Greenwashing

Fast Facts

• In the past being green often involved personal sacrifices in terms of comfort and convenience, all in the pursuit of a better ecological state.

• Today, the act of virtue signaling confers green credentials for the most energy-wasteful individual behaviors and government policies.

  • Electricity-guzzling vehicles consuming massive amounts of rare Earth metals replace gas-guzzling vehicles as a sign of green.

• For some, the concept of being green remains synonymous with efforts to preserve natural landscapes, safeguard air and water quality, and protect both human health and the environment.

• The term "greenwashing" pertains to actions that are either meaningless or detrimental to the environment, yet are presented as environmentally friendly. 

• The Paris Climate Agreement exemplifies greenwashing as it permits countries to project an image of environmental responsibility while engaging in actions that accelerate the generation of greenhouse gases.

• The Democratic Green New Deal is the US equivalent of the Paris Climate Agreement based on a discredited technical paper written by Stanford engineering professor Mark Stanford.

• Climate Action Plans (CAP) provide greenwashing opportunities for local communities that focus on meaningless actions, or better yet, actions that are damaging to the environment.

• Edmonds, WA CAP is the poster child for greenwashing actions damaging to the environment by focusing on installing rooftop solar, based on superficial simplistic thinking, solar good, rather than math-based physics.

  • Solar panels in the worst location for incident Sun exposure in the US, produce a pittance of unreliable, junk power, that does not replace fossil fuel consumption while requiring energy and materials to manufacture.

• Germany's energy transition from reliable virtually carbon-free nuclear power to unreliable wind and solar exemplifies environmental recklessness passing as green based on resources consumed, land disturbed, and waste and greenhouse gases generated.

  • Since Germans refuse to reduce or eliminate electricity usage during the 90% of the year when it is cloudy, nighttime, or the sun is low on the horizon, running on solar means running on coal, natural gas, or imported electricity, whenever the wind dies down. 

  • A 100 W solar panel in Germany produces an average of 2 W over 24 hours and zero power for most hours of the winter days.

• Wealthier nations continue burning massive quantities of hydrocarbons while imposing restrictions on the poorest and lowest-emitting countries, perpetuating a form of "green colonialism."

Background

As a child of the 1960s being green on a personal level meant making sacrifices in comfort and convenience for a better environment.  Riding your bike to the store instead of driving, turning your thermostat down to 60 F at night, (or off you were a true environmental warrior) to reduce energy consumption,  or making a monthly trip to your recycling center with your car stacked with newspapers, glass bottles, and aluminum cans. 

Today behavior is largely separated from social credit, at least among the self-righteous whose green credentials never seem to include one of the few things that matter, like driving a fuel-efficient car.  A similar situation occurs with public policies.  The most irresponsible environmental bills, when measured by statistics such as material consumption, land area disturbance, or even CO2 generation, are proudly presented for green credentials.  

Politicians abuse the term, "green," to garner votes, companies to sell products, and individuals to justify feelings of moral superiority.  

My definition of, "green" revolves around actions that improve the environment for nature and humans based on measurable parameters.  Following are my superstars of, "green" actions which dramatically improved the quality of life for man or left more land undisturbed for nature.

Green

During the 1800s, an era when a single US farmer produced enough food to sustain only 3 to 5 individuals, adopting an environmentally conscious stance meant advocating for the preservation of undisturbed natural lands. The establishment of the inaugural national park, Yellowstone, in 1872, stands as a significant beacon of environmentally conscious action, inspiring over 100 countries to follow suit in creating their own national parks.

In the aftermath of World War II, the environmental movement shifted its focus to safeguarding water and air quality. The realization of the adverse health effects stemming from the release of hazardous substances into the environment during manufacturing prompted the enactment of laws aimed at upholding water and air standards. These regulations underwent continuous enhancements over the ensuing decades.

The environmental movement of the 1970s played a pivotal role in achieving historic reductions in water and air pollution, as well as in setting aside pristine landscapes for conservation.

