What do Bigfoot and carbon have in common?

The header photo is from the New York Times.

One of the most common pieces of advice given to those who are trying to be more conscious of their environmental impacts is to reduce their carbon footprint. But what exactly a person or entity’s carbon footprint is, how it is calculated, or how to mitigate it, is something that can be difficult to define.

What is a carbon footprint, and why are we so concerned with them?

The term “carbon footprint” was first used in 2000, in an interview for The Seattle Times, but the concept of an “environmental” or “ecological” footprint existed prior. One of the earliest appearances of the term “environmental footprint” was in a discussion by the U.S. Senate in 1976, in regards to concentrating structures and personnel to a smaller area in Yosemite Valley. The “Ecological Footprint” analysis was proposed by Mathis Wackernagel and William E. Rees in 1996, in an effort to help bring consciousness to the amount of land or water space utilized in any given economic venture. This is the natural predecessor to the concept of a carbon footprint, which today, the Nature Conservancy defines as “the total amount of greenhouse gases (including carbon dioxide and methane) that are generated by our actions.” The New York Times puts this in more concrete terms—“A carbon footprint is the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions that come from the production, use and end-of-life of a product or service.”

Calculating an individual’s carbon footprint endeavors to account for all activities and ramifications of those activities—including size and location of household, travel means and distance, food sources and products purchased. This a fairly complex set of measurements, that the full impacts of may not be feasible to accurately measure. A given product’s carbon footprint includes source or fabrication of materials, manufacture, transportation, consumer use, and disposal. Common tips to reduce one’s carbon footprint often include things like reducing length of showers, taking public transportation, and switching appliances for more energy efficient models.

Greenwashing and other lies

Through messaging to individuals (or as some would say: consumers) that leads to focus on individual actions, choices, and products, corporations can effectively shift focus off of themselves—drawing scrutiny off of how green their practices may actually be. When companies or organizations make statements about their ethos or practices the portray them as environmentally conscious, even misleadingly, in order to appeal to the public, it is called greenwashing. The term was first used by environmental activist Jay Westerveld in 1986, describing his experience with a hotel that asked guests to reuse their towels, claiming it was a company water saving strategy. Westerveld observed that despite this claim, there were no other conservation efforts in place, and that the hotel was simply saving money on washing.

At best, greenwashing is an honest advertisement of a company’s values and practices, but often it is just intended to improve the company’s public image—whether or not they actually are using sustainable business practices. Perhaps the most egregious example of this is BP’s—once British Petroleum, later rebranded to “Beyond Petroleum”—long history of what can generously be described as distracting advertising. The name change itself (and the friendly green sunburst logo) came about in response to criticism about the company’s lax safety regulations. BP was actually a driving force in popularizing the term “carbon footprint,” and helpfully provided a definition that functioned as a tidy little trick that not only put the onus of environmental responsibility on the consumer, but made BP seem like an authority on the concept, as well as a responsible company, since they are advertising about it. Ads even varied among countries, with American ads specifically worded to play into American national identity and pride. These ads served to make the BP brand seem like a part of the solution while not acknowledging or changing policies to mitigate the fact that they were a major contributor to climate change. While they seemed to promote cleaner energy by claiming to be searching for alternatives to oil, the “alternatives” were things like using more gas as fuel (also a fossil fuel!) or simply other methods of finding and refining oil. Of course, BP’s image was irreversibly damaged in 2010 with the explosion and subsequent oil spill of Deepwater Horizon in 2010, which is regarded as one of the worst environmental disasters in American history— and is still impacting marine life, over ten years later.

As a marketing strategy, greenwashing is a mixed bag. Sometimes, it works. Since the beginnings of the environmental movements, the demand for environmentally conscious products has increased. TerraChoice reports that between 2009 and 2010, “green” products on offer increased by 73%. People especially respond to images of nature on packaging. However, if false, greenwashing causes people to lose trust in the brand, with potentially severe financial repercussions. In 2015, the use of greenwashing by Volkswagen cost the company €7 billion in profits and a 25% drop in stock value.

What we owe to each other

Studies that examine the impact of greenwashing on consumers as well as the accuracy of sustainability claims by companies come to virtually the same conclusion. We need transparency from corporations, in the form of published reports of activities and emissions. As of now, greenwashing has been likened to the managing of reputations in postcolonial society—one that fails to acknowledge the full diversity of the public. Social responsibility must take into account the needs of all groups in order to be equitable. It is nothing new or surprising that environmental racism has led to criminal acts of pollution and displacement of Black and Indigenous People of Color by corporations, even purportedly “green” ones. Shell, for example, despite recent statements about its commitment to becoming more sustainable, has been widely criticized for being false or misleading. Additionally, the tragic and deadly conflict with the Ogoni people of Nigeria, on whose land Shell operated, is not resolved. Though Shell states that no oil or gas has been produced on Ogoni land since 1993, the land is still used as a transportation route for oil and gas produced elsewhere. Oil spills in the 1970s that “ravaged” the land finally saw Shell convicted of wrongdoing in 2010—but a settlement agreement was finally reached in August of 2021 in which Shell agreed to pay over $12 million (£95 million) to communities in southeastern Nigera. This follows a previous payment of $70 million in 2015 as compensation to residents of Ogoniland, in which Shell also agreed to begin cleanup of an oil spill that had occurred in 2008.

