It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Thursday, December 01, 2022
Agnès PEDRERO
Tue, November 29, 2022
Stroking a tiny spruce sapling, Swiss forest ranger Francois Villard fears the tree will not withstand global warming and live to a ripe old age like its ancestors.
The Risoud Forest, covering the border between France and Switzerland some 1,200 metres (3,900 feet) up in the Jura mountains, is filled with spruce trees which are hundreds of years old.
Their wood is perfect for crafting acoustic guitars, violins and other string instruments, making it sought after by luthiers around the world.
But climate change has brought drier, warmer weather, threatening the special tonal qualities of the wood.
"I have never seen so many dry trees," says Villard, who is now approaching retirement.
He is saddened by the sight of so many spruces turning red, losing their needles and drying up, and by spending his days marking trees for felling.
"When I arrived here 30 years ago, there was an average annual temperature of five to six degrees Celsius (40-43 degrees Fahrenheit). Now we are well above that," he tells AFP.
Recent winters have been nowhere near as cold as before.
- Risoud resonance -
Spruces are the most common tree in Switzerland, and the hitherto stable climate in the Jura made the species perfect for producing tonewood for acoustic string instruments.
Stiff yet light softwoods like spruce are used to make soundboards -- the top of the instrument -- which amplifies the vibrations of the strings.
The soundboard must resonate easily with good tonal qualities, while resisting the strain of the strings on the bridge -- characteristics that spruce possesses better than other woods.
The trees that meet the criteria perfectly are exceptionally rare -- one in 1,000 or even 10,000, some say.
The tree must be 200 to 400 years old, and the bottom of the trunk must have a diameter of at least 50 centimetres (20 inches). It must be without knots or flowing resin.
The tree must have grown straight, slowly and, above all, with regular annual growth so that the tree rings are uniform and tight.
- Wood stock -
In the workshop of Swiss Resonance Wood, in the village of Le Brassus close to the French border, Quentin Durey sketches the outline of a guitar on a thin sheet of wood. Thousands more sheets are piled up to dry out over the years.
"There are about 2,000 guitar tops -- classical, romantic and folk guitars," explains company boss Theo Magnin.
The company sells to Europe, Japan and Mexico amongst other destinations.
But Magnin is worried.
"I don't know where people who make musical instruments are going to get their supplies in 10 or 20 years," he says.
"If there is no more wood, there will be no more instruments."
Philippe Ramel, a luthier whose workshop overlooks Vevey and Lake Geneva, makes two to four guitars a year, using spruce from Swiss Resonance Wood.
"We have to stock up, on the assumption that one day these trees will no longer be there" or will lose their special qualities, he tells AFP, noting that cedar wood from Lebanon, though not as good, could end up being the replacement.
Spruce tonewood should therefore be used wisely, he said, questioning whether factories should be churning out a thousand guitars a month.
"The guitar is a popular instrument. It may become a luxury instrument," he says.
- Music of the future -
Dry conditions weaken the spruce trees, which then attract forest-ravaging bark beetles.
And extreme weather conditions can affect their growth, altering the regularity of the tree rings.
"If it continues like this, the stress on these trees will be greater and greater and it's not clear that they will be able to get through it," Villard says.
Normally the trees bear fruit every two to three years. But they are now doing so more frequently, driven by the need to reproduce and thereby ensure they continue to exist, Villard explains.
All is not lost. Letting hardwoods, particularly beech trees, grow in the spruce forests helps to retain moisture in the soil, as their broader span and foliage helps keep the sun's rays off the ground.
Others note the millions of spruces already growing in the mountains.
"In the places which are sheltered from climate extremes, particularly north-facing ones, there really will be spruces for a very long time," forest engineer Philippe Domont tells AFP.
"With the altitude, they can take advantage of a slight increase in temperatures -- if the precipitation does not decrease too much," he insists.
But Magnin, thinking further down the line, says: "We will have to find another wood to replace spruce."
"That's the music of the future."
apo/rjm/nl/gil
"The Kashmir Files felt to us like a propaganda, vulgar movie, inappropriate for an artistic competitive section of such a prestigious film festival," he said.
