While the merits of bringing the externalities of our more ancient sins into an economic frame are up for debate, the marketability of voluntarily offsetting certain modern excesses is becoming increasingly clear. Enter GM Holden, importers of Saab. Last year’s ‘Grrrrreen’ campaign which ran in newspapers, magazines and billboards comprised of statements like ‘Every Saab is green, Carbon emissions neutral across the entire Saab range’. And it has now attracted the ire of the ACCC, to the surprise of Holden - if the first comment at this prdisasters.com post is any indication.
Now I’m no lawyer (just a lowly social science postgrad) but from where I sit the ACCC’s claim - not to mention the scope of its issues paper - is quite profound in its implications.
The ACCC is taking issue with three aspects of the ‘advertisements representations to consumers’:
* the net amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by any Saab vehicle, over the life of that vehicle, would be zero
This allegedly contravenes the TPA because: “there would, in fact, be a net release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by the operation of any motor vehicle in the Saab range”
* planting 17 native trees on behalf of the purchaser of a Saab vehicle would offset the carbon dioxide emissions for the life of the vehicle
May be illegal because: “planting 17 native trees would not provide a carbon dioxide offset for any period other than a single year’s operation of any motor vehicle in the Saab range”
* Saab vehicles have some attribute or attributes which contribute to reduced carbon dioxide emissions by those vehicles compared with Saab vehicles supplied prior to the publication of the advertisement.
But the ACCC reckons: “Saab vehicles do not have any attribute or attributes which contribute to reduced carbon dioxide emissions by those vehicles compared with Saab vehicles supplied prior to the publication of the advertisement”
These sound like they could be quite easily solved with a short disclaimer. Something along the lines of ‘a portion of your purchase will fund a plantation managed by Greenfleet. Over the lifetime of the plantation, the uptake of CO2 follows a sigmoidal curve which peaks after a few decades then begins a net release of CO2. So when we say we’re “offsetting” the emissions from your Saab it is in reality a much more complex, involved and technical operation which effectively locks away huge tracts of land for decades, possibly even centuries - assuming Greenfleet hasn’t gone belly up by then - and has a little or no immediate impact on atmospheric concentration.’
Doesn’t quite have the punch of Grrrrreen, though, does it.
Ok, so if the business of the ACCC is to decide what should be represented within an economic frame/transaction and what shouldn’t, will they be looking into those dirt cheap forestry offsets provided by all the discount airlines? What about if BP begins to market a ‘carbon neutral fuel’? (This would be logical outcome from their intensive internal carbon trading scheme that was instituted) What about all those other nasty externalities from things that aren’t (or are) nailed to the floor that Mercurius listed?
Oh right:
It ought to be noted that the ACCC is not a policy body and its role extends only to the administration of the TPA.
Hat tip: Australian Policy Online
Today’s AFR has an article about the ACCC investigating Qantas/Jetstar’s “Carbon neutral” flight advertising.
Yes, carbon is but one externality in the grand scheme of air travel, road transport, etc. I would be more impressed with an industry code of conduct that caused businesses to embrace sustainable practices rather than offering offsets. LEDs and CFLs for internal lights in planes, freight trains over road trains, recyclable car parts, cars made out of recycled parts, etc.
Maybe I missed the irony, but I’m absolutely positive they already have… Multiple bus-stop ads up around Melbourne as of a fortnight ago, although I can’t find any specific mention on their website. I’m so positive because I had the exact same “I wonder what the ACCC would think about that…” thought when I saw it.
Will whip out the mobile camera next time I pass one.
actually, this will do as an example. Thankfully, the Feds signed off on it first.
Thanks for the heads up, Sam - AFR is the only authoritative MSM source on emissions trading issues as far as I can tell. Especially for stories on the electricity sector.
Carl - cheers. I saw ads indicating they were planning to release something soon. I’m sure they’ll be able to demonstrate a carbon ledger that adds up, but it’d be quite absurd if their claims of ‘taking cars off the road’ weren’t pulled up pretty quickly considering how many cars they’re involved in keeping on it!!!!
Speaking of the AFR, dk.au, I’ve been really surprised by the absence of any substantive discussion anywhere else (including as far as I can see the blogosphere) of Garnaut’s latest discussion paper which proposes an emmissions trading model that is quite contrary to what I think everyone envisaged and really should be thrashed out.
Then there is that large ship down in Melbourne,that is going to have its owners paid $500 million,is this fair competition with Australian dredging companies!?Whom always seem to beat me in getting a nod from the State ALP N.S.W. But in this case,the money flows out of Australia,and I would rather fight Australians on these issues.Then is there any real evidence their claim as ship owners and what the Victorian government claims,and the Federal government claims as regulators is anywhere near,evidential requirements!? So are the both governments meeting expectations of any TPA. interpretations of behaviour.
Mark, any links to the Garnaut paper?
I’ve penned a few thoughts on Garnaut’s discussion paper here:
Oikos: emissions trading
Kymbos, see the links in David’s post.