What do Bigfoot and carbon have in common?

The header photo is from the New York Times.

Their footprints are difficult to quantify! Greenwashing has changed how we think about social responsibility and climate change.

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.

However, research shows that the four biggest things one can do to reduce their carbon footprints are to not use air travel, to give up cars, to eat vegetarian, and most impactfully, have fewer children. These are a far cry from paltry tips like using paper straws instead of plastic. They also require huge lifestyle changes that may or may not be feasible for many people. Why, then, does public outreach focus on lower-impact actions? Why are we still so dependent on independent cars, and why do we still eat so much meat? Or, put simply—why is it on us, the individuals, to reduce our own carbon footprints, when these are infinitesimal in comparison to, say for example, the United States military, which has a larger carbon footprint than several industrialized countries? (For a full deconstruction of the military's contribution to climate change, check out this in-depth look).

Emissions savings from various actions. Graphic created by J. You/Science; and data by Seth Wynes and Kimberly A Nicholas from Environmental Research Letters (2017).

Estimated carbon dioxide emissions in 2017 (million tonnes). From Statista via Forbes, from data from Brown University.

The vast majority of the energy consumption of the US government and Department of Defense comes from fuel usage, especially jet fuel. From a report by Neta Crawford, Boston University.

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.

Ads run by BP in print in the early 2000s. Ads shifted blame, mislead readers, and played on national pride. Image sources: here, here.

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.

DuPont, which at the time was recorded as being the single largest corporate polluter in the US, advertises its double hulled oil tankers in this 1991 commercial.

Chevron claims to leave nature undisturbed after oil drilling in this 1980s commercial, while violating the clean air and water acts, and contaminating wildlife refuges with oil spills.

Westinghouse proclaims that nuclear power has no negative environmental effects in 2013. Two years earlier, Westinghouse was cited with covering up design flaws in their reactors, and three years later in 2016, would leak radioactive material into the groundwater of Indian Point, New York.

Ultimately, as writer Julie Doyle points out, greenwashing reflects a shift in values for consumers—a recognition of the reality of climate change and a desire to make ethical and responsible choices—but still focuses on the manufacture and sale of products that is inevitably harmful to the environment. Perhaps this quandary is best summed succinctly by the NBC sitcom The Good Place—“These days, just buying a tomato at a grocery store means you are unwittingly supporting toxic pesticides, exploiting labor, contributing to global warming. Humans think that they’re making one choice, but they’re actually making dozens of choices they don’t even know they’re making!”

The character Chidi from The Good Place despairs about being sent to the "Bad Place," which he fears is because of his continued enjoyment of almond milk. GIF found here.

"Whilst the branding of green values in specific relation to climate change could be regarded as a positive recognition of the issue by businesses and the public (Climate Change Corporation, 2007), at the same time the very logic of branding is indebted to the promotion of lifestyle through consumption. Addressing climate change ultimately requires a change in (westernised) lifestyles, based upon a reduction in consumption (WorldWatch Institute 2010)."
~ Julie Doyle

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.

Media documenting the environmental damage done by oil spills in Nigeria.

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.