As humanity continues to deal with an ever-increasing number of global problems, one of our consistent top concerns is the way we as a species continue to destroy the environment in order to fuel our own needs. While societies have been taking large steps toward addressing the way humanity has carved an alarmingly large hole into the environment, there have been concerns that such efforts are ultimately futile. Hence, today we will be addressing how an increasing focus on solving environmental problems may not exactly be as good as we believe it to be.
Image Credit: Lightspring / Shutterstock
Greenwashing involves the manipulation of information by corporations in order to tweak the images of their products. By doing so, such businesses prey on the common consensus to support efforts in saving the environment and rack up a profit through tricking consumers into buying their products over those of other “less” environmentally friendly businesses. In any case, we will be focusing on the practice of governments rather than businesses this time round.
Contrary to what businesses and common societal consensus might have you believe, our individual efforts are barely a drop in the bucket, in the grand scheme of things. You might feel pride in bringing a recyclable bag while shopping, or grudgingly accept the lack of straws at your usual fast food restaurant, but in reality, nothing ever changes. The belief that we as individuals must change our practices in order to assist the environment, while arguably correct, is the result of decades of propaganda from fossil fuel companies and those who would find their profits cut by the slightest fraction if they were forced to become more environmentally-friendly. Hence, greenwashing. Ironically, about a hundred companies have been the source of more than 70% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions ever since 1988. In fact, these companies have even begun to dabble in politics with the world’s increasing focus on pushing for real change, with the newer generations making use of the interconnected nature of the world today to exert their own influence on politics. A concerningly relevant example of this is “woke-washing”, harnessing the nature of the internet and its obsession with trends in order to appropriate ideals that appear righteous and connect them to brands that have nothing to do with these campaigns in the first place. Chevron, for example, naturally jumped onto the “Black Lives Matter” bandwagon back when that was going viral, conveniently brushing aside the fact that the company once called in a Nigerian “kill and go” squad in 1998 to brutally suppress a protest in response to environmental damage affecting ethnic communities in Nigeria.
Chevron's advertisement supporting Black Lives Matter, despite past actions suggesting intentions otherwise.
Image Credit: Chevron / Twitter
Moving on to politics in general, environmental problems (like climate change) have shifted from an objective problem to a political one. While climate change was first considered as a purely environmental issue that we as a society need to address in order to preserve our planet, once measures had to be taken by major world governments to fix the problems the older generations have caused, those in power have begun to use the environment as a tool for political power, stagnating the process of addressing such matters. Even ignoring the business side of this argument, environmental issues have, for some reason, become intertwined with politics. Country leaders are likely to push for policies under the environmentally-friendly spectrum in order to generate public support, but only in theory. In reality, with the powerful sway lobbyists and political groups representing those who might be “adversely affected” by such policies, whatever promises exist are likely to fall apart after years of collecting dust.
Most famous of such failures would be former US President Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change mitigation shortly into his presidential term simply because he (and many others) believed that climate change and global warming were hoaxes created by China. While drawing public outcry, he proceeded nonetheless, with the cheerful support of Republicans (who reject environmental policies) and other leaders of states reliant on fossil fuels. Of course, current US President Joe Biden promised to rejoin the Paris Agreement on his first day in office and signed an executive order post inauguration to do so, but the fact remains that politics has become an entrenched part of any environmental debate.
Nothing quite encapsulates this as the man Joe Manchin III, Democratic senator for West Virginia. Often presenting himself as a pragmatic man from a poor state who is always trying to do the best for his people, the reality is that Manchin is far from that. With the blood of Big Coal running through his veins, and his political connections to the coal lobby of his state, it is not surprising that Manchin is known as the “Republican Democrat”. In an evenly split senate, Manchin has the “swing vote”, meaning that his vote can determine whether a democratic bill gets passed, thus possessing huge amounts of leverage. More often than not however, he votes against his party’s line, notably opposing the climate action aspects in Biden’s Build Back Better Bill introduced in early 2022, which was only passed in November after multiple rounds of negotiations and concessions from Democrats.
Joe Manchin is a key target of lobbying from the fossil fuels industry.
