Carbon omissions

BP petrol station on Brimstage Road. Image: Rodhullandemu / Creative Commons 4.0

BP among oil companies using novel term 'net zero operations' to distract the public from the fact the use of their products is driving climate breakdown.

We can’t afford any more confusion and time-wasting that results from net zero claims that conveniently ignore the largest part of a company’s emissions.

Fossil fuel companies including BP and Shell are taking advantage of misunderstood terminology by promising to deliver "net zero operations" while still drilling, refining and selling ever more fossil fuels, according to sustainability consultancy firm Eight Versa.

Even though "net zero" as a definition includes what is called Scope 3 emissions -  the result of activities from assets not owned or controlled by the reporting organisation - large oil companies are using the term as a claim regarding only Scope 1 and 2 emissions. 

Companies such as BP and Shell are therefore manipulating the term net zero by adding ‘operations’ and thereby creating the new term ‘net zero operations’. This new phrase is then used as a marketing tool. The widely recognised term that should, according to accepted standards, be used by these companies for Scope 1 and 2 alone is ‘carbon neutral’. 

Petroleum

Carbon neutral is, according to the Carbon Trust, generally defined as "condition in which during a specified period there has been no net increase in the global emission of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere as a result of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the subject during the same period." 

In simple terms, any company can achieve seemingly massive reductions, and offset the remaining emissions through carbon credits. In fact, only as little as 0.01 per cent reductions are required for an official ‘Carbon Neutral’ rating, as long as the rest of the emissions are covered by offsets, thereby demonstrating the questionable reliability of the term itself. 

BP reduced its Scope 1 emissions by 32.5 per cent in 2022, over a 2019 baseline. It has also reduced Scope 2 by 53.8 per cent. The reduction of 18.8 MtCo2e for Scopes 1 and 2 is equivalent to Croatia’s entire annual CO2 emissions in 2021. BP plan to offset the remaining emissions from Scopes 1 and 2 to 'balance' its greenhouse gas emissions.

However, Scope 3 includes BP's largest impact of emissions - the use of the very products it sells to the consumer. When  the petroleum and diesel is then used this creates nine times more carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses than the Scope 1 and 2 emissions combined. 

This new terminology goes against the letter and spirit of the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), which requires companies to account for and report emissions from “use of sold products” under Scope 3, Category 11. 

We can’t afford any more confusion and time-wasting that results from net zero claims that conveniently ignore the largest part of a company’s emissions.

Standardization

The use of the industry-devised term net zero operations’ means Scope 3 emissions are not included. As a result, BP could in theory become officially carbon neutral, and claim to have net zero operations, without having to reduce the amount of oil and gas it sells to customers. 

Chris Hocknell, the founder and chief executive of Eight Versa has said “The term net zero operations has risen to prominence this year. It is being thrown around casually and incorrectly. Oil companies are using it as a reassuring, artificial green stamp of approval to calm investors, consumers and politicians.

"This is despite the fact there has been minimal progress towards genuinely reducing Scope 3 emissions. When companies do this and get away with it, it ultimately allows more of the same to continue. We won’t see the reductions in Scope 3 that we actually all need if this corporate behaviour goes on unchecked." 

“We cannot deny that the likes of BP have made serious reductions in their Scope 1 and 2 emissions in recent years. Of course, this should be recognised and welcomed. But these reductions are a drop in the ocean compared to their Scope 3 emissions. The emissions from the fuel they provide is clearly the biggest problem. 

He added: "We need greater and clearer standardization around the use of the terms such as 'net zero’ and 'carbon neutral’, to avoid misleading the public, politicians and other businesses. A truly net zero company would not be contributing significantly to the climate crisis. 

Greenwash

“We can’t afford any more confusion and time-wasting that results from net zero claims that conveniently ignore the largest part of a company’s emissions. If you ever see the term ‘net zero operations’, you should question it immediately. It doesn’t exist." 

He concluded: "The SBTi has ‘paused’ the validation of fossil fuel companies – they are becoming wary of the evolving marketing tactics in the fossil fuels sector and the growing terminology misuse. However, this pause doesn’t help anyone. Instead, we need clearer, more robust, stricter and meaningfully enforced terminology."

Campaigners hope that introducing more clarity and enforcement to definitions which can be used - such as net zero, carbon neutral and off-setting - companies will be forced to consider and disclose the full impact of their operations, including the actual use of the products they produce and sell. 

Eight Versa is promoting its Natural Carbon Solutions certification, which it claims has been purpose-built to address this kind of challenge. 

Hocknell concluded: "It’s clear we need to bring trusted credibility, fair terminology, trust and objectivity to corporate net zero carbon commitments. The corporate sector has the most important role to play when it comes to combating the climate crisis, so working with them towards real net zero will be essential, rather than relying on misleading and ineffective terminology that spreads confusion and is ultimately greenwash."

This Author

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist.

More from this author