TotalEnergies appeal exposes the new face of climate misinformation

The real battle over greenwashing is no longer about whether claims are true. It is about whether they are sufficiently truthful.

Noxolo Mfocwa is a strategist for social change and the Fossil Ad Ban advocacy campaigner at Fossil Free South Africa. From student activism to leading international human rights initiatives, her work has always been about holding power to account. She currently focuses on fossil fuel accountability and greenwashing, advocating for a South African energy future where public participation is transparent and human rights are non-negotiable.

A recent appeal lodged by TotalEnergies against a ruling of South Africa’s Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB) may appear, at first glance, to concern a technical dispute over a single advertising claim. In reality, it raises a much bigger question: How should regulators deal with climate misinformation in an age where deception increasingly comes dressed as accuracy?

The appeal follows an ARB ruling that found fault with a TotalEnergies claim promoting reduced carbon dioxide emissions associated with one of its fuel products. The company argues that the statement was supported by testing, technically accurate, and therefore should not have been found misleading.

On the surface, that sounds reasonable. But it misses the central challenge of modern greenwashing. The most effective forms of climate misinformation today rarely rely on outright falsehoods. They rely on selective truths.

A company does not need to lie to create a misleading impression. It simply needs to highlight a narrow environmental benefit while omitting the context necessary for consumers to properly evaluate what that benefit means.

Regulators have long recognised that a statement can be technically accurate and still be misleading when presented without sufficient context. Tobacco companies once promoted “light” cigarettes using scientifically defensible measurements while creating the broader impression that those products were safer. Financial services providers have been required to disclose risks because highlighting potential returns without explaining limitations can mislead consumers even when every statement is factually correct.

Climate-related advertising presents the same challenge. A fossil fuel company may accurately state that a fuel product performs better under specific testing conditions. It may accurately state that one fossil fuel emits less carbon than another. It may accurately highlight investments in renewable energy or emissions reduction initiatives.

Yet consumers may still be left with a fu