Cover ups and false promises- the climate change charade

In the era of net zero politics, climate awareness and the still (naggingly) present climate change denial, there are a lot of contradictions. Whether it’s in inconsistent policymaking and upholding, or in the way that subsidies are awarded to polluting industries, things do not add up.

As fuel prices have gone through the roof, and the economy struggles along, it is a good time to own stock in oil companies. Shell announced that their 2021 had seen a massive rebound in full-year profit, something that would allow them to institute a share buyback program worth $8.5 billion in 2022.

Meanwhile, we learn that the world is spending £1.3 trillion (1,300 billion) ‘every year on subsidies driving the annihilation of wildlife and a rise in global heating, according to a new study.’

This news should not be too surprising but given the rhetoric we heard at COP26 last year, and the general understanding- the growing awareness of the climate emergency we face- it should be. After all, the same countries funding these harmful industries are the ones that signed onto the Paris Agreement.

Groundwork UK criticised the government for their response to the fuel crisis, and for the lack of investment in green industries within the levelling up agenda. We also continue to encourage investment in a green infrastructure, pushing back against disingenuous skepticism (and overwhelming financial influence) that props up the fossil fuel industry; it seems certain political elements within the UK may begin rallying against the net-zero proposals already set in motion.

On top of that, recent events have shown that investing in renewable energy can be vital for a country’s autonomy, as the world’s energy prices rise in wake of uncertainty and conflict. Even though we don’t import as much Russian gas as other European countries, we still are affected:

‘The UK is not protected from rising prices purely because it relies less on Russian gas.

The UK market is closely connected to markets in mainland Europe, meaning a price rise on the continent will likely lead to higher prices here too.’

Any hope in sight?

It seems fair to say that the majority of action toward achieving net zero and mitigating climate effects is largely performative. There is no real, coherent, and vigorous approach to this problem.

There are, of course, many individuals and institutions doing their best to achieve these purportedly shared aims, but they are too often working against the grain and are financially outnumbered by the weight of the status quo.

Please buy my plastic

It is important to remember that ‘the world’s five biggest oil companies have forked over more than $3.6 billion for reputation-building ads’ over the last thirty years. Similarly, companies that use a lot of plastic in their products will make a big deal out of how they are using recycled material, or that you can recycle their product; they imply that they are somehow helping, reducing waste and being more sustainable, but usually that doesn’t mean much. What would really help is less consumption. And that doesn’t help anyone’s bottom line, aside from the consumer of course. But in a world based on consumerism, that all seems by the by.

Ultimately, the climate crisis is a great business opportunity. It is a chance to ride a social wave of support for more ethical, sustainable practices. It is a chance to promote your milk-alternative drink, pat yourself on the back for not being as damaging as dairy and overstate your environmental benefits. It is a space for marketing:

‘Greenwashing is neither a new tactic nor a new term; it was coined by environmentalist Jay Westerveld in 1986, following years of television and print ads from oil majors including Exxon. But, as with climate denialism, it has evolved in line with changing ideas of business purpose and ever-more digitised advertising.’

The Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) recently banned a TV commercial by innocent Drinks (owned by Coca Cola) after it ruled that the advertisement offered a misleading representation of the net-positive environmental impact of their products. Coca Cola is not exactly well-known for its positive environmental impacts, but it, like any business trying to boost its image, will do anything to virtue signal its supposed environmental sensitivity.

Climate denial

And then there are those that will try to subvert even the good intentions of a progressive climate policy.

Not just in their misleading ‘greenwashing,’ but also in their long-running campaign to discredit and besmirch climate science.

You can read more about that here.

We need to do our part?

And then we are told to adapt our habits- an important step for sure, but certainly not enough- while those whose habits are disproportionately destroying the planet are left to their devices. The private jets and the yachts, the mansions and pied a terres all over the place. And we’re not supposed to fly as much anymore?

So is climate change something we can solve? Is our current way of life, the economic system we know and have lived in our whole lives going to inevitably solve this issue? Is innovation and good faith, collective spirit, eventually going to get us through this?

Perhaps- and I say that with as much optimism as I can muster- but it all remains to be seen. We can be optimists or realists. Either way, we must keep making ourselves heard.

Only through protest and constantly forcing the issue in our parliaments can we ever hope to achieve anything.

We can do more, but we must at least do that.

 

Matthew Thomas