Image Credits: Open Secrets
Why? Manchin is heavily backed by the coal industry in West Virginia, with the senator being the biggest recipient of donations from the oil-and-gas industry, pulling in more than US$3.3 million in the first 9 months of 2021. Obviously, the coal industry is heavily lobbying for their interests to be protected, and they have the financial muscle to back that up. Manchin promotes himself as a man that is protecting his people’s jobs and his state's industries, but this stems from the huge lobbying and campaign donations that he receives. The senator even has deep financial interests in West Virginia’s dirtiest coal plant, the Grant Town coal plant, and has fought for several years to keep it open, despite it spewing out tons of carbon dioxide every year, and its inefficiencies have led to increased energy costs for West Virginians. Politics thus plays an important role in our fight against climate change, and by the looks of it, this sticky situation will continue into the near future.
Climate Change as a Legal Issue
In the absence of a clear politically-agreeable pathway forward, climate activist groups (and even countries) have increasingly turned towards legal systems for support over what they feel is a long-neglected cause that successive government administrations simply refuse to prioritize. Low-lying countries most at risk of the immediate effects of climate change - warmer oceans also mean rising sea levels that threaten their territorial integrity - have shown a remarkable willingness to seek greater accountability from the side of the world’s major emitters. Primarily in the form of aid monies such as a climate fund that safeguards the most vulnerable islands, sandbars and rock formations that are urgently in need of some form of protection from disappearing into the ocean, these island nations have raucously demanded monetary compensation from the world’s polluters.
Take the example of UN General Assembly resolution A/77/L.58 sponsored by the Pacific island archipelago of Vanuatu. In a major victory for climate-related litigation, the UNGA overwhelmingly voted for the resolution that requested an ICJ opinion on the obligation and responsibility of member states to account for their greenhouse gas emissions. While ICJ rulings are non legally-binding and only applicable in member states that have committed to ICJ jurisdiction in the first place, this serves as a promising start for the small states that wish to seek redress for the losses suffered from direct and indirect effects of climate change. Moreover, the moral weight that ICJ opinions carry may also be cited and used in domestic legal systems in future, providing the legal basis of such nations’ demands.
Another piece of legislation that suggests the tide of our battle against climate change is turning is the agreement of the “loss and damage” fund during COP27 in November 2022. The fund aims to provide funding for countries that have suffered from major climate disasters and to help them rebuild, showing the UN and countries’ willingness to support climate initiatives and taking a step in the right direction.
Overall, greenwashing in politics is a messy situation. Obviously most countries actively support climate change and green policies. After all, nobody wants to live in a world so polluted and uninhabitable. The reality is that beneath the veil of verbal agreements and commitments, politics is often a tricky situation to navigate, a delicate balancing act between competing interests that very few can handle well. Political deadlock, corruption, and blatant lying are nothing new, what’s alarming is the proliferation of this in climate policymaking.
References
Cohen, Z. C., Ruoff, A., Wasson, E., & Lunney, K. (2022, June 17). Joe Manchin is target audience for advocates on domestic agenda. Retrieved from https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/advocates-seek-to-revive-spending-bill-with-eye-on-west-virginia
Colgan, J. D., & Colgan, W. T. (2023, April 5). The U.N. could have a secret legal weapon to fight climate change. Foreign Policy. Retrieved from https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/04/05/united-nations-icj-vanuatu-climate-change-law-loss-damage-enmod/
Goodell, J. (2022, March 21). Manchin's coal corruption is so much worse than you knew. Retrieved from https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/joe-manchin-big-coal-west-virginia-1280922/
UN Climate Change . (2022, November 20). COP27 Reaches Breakthrough Agreement on New “Loss and Damage” Fund for Vulnerable Countries. Retrieved from https://unfccc.int/news/cop27-reaches-breakthrough-agreement-on-new-loss-and-damage-fund-for-vulnerable-countries
United Nations. (2023, March 29). General Assembly adopts Resolution Requesting International Court of Justice Provide Advisory Opinion on states' obligations concerning climate change | UN press. Retrieved from https://press.un.org/en/2023/ga12497.doc.htm
United Nations. (2023, March 29). General Assembly votes to seek World Court's opinion, in quest for 'bolder' climate action. Retrieved from https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/03/1135142
コメント