PUBLISHED 2 DAYS AGO
A CORRESPONDENT
DAWN CONTRIBUTOR
Photos: AFP and Zee Studios
Is The Kashmir Files, a controversial film on the plight of Hindus in Kashmir in the 1990s a vulgar and propaganda film? Award-winning Israeli moviemaker Nadav Lapid told audiences at an international film festival in Goa on Tuesday he thought so. So did other members of the jury, according to him.
Lapid was invited to chair the jury at the International Film Festival of India (IFFI) in Goa where The Kashmir Files was screened. At the concluding ceremony the jury chief lashed out at the film and said, “There were 15 films in the international competition — the front window of the festival. Fourteen out of them had cinematic qualities… and evoked vivid discussions. We were, all of us, disturbed and shocked by the 15th film, The Kashmir Files. That felt to us like a propaganda, vulgar movie, inappropriate for an artistic competitive section of such a prestigious film festival.”
The comments set off howls of protest from supporters of the Hindu right, mostly. Prime Minister Narendra Modi had celebrated the movie, and praised its director Vivek Agnihotri publicly as a “revealer of truth”. “Those who always carry the flag of freedom of expression, this entire group has been rattled these past 5-6 days (with the film’s success),” he told a meeting of his MPs.
For a host of familiar reasons the Israeli ambassador in India too found himself rejecting Lapid’s views on The Kashmir Files, and he tendered an apology too on behalf of his country.
In an “open letter” to Lapid, Ambassador Naor Gilon slammed what he said was abuse of Indian hospitality by his compatriot. Mr Gilon equated the controversial film — seen by many cinema watchers as bordering on Islamophobic — with Steven Spielberg’s Holocaust classic Schindler’s List. He urged Lapid to “justify” his criticism.
The controversial film purports to portray the exile of the Pandit community from the Kashmir Valley with empathy, but was seen by many viewers as needlessly accusatory against Muslims.
A group of Kashmiri Pandits, whose parents were killed in the Valley, demanded that Mr Lapid be immediately deported from the country.
“The Kashmir Files unmasked the 30-year-old propaganda designed to hide the truth on the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits,” Vikas Raina, son of principal Ashok Kumar Raina, who was killed allegedly by Hizbul Mujahideen, said.
Sandeep Kaul, whose grandfather Radha Krishen and father Shiban were killed brutally in South Kashmir’s Kulgam district, demanded an apology from Mr Lapid for “mocking the tragedy” depicted in The Kashmir Files.
“His remarks have reopened my old wounds. It has brought pain to me and my mother,” Mr. Kaul said.
Sudipto Sen, a jury member, reportedly distanced himself from the Israeli’s comments, terming them “personal”.
Mr Gilon raised his protest to a strategic level. “The friendship between the people and the states of India and Israel is very strong and will survive the damage you’ve inflicted. As a human being I feel ashamed and want to apologise to our hosts for the bad manner in which we repaid them for their generosity and friendship.”
“You will go back to Israel thinking that you are bold and ‘made a statement’. We, the representatives of Israel, would stay here. You should see our DM boxes following your ‘bravery’ and what implications it may have on the team under my responsibility,” Mr Gilon said.
Lapid’s speech has drawn polarising responses, with some praising his courage to say what he did in front of Indian dignitaries including Union Information and Broadcasting Minister Anurag Thakur, while others have accused him of whitewashing the plight of Hindus in Kashmir.
It was, however, a struggle to find anything deprecating of the Kashmiri Pandits’ plight in Lapid’s comments. For many, the comments came from a cinema critic and did not seek to undermine the human tragedies in violence-wracked Kashmir. Lapid is a highly regarded filmmaker with strong views on issues of human rights.
Earlier this year, he joined a group of 250 Israeli filmmakers who signed an open letter to protest against the launch of the Shomron (Samaria/West Bank) Film Fund. The filmmakers felt the only goal of the Fund was to use filmmakers to “actively participate in whitewashing the Occupation”. He consequently drew flak from people within the Israeli state, The Indian Express said.
