Greenwashing // Current

Corporations Have Big Plans to Profit from Global Warming

A bunch of multinationals have figured out how to make their pollution-based businesses seem like the solution to the climate crisis.

With the world's leading scientists in agreement on the science behind global warming, how are multinational corporations preparing for climate change? Some, like Exxon Mobile, continue to squeeze the last drops of profit out of any oil field they get their hands on while paying scientists to deny climate change. Some see profitability in adapting to a more energy-efficient world. And then there's the third group: the greenwashers -- those hoping to come off as enviro-friendly while they make a buck (or a few million) off our global crisis.

Greenwashing is nothing new, but there's a huge difference between covering up environmentally damaging activities with an eco-friendly gesture or two and touting your pollution-based business as the solution to the climate crisis.

An example of the former would be Wal-Mart patting itself on the back for selling millions of energy-efficient lightbulbs while simultaneously selling cheap junk from China by the truckload. Nobody will be fooled by a few compact fluorescents into believing that Wal-Mart is up there with the Sierra Club in defending our planet.

But how about companies like Bayer, which is currently working to produce drought-resistant plants to help farmers face a post-global warming reality? And then there's corn ethanol, a fuel that requires so much oil to produce that it hardly represents a move away from petroleum products at all, and yet it is the darling of politicians on both sides of the aisle. To many, these products are undetectable as greenwashing. And that's not by accident.

During a conversation on climate change at this month's Slow Food Nation festival, author and activist Anna Lappé said, "What scares me about this historic moment is that as we collectively raise the consciousness about the connection between the food system and climate change -- that there is one, that we need to do something about it -- at the very same time what we're seeing is some of the biggest agribusiness companies and also the biggest biotech companies taking advantage of that consciousness-raising to present themselves as the solution, and that I think is very dangerous."

For example, proponents of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), an artificial hormone that boosts a cow's milk production, now cite a study published at Cornell University "proving" that using rBGH is green. When the study came out, newspapers wrote clever headlines about reducing cows' carbon "hoofprint." Yet the basis of the study (that cows treated with rBGH eat the same amount as cows not treated with the hormone) was flawed, and the study was written by a group including Dale Bauman (who has received funding from Monsanto, the company then behind rBGH, in the past) and a Monsanto consultant. (Monsanto owned rBGH and marketed it under the brand name Posilac until it sold the product to Eli Lilly and Company last month.)

In reality, the way to reduce a dairy cow's carbon hoofprint is to allow her to graze on pasture to reduce the amount of grain in her diet. As a perennial, grass does not require annual planting. Nor does it require fertilizer (beyond the manure fertilizer the cows apply to the pasture themselves). The cows also replace the machinery to harvest, process and transport their food that would be required for a diet of grain. But a cow receiving rBGH cannot enjoy a diet of mostly grass; she simply cannot take in enough calories a day via grazing to support increased milk production. Only a higher-calorie grain diet -- one that makes cows sick -- can support the metabolism of a cow on drugs.
************CONTINUESA bunch of multinationals have figured out how to make their pollution-based businesses seem like the solution to the climate... more

goldenways
added this

3 responses

1 month ago

justicia now screening v 2.0

one director takes a stand against hypocrisy

smorrisey
added this

16 responses

1 year ago

Shell rebuked for 'greenwash' over ad for polluting tar sands project

The Anglo-Dutch energy giant Shell misled the public about the green credentials of a vastly polluting oil project in Canada, in an attempt to assure consumers of its good environmental record, a media watchdog will rule today.

In an embarrassing rejection of Shell's "greenwash", the Advertising Standards Authority said the company should not have used the word "sustainable" for its controversial tar sands project and a second scheme to build North America's biggest oil refinery. Both projects would lead to the emission of more greenhouse gases, the ASA said, ruling the advert had breached rules on substantiation, truthfulness and environmental claims.

Carried by the Financial Times on 1 February to accompany Shell's financial results, the company claimed: "We invest today's profits in tomorrow's solutions."

The advert continued: "A growing world needs more energy, but at the same time we need to find new ways of managing carbon emissions to limit climate change. Continued investment in technology is one of the key ways we are able to address this challenge, and continue to secure a profitable and sustainable future."

Shell explained it was harnessing its technical expertise "to unlock the potential of the vast Canadian oil sands deposits".

The WWF (formerly the Worldwide Fund for Nature) complained that extracting low-grade bitumen from sand was highly inefficient and destroyed huge tracts of virgin forest. In its defence, Shell maintained that new technology was reducing pollution from the Athabasca Oil Sands Project in Alberta in which it owns a 60 per cent stake.

Shell quoted a critical WWF report as rating its Muskeg River Mine one of the least damaging coal-tar sands projects because it sought to limit emissions of nitrogen oxide, sulphur dioxide and organic compounds.

Making its ruling, the ASA quoted Canada's independent National Energy Board that oil sand developments had considerable social and economic impacts on water conservation, greenhouse gas emissions, land disturbance and waste management.

David Norman, the WWF's director of campaigns, said: "The ASA's decision to uphold WWF's complaint sends a strong signal to business and industry that greenwash is unacceptable."

The Anglo-Dutch energy giant Shell misled the public about the green credentials of a vastly polluting oil project in Canada, in... more