade, the project's price rose, its transparency fell and Gary Smith's firm started to question whether it was the best way to cut emissions. "My best description of carbon credits became a swear jar: I'm gonna do bad but I'll pay for it and then I'm all good, I can carry on," the BioPak chief executive told AAP. "You should be taking your funds and actively watching each dollar to see that it has an impact, in our opinion, and that's what we've done in our business." Rather than investing one per cent of the company's profits in carbon offsets, Mr Smith said it now spent money on ways to directly cut emissions from manufacturing, divert waste and educate consumers about composting. "We helped our partners rebuild a factory over the last 18 months and our energy use is 40 per cent of what it was - and that's a real impact," he said. "When I spent money on carbon credits, I had no measure to tell you that money resulted in carbon dropping from X to Y." The switch comes as more Australian companies scrutinise their investments in carbon offsets and whether it is legally sound to use them to claim their operations are carbon neutral. The re-think has been spurred on by power giant EnergyAustralia's apology to more than 400,000 customers as part of a legal settlement over alleged "greenwashing". But while the use, marketing and quality of carbon offsets is under scrutiny, some experts say there could still be a use for the system if there is significant reform. Carbon offsets are investments in environmentally friendly projects, such as renewable energy, revegetation or land care, that businesses can use to reduce their carbon footprints. Environmental group Parents for Climate triggered the latest wave of carbon offset soul-searching after reaching a settlement from its 2023 lawsuit against EnergyAustralia. Australia's third largest energy firm apologised to customers who felt misled by its carbon-neutral claims, clarifying that "offsets do not prevent or undo the harms caused by burning fossil fuels for a customer's energy use". The admission could be a game-changer for other high-polluting companies, the environmental charity's chief executive Nic Seton said, as it recognised carbon offsets did not undo emissions and should only be used as a last resort. "Not being able to make compensatory claims means companies are going to shift," he said. "There are a lot of companies out there making similar claims and we're very alive to that and we're going to be writing to all of them because we want to make sure they do it quickly." Green group Climate Integrity is also raising questions, sending a "letter of concern" to Red Energy to ask it to reconsider its "carbon neutral gas" product. The group set a Tuesday deadline for a response to its concerns, director Claire Snyder said, and will consider whether to take the company to court based on its response. "We're really hopeful that they'll see the writing on the wall from the Parents for Climate case and reconsider using carbon neutral (as a) marketing term," she said. Climate Integrity has also lodged a complaint with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission about Qantas's "fly carbon neutral" offering that relies on carbon offsets. A Red Energy spokesman said the company was aware of the debate about the use of offsets and it would aim to meet customer needs. Qantas was committed to helping people compensate for some of the emissions associated with their flights by supporting projects outside the aviation sector, a spokesperson said. The companies might be some of many considering how they use and market carbon offsets after the legal precedent, Environmental Defenders Office lawyer Kirsty Ruddock said. While complaints and challenges about the use of carbon offsets were not new, the legal outcome demonstrated the stakes, which could be raised if class action lawsuits followed, she added. "It highlights the risk that lawyers have been talking about for some time ... about whether or not you need to be cutting to the chase and doing what the science says and reducing your emissions first, before you look at offsets," Ms Ruddock said. "Offsets do still have a role to play, but at the moment it's a bit of a work in progress because of all the issues that have been raised or found." The federal government program that sets carbon neutral standards and certifies products and companies, Climate Active, has come under criticism from many sources who have accused the organisation of sanctioning greenwashing. The organisation has attracted attention for certifying fossil fuel companies as carbon neutral due to their purchases of offsets. Former ACCC boss Allan Fels has called for its practices to be independently investigated, while more than 100 businesses have resigned as members of the scheme over the past 18 months, including Telstra, NRMA and Australia Post. A review of the program was launched in late 2023 but changes are yet to be announced, which Carbon Market Institute chief executive John Connor said was disappointing. EnergyAustralia's admission was "the nail in the coffin for the first phase" of carbon offsets, he said. But with changes to the way they were rated, governed and used, they could still be a valuable tool to help businesses reach net zero in a second phase. "Some people are saying we should kill Climate Active but there are perverse consequences if we do that," Mr Connor said. "We shouldn't be making those sorts of claims and we shouldn't just be focusing on neutrality, we should be making sure (businesses use) fair-dinkum decarbonisation plans."