In an interview about ‘Synonyms’, he said, “When the film was released in Israel, Miri Regev, the Culture Minister, sent someone very close to her to the premiere. He came to me and said, in a very frontal way that Israelis can do things, ‘Hi, I came to examine if your film is pro- or anti-.’ So I said, sincerely, ‘as soon as you find out, call and tell me’.”
Originally published in Dawn, November 30th, 2022
November 30, 2022
Referee assistant Stephanie Frappart of France shows 7 minutes overtime during the World Cup group C soccer match between Mexico and Poland, at the Stadium 974 in Doha, Qatar, Tuesday, Nov. 22, 2022. (AP Photo/Moises Castillo)
DOHA, Qatar (AP) — French referee Stéphanie Frappart will become the first woman to take charge of a men’s World Cup game when she handles Germany vs. Costa Rica on Thursday in Qatar.
FIFA also picked two women as assistants to Frappart — Neuza Back of Brazil and Mexico’s Karen Diaz Medina — to complete an all-female refereeing team on the field.
A fourth woman match official FIFA picked for this World Cup, Kathryn Nesbitt of the United States, will also be working at the Al Bayt Stadium as the offside specialist in the video review team. Two other women, Salima Mukansanga of Rwanda and Yoshimi Yamashita of Japan, are also on the FIFA list to referee games in Qatar.
FIFA made the historic appointments for the 44th of the 64 games being played in Qatar.
Frappart previously was picked for fourth official duties.
The 38-year-old Frenchwoman has been promoted in the men’s game by European soccer body UEFA and in her home country.
She was refereed men’s games in World Cup qualifying and the Champions League, and this year’s men’s French Cup final. She also took charge of the 2019 Women’s World Cup final for FIFA.
WED, 30 NOV, 2022
ROD MCGUIRK, AP
Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said he has recently told US President Joe Biden’s administration to end the prosecution of WikiLeaks founder and Australian citizen Julian Assange.
Mr Albanese’s comments to the Australian parliament appear to be an escalation of his country’s diplomatic pressure on the United States to drop spying charges against the 51-year-old, who is resisting extradition from the UK.
The Australian leader told MPs: “I have raised this personally with representatives of the United States government. My position is clear and has been made clear to the US administration: That it is time that this matter be brought to a close.
“This is an Australian citizen,” Mr Albanese added.
“I don’t have sympathy for Mr Assange’s actions on a whole range of matters, but … you have to reach a point whereby what is the point of … continuing this legal action which could be caught up now for many years into the future?”
Mr Albanese did not say whether he discussed Assange directly with Mr Biden when the pair held a bilateral meeting on the sidelines a Cambodian summit two weeks ago. But Mr Albanese said he had advocated for Assange “recently in meetings”.
The Australian leader compared Assange’s treatment to that of former US Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, who the prime minister said was “now able to participate freely in US society”.
American prosecutors allege Assange helped Manning steal classified diplomatic cables and military files that WikiLeaks later published, putting lives at risk.
Then-US president Barack Obama commuted Manning’s 35-year sentence to seven years, which allowed her release in 2017.
International news outlets that cooperated with WikiLeaks to publish confidential US state department cables in 2010 – The New York Times, The Guardian, Le Monde, El Pais and Der Spiegel – published an open letter this week calling for Assange’s prosecution to be dropped.
Mr Albanese spoke in response to independent MP Monique Ryan’s question if the Australian government would intervene to bring Assange home.
The Austrlian Prime Minister’s government has been circumspect about Assange’s prosecution since it was elected in May. Ministers’ criticisms have been restrained to phrases such as the case had “dragged on for too long”.
When the UK Government approved Assange’s extradition in June, Mr Albanese resisted calls that he should publicly demand the United States drop the prosecution.
“There are some people who think that if you put things in capital letters on Twitter and put an exclamation mark, that somehow makes it more important. It doesn’t,” Mr Albanese at the time.
He added: “I intend to lead a government that engages diplomatically and appropriately with our partners.”
Felicity Ripper with wires
Jacinda Ardern shoots down the reporter's question
New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has shut down a suggestion from a reporter she has met with Finland Prime Minister Sanna Marin "just because" of similarities such as their age.
