There is hardly a candy in plastic or aluminum foil that has not been “produced in a climate-neutral way” or “environmentally friendly”. The buzzwords are ringing in everyone’s ears. But what does “sustainable” really mean? And is this all just greenwashing?
What does “sustainable” mean?
The term originally comes from forestry. German Carl von Carlowitz literally invented the term sustainability in 1713. He said you shouldn’t cut more wood from a forest than will grow back. And you have to reforest. What we consider natural today was an innovation back then. Carlowitz was a native of Erzgebirge, a low mountain range in Saxony and Bohemia, where enormous quantities of wood were cut for silver mines, for example to fuel smelting furnaces. Interestingly, Carlowitz was not a forester, but worked in mining. Back then, people didn’t age very much, which is why thought about future generations probably wasn’t as present. But as a noble, Carlowitz had a different perspective on this because his class wanted to pass on property and wealth.
What is the Brundtland Commission?
A long discussion on the topic of sustainability began with the Brundtland report in the late 1980s. It defines sustainable development as “meeting the needs of the current generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs and choose their own styles of life.” The aspect of intergenerational justice is anchored here, which means that a generation should only consume what it generates.
What does “RSC” mean?
Based on the debate on sustainability in the last decades of the 20th century, the EU has set the objective for a good twenty years (CSR Green Paper) to place sustainable development at the center of policy and corporate social responsibility at the center of all business. strategy. With “Corporate Social Responsibility”, the EU defined everything a company does with its stakeholders regarding ecology and social issues. However, everything is voluntary.
&w=2048&q=100 "Shit bingo on sustainability and climate neutrality 3")
© Illustration: WZ
What is in the 2030 Agenda?
The 2030 Agenda is the first international agreement in which the principle of sustainability is linked to the fight against poverty and economic, ecological and social development. It was adopted at a UN summit in New York in 2015. The EU Commission is committed to the 17 objectives formulated by the United Nations. For a sustainable economy and a dignified life, high-quality education (Goal 4), gender equality (Goal 5) and sustainable consumption and production (Goal 12) are necessary. There is no division in the agenda between “donors” and “recipients” or into “first”, “second” and “third world”. Like all countries, Austria is a “developing country”.
Are there climate neutral products?
If products say “produced in a climate-neutral way,” there is usually a trade-off behind it. The term “climate neutral through offsetting” would be more accurate.
This means that companies buy the “neutrality” of a product by purchasing certificates for the amount of CO2 emitted during production. Popular projects include rainforest reforestation or drinking water wells in Africa.
Two journalists at the time wonderfully explained what was behind the compensation agreement. (paid access)
Producing a product in a climate-neutral way is incredibly difficult. Theoretically, the company would have to reduce all emissions in its area of influence. For example, through the use of renewable energy. To do this, you would also have to look at the entire value chain, i.e. all the way from raw materials, delivery, packaging to the use of a product. Even if a company operates its factory with solar panels, for example, these must also be produced. And that results in emissions.
Is CO2 neutral = climate neutral?
Strictly speaking, no, because there are several other greenhouse gases, such as methane or nitrous oxide. Carbon dioxide is just one of the gases that harm the climate. In most cases, however, calculations are made in CO2 equivalents for the sake of simplicity.
What does compensation mean?
In principle, climate neutrality through compensation does not work. The question is: is the company climate neutral or sustainable? So, what is a company’s core business? For example, if a bank builds a house and advertises that it is climate neutral, that is a small detail compared to its core business, which may finance power plants or coal-fired tanks. Sustainability must be where money is made, not where it is spent. Charity, donations and purchasing certificates are often part of the marketing budget.
Compensation impedes sustainability transformation. It is currently much cheaper for companies (in the short term) to later pay around 25 euros per ton of CO2 than to spend money to transform specific business areas.
Eco-friendly, eco-friendly, green, eco-friendly, low-polluting, plastic-free – all nonsense?
Imprecise terms that are not protected mean almost nothing. Consumers or consumer protection associations may try to sue later to obtain evidence of this. The company must then provide relevant evidence. However, if a company presents multiple efforts, such as compensation payments, it becomes more difficult to prove that it was deceptive.
Eco-friendly – compared to what?
It’s also a vague term. When making the “environmental” claim, the question should be: Compared to what? Are Vienna lines “environmentally friendly” – compared to cars? Clear! Compared to a bicycle, probably less. Is an electric car environmentally friendly compared to an old diesel? Safe! The fact that battery production requires raw materials from mines in Central Africa, where child labor is still a problem, and that toxic chemicals are used in China to extract rare earths, is definitely not environmentally friendly.
The more efficient, the better for the climate?
Creating more and more results with less and less sounds good. But be careful with rebound effects, i.e. the increase in energy consumption due to increased efficiency. If a car only consumes five liters instead of ten, but travels more kilometers faster, then nothing is gained. When politicians or companies claim that CO2 emissions have been reduced, it is always necessary to keep the absolute size in mind. For example, an airline claims that the carbon footprint per euro is reduced. Therefore, the relative size becomes smaller. If the absolute size does not decrease, nothing is gained.
Is no one doing anything?
Terms such as “plastic-free” or “low-polluting” are currently permitted and are not verified. But that will change soon. In the future, such terms may only be used with proof. Independent certifications, i.e. tested by third parties, such as the Austrian or European Ecolabel (EU Ecolabel) for non-food products. The entire supply chain is examined here.
A company that does not operate its core business sustainably and only purchases certificates retroactively will no longer be able to lose all labels in the future. This is stated in a legal text that is expected to come into force soon, called the “Directive on Empowering Consumers for the Ecological Transition”. It will probably be some time before the rules actually come into force in member states. The EU Commission is expecting a period of three to four years.
A second directive relevant to this area is still being negotiated. These are more concrete terms about products, such as “50% plastic free”. Companies would then have to check in advance whether this is actually the case and prove it. The directive could be watered down in the negotiation process.