Greenpeace publishes a disputed report showing a 160 million ton CO2 footprint for TotalEnergies. The survey is entitled “TotalEnergies’ carbon footprint doesn’t add up”.
Contested allegations
According to TotalEnergies, the NGO Greenpeace uses “a methodology that is questionable, to say the least. The company believes that the study accounts for “several times the emissions related to the combustion of products” which would explain this poor result. To establish this carbon balance, Greenpeace relies on the GHG Protocol, the global standard.
This protocol distinguishes between direct emissions from the activity (Scope 1) and those linked to the consumption of electricity, heat and steam (Scope 2). Finally, there are indirect emissions upstream and downstream of production (Scope 3). The NGO Greenpeace claims that TotalEnergies’ Scope 1 emissions will exceed 160 million tons of CO2 in 2019.
TotalEnergies states that they actually amounted to 55 million tons of CO2. For the company, the figure of 160 million tons of CO2 is fanciful and false. It accounts for more than 4% of global emissions, whereas Total Energies’ market share in the sector […] is between 1 and 2%.
Controversial transparency
The NGO Greenpeace reports that TotalEnergies emits four times more greenhouse gases than it admits. Greenpeace commissioned this report from Factor-X. This figure highlights “Total Energies’ obvious lack of transparency. For the NGO, TotalEnergies’ responsibility for the climate crisis is much greater than it is willing to admit.
The group’s ambitions to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 are “downright fanciful”. Shell’s balance sheet is 3.6 times larger than TotalEnergies’. In contrast, Shell’s oil and gas production is 1.22 times higher. Shell’s oil sales are 1.6 times those of TotalEnergies
The NGO Greenpeace announces that it is reporting this information to the Autorité des Marchés Financiers (AMF). In March 2022, the NGO sued TotalEnergies for deceptive marketing practices. This concerned in particular its advertisements which it considers as “greenwashing”.