Key points:
The comments came as Sanna Marin became the first Finnish prime minister to visit New Zealand
The leaders said trade deals and diplomatic relations were the reasons for the visit
Ms Marin said she was also pushing for more support for Ukraine
The comments came as Ms Arden held a joint press conference with Ms Marin, who is the first Finnish prime minister to visit New Zealand, in Auckland on Wednesday.
"A lot of people will be wondering are you two meeting just because you are similar in age and got a lot of common stuff there … when you got into politics and stuff," the journalist asked as Ms Ardern took the lectern.
"Or can Kiwis actually expect to see more deals between our two countries down the line?"
Ms Ardern was quick to respond, questioning whether anyone ever asked former New Zealand prime minister John Key and former US president Barack Obama if they met because of their similar age.
"We of course have a higher proportion of men in politics — it's reality," Ms Ardern said.
"Because two women meet, it's not simply because of their gender.
"Finland exports into New Zealand $199 million worth of exports."
She said New Zealand exported $14 million of goods a year to Finland and there was huge potential for future opportunities.
Fellow journalists and members of the public took to Twitter to express their disappointment at the question posed to the women, with one user describing it as "crass".
"It's a shame some journalists spoke to them like they are 1950s housewives organising a coffee morning," another posted.
Further pressed about their roles as women leaders, Ms Ardern said she and Ms Marin felt a responsibility to use their voices on behalf of repressed women, like those in Iran.
"The focus of our conversation is what more we could do together in support of other women in other countries who are facing dire circumstances, where we see the most basic of human rights being repressed and violated," Ms Ardern said
Improving diplomatic relations was also among the aims of the visit.
"We need hard power when it comes to Ukraine," Ms Marin told reporters when asked what soft-power influence smaller countries like Finland and New Zealand could exert.
"They need weapons, they need financial support, they need humanitarian support, and we need to also make sure that all the refugees fleeing from Ukraine are welcomed to Europe."
Since the war began, both Finland and Sweden have abandoned their longstanding policies of military non-alignment and applied to join NATO.
Both countries are still seeking endorsement from Türkiye.
Ms Marin said the war felt very close to Finland due to the 1,300-kilometre border the country shared with Russia.
She said Finland had already provided 10 shipments of weapons to Ukraine.
"We have to make sure that they will win," Ms Marin said.
She said Western countries also needed to ensure sanctions were "harder and harder against Russia" because the war was affecting not only people in Ukraine but also people worldwide due to higher energy prices.
Finnish PM sorry for party photo
Finland's PM has apologised after the publication of a photo that showed two women kissing and posing topless at the leader's official summer residence.
Ms Marin also brushed off suggestions she was a partying prime minister — a criticism which has emerged since the leak of a video showing her dancing and singing with friends at a private party.
She said she had more important issues to focus on, including the pandemic, the war in Europe, the energy crisis and a looming economic crisis.
"So I had a couple of free days during the summer," Ms Marin said.
"And if the media wants to focus on it, I don't have anything to say.
"You are free to discuss and write what you want, but I'm focusing on the issues that are in our program."
COP27 and the 10 Rules of Corporate Greenwashing
With the Coca-Cola sponsored blah-blah-blah festival of COP27 in the Egyptian dictatorship done and dusted – until the next one – corporate greenwashing has worked its magic again. And this is not just because Rachel Rose Jackson of Corporate Accountability commented that, COP27 looks like a fossil fuel industry trade show.
Egypt’s Sharm El-Sheikh made itself looking green and sustainable – thanks to corporate PR superstar company Hill+Knowlton which also supplied corporate propaganda for ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, and Saudi Aramco.
Like whitewashing that seeks to wash things clean, corporate greenwashing is a form of corporate marketing spin telling you that toxic sludge is good for you. In short, greenwashing is designed to make people believe that a company is doing more to protect the environment than it really does. It sells lies.
Corporate greenwashing is deceptively used to persuade the public that a company’s products, their corporate aims, their policies and politics (read: lobbying – a $3.5bn industry) are environmentally friendly.
