Stay informed with free updates
Simply sign up to the Climate change myFT Digest — delivered directly to your inbox.
TotalEnergies defended its strategy of labelling natural gas as a transition fuel in promotional material as part of its rebranding, in a landmark trial over the claim that the French oil and gas group had overstated its climate commitments and misled consumers.
The case is the first in France to bring “greenwashing” allegations against an oil and gas company and drew a large crowd of courtroom observers, including legal experts, during opening arguments on Thursday. It also highlights fossil fuel industry moves to promote gas as a more environmentally friendly alternative to oil and coal.
Environmental campaign groups Greenpeace, Notre affaire à tous and Friends of the Earth brought the case alleging that TotalEnergies misled consumers in communications campaigns when it changed its name from Total in 2021.
They allege that TotalEnergies made misleading statements in 44 pieces of communication in 2021, ranging from advertisements to social media posts and statements on its website. Some of the campaign had stated that TotalEnergies was a “major actor in the energy transition” and encouraged the use of gas and biofuels, according to the claim.
The environmental groups said TotalEnergies’ assertion that it would reach “carbon neutrality with society” ran counter to its continued expansion of fossil fuel production.
They also criticised the promotion of natural gas as the “least polluting” fossil fuel, pointing to the high degree of global warming generated by leaks linked to the production and distribution of methane, which is the largest component of gas. The molecule retains 80 times more heat than carbon dioxide over a shorter lifespan of two decades, while CO₂ remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years.
“Total has deployed communication campaign on gas aimed at associating it with renewable energies, in an attempt to make it seem positive, clean, desirable energy and even a ‘fantastic resource for decarbonisation’. This impression is, once again, seriously erroneous,” said Clémentine Baldon, a lawyer representing the environmental groups.
In defending the claim, TotalEnergies argued that many of the communications referred to were not destined for consumers, and the consumer law should not be applied.
It also said many of the communications were designed to explain the “transformation of the group” and the increase in its production of renewable energy.
TotalEnergies’ lawyer Françoise Labrousse said: “It is false and artificial to accuse TotalEnergies of greenwashing . . . TotalEnergies has never said that [fossil fuels] are good for the climate.”
She added: “According to the applicants, communicating on carbon neutrality would imply an immediate halt to all investment in new fossil fuel projects, including natural gas, which is nevertheless considered a transitional fuel by all stakeholders.”
TotalEnergies’ strategy since its name change has involved increasing electricity generation through renewable energy and gas-powered plants, while also continuing to grow its fossil fuel production by about 3 per cent a year.
The company has said it aims to produce 100TWh of electricity generated from renewable energy sources by 2030, equivalent to 20 per cent of its hydrocarbon production at that point.
However, it has joined many of its peers in vaunting liquefied natural gas as a cleaner fuel.
TotalEnergies’ lawyers referred to a Wood Mackenzie report citing that LNG had a 60 per cent lower warming potential than coal over a 100-year period. It is developing several large liquefied natural gas projects including in Qatar and Mozambique.
The environmental groups are seeking for TotalEnergies to alter its communications, including by placing banners on promotional material linked to the energy transition that would make clear its continued growth of fossil fuel production.
Labrousse said the demands should be rejected by the court and that the transition away from fossil fuels was a long process. She highlighted Greenpeace’s own defence of its continued use of internal combustion engines on boats it uses for its campaigns.
“As Greenpeace recognises . . . replacing [fossil fuels] takes time, is expensive and depends on an evolution of existing technologies.”
The court will deliver a judgment on October 23.
Climate Capital
Where climate change meets business, markets and politics. Explore the FT’s coverage here.
Are you curious about the FT’s environmental sustainability commitments? Find out more about our science-based targets here
