{"id":81115,"date":"2024-09-23T10:39:00","date_gmt":"2024-09-23T10:39:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/resourcework2.devstudio.work\/?p=81115"},"modified":"2024-11-13T17:01:10","modified_gmt":"2024-11-13T17:01:10","slug":"greenwash-guilty-innocent","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/resourcework2.devstudio.work\/?p=81115","title":{"rendered":"Federal Greenwash law: guilty until proven innocent"},"content":{"rendered":"

In its latest display of environmental correctness, the federal government passed a new anti-greenwashing law that requires individuals or organizations making claims or promises about the climate benefits of products or processes to prove their truth.<\/p>\n

Such \u201ctruth,\u201d the law stipulates, must be proven to the satisfaction of a federal bureaucracy \u2014 by way of \u201can adequate and proper test\u201d or \u201cadequate and proper substantiation in accordance with internationally recognized methodology.\u201d<\/p>\n

However, those tests and methodologies have not been defined or announced, remaining hopelessly vague. A federal bureaucrat is now empowered under the law to review such climate statements and claims, and to compel court proceedings if they deem them not to meet the ambiguous criteria.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s clear the law (Bill C-59<\/a>, amendments to the Competition Act) would apply to companies claiming, for example, that their production processes or new technologies will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, the Competition Bureau conveniently will not have to prove that the claims are false or misleading. The new law instead requires the accused company or agency to prove their innocence.<\/p>\n

The penalties can be severe, with fines of up to $10 million ($15 million for repeat offenders) or as much as three times the benefit derived from the misrepresentation. If that benefit cannot be reasonably determined, the penalty could be up to three percent of the company\u2019s annual worldwide gross revenues.<\/p>\n

Canada is thus following the green correctness of the European Parliament, which now requires \u201cproof\u201d of claims of a neutral, reduced, or positive impact on the environment when a producer reduces or offsets emissions.<\/p>\n

The European Union\u2019s move followed a study by the European Commission, which found\u00a0more than half<\/a>\u00a0of green claims were vague, misleading, or unfounded, with 40% being \u201ccompletely unsubstantiated.\u201d<\/p>\n

Industry in Canada has been quick to protest Bill C-59, and it\u2019s not just the oil and natural gas sector raising concerns. Industries ranging from automotive to mining to manufacturing are also challenging the new law.<\/p>\n

Dennis Darby, CEO of the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters Association, called the changes \u201cquite heavy-handed\u201d and said his member companies worry about potential legal challenges over any environmental claims they make about emissions-reducing technologies.<\/p>\n

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) also protested: \u201cThese amendments effectively silence discussion around climate and environmental policy for political gains, while promoting the voices of those most opposed to Canada\u2019s oil and natural gas sector.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe federal government\u2019s approach to these amendments has introduced a new level of complexity and risk for those looking to invest in Canada. The amendments to the Competition Act will make it more difficult for proponents to speak to Canadians and gain public support for their projects, particularly for those focused on reducing emissions.\u201d<\/p>\n

CAPP argued in a\u00a0submission<\/a>\u00a0to the Competition Bureau: \u201cThe effect of this legislation is to silence the energy industry and those that support it, in an effort to clear the field of debate and promote the voices of those most opposed to Canada\u2019s energy industry.<\/p>\n

\u201cImplementing a vague law with exceptionally high penalties, without consultation, and with an outsized impact on the country\u2019s largest industries, is both anti-democratic and anti-business.\u201d<\/p>\n

Will the new Canadian law also apply (as CAPP says it should) to climate campaigners and green groups who claim that a company, product, or process damages the global climate?<\/p>\n

One green group recently attacked liquefied natural gas (LNG) developments in British Columbia using (among other things) a photoshopped image of a smoke-emitting oil and gas facility in Iran. Could that be prosecuted under the new law? It should be, but who knows?<\/p>\n

Will the new reverse-onus law apply in practice to government departments, ministries, and ministers? Again, who knows?<\/p>\n

The federal Canada Energy Regulator, for example, made a number of green statements in a recent\u00a0Market Snapshot<\/a>\u00a0about LNG in BC:<\/p>\n