The top-10 corporate greenwashing corporations are: Volkswagen, BP, Exxon, Nestle, Coca-Cola, Starbucks, IKEA, plastic bottle water companies, major banks, and fashion companies like H&M, Zara and Uniqlo.
By now, one of the more classical textbook-style cases of corporate greenwashing remains that of the German car-giant Volkswagen. VW was forced to admit to cheating emission tests by fitting various vehicles with a so-called defeat device. This is a software that could detect when it is undergoing an emission’s test and then alters the performance to reduce the emission’s level – simple but effective.
This was done while hyping-up the low-emission features of VW vehicles through marketing campaigns. In truth, however, Volkswagen engines were emitting up to 40-times the allowed limit for nitrogen oxide pollutants.
Yet, VW still means Volkswagen and not Very Worried as VW made a whopping $15.5bn in 2021. Corporate greenwashing works – for corporations and that is the raison d’être for doing it. Yet, there are other countless cases.
Take for example, the global fossil fuel giant BP that has even changed its name. Such a move is also known as re-branding. Now, BP wants to be known as Beyond Petroleum – it sounds really green!
To greenwash one of the world’s major corporations, BP even put solar panels on their gas stations – that looks so green! Sadly for BP, the corporation got called out for their self-greening deceptions.
Next, there is also Coca-Cola. Coke also has been accused of greenwashing because of its ‘natural’ sugar claims. Coca-Cola started its marketing campaign as a way to attract more health-conscious consumers. And so, Coca-Cola turned itself into a health drink! More recently, Coca-Cola tried to beef this up through Innocent Drinks – also deemed misleading.
Yet, the reality of the Coca-Cola corporation looks rather different. For example, many of Coke’s plastic bottles probably end up polluting our environment – like oceans. Greenpeace listed Coca-Cola as the leading plastic polluter in 2019. It makes and sells around 100 billion (no spelling mistake!) single-use plastic bottles a year. In the very same year, the Coca-Cola corporationannounced,
Coca-Cola is unveiling the first ever sample bottle made using recovered and recycled marine plastics, demonstrating that, one day, even ocean debris could be used in recycled packaging for food or drinks. This sample is the first ever plastic bottle made using marine litter that has been successfully recycled and reused in food and drink packaging
Yet, their plastic bottles – whether made from recycled material or not – still end up in our oceans. Meanwhile, the Coca-Cola corporation – world’s worst corporate plastic polluter for four years in a row – has resisted legislation intended to force the company into adopting more environmentally friendly practices. At the same time, corporate greenwashing continues, for example, when Coke’s very own website says,
we make brands and products that …
build a more sustainable future
These and plenty of other companies intentionally and deliberately instigate greenwashing PR strategies. Often, they do so in order to distance themselves from their – equally intentional and deliberate – environmental vandalism.
Through corporate greenwashing, even oil corporations can be made to appear green and sustainable. The successes of, for example, oil corporations in circumventing COP27 remains hidden behind a green corporate logo.
Corporate greenwashing means that companies and corporations spend very significant resources on corporate PR advertising the false image of being green. And usually, this comes in three versions:
- corporations’ greeewashing makes their products look sustainable;
- corporations also greenwash the production process of these products; and
- they greenwash themselves – as a business to make them look sustainable.
Corporate greenwashing can range from changing the name of the corporation, the logo, and the label of a certain product to pretend to be supporting the natural environment while these products still contain harmful chemicals.
Yet, there are also multi-million dollar corporate PR campaigns that portray, for example, highly-polluting energy companies as eco-friendly. The key idea behind corporate greenwashing is that it covers up unsustainable and destructive corporate agendas and policies while, simultaneously, allowing corporations to carry on making profits.
Corporate PR firms like Edelman, for example, have even facilitated climate change denial. The corporate PR industry – and more importantly “routinely” – also funds astroturf organizations. These are PR firms that set up other – even more evil – organisations that falsely pretend to be grassroots activists while being paid by corporations. Some examples are: Ethical Oil, Resource Works, and the International Climate Science Coalition.