Subsequent concerns centered on the unforeseen repercussions of chemicals discharged into the environment. DDT, an insecticide credited with saving over 500 million lives by combating disease-carrying mosquitoes like those spreading malaria, was found in human tissues, leading to its prohibition in the US in 1972. However, questions have arisen, particularly from those familiar with the dire economic conditions in impoverished malaria-stricken regions, regarding the ethical implications of this ban.

The removal of lead from gasoline and paint stands as another commendable example of environmentally conscious actions. Scientific research demonstrated that childhood exposure to lead adversely impacted cognitive abilities, prompting the elimination of lead from gasoline. 

The introduction of auto emission controls effectively eradicated smog conditions in major US cities.  

In the 1980s, an enlargement of the ozone layer hole over the Southern Hemisphere, a natural phenomenon occurring annually, raised concerns among scientists stationed in Antarctica due to apprehensions about the negative health consequences of excessive ultraviolet (UV) radiation. Recognized as a protective shield for plant and animal life on Earth, the ozone layer was depleting primarily due to chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), utilized as refrigerants and aerosol propellants. These compounds also functioned as potent greenhouse gases. In response, the Montreal Protocol was signed in 1987 by nearly 200 nations, imposing restrictions on CFC production and initiating a phased transition to less harmful alternatives. Although CFCs were swiftly prohibited in aerosol cans, a context where their exceptional performance characteristics were underutilized, their removal from air conditioning and refrigeration systems took longer, with poorer nations receiving extensions to mitigate undue economic hardship.

Around the same period, as the public was absorbing the lesson from the ozone layer depletion, recognizing humanity's capability to alter the climate, the issue of global warming surfaced in the media. Early computer models indicated that slight modifications in atmospheric temperatures, attributed to human activities, could significantly impact agriculture. James Hansen, a NASA climate scientist, emerged as a prominent voice, delivering testimonies to Congress and serving as a scientific advisor to then-Vice President Al Gore. Although his group's model-based prediction that "global warming predicted in the next 20 years will make the Earth warmer than it has been in the past 100,000 years" missed the mark, the overarching trend of rising temperatures and widespread glacier melt has proven accurate.

While identifying climate change as an environmental concern indeed represents a facet of being environmentally conscious, the subsequent response has often epitomized the practice of greenwashing.

Greenwashing

The term greenwashing is formed by the union of the words green and brainwashing.  It was created by Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in the 1990s to describe environmentally harmful practices of big industrial groups.  Today greenwashing generally refers to meaningless or increasingly harmful actions to the environment which pass as green.  

Effective actions which made a huge difference in the environment have been replaced by greenwashing, with policies that allow the rich to feel guilt free for their glutinous consumption of natural resources.  Limousine liberals who drive their gas-guzzling SUVs or pick-up trucks can now buy an electricity-guzzling pickup truck guilt free with government subsidies, much of it paid for by endless money printing. Lower-income taxpayers will even pay electricity surcharges,  which make rooftop solar installations that consume natural resources while doing nothing to eliminate coal power plants or alternate greenhouse gas generator production, financially profitable for the wealthier consumers who install them.

Trillions of dollars squandered on actions that increase greenhouse gases, while trashing the planet, and disturbing massive amounts of nature, at a huge financial cost to the taxpayer is greenwashing at its worst.  Climate treaties and action plans that reward behaviors that increase greenhouse gas generation, and environmental destruction, come in at a close second, the starting point of this section.

While climate change agreements are notorious for their greenwashing traditions, the Montreal Protocol stands out due to its focus on effective intelligent actions which focused on a goal vital to life on Earth. 

Hall of Shame

Early in life, I noticed that those earning social credit from friends or followers by complaining the loudest about a problem were usually the biggest contributor to that same problem.  

Here we honor the stellar leaders and organizations of climate change and environmental hypocrisy, starting with former Democratic Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.