đ± The Grumpy Optimists #56
Happy Monday Grumpy Optimists đ
Welcome to the start of another week and to your fortnightly dose of environmental commentary from your favourite grumpy optimists. Today weâre looking at greenwashing and why companies are out to mislead us when it comes to climate change. Weâve also highlighted some of the key news this week.
So grab a coffee, tuck in - and as always, weâd love to hear from you in the comments belowđ
A Quick Peek at the News
Before we get started, letâs take a quick look at some of the big headlines in this weekâs news...
đŠÂ Bank of England say the impacts of climate change will âdwarfâ the cost of living crisis unless world leaders act now. Rising energy, food, and fuel prices are hitting families hard across the UK, but former governor Mark Carney warns the fallout could be even greater if leaders do not act swiftly to transition away from fossil fuels.
đłïžÂ What do the 2022 Elections mean for climate change? Local elections may not feel significant (often many of us donât even know theyâre going on), but they are important in testing the mood on how voters are feeling across the country - and can have knock-on impacts ahead of the next general election. Give this a read if youâre keen to hear more about why your vote counts.
đȘ Filipino inquiry finds big polluters are responsible for climate damage. A legal battle by the survivors of the 2013 Typhoon Haiyan found that the worldâs most polluting companies are morally and legally liable for the impacts of the climate crisis because they have engaged in wilful obfuscation of climate science and obstructed efforts towards a global transition to clean energy.
đ A summary of all the positive environmental stories from 2022 so far. From strides being made in wind and solar energy to Swedenâs impressive carbon capture architecture - this is bound to cheer up your Monday. Hands down my favourite article Iâve read this week.
â»ïž Greenwashing, Bad Adverts and Climate Guilt: Moving the Goalposts with Individual vs Corporate Responsibility
One of the longstanding debates in climate change discourse has been centred around who needs to pull their finger out most when it comes to sorting out the problem. Can we make strides towards minimising the impacts of climate change by getting individuals to change their everyday habits and behaviour? Or should we expect billionaire corporations and powerful world leaders to lead the way and initiate fundamental, systemic change by charging us towards a more sustainable future? The answer is probably a bit of a both, but time and time again the latter - namely, global corporations, have tried to shift responsibility for climate change onto us. How do they do this, and why is it so important? Letâs get into it...
To start, we have to go back to 1971 and an advert produced by the âKeep America Beautifulâ campaign. The group was formed by a cohort of single-use packaging companies who - as the advert suggests - were keen to shift blame for littering and pollution onto the American people, rather than the companies and industries which were fuelling rapid growth in fossil fuels. The ad was controversial for a number of reasons - of which racial profiling was one - but perhaps most salient for us here was the manner in which it manipulates and misleads consumers into believing they alone are responsible for a global, shared crisis. It almost feels like something out of a Trump campaign - âKeep America Beautiful (Again)?â I can see it working on a red baseball cap...
This is perhaps one of the OG cases of corporate greenwashing. Corporations (and governments - though this is another article in itself) have long tried to shift responsibility onto individuals for environmental degradation and climate change by claiming that it is their demand for goods and consumer lifestyles which drives production, and thus, fuels emissions and waste (to pardon the pun). They play innocent - neglecting their own role in incentivising and profiting from this demand while deploying a range of calculated techniques to shift the guilt burden and distract us from the problem altogether.
This is greenwashing on acid. Not only are companies appealing to consumers by orchestrating an illusion of going âgreenâ without taking any real action, they are simultaneously using this fig leaf to subtly shift responsibility onto us. As an example, take the resin identification codes which commonly appear on the backs of plastic products. To the lay individual, this symbol may imply that the bottle can be recycled or that it was at least partly made from recycled material. It actually details the specific polymer the plastic is made from; very few of which are widely recyclable. In doing so, corporations that produce these bottles are not only feeding the plastic-waste pandemic, but theyâre also confusing consumers who are left with the responsibility to decipher whether or not this can be recycled. Add to that, you may start seeing â30% recycled plasticâ on your next plastic bottle as a sign of taking climate action, but as it turns out, itâs now just a legal requirement in the UK.
This is not to say that individuals cannot make a difference. Behavioural change will play a critical role if we are to stay on track to meet the rapidly approaching emissions targets outlined in global treaties - particularly so for those of us in the West who enjoy high-flying lifestyles. However, the impetus here has to be in the collective; at a minimum, corporations should be setting the right tone and taking the global environmental challenges we face seriously. Purposely misleading, manipulating and distracting individuals - all while hiding behind the illusion of going âgreenâ - is a dangerous and perverse threat to our efforts to stave off the very worst impacts of climate change.
As individuals and as a collective, we have the power to speak with our wallets - to stamp with our feet and demand with our principles. We must step up to the challenge as one. But to misquote Einstein, every action must have an equal and opposite reaction. While it is healthy for us as individuals to hold corporations to account, they must also take up the mantle and lead by example; to decode and resist deliberate lies is beyond the scope of what we as individuals are capable of in the context of such an enormous, cataclysmic threat to our existence. The responsibility that individuals and corporations have to take positive climate action canât be reduced to a zero-sum game, itâs far too nuanced. We have it in us to share the burden of responsibility and turn climate guilt into ambition, into action - but it takes two to tango. Weâre confident they can both happen to the extent that we need them to, what do you think?
The Grumpy Optimists đ