Latest news with #ParentsForClimate
ABC News
09-06-2025
- Business
- 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.
RNZ News
08-06-2025
- Business
- RNZ News
Big Aussie energy retailer
Big Aussie energy retailer says sorry to customers over carbon offset claims One of Australia's biggest energy retailers has apologised to its customers and settled a lawsuit over its carbon offset programme. Energy Australia's 'Go Neutral' programme promised customers a way to offset the emissions generated by their gas or electricity use - but the company had to admit their gas or electricity use was still sourced mainly from fossil fuels and that - quote - "offsets don't prevent or undo the harms caused by burning fossil fuels" for a customer's energy use. Lobby group Parents for Climate launched legal action against the company - one of the 'big three' retailers in Australia - back in 2023. It accused the company's Go Neutral claims amounted to misleading or deceptive conduct against the country's consumer law. So could the settlement have implications for other companies making similar carbon offset claims? Kathryn is joined by Parents for Climate CEO Nic Seton.
The Guardian
19-05-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Energy Australia apologises to 400,000 customers; Gina Rinehart criticises media ‘gloating'; and The Who drummer fired for second time in a month
Welcome, readers, to Afternoon Update. Energy Australia has acknowledged that carbon offsets do not prevent or undo damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions and apologised to its customers for allegedly misleading marketing. More than 400,000 Australians had signed up to Energy Australia's 'go neutral' carbon offset program that since 2016 had promised to offset emissions released due to their electricity and gas consumption. The advocacy group Parents for Climate, pictured above, launched legal action in the federal court in 2023 alleging the company had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by claiming it was reducing emissions on behalf of its customers, including by buying international carbon offsets. The case, which was the first time a large Australian energy company had faced legal action for alleged greenwashing, was set to begin last week but the parties agreed to a settlement instead. EU floats security pact with Australia as Albanese meets with world leaders in Rome Gina Rinehart criticises 'relentless attack' on Ben Roberts-Smith and media 'gloating' Call by Bondi Junction security guard could have led police to think there was a second offender, inquest told Labor loses $1bn from Victoria's upcoming budget surplus in favour of 'practical' cost-of-living relief The Who fire drummer Zak Starkey for second time in a month Gary Lineker 'to leave the BBC this week' after antisemitism row Guardian Australia's assistant picture editor, Ellen Smith, journeyed to the Pilbara to provide the visuals for our podcast series on Gina Rinehart, Gina: power, privilege and influence. See her selection of shots from the Pilbara, also known as the land of 'Aunty Gina'. 'Many writers hooked on semicolons become an embarrassment to their families and friends.' That's the thinking of Lynne Truss, author of Eats, Shoots & Leaves. The punctuation, first deployed in 1494, seems to be in terminal decline, with its usage in English books plummeting by almost half in two decades – from one appearing in every 205 words in 2000 to one used in every 390 words today. Transparency and integrity experts have voiced alarm over the increasing rate at which freedom of information requests are being rejected. On Sunday, Guardian Australia revealed FoI refusals are at record rates, with 27% of FoI requests rejected outright in the December 2024 quarter. That's a high not seen since at least 2014-15, data shows. Sign up to Afternoon Update Our Australian afternoon update breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion Fed up with being inside all day? Missing fresh air and nature? Five people who ditched their desks for the great outdoors revealed the truth about their new lives, with one saying 'it was like I woke up'. Today's starter word is: CANT. You have five goes to get the longest word including the starter word. Play Wordiply. Enjoying the Afternoon Update? Then you'll love our Morning Mail newsletter. Sign up here to start the day with a curated breakdown of the key stories you need to know, and complete your daily news roundup. And follow the latest in US politics by signing up for This Week in Trumpland. If you have a story tip or technical issue viewing this newsletter, please reply to this email. If you are a Guardian supporter and need assistance with regards to contributions and/or digital subscriptions, please email
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Aussie energy company apologises to 400,000 customers over now deleted website claims
A major Australian energy company has made an apology to over 400,000 retail gas and electricity customers over key claims advertised on its website. In a statement, EnergyAustralia confirmed it was terminating Go Neutral, which it had spruiked as an environmentally friendly option. The statement was published on Monday, after EnergyAustralia reached a settlement with conservation group Parents for Climate, which had accused it of "greenwashing" the harm done by fossil fuels. Federal Court action launched in 2023 accused the company of misleading or deceptive conduct contrary to the Australian Consumer Law in relation to its carbon offset claims. 'Today, EnergyAustralia acknowledges that carbon offsetting is not the most effective way to assist customers to reduce their emissions and apologises to any customer who felt that the way it marketed its Go Neutral products was unclear,' the energy retailer said. 'EnergyAustralia has now shifted its focus to direct emissions reductions.' The Go Neutral project began in 2016, with EnergyAustralia advertising that customers could offset their emissions at no cost to them. After households opted in, the company claimed it would calculate emissions used and make the home's energy "carbon neutral" by buying carbon offset units to support projects in countries including India, Brazil and Australia. EnergyAustralia was ranked as the nation's third-highest emitter for the 2023-24 year, producing 16.5 million tonnes of carbon emissions. In NSW, Victoria and South Australia it operates two coal-fired and four gas-fired power plants. In Monday's statement, the company explained that customers who opted into Go Neutral were still using energy 'sourced predominantly from fossil fuels' and that "greenhouse gases are harmful to the environment and contribute to climate change". 'Burning fossil fuels creates greenhouse gas emissions that are not prevented or undone by carbon offsets. This could have been made clearer to customers,' it admitted. ✈️ Jetstar passenger request raises questions about recycling claims 👟 Adidas ditches Australian kangaroo leather 😳 Rush to see rare Aussie phenomenon sparks warning Equity Generation Lawyers, which represented Parents for Climate said the settlement highlights a need for companies to ensure their environmental claims 'stack up'. 'As part of the settlement, EnergyAustralia has acknowledged our client's key factual argument: that carbon offsets do not undo the climate harms of burning fossil fuels. That means that, even with carbon offsetting, Go Neutral customer's energy usage still contributed to climate change,' principal lawyer David Hertzberg said. Parents for Climate described the outcome as a 'groundbreaking resolution'. 'Parents have spent too long trying to make careful, considered decisions about where their money goes, especially in a cost-of-living crisis, but corporate greenwashing has pushed them off track,' its CEO Nic Seton said. 'We launched this case as it's deeply frustrating and emotionally exhausting to navigate a maze of vague claims and false promises. Greenwashing undermines trust and gives the dangerous illusion that coal and gas pollution is being addressed when they're not.' Love Australia's weird and wonderful environment? 🐊🦘😳 Get our new newsletter showcasing the week's best stories.
Bloomberg
19-05-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
EnergyAustralia Apologizes to Customers After Greenwashing Case
CLP Holdings Ltd.'s EnergyAustralia — one of the nation's 'big three' energy companies — apologized to customers for the marketing of its carbon offsetting products. The apology was part of a settlement with advocacy organization Parents for Climate, which launched legal action against the power company in mid-2023 claiming that the marketing of its 'Go Neutral' carbon offsetting products was misleading. EnergyAustralia also acknowledged that offsets do not undo the harms of burning fossil fuels.
