Delta Air Lines Faces Lawsuit Over $1 Billion Carbon Neutrality Claim

Delta Air Lines is currently embroiled in a lawsuit over its assertion of being a carbon-neutral airline, with plaintiffs arguing that the claim is misleading and false. The lawsuit, filed in California, alleges that Delta’s carbon neutrality is heavily dependent on ineffective carbon offsets that fail to effectively address global heating.

The airline had announced its plans to achieve carbon neutrality in February 2020, committing $1 billion to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions over the next decade. Their strategy involved the purchase of carbon credits from rainforest, wetland, and grassland conservation, as well as measures to reduce jet fuel usage and improve plane efficiency.

The legal action specifically targets Delta’s claim of being the world’s first carbon-neutral airline, which has been featured in advertisements, LinkedIn posts, in-flight napkins, and statements by company executives. The class-action lawsuit argues that Delta’s carbon neutrality assertion is demonstrably false, as it relies on ineffective offsets that do not effectively address the climate crisis. The plaintiffs contend that customers who purchased Delta tickets would have done so under the belief that their actions had no environmental impact and that many would not have made the purchase without the carbon neutrality claim.

Delta Air Lines has not yet responded to the request for comment from The Guardian, the publication reporting on the matter.

Krikor Kouyoumdjian, a partner at the law firm Haderlein and Kouyoumdjian LLP, which is representing the plaintiffs, expressed concern over the use of the term “carbon neutral,” stating that it implies a lack of negative impact on the environment. However, this notion is counterfactual, as it is not possible to simply pay away the environmental consequences of consumption. The lawsuit argues that Delta has profited from a misleading environmental claim by taking advantage of the market premium for green products. It also cites scientific and journalistic evidence highlighting significant flaws with the carbon credits purchased by Delta from the unregulated voluntary market.

In a previous investigation by The Guardian, German weekly Die Zeit, and investigative group SourceMaterial, it was found that rainforest credits from Verra, used by major corporations such as Disney, Shell, and Gucci, were largely deemed worthless. The credits were often based on the preservation of rainforests that were not under threat, as confirmed by independent studies. The Delta lawsuit references this investigation, although Verra disputed the findings.

Haderlein and Kouyoumdjian are seeking for Delta to retract its carbon neutrality claim and provide full disclosure of the extent of their business’s pollution. They argue that the voluntary carbon offset market cannot guarantee genuine carbon neutrality due to serious methodological errors, both intentional and unintentional. They also emphasize the business aspect of the case, stating that consumers are willing to pay more for greener products and that Delta’s claim of being the first carbon-neutral airline gives them an unfair advantage over competitors.

This lawsuit emerges amidst a broader regulatory crackdown on green claims in the UK and Europe. Evian, for example, is currently facing a similar lawsuit over its carbon neutrality claim that relies on offsets. Danone, the owner of the brand, has argued for the case to be dismissed, claiming it defies science and common sense.

The decision on whether to proceed with the case now rests with a judge.