Court stops BP: misleading advertising for 'climate -neutral' products

Veröffentlicht:

Von:

Das Landgericht Hamburg hat entschieden, dass BP Europa SE seine Schmierstoffe und Motorenöle nicht mehr als "klimaneutral" bewerben darf. Die Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) brachte eine Klimaklage ein, die auf die Irreführung von Verbrauchern abzielt. Erfahren Sie mehr über die Hintergründe dieser Entscheidung, die Problematik der Emissionsgutschriften und die Kritik an BPs Klimazielen.
The Hamburg Regional Court has decided that BP Europe SE is no longer allowed to advertise its lubricants and engine oils as "climate -neutral". The German Environmental Aid (DUH) brought in a climate lawsuit that aims at the misleading of consumers. Find out more about the background of this decision, the problem of emission credits and the criticism of BPS climate goals. (Symbolbild/MB)

Sustainability in the sights: Court decision against BP causes a sensation

The latest lawsuit from German Environmental Aid (DUH) against the mineral oil company BP Europa SE has raised basic questions about the credibility of environmental labels. A Hamburg court decided that BP was no longer allowed to advertise its engine oils and lubricants as "climate -neutral", since this advertising does not offer a clear and honest basis for information.

The case that was processed under the file number 312 O 114/22 shows how companies sometimes act with misleading marketing strategies. BP had shown its products as climate -neutral, mainly by buying emission credits from a forest protection project in Sambia. However, the court found that such practices can be considered deceptively to consumers.

The Federal Managing Director of DUH, Jürgen Resch, commented: "The court decision is essential to protect customers and customers from misleading information." This statement underlines the responsibility of companies with regard to transparent communication about their environmental effects

One of the central questions that flared up in the process refers to the efficiency of the compensation project chosen by BP. The DUH pointed out that the system is only designed over a period of 30 years, while fossil emissions can remain in the atmosphere thousands of years. This suspects that the climate neutrality specified by BP is characterized by an inadequate understanding of CO2 compensation.

In addition, it is criticized in the decision that BP does not provide enough information about the actual effect of the forest protection project. Agnes Sauter from Duh emphasizes: "The assumption that the trees store more carbon in the 40 -hectare project than in the area is not plausible." This lack of transparency could not only deceive consumers, but also undermine the trust of the public in serious sustainability efforts.

The decision of the regional court is also important with regard to climate and environmental policy. At a time when companies are increasingly under pressure to improve their environmental balance, this case shows that surface solutions that aim at marketing strategies are not sufficient. Companies must present reliable data and transparent measures to be credible on the market.

Overall, this judgment not only illuminates the problem of misleading advertising, but also the importance of a well -founded discussion about sustainability and climate protection. It can be hoped that it serves as a catalyst for changes in the industry and stimulates other companies to promote more responsible and sustainable practices.

The case clearly shows that the responsibility for climate protection is not only among consumers, but also among the companies. Clear information and honest approaches are essential to preserve trust in green products and to raise awareness of sustainable decisions.