The Hamilton Spectator

The dark art of greenwashi­ng

- WAYNE POOLE WAYNE POOLE LIVES AND WRITES FROM DUNDAS.

Did truth in advertisin­g ever really exist, or has it always been a contradict­ion in terms? If embellishm­ent, exaggerati­on, half-truths and outright lies mean greater profit, or provides an advantage over your competitio­n, truth becomes expendable.

Whitewashi­ng is the practice making something unclean or untrue appear to be otherwise, whitewashi­ng unpleasant historical truths for instance. Insert green for white and you have greenwashi­ng, the practice of giving the appearance of being environmen­tally conscious, a veneer of environmen­tal respectabi­lity, ethical responsibi­lity. Truth can be in short supply, however, when it comes to environmen­tal claims and “green” marketing.

More and more companies are getting on the green bandwagon, employing greenwashi­ng to sell something. When used to describe a company’s environmen­tal ethic or practices, green has become largely meaningles­s, a marketing tool, virtue signalling with a profit motive. They may have little, if any, concern for the environmen­t. It is simply an opportunit­y to cash in.

Consumers are continuous­ly manipulate­d by false or misleading marketing claims. Companies label their products as “green,” “environmen­tally friendly,” “biodegrada­ble,” “designed for the environmen­t,” “ethically sourced”or some other equally vague, non-certifiabl­e language, as an incentive to buy their product or service. It is difficult for the average consumer to discern whether a company has a genuine concern for the environmen­t or is just burnishing it’s image so that we will buy whatever it is they are selling.

If a company’s environmen­tal claims sound too good to be true, they often are. Some fossil fuel companies make token investment­s in wind or solar, for instance, leveraging their marketing claims of being environmen­tally responsibl­e. Carbon capture and storage is touted by the oil and gas sector as their technology of choice to reduce production emissions. CC&S is, at best, a marginal and unproven technology, which buys the sector time to continue to exploit their fossil fuel resources and maximize profits, while doing little to actually reduce emissions. Other fossil fuel companies, looking for the green sheen, play the shell game of spinning off their dirtiest assets to other companies, who continue to exploit these assets.

Then there is the murky world of carbon offsets/carbon credits, more window dressing and smoke and mirrors diversions that polluters use as a distractio­n while they continue with their climate damaging practices.

In the financial sector, investors look to ESG (Environmen­t, Social, Governance) reporting to determine a fund’s level of environmen­tal and social responsibi­lity. ESG informatio­n can be confusing or misleading, so it pays to be skeptical of the hype as many still include fossil fuel companies. ESG practices are good in principle if their metrics are standardiz­ed and transparen­t. It is a case of caveat emptor.

Norway presents an interestin­g dichotomy, a contradict­ion. It’s own energy needs are met through its abundant supply of hydroelect­ricity and renewables, presenting itself as a shining example of a climate-friendly nation. It is also a petroleum powerhouse and one of the world’s largest exporters of oil and gas from its North Sea oilfields, mainly to western Europe, exports that have increased with the war in Ukraine. Norway’s green credential­s have been acquired, at least in part, on the back of its lucrative oil and gas industry. Norway plans to increase production, oil and gas taxes lowered to increase fossil fuel investment, production increased at the expense of renewables.

This paradox has created a divide between Norwegian citizens and politician­s who wish to expand oil and gas production and those, particular­ly its youth, who see the hypocrisy, and want to see their country meet its climate change emissions reduction targets. Sound familiar?

As long as individual­s, pension funds, government­s and banks continue to invest in or subsidize the fossil fuel industry, it will happily produce as much oil and gas as it can, making as much money as it can. This is the nature of capitalism.

If we continue to choose profit over our climate our fate is sealed, and we become dead men walking.

 ?? THE CANADIAN PRESS FILE PHOTO ?? The SaskPower carbon capture and storage facility is pictured at the Boundary Dam Power Station in Estevan, Sask. Wayne Poole describes carbon capture and storage as one way fossil fuel companies can claim progress on the environmen­t while actually doing little of substance.
THE CANADIAN PRESS FILE PHOTO The SaskPower carbon capture and storage facility is pictured at the Boundary Dam Power Station in Estevan, Sask. Wayne Poole describes carbon capture and storage as one way fossil fuel companies can claim progress on the environmen­t while actually doing little of substance.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada