Nearly three years ago, American Airlines pledged to eliminate its greenhouse gas emissions by 2050

bee

efforts to help prevent the most catastrophic impacts of climate change.

American, one of the largest airlines in the world, made its way to its net-zero goal by focusing on six key sectors, including sustainable jet fuel, fleet renewal and operational improvements.

At American, we know the challenge of climate change is acute and imminent, and we recognize our industry’s contribution to it, according to the airline’s website. We believe we have an obligation to our customers, team members, shareholders and the communities we serve to transition to operating a low-carbon airline.”

But a recent report has cast doubt on that commitment. The Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor found American Airlines’ strategies to be of very low integrity, saying the airline’s net-zero pledge is not a commitment to reduce its own emissions, and that its offset program may mislead customers.

The online retail giant Amazon fared slightly better. It

‘

The pledge of “net-zero carbon” by 2040 was found to be of “low integrity” because the pledge “remains baseless,” the report said.

LA needs clean energy. Hydrogen could be the answer or greenwashing in the gas industry

American Airlines did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

An Amazon spokesperson declined to comment.

As the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change urges humanity to reduce carbon pollution by nearly two-thirds by 2035, many companies have responded to calls for action by releasing pledges demonstrating their contribution to global warming. earth appear to be significantly reduced.

But without a standardized way to evaluate those commitments, environmentalists say it’s impossible to determine whether a company is making a genuine effort to reduce carbon emissions.

Now,

S

State Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) has proposed a bill that would end corporate greenwashing, a false or misleading form of marketing that claims a company is environmentally friendly when it actually does little to combat climate change.

Senate Bill 253, the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act, would require the California Air Resources Board to pass regulations requiring public and private companies with more than $1 billion in annual revenue doing business in California to publicly report their greenhouse gas emissions over three scopes, starting in 2026. It would be the first law in the country to resemble it.

There are companies that make claims that they are net zero or carbon neutral, or that they are moving towards net zero, and it is very difficult to judge whether those claims are true without understanding what the company’s true carbon footprint is. said Julia Stein, deputy director of the Emmett Institute on Climate Change & the Environment at the UCLA School of Law. There is currently no mechanism that mandates disclosure of those emissions, so this would be a step towards that.

The bill would also authorize the Attorney General to file a lawsuit against a company for violating the law. The Senate Environmental Quality Committee

recently

supported the bill by a 4-2 vote.

Big companies play a big role in reducing carbon emissions, and transparency is a big step, Wiener said.

Opponents of the bill, including the California Chamber of Commerce, say reporting emissions is “more of an art than a science,” and worry that double-counting emissions and other complications could give foreign companies an unfair advantage over in California based companies. They also question whether the Air Resources Board is authorized to do so

regulate out-of-state companies that bring goods into California. Can investing in coal be environmentally friendly? A contrarian view of ESG

However, experts say there is increasing public interest in corporate climate disclosures.

A 2021 survey of 1,115 Americans found that 87% believe it is important for companies to be transparent about their climate impact.

Other countries

So

to have

So

had greenwashing on their minds. The European Union proposed a law this year that would require companies to prove their green claims with evidence. And at the COP27 climate conference in Egypt last year, United Nations experts presented a report cracking down on empty net-zero claims.

According to the Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor, the net zero vows of 24 assessed companies drove a combined emissions reduction of 36%

S

according to their respective target years.

“That’s really quite shocking to see, especially because those companies portray themselves as climate leaders in their communications or through those initiatives, but when we look closer, we can’t confirm that for most of them,” said Frederic Hans, a climate policy leader. analyst at New Climate Institute and co-author of the report.

Trade secret on climate change targeting Washington and California

Mary Creasman, chief executive of California Environmental Voters, one of the bills’ sponsors, said California is particularly well suited to lead the country in the fight against climate change.

being the [fifth] largest economy in the world, we have such a powerful role to play in using our market share and market power to promote climate action, she said.

California has a big enough economy that companies won’t just say so

,

OK, we wouldn’t be doing business in California again. That can’t be, she said.

Critics worry that small and medium

mate

companies will bear the financial burden of the bill.

Requiring companies to report their emissions in the supply chain would force large companies to stop collaborating with smaller companies, the California Chamber of Commerce wrote. Why? Because they may struggle to measure their greenhouse gas emissions and comply, leaving these companies without contracts that would allow them to grow and hire more workers.

Scope 1 emissions in the bill are understood to mean the direct greenhouse gas emissions of a company and its sites. Scope 2 includes indirect emissions, such as electricity purchased by the company. Scope 3 is emissions from the company’s supply chain, including waste, water use, business travel and employee commuting; it accounts for about 75% of a company’s greenhouse gas emissions for many industries.

The chamber and other organizations also expressed concern that the law would mainly fall on state-owned companies, saying it is unclear whether the Air Resources Board actually has the authority to regulate companies doing business here.

“It seems likely that foreign or non-California companies would challenge such authority,” read an opposition letter to the Senate Environmental Quality Committee. “Because of this uncertainty, the burden will fall on California-based companies, giving out-of-state and foreign companies a market advantage, boosting out-of-state manufacturing and increasing the cost of goods for California residents.”

SB 253 is a revival of Senator Wiener’s SB 260, which passed the Senate last year but was killed by a single vote in the General Assembly.

Wiener and some of the bills’ sponsors said Assembly leaders at the time voted on some very harsh climate laws before bringing his bill to the table. By the time they did, there was fatigue and burnout among the members, Wiener said.

I cannot guarantee that this or any other bill will pass. It’s a tough bill with a lot of aggressive, well-funded opposition, but we certainly have a way to get it passed and to the

G

the governor’s office,” he said.

But if not, talks about releasing carbon are not expected to end, experts say. There’s a lot of consumer and regulatory concern about greenwashing, and so even if this bill doesn’t pass this year, I don’t think this concept will really go anywhere, said UCLA’s Stein. And I wouldn’t be surprised if other states consider similar legislation or consider things they can do outside of the legislative process to push companies to disclose emissions.