Perth Now
23-05-2025
- Business
- Perth Now
Why the carbon offset 'swear jar' needs an overhaul
Carbon offsets seemed like an environmentally savvy investment for food packaging firm BioPak when the company invested in a solar power project in Southeast Asia. But over more than a decade, the project's price rose, its transparency fell and Gary Smith's firm started to question whether it was the best way to cut emissions. "My best description of carbon credits became a swear jar: I'm gonna do bad but I'll pay for it and then I'm all good, I can carry on," the BioPak chief executive told AAP. "You should be taking your funds and actively watching each dollar to see that it has an impact, in our opinion, and that's what we've done in our business." Rather than investing one per cent of the company's profits in carbon offsets, Mr Smith said it now spent money on ways to directly cut emissions from manufacturing, divert waste and educate consumers about composting. "We helped our partners rebuild a factory over the last 18 months and our energy use is 40 per cent of what it was - and that's a real impact," he said. "When I spent money on carbon credits, I had no measure to tell you that money resulted in carbon dropping from X to Y." The switch comes as more Australian companies scrutinise their investments in carbon offsets and whether it is legally sound to use them to claim their operations are carbon neutral. The re-think has been spurred on by power giant EnergyAustralia's apology to more than 400,000 customers as part of a legal settlement over alleged "greenwashing". But while the use, marketing and quality of carbon offsets is under scrutiny, some experts say there could still be a use for the system if there is significant reform. Carbon offsets are investments in environmentally friendly projects, such as renewable energy, revegetation or land care, that businesses can use to reduce their carbon footprints. Environmental group Parents for Climate triggered the latest wave of carbon offset soul-searching after reaching a settlement from its 2023 lawsuit against EnergyAustralia. Australia's third largest energy firm apologised to customers who felt misled by its carbon-neutral claims, clarifying that "offsets do not prevent or undo the harms caused by burning fossil fuels for a customer's energy use". The admission could be a game-changer for other high-polluting companies, the environmental charity's chief executive Nic Seton said, as it recognised carbon offsets did not undo emissions and should only be used as a last resort. "Not being able to make compensatory claims means companies are going to shift," he said. "There are a lot of companies out there making similar claims and we're very alive to that and we're going to be writing to all of them because we want to make sure they do it quickly." Green group Climate Integrity is also raising questions, sending a "letter of concern" to Red Energy to ask it to reconsider its "carbon neutral gas" product. The group set a Tuesday deadline for a response to its concerns, director Claire Snyder said, and will consider whether to take the company to court based on its response. "We're really hopeful that they'll see the writing on the wall from the Parents for Climate case and reconsider using carbon neutral (as a) marketing term," she said. Climate Integrity has also lodged a complaint with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission about Qantas's "fly carbon neutral" offering that relies on carbon offsets. A Red Energy spokesman said the company was aware of the debate about the use of offsets and it would aim to meet customer needs. Qantas was committed to helping people compensate for some of the emissions associated with their flights by supporting projects outside the aviation sector, a spokesperson said. The companies might be some of many considering how they use and market carbon offsets after the legal precedent, Environmental Defenders Office lawyer Kirsty Ruddock said. While complaints and challenges about the use of carbon offsets were not new, the legal outcome demonstrated the stakes, which could be raised if class action lawsuits followed, she added. "It highlights the risk that lawyers have been talking about for some time ... about whether or not you need to be cutting to the chase and doing what the science says and reducing your emissions first, before you look at offsets," Ms Ruddock said. "Offsets do still have a role to play, but at the moment it's a bit of a work in progress because of all the issues that have been raised or found." The federal government program that sets carbon neutral standards and certifies products and companies, Climate Active, has come under criticism from many sources who have accused the organisation of sanctioning greenwashing. The organisation has attracted attention for certifying fossil fuel companies as carbon neutral due to their purchases of offsets. Former ACCC boss Allan Fels has called for its practices to be independently investigated, while more than 100 businesses have resigned as members of the scheme over the past 18 months, including Telstra, NRMA and Australia Post. A review of the program was launched in late 2023 but changes are yet to be announced, which Carbon Market Institute chief executive John Connor said was disappointing. EnergyAustralia's admission was "the nail in the coffin for the first phase" of carbon offsets, he said. But with changes to the way they were rated, governed and used, they could still be a valuable tool to help businesses reach net zero in a second phase. "Some people are saying we should kill Climate Active but there are perverse consequences if we do that," Mr Connor said. "We shouldn't be making those sorts of claims and we shouldn't just be focusing on neutrality, we should be making sure (businesses use) fair-dinkum decarbonisation plans."
