'Green-hushing' is the new greenwashing – POLITICO – POLITICO
A newsletter from POLITICO for leaders building a sustainable future.
A newsletter from POLITICO for leaders building a sustainable future.
By signing up you agree to allow POLITICO to collect your user information and use it to better recommend content to you, send you email newsletters or updates from POLITICO, and share insights based on aggregated user information. You further agree to our privacy policy and terms of service. You can unsubscribe at any time and can contact us here. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Loading
You will now start receiving email updates
You are already subscribed
Something went wrong
By signing up you agree to allow POLITICO to collect your user information and use it to better recommend content to you, send you email newsletters or updates from POLITICO, and share insights based on aggregated user information. You further agree to our privacy policy and terms of service. You can unsubscribe at any time and can contact us here. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
By DEBRA KAHN
Presented by Panasonic
What if a tree doesn’t fall and no one talks about it? | David McNew/Getty Images
SURVEY SAYS — Companies have filled out the ESG forms, but now they have to do the work.
Good news: Ninety-six percent of the world’s largest 250 companies by revenue are reporting on their sustainability and/or ESG work, according to a survey released Monday by accounting firm KPMG. And 80 percent of them have set climate targets based on either global or national emissions goals, up from 51 percent in 2020.
Bad news: Only 20 percent of the world’s top 166 companies by emissions have set science-based emissions targets, according to a report last week from the investor group Climate Action 100+.
Weird news: A significant share of companies that are setting targets don’t want to talk about them. The Zurich-based consultancy South Pole released a survey Tuesday that found while 72 percent of the 1,200 private companies they polled have set emissions targets in line with global climate goals, nearly a quarter of them don’t plan to publicize them.
South Pole calls it “green-hushing,” and says it’s not good. “It’s harder to scrutinize those targets, it’s harder to find opportunities to work together, and so forth,” said Nadia Kähkönen, the group’s spokesperson.
It’s the first time South Pole has asked whether companies are talking about their targets, so the group can’t tell whether green-hushing is on the rise. But there’s a bit of a damned-if-you-do implication to the finding: It’s bad to overhype corporate action, but it’s also bad to act quietly.
Companies could be keeping quiet because they fear anti-ESG pushback, but it could also be because they fear being accused of greenwashing, especially as rules against it take shape, South Pole speculated. It could also be that ESG is such a nascent, messy field that they don’t feel like getting into it publicly.
“There’s a lot of noise in the system,” said George Favaloro, South Pole’s head of climate solutions for North America. “In the U.S. we have this ridiculous political pushback against ESG, which is really unfortunate, but there’s also some confusion about ESG.”
NO-SHOW CEOS — Last year’s U.N. climate negotiations in Glasgow featured some of the biggest names in finance. But top banks and asset managers, including BlackRock Inc. and Citigroup Inc., aren’t sending their CEOs to the next round of talks in Sharm-El-Sheikh, Egypt, next month.
It looks bad on the surface, but there are reasons why it’s not an ominous sign for the finance sector’s embrace of climate principles, Sara Schonhardt reports for POLITICO’s E&E News.
“Last year was the commitment COP, and this year is the implementation COP,” said Kirsten Snow Spalding, senior program director of Ceres Investor Network, which works with asset managers such as BlackRock. “Top CEOs make commitments and their staff implement. And so, for me, that’s reason enough why we’re seeing a different group of people coming.”
GREEN BOURSE — The London Stock Exchange is launching the first platform for investors to invest in the funds and companies that are producing carbon reductions (and maybe receive carbon offsets as a dividend).
LSE issued rules last week that funds and companies have to follow if they want to use the voluntary carbon market designation to list themselves on the exchange.
There aren’t specific requirements for how much of the funding raised has to be used to directly support carbon reduction projects, but any of it that doesn’t will have to go to other activities with environmental benefits. LSE said it expected at least one fund to list itself this year and more to follow in 2023.
Hope they have defensible space! | Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
FIRE SALE — Raising insurance rates to deal with rising natural disaster risks is rational, but unpopular. Enter discounts for risk mitigation.
California officials finalized rules yesterday requiring property insurers to offer discounts for homes and businesses that maintain “defensible space” to reduce wildfire risk: Things like clearing vegetation from under decks and from a radius of five feet around buildings, and removing nearby combustible buildings like sheds.
The rules could succeed where others have failed. Oregon regulators released and then withdrew a wildfire risk map earlier this year after residents complained it could prompt higher insurance rates. California’s rules require insurers to inform customers of their property’s wildfire risk score, but also allow customers to appeal the scores.
Read more from E&E News’ Avery Ellfeldt.
HOW MANY MORE ROCKS? — The green revolution will not be pristine. One data firm estimates we’ll need 336 new mines by 2035 to meet increased demand for electric cars and battery electric storage, as Jael Holzman reports for E&E News.
Recycling and new manufacturing technologies can help lower the footprint: Many new Teslas don’t use nickel or cobalt in their batteries, for example.
But the Inflation Reduction Act, with its language restricting EV tax credits to cars produced with materials sourced from the U.S. or countries with which America has free trade agreements, is laying bare the inherent tensions in the transition from fossil fuels to other forms of energy that carry environmental risks of their own.
“The fear I have is that we scrutinize the electric vehicle supply chain because it’s really important,” said Alyssa Kendall, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who cowrote a recent study that estimates reused materials can meet only 7-8 percent of U.S. lithium demand by 2035. “But we have to couple this with a reminder that the supply chains we’re trying to get rid of have enormous environmental impacts.”
GAME ON — Welcome to the Long Game, where we tell you about the latest on efforts to shape our future. We deliver data-driven storytelling, compelling interviews with industry and political leaders, and news Tuesday through Friday to keep you in the loop on sustainability.
Team Sustainability is editor Greg Mott, deputy editor Debra Kahn and reporter Jordan Wolman. Reach us all at [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected].
Want more? Don’t we all. Sign up for the Long Game. Four days a week and still free!
— Women are leaving corporate leadership roles at the fastest rate ever, which Bloomberg reports could be bad news for companies.
— After pioneering hybrid vehicles with the Prius, Toyota is stumbling as it tries to gain ground on EV makers.
— Anti-woke bank CEO resigns after blistering WSJ report.
© 2023 POLITICO LLC
