Red Energy’s shift from “carbon neutral” to “offset gas”: a step, but not a solution.
In a small but significant shift, Red Energy has quietly rebranded its “carbon neutral” gas product – acknowledging, for the first time, that offsets don’t cancel out the climate damage caused by burning fossil fuels.
The change follows a letter sent by Climate Integrity – with legal support from the Environmental Defenders Office – urging the company to stop making misleading “carbon neutral” claims. Our concern: Red Energy was marketing a fossil gas product as climate-friendly, despite relying entirely on questionable carbon offsets.
Red Energy’s response? It has renamed its product from “carbon neutral gas” to “offset gas”, and added a new disclaimer to its website:
“Whilst carbon offsets such as ACCUs may help offset greenhouse gas emissions, they do not prevent emissions that are released from burning fossil fuels. Even with carbon offsetting, the emissions released from burning fossil fuels for a customer’s energy use still contribute to climate change.”
This is a meaningful admission. It reinforces what climate scientists have long made clear: offsets are a thin dressing on the gaping wound of fossil fuel pollution. It also reflects growing corporate accountability, following EnergyAustralia’s public apology in response to the Parents for Climate case, and our own referral of Qantas to the ACCC over misleading “carbon neutral” flight claims.
A renamed product, but the same problem
While Red Energy has dropped the “carbon neutral” label, the product itself remains unchanged. Customers are still being sold fossil gas bundled with offsets – and those offsets raise serious questions.
Red Energy has disclosed that it purchased 5,000 Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs) from a single project: Project EOP101098. Independent research found that the project failed to meet key regulatory requirements and had minimal impact on vegetation cover – raising major doubts about its carbon abatement claims.
If offsets don’t erase emissions – and the credits used are likely junk – what exactly are customers paying extra for?
It’s an untenable position. Customers who feel misled should consider seeking refunds or legal advice.
The bigger picture: offsets are not a free pass
The EnergyAustralia case, Climate Integrity’s interventions, and the current review of the Climate Active program have sparked a broader reckoning around the use of carbon offsets and “carbon neutral” marketing in Australia.
The message is clear: carbon credits must not be used as a licence to pollute. While high-integrity offsets can play a small, targeted role in net zero strategies, they are a finite and fragile resource. They must be reserved for truly residual emissions – not used to justify business-as-usual fossil fuel use.
