Greenwashing is a practice adopted by companies that want to promote an environmentally responsible image, without actually taking significant sustainable actions. Essentially, it is misleading marketing that leads consumers to believe that the brand is more committed to environmental issues than it actually is. This phenomenon can be identified by looking for exaggerated statements, lack of clarity and the promotion of small initiatives as if they were major changes. It is occurring all over the world, including involving some of the largest global corporations. Apple, for example, has been criticized for selectively highlighting its environmental achievements, while ignoring issues such as planned obsolescence and the carbon footprint of its products manufactured in China. Coca-Cola has also been accused of misleading its audience about the recyclability of its PlantBottle bottles and remains one of the world’s largest plastic polluters. Unilever has faced criticism over the transparency of its palm oil supply chains and its sustainability claims. Toyota has been accused of confusing hybrid vehicles with electric vehicles in its campaigns, as well as of delaying the adoption of this technology. Starbucks, for its part, has launched strawless lids that actually contain more plastic than previous combinations, shifting the responsibility for plastic waste to developing countries. Walmart has been fined for selling products as being made of bamboo, when in fact they were made of rayon, a semi-synthetic material with negative environmental impacts. There are countless cases. The problem with greenwashing is that it diverts attention from effective and necessary actions to mitigate climate change, which prevents real progress in the fight against global warming, in addition to misleading the population. And this attitude has also invaded the carbon credit market. Many companies acquire them to comply with environmental regulations and to declare themselves “environmentally friendly”, with the aim of attracting customers who value these aspects, which is a cheaper and easier alternative to investing in green technologies or policies, becoming a convenient but superficial solution. Greenpeace recently sued Australian energy operator Woodside for claiming it had reduced its emissions by 11% using carbon credits, while its actual emissions had increased by 3%. Delta Air Lines was also the target of a class action lawsuit in the US for claiming to be the “world’s first carbon neutral airline” by supposedly offsetting emissions from its flights, but this claim was found to be false, leading to criticism about the validity of the credits used. Recent analysis has shown that these practices, common in sectors such as oil, gas and technology, involve large corporations buying huge quantities of carbon credits of dubious quality, which do not deliver the desired reductions, as they do not meet the permanence and additionality criteria required to be considered effective. It is clear that there are significant challenges in creating and maintaining projects for these digital assets, which require a set of legal and technological efforts. For example, it is necessary to ensure the registration of the area to monitor the development of the project over time, ensuring the accounting of the asset. A regulated environment where records can be guaranteed and documented is essential. This includes dealing with overlapping areas, licenses and different biomes. In this context, tokenization can offer a viable solution, creating a secure and reliable environment for documentation and transactions. Ultimately, the true value of RWA tokens lies not only in the product itself, but in the area to be developed and the security of its production. Well-designed and transparent projects are essential to ensure that carbon credits actually contribute to environmental sustainability, avoiding greenwashing and ensuring that environmental actions have a real and lasting impact on combating climate change. Source: Money Times