Author David R Simon states that environmental regulations need active enforcement and there needs to be punishments for damages, in addition to open and honest reports on activities. These are crimes not only against the environment, but against people– those now being subjected to pollutants and those in the future who will be forced to endure the consequences. What must be accounted for is the fact that fines may not be a meaningful enough disincentive against negligence and wrongdoing—if the fine is affordable to the company, they may consider it a lesser cost than reworking their business practices to be more sustainable. The root of the problem is societal—the current “sustainable” goals for major corporations and manufacturers is to sustain their business operations, and right now, the pressure to actually make meaningful change is not strong enough, which is how we end up with pandering, dishonest advertising. It’s how we end up with nightmarish things like “green” prison buildings—which, much like Jay Westerveld’s towels from the 1980s, are less about actually making any sort of meaningful change and more about cutting costs.

No ethical consumption under capitalism

The final nail in the coffin is that unfortunately under the current state of capitalism, when products are made as ethically as possible, including using more responsible materials and not actively exploiting workers, they are more expensive. This effectively makes sustainability inaccessible to those who can’t afford to purchase the “right” products or live a certain lifestyle, even if they want to. Meaningful change cannot happen unless society moves away from the current model of consumption and changes values from the ground up to put responsible, accessible, and equitable sustainability above profit.

Sources and Further Reading

The following is a list of works that directly informed or are related to this piece. It is comprised of books and academic peer-reviewed journal articles, popular science articles and news stories, and information from environmental organizations. In the case of popular articles intended for the public, remember to always verify the source of information.

• Ecological Economics Research Trends: A Definition of "Carbon Footprint"

• Journal of Business Ethics: Perceived Greenwashing: The Effects of Green Marketing on Environmental and Product Perceptions

• Environmental Sciences Europe: Concepts and forms of greenwashing: a systematic review

• Sustainability: Green Brand of Companies and Greenwashing under Sustainable Development Goals

• The Journal of Corporate Citizenship: Are We Doing the Right Thing? Leadership and Prioritisation for Public Benefit

• Encyclopedia of Corporate Social Responsibility: Greenwashing

• The Guardian: The troubling evolution of corporate greenwashing

• International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility: Grey zone in – greenwash out. A review of greenwashing research and implications for the voluntary-mandatory transition of CSR

• Research in International Business and Finance: Greenwashing in environmental, social and governance disclosures

• Journal of Advertising: Misleading Consumers with Green Advertising? An Affect–Reason–Involvement Account of Greenwashing Effects in Environmental Advertising

• Routledge International Handbook of Green Criminology: "Greening" injustice

• Environmental Science and Policy: Hidden drivers of social injustice: uncovering unequal cultural ecosystem services behind green gentrification

• Nature Communications: Green infrastructure can limit but not solve air pollution injustice

• Annals of American Association of Geographers: Expanding the Boundaries of Justice in Urban Greening Scholarship: Toward an Emancipatory, Antisubordination, Intersectional, and Relational Approach

• The New York Times Magazine: Footprint

• The Nature Conservancy: Calculate Your Carbon Footprint

• The New York Times: How to Reduce Your Carbon Footprint

• Science: The best way to reduce your carbon footprint is one the government isn't telling you about

• Environmental Research Letters: The climate mitigation gap: education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions

• Culture, Environment and Eco-Politics: Where has all the oil gone? BP branding and the discursive elimination of climate change risk

• Beyond Profit: Rethinking Corporate Social Responsibility and Greenwashing after the BP Oil Disaster

• Forbes Report: The U.S. Military Emits More CO2 Than Many Industrialized Nations [Infographic]

• EPA: Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

• Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs. Costs of War: Pentagon Fuel Use, Climate Change, and the Costs of War

• Science Daily: U.S. military consumes more hydrocarbons than most countries -- massive hidden impact on climate

• earth.org. US Military Pollution: The World’s Biggest Climate Change Enabler

• Clarity and Leadership for Environmental Awareness and Research at UC Davis: Big oil distracts from their carbon footprint by tricking you to focus on yours

• Mashable: The carbon footprint sham

• From Polarisation to Multispecies Relationships: Social and Environmental Justice

• Edie: Shell campaign promoting carbon offsetting is greenwashing, Dutch advertising watchdog rules

• Adapting Environmental Justice: In the Age of Climate Change, Environmental Justice Demands a Combined Adaptation-Mitigation Response

• The Guardian: The forgotten oil ads that told us climate change was nothing

• The Multinational Monitor: DuPont's Disgraceful Deeds

• The New York Times: Regulators Find Design Flaws in New Reactors

• The Guardian: New York investigates radioactive leak in groundwater near city

• Business and Human Rights Resource Centre. Nigeria: In win against Shell, Dutch court finds Shell Nigeria liable for oil spills & Shell parent company has a duty of care to prevent future spills

• Friends of the Earth Europe: Shell accused of concealing damage to health from Nigerian oil spills

• The Guardian: Shell is not a green saviour. It’s a planetary death machine

• ClientEarth. Greenwashing Files: Shell

• Amnesty International. Nigeria: Shell complicit in the arbitrary executions of Ogoni Nine as writ served in Dutch court

• Shell: THE OGONI ISSUE

• American Behavioral Scientist: Corporate Environmental Crimes and Social Inequality: New Directions for Environmental Justice Research

• Public Relations Review: Imperializing spin cycles: A postcolonial look at public relations, greenwashing, and the separation of publics