Yahoo
26-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
New bin for millions of Aussies as major FOGO change becomes official
As Australia fights to reduce the surge of household and food waste ending up in landfill, the nation's most populous state has officially passed "landmark legislation" to overhaul kerbside collection that will soon impact every home. Australia generates a massive amount of waste, with approximately 75 million tonnes produced per year. In NSW, waste disposal remains a significant issue, with landfill sites struggling to cope with increasing volumes, so much some areas are expected to have their landfill sites hit capacity by 2030. Now, the state government has announced FOGO bins will be mandated across all homes and businesses in the coming years, in an effort it said will divert one million tonnes of food and garden scraps from landfill into compost each year. The government stated that the majority of the waste will be converted into compost for parks, sports fields, and agriculture. Under the new regulations, FOGO collection services will become mandatory for households by July 2030, while businesses and institutions will need to comply much sooner, by July next year. The bin system will be rolled out at supermarkets, pubs, cafes, universities, schools, hotels and hospitals. In NSW less than half of the state's 128 councils currently offer FOGO bins. However with many inner city councils getting on board, that means about 69 per cent of households in the state have the composting bin, according to the NSW Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). That same agency predicted Sydney and some surrounding areas will run out of landfill space by 2030 — putting a ticking clock on the need to increase recycling rates and divert food waste from landfill. As much as 40 per cent of our regular bin waste is discarded food, according to BioPak CEO and Compost Connect board member, Gary Smith. "And that's what's doing damage in landfill, that's what going into our environment, under the ground and creating methane. If we can divert that, that's a huge win," he told Yahoo News in December. The road to mandated FOGO has been bumpy. For instance, in 2022 NSW councils were reportedly blindsided by new EPA rules on what could go in the green bins. Push to change bin mandate as Australia races against time FOGO bin that turns scraps into dirt in 24 hours coming to Australia New FOGO bin ban looms for millions of Aussie households Meanwhile last year the public was urged to better comply with the rules after the body of a deceased pet dog and even a grenade was found in the waste stream, among other non-organics. This week, NSW Energy Minister Penny Sharpe acknowledged the state's long-standing neglect of the landfill capacity crisis, stating, "we cannot kick this can down the road any longer." She said the new FOGO laws position NSW as a national leader in tackling food waste, making it the first state to mandate this recycling initiative statewide. Large supermarkets will be required to report the quantity and type of surplus food donated to charities such as OzHarvest, Second Bite and Foodbank. Sharpe said the legislation is backed by significant government investment, with $81 million allocated to help councils transition to FOGO by 2030. According to the NSW government, this funding will primarily support councils by providing bins, kitchen caddies, liners, contamination audits, community education programs, and staffing. with NCA Newswire Do you have a story tip? Email: newsroomau@ You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Twitter and YouTube.