Of course, there are also well-paid business school professors in the mix supplying the necessary ideology to camouflage corporate greenwashing. The ideologies come – mostly – in three forms:
- Business Ethics: is an oxymoron known as business ethics pretending that corporations are ethical;
- CSR: next is management’s all-time favourite ideology of corporate social responsibility (CSR); and finally,
- Citizenship: there is the business school hallucination that there is something like corporate citizenship – corporations pretending to be like ordinary citizens.
Ideological support for corporate greenwashing also comes from coin-operated corporate-sponsored think tanks in which crypto-academics find additional employment particularly when they are too bad even for a business school. Their junk science contributes to the crypto-academic field of management studies.
The ideologies they create work against democratic regulation and environmental regulation. All this comes as part of an even more important ideology – the global ideology of neoliberalism.
One of the methods used by corporate greenwashing are fake grass roots campaigns involving letter-writing to legislators. This is done on behalf of an – almost always – undisclosed interest group that is in reality, financed by a corporation. Yet, this sort of greenwashing also employs real people posing as volunteers. These corporate stooges speak at public hearings and participate in real grass roots campaigns.
In any case, such planned PR deceptions are central components of the corporate propaganda filling us with doubts – and even self-doubt – as the earth confronts the environmental abyss. Many of such activities amount to very serious corporate greenwashing.
Yet, corporate greenwashing has more tricks up their sleeves. The Chicago Climate Exchange, for example, was set up by global greenwashing polluters like BP, DuPont, and the Ford Motor Company. It was a tool for voluntarily cutting emissions that fancies the neoliberal hallucination of industry self-regulation.
Some evil heretics might argue that there is a reason why, for example, there are drivers’ licenses, why they are regulated by the state, and why people cannot regulate their own driver’s license printed out on their kitchen table. The corporate greenwashing idea behind the self-regulating Chicago Climate Exchange was to reduce pollution. It failed, even as a corporate greenwashing idea.
Ideas like this are only another tool in the box of corporate greenwashing. Perhaps an even more interesting aspect of corporate greenwashing is that multi-national corporations have become bigger sources of global aid than nation states.
And of course, corporations cold-heartedly promote this fact. Their wealth is partly engineered through decades of corporate tax-cutscreated by governments that are under the spell of neoliberalism. Corporate PR sells this as sustainable corporate social responsibility (CSR).
This gives CSR a human face – as applied to capitalism and to make capitalism look human-like. It simply means that polluting corporations get up each morning, get increasingly smeared during the day, and simply wash off at night. That is the basic idea of CSR. CSR-fancying corporate polluters make particular use of greenwashing PR. It comes as part of their search for an environmental-friendly license to operate – a core ideology of CSR.
Of course, this reaches deep into company accounting where much of this is rather cosily sold as triple bottom line – people, profit, planet. Planet being a distant third! This accounting ideology emerged from none other than the corporate consultancy world.
The ideology behind it is to merge corporate profits with human society (people) and the environment (planet). Its goal: justifying profit making. Greenwashing remains a key component of this corporate strategy.
Following this business strategy, many companies and corporations have wrapped themselves in a green cloak. Today, brands even try to outdo one another with their eco-credentials to become the – hopefully undetected – master of corporate greenwashing. To win the green consumer game, companies often exaggerate environmental claims or simply make things up – whatever works best for the corporation.
Worse, criminal polluters even engage in a rather new form of corporate greenwashing. They share positive information about their environmental records while concealing negative aspects which, so the hope goes, can be offloaded onto others. This is known as externalisation. Meanwhile, the public should no longer see what is real – environmental pollution – and what a public relation constructed image of the corporation is.
One of the goals is to blur the boundary between what is reality and what is faked. This is also known as gaslighting. The idea of gaslighting is based on a 1940’s movie called Gaslight in which one is no longer sure whether the flickering of the gaslight is real or not.
Today, gaslighting is a propagandistic and manipulative-psychological tool used by, for example, global warming deniers that seeks to induce the doubting of one’s own reality and even sanity.
