That legislation is Bill C-59, which would require companies to provide evidence to back up their environmental claims. It is currently awaiting royal assent.
As of Thursday, it was also what led the Pathways Alliance, a consortium of Canada’s largest oilsands companies, to remove all its content from its website, social media and other public communications.
Not a lawyer, but this seems (1) a ridiculous response by the Alberta Government, and (2) perhaps unnecessary wording in an amendment, since misleading claims are already covered under the Competition Act?
The amendment to the competition act reads:
And the current text of the Act reads:
So… my non-legal viewpoint is that making a misleading representation to the public is already covered by the competition act. The new wording clarifies the scope to explicitly include environmental misrepresentation (which seems completely fair given the amount of greenwashing we see - from consumer products through to natural resource extraction). The only potential challenge appears to be the “internationally recognized methodology”, especially where a methodology doesn’t exist. But in that case, perhaps companies should just refrain from making potentially misleading claims.
The Alberta government is just following its playbook once again of trying to position the feds as the enemy of Alberta… Because that’s easier for them, than actually coming up with good ideas.
I work in this space. My focus area is consequential GHG accounting specifically, which is the process of quantifying the impact a decision will have on GHG levels.
There is an internationally recognized methodology for GHG emissions account and for most other things you’d make environmental claims about.
Hard part is most of those methodologies were designed for voluntary compliance. They tend to allow lots of estimates and average when better data isn’t available, because for someone trying to do the right thing, estimating data is better than nothing.
But that leaves a giant gaps in legislation like this because someone with incentive to do so can make generously optimistic assumptions that ridiculously overstate their environmental stewardship while still technically following the methodology.
While I think it’s doubtful we’ll see any major improvements in reporting for a while. The bill is still a massive step in the right direction.
And there’s hope for the methodologies getting better too. The leading methodology for calculating GHG emissions is currently being revised with a new version expected to be published next year. Current proposals being considered include dropping several notoriously inaccurate approaches, that could be used to make false or exaggerated claims.
Thanks for sharing your insights!
My non-legal reading puts BC Hydro’s latest natrual gas ad at odds with it.
They not only call it “not a fossil fuel” but also claim its a “renewable resource.”
Yep, that sounds like misrepresentation… Regardless of whether this amendment passes.
I guess the exception being compost derived methane / biogas?
Except most of BCs natural gas is extracted, not biofuel.