How to handle the specter of political greenwashing
By: Josh Chetwynd
Tags: Climate Change, Greenwashing, Environmental Issues, Politics, Language

How to handle the specter of political greenwashing

As climate change hits center stage, be prepared for hollow rhetoric from elected officials

Greenwashing occurs when people claim environmental friendliness but aren’t truly committed to the issue.

Back in 1986, an environmentalist named Jay Westerveld wrote an essay criticizing a hotel chain for disingenuously touting sustainability bona fides. The business put out signs asking guests to reuse towels as a way to “save the planet” by limiting water and electricity consumption. Believing this was all show because the company could be doing so much more, he said: “Wash my towels please, just don’t ‘greenwash’ me.”

The term greenwashing stuck as shorthand for corporations using grandiose language about protecting the environment but never acting as big as their words. While the expression was fresh, the concept wasn’t new. An author and one-time ad man named Jerry Mander opted for the more jarring “ecopornography” when describing this sort of activity in the early 1970s.

Whichever label you choose (I’ll opt for greenwashing), this dynamic of claiming the environmentalist’s mantle for relatively small acts, while not addressing the most significant issues, continues today. A couple of weeks ago, the Huffington Post reported that the five biggest publicly traded oil companies in the world “are increasing their investments in oil and gas, putting a combined $110 billion in new fossil-fuel production.” But while doing that, the same corporations have “spent more than $1 billion on public relations promoting green energy projects and lobbying on behalf of climate policy in the past three years.”

It shouldn’t be surprising that this desire to appear environmentally focused endures. More than ever, being pro-green aligns entities and public figures with popular sentiment. A poll from Yale and George Mason universities earlier this year found that 69 percent of Americans surveyed were “worried” about global warming. Another similar recent poll from Gallup said that 80 percent surveyed wanted “more emphasis” on solar power and 70 percent called for more energy from wind. Even before those Gallup results, The Atlantic decreed in mid-March that “suddenly, climate change is a high-profile national issue again.”

Environmentalists should be buoyed by that news but should also be wary that some elected officials and candidates might use that data for insincere means. In the world of politics, saying one thing and doing another is sadly common. And when it comes to the environment, be ready to experience green rhetoric that isn’t backed up by consequential action.

Call it political greenwashing.

Now, this is a nuanced concept. After all, there are different shades of the phenomenon — and it’s important not to start painting with a broad brush prematurely. Shifts in language show progress, and promising statements create documentation that environmentalists can utilize to hold politicians accountable for important measures.

So we should rejoice to some degree when Texas’ Rep. Bill Flores goes from describing climate action as “petty politics based on dubious ‘agenda-driven, scientific’ research” to saying that he is “excited about opportunities for America to be a leader in emissions reductions” because he’s now “more knowledgeable about this particular policy issue.”

Rep. Bill Flores of Texas, who once questioned climate science, says he’s now “excited about opportunities for America to be a leader in emissions reductions.”

Flores may very well follow his revised remarks with results. After all, consider Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker. He once “voiced doubts about the veracity of climate science and the high cost of renewable energy.” But he’s changed his rhetoric and has taken more pro-green positions on, for example, harnessing offshore wind for renewable electricity and cutting transportation emissions.

Baker proves that giving politicians some running room to take steps in the right direction can yield positive outcomes. That said, we must be measured with how much space we provide. With immediate and comprehensive action necessary to avert the worst effects of climate change, elected representatives who see the current political environment as an opportunity to curry favor with constituents on global warming, and then, after receiving support, do little or nothing, are deeply worthy of skepticism. Those who firmly disagree with the scientific consensus on climate change can be debated in the clear light of the marketplace of ideas. But those who doublespeak are much more difficult to handle.

As a result, careful listening and prepared responses are essential. The likes of Flores have laid down their markers with pointed words. Now, the environmentalist’s job is to make sure that it is impossible for those leaders not to follow up on their pro-green statements. Our environment is a bedrock value. Politicians should recognize that not only speaking to those principles but also doing right by them is essential for succeeding on the campaign trail.

So, let’s take a short breath and see if Flores and others follow up their verbal commitments with meaningful action. If they do not, it will be blatant political greenwashing and as Westerveld, the man credited with coining greenwashing, once said: “When environmental responsibility becomes just a form of self-expression, for fashion’s sake, it becomes dangerous.”