One of the goals of the more severe forms of corporate propaganda is that once a person’s underlying reality is lost, the person becomes more open to propaganda as words, images, and signs become self-referential while bypassing reason. Yet, the entire process is driven by the propagandist.
With no residual correspondence to the real anymore, corporate propaganda has achieved its goals. Reality has adapted to corporate propaganda. Reality has become a mere simulation. French philosopher Baudrillard calls this simularcra – the simulation of reality. For corporate greenwashing, this also means that being green and sustainable is just a matter of simulation –pretending.
The simulation of corporate sustainability is about the pretence of a corporation as being environmental. And now comes the crucial bit. This is within the dynamic core of the capitalist economy.
Necessarily, corporate greenwashing has to leave out some very uncomfortable facts, like global environmental vandalism, starvation, sweatshops, slavery, managerial despotism, mass poverty, and global warming – our highway to climate hell. To divert attention away from the pathologies of corporate capitalism, corporate greenwashing does ten things:
1) it pretends that there is a trade-off between consumer choices and sustainability;
2) many corporations offer next to no proof that their supposedly environmental initiatives have a positive impact on nature;
3) corporate greenwashing lives from general statements that are deliberately kept vague and non-specific;
4) corporate greenwashing uses false labelling – often in the form of self-invented “eco-certification” that, in reality, is no certification at all;
5) corporate greenwashing pretends to be sustainable in areas that have next to no relevance to the corporation, their product, and the production process used to make these products;
6) corporate greenwashing presents false choices, at times, framed as the lesser of two evils;
7) of course, corporate greenwashing lies by presenting something – a something that simply does not exist;
8) corporate greenwashing sells false hopes into a corporate-based environmental future that does not exist;
9) corporate greenwashing also covers up serious corporate dangers, harms to the environment, environmentally hazardous products, and negative environmental consequences; and finally,
10) corporate greenwashing converts capitalism’s reality of profits over people and the environment into pretending to be environmentally sustainable.
In the end, corporate greenwashing is an important tool in the arsenal of propaganda and corporate public relations. Capitalism not only lives by flooding us with consumer goods, it also needs an accompanying ideology telling us that two iPads will make us twice as happy.
Part of this necessary ideology to sustain capitalism is not only to hide capitalism’s environmental impact but also the pretence that capitalism and its corporations are environmentally friendly. This marks the moment when corporate greenwashing enters the scene. Corporate greenwashing is the ideological by-product of living in a capitalist society.
Thomas Klikauer is the author of Managerialism (Palgrave, 2013).
David Tindall, Professor of Sociology, University of British Columbia,
Climate conferences provide platforms for collaboration among countries, venues for interaction across levels of governance and critical events to mobilize civil society and media coverage. (AP Photo/Peter Dejong)
Climate change is an existential threat to human civilization and planetary ecosystems. Yet despite 27 UN Conference of the Parties (COP) meetings that have taken place so far, the international community has been unable to ward off imminent disaster.
A number of expert commentators have already declared COP27 — the recent UN climate summit in Egypt — to be a failure. The talks stalled on key issues and failed to secure commitments to stop greenhouse gas emissions from rising beyond thresholds that will lead to dangerous global warming.
Other critical voices are concerned that the whole process is becoming too business-friendly, to the detriment of other perspectives and voices. These yearly big climate conferences have also been criticized as a waste of time and resources.
Given these problems and repeated failures, why continue with the COP meetings? As researchers who study social movements and environmental and climate change politics and policy, we believe that continuing with these climate conferences can still lead to positive outcomes.
Assessing COPs success or failure
Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) agreement, member states meet at the COP summits annually to review the implementation of the decisions taken by COP members and further develop a collective approach to addressing global climate change.
For many, especially those following the COP discussions from the outside, the assessment of the success or failure of the meetings tends to focus on commitments made in the final agreements.
From this perspective, the 2015 Paris conference stands out as a relative success as it set in place a formal commitment — the Paris Agreement — to limit global warming to well below 2 C. Meanwhile the 2009 Copenhagen COP was judged as a failure because it failed to deliver a significant new agreement while the Kyoto Protocol was winding down.
But this failure unfolded while pressure from civil society and