But the statement also insisted that the site was not an example of greenwashing.

“This is a direct consequence of the new legislation and is not related to our belief in the truth and accuracy of our environmental communications,” the group said.

ie, "we didnt remove the content because it contained greenwashing, we only removed the content because this legislation specifically calling out greenwashing"

wut

Greenwashing has got to go

This is the best summary I could come up with:

When Parliament passed a law last month banning misleading or false environmental claims in advertising, or “greenwashing,” the reaction from an alliance of six oil sands companies was swift.

Once vigorously promoted by the oil industry, the Pathways Alliance website offered on Friday only a note explaining that its online presence was gone because the new law created “significant uncertainty for Canadian companies that want to communicate publicly about the work they are doing to improve their environmental performance, including to address climate change.”

“Scrubbing their websites is such a telling indication of their greenwashing activity and shows that they have been making false promises about the impact of their emissions reduction plans,” Emilia Belliveau, the energy transition program manager at Environmental Defence, told me.

The Pathways project would build pipelines to take carbon removed at oil sands sites with new technology to Cold Lake, Alberta, and bury it deep underground, at an estimated cost of 16 billion Canadian dollars.

Audrey Milette, a spokeswoman for François-Philippe Champagne, the industry minister, dismissed the idea that energy companies would be bombarded by groundless legal actions.

Darrien Thomas, a dietary manager at a retirement home in Bowmanville, Ontario, who is the top competitive eater in Canada, shares a musical tip for downing hot dogs.

The original article contains 1,004 words, the summary contains 211 words. Saved 79%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!