Carbon Offsets Shouldn’t Be Claimed for Emission Reductions That Aren’t ‘Additional,’ Says EPA

The Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides should make clear that it’s deceptive to claim that a carbon offset “represents an emission reduction if the reduction is not additional,” the EPA said in comments. The FTC had sought comments on proposed revisions to its Green Guides that cover use of product certifications and seals of approval and claims about renewable energy, renewable material and carbon offsets. Carbon offset credits shouldn’t be claimed for “activities that would have happened anyway,” the EPA said, and suggested employing “rigorous tracking methods,” including the use of a registry for offsets.

Saying sustainability claims and assessments are rapidly proliferating, the EPA said that in the “absence of authoritative guidance in the area, the current inconsistencies and confusion about the use of the term can only be expected to worsen.” The “context” is important when using the term sustainable, the agency said. If marketers or companies choose to use the term, the word should “at the very least be accompanied by an explanation of what it means in the context,” it said.

The EPA sought more frequent updating of the Green Guides. It supports the use of “consumer perception data” to determine whether green claims are unfair or deceptive, the EPA said. Consumer education is important in “preventing deception and promoting benefits to human health and the environment,” the agency said. “The Internet can be an effective tool for providing consumer education.” The FTC should also “caution against qualified claims that imply benefits without adverse impacts in other areas,” the agency said. An example is an assertion that biodegradable packaging is better than non-biodegradable, “ignoring the fact that landfill biodegradation produces methane, which is an environmental problem,” it EPA said.

The commission should clarify that its guides apply equally to government-sponsored labels like Energy Star, Green Seal said. If a consumer interprets the Energy Star logo to mean a product is the most efficient in a category while it’s just 10 percent or 30 percent more efficient than non-qualified products, the “unqualified logo is likely to be misleading,” it said. “Current attention paid to electronic devices often includes the end-of-life impacts of disposal,” Green Seal said. “Without specific qualification regarding the basis for the Energy Star logo the consumer may infer broader environmental benefits for electronic products than energy consumption alone.” The FTC should discourage the use of the “green” claim, the Consumer Union said, calling it a “vague claim with many potential meanings and interpretations.” The commission must encourage the use of a plastic number on products and packaging so “consumers are not misled regarding which plastics they are or not purchasing,” it said.

The proposal that unqualified recyclable claims can be made only when recycling facilities are available to at least 60 percent of consumers where the product is sold is ambiguous, said the Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corp. (RBRC), which runs the Call2Recycle program. Such a condition could result in producer responsibility programs like Call2Recycle getting criticized for not meeting the “substantial majority” of consumers served threshold for Li-ion and Ni-MH batteries, it said. It’s unclear from the FTC’s guidelines whether a recycling facility must be available to “at least 60 percent of communities in the city,” where the item is sold, or to “at least 60 percent” of communities in the state or the U.S., RBRC said.