Three years ago, as the pandemic was starting, Delta announced that it would become the world’s first carbon neutral airline.
However they were using sleight of hand for this – buying carbon offsets, which not only often do not offset carbon, but can increase emissions. For instance, a non-profit may already own forest land. Its mission may be to preserve the forest, so almost by definition it won’t chop down those trees. So it sells credit for saving that forest. And a company claims to have ‘offset’ their emissions by saving these trees that were already saved.
Delta has also used the fig leaf of the environment to mask service cuts, things like announcing that metal cutlery would never return to domestic first class by framing it as ‘replacing’ pandemic-era plastic with disposal wood. (Their announcement about limiting plastics actually featured… plastic cups, because it really was about costs.)
Now a customer, who says they believed the hype – made a purchase decision based on Delta’s claims, and even paid more to fly the airline because they thought it was better for the environment – has filed a class action lawsuit.
The case, filed by Glendale, California resident Mayanna Berrin, claims to act on behalf of anyone who flew Delta while living in the state since March 2020. It says benefits from the offsets are likely to be temporary and would have happened even without the firm’s investment. For a carbon credit to be valid, it must provide a benefit that would not have happened otherwise.
Berrin argues this enabled the firm to gain market share and charge higher prices. She argues through her attorneys, Haderlein and Kouyoumdjian LLP, that she wouldn’t have bought the tickets — or would have paid less — had she known the nature of the offsets.
The passenger bought the flights at a market premium “due to her belief that by flying Delta she engaged in more ecologically conscious air travel,” the case says.
Ironically, two years after making its claim of carbon neutrality, Delta was removed from the Dow Jones Sustainability North America Index in favor of American Airlines. In the end, it could actually be United Airlines that saves the planet.
The SEC plans to require companies to offer standardized disclosures regarding climate-related risks that may have a material impact on their business. This will encourage companies to say they’re doing good things with respect to the environment. And then they have to – otherwise it’s securities fraud. It’s a back door way for the SEC to regulate corporate environmental stewardship. But Delta already made environmental claims and it seems to me the lawyers in this case are missing an entirely different line of attack: a shareholder lawsuit.
Like many companies, it was manipulative, virtue signaling, B.S. when they said “going green”. It was widely known and documented that carbon offsets were time and time again a scam. They didn’t care about the planet – just what marketing gimmick they think will work to (a) draw in well-meaning suckers (in their mind) who will pay a premium, and (b) cut services and costs while demanding a “thank you” from their customers for being so thoughtful about the planet.
I LOVE the idea that someone is suing them for their B.S.
The climate change green SCAM is all about the $$$.
@Alan…absolutely correct. It’s the one scam that exceeds the CovidCon.
And longer-lasting nonsense than the Covid crap.
@ Gary — Delta commit fraud? Tell me it isnt so!
These comments get to the essence of the case.
The SEC plans to require companies to offer standardized disclosures regarding climate-related risks that may have a material impact on their business. This will encourage companies to say they’re doing good things with respect to the environment. And then they have to – otherwise it’s securities fraud. It’s a back door way for the SEC to regulate corporate environmental stewardship.
There is no standard for making environmental claims and Delta could very well become the world’s first carbon neutral airline…. not one airline on the planet is anywhere close but that doesn’t make Delta’s statement POTENTIALLY true in the future.
Filing and lawsuit and proving it are two entirely different things.
and Delta’s fuel efficiency is STILL far higher than American or United’s and despite UAL’s bragging, Delta will put more new aircraft into service this year than any other airline -and all of those aircraft will be more fuel efficient than the aircraft they are replacing, including the 717s that are still more fuel efficient than the regional jets which they are replacing.
As much as UAL brags, it will not achieve better fuel efficiency until it completely gets rid of its 50 seat regional jets – since that aircraft is the most fuel inefficient per seat of any aircraft in the US airline fleet – as well as its 777-200/ERs – since that model is the most fuel inefficient widebody in the US airline fleet. Since UA has said it doesn’t intend to do the latter for years because they are more interested in chasing market share, they will not become the most fuel efficient global carrier for a very long time – if ever.
A very good reason for airlines to stick to transportation and avoid tree-hugging propaganda.
Corporate virtue signaling. Just like the neighbors who post the signs.
yes, zeppo and brian l
There is a very significant pushback taking place even among well-intentioned companies that wade into the political arena.
Sticking to your core business and leaving your customers to engage in divisive political issues always makes the most sense and is the best strategy to ensure profits.
and thanks, Gary, for ensuring this site remains a positive place for reader engagement
Because they know there are enough gullible people who buy into it.
Ever notice how the environmentalist don’t tell you what the impact of their action will be? Because they can’t. They can’t control the climate nor can anyone else.
Hard to prove the point in an environment of cancel culture on global warming led by Republican virtue signalling and anti free-market culture wars.
Delta can easily point out the legislative censorship of ESG by states (e.g. Republican-controlled Texas banning investment firms with ESG mandates) to argue that their environmental claims LOST them market share. Poll 100 MAGA people, and they will all say they won’t fly Delta because of it.
Now if only politicians stayed out of free markets and fought for votes on merit, not invented crap…sigh
I’ve never met anybody who chose an airline based on this sort of environmental nonsense. Do such people actually exist?
@Mak: I think it’s like the hotels — no one may choose them because they’re “green”, but they’re counting on a portion of their customers taking less and paying more while telling themselves “at least they’re trying to save the planet.” This blog has seen plenty of people in the comment sections make those type of excuses for hotels as they cut service, cut cleaning, cut food, and charged more. They can dump on you and you pat them on the back for it.
It’s cover for all of their other sins.
@Thing 1 “It’s cover for all of their other sins.”
On that basis – it is penance to placate a vengeful god and guarantee salvation despite their sins – it makes perfect sense. They could just go to Mass and do the same thing, but I guess going on vacation is much more fun.
Hey Gary,
Will you be reporting on how
American has been hit with a Class Suit Over ESG 401(k)?
Of course not. That would actually be reporting.
So those customers paying extra to reduce carbon isn’t working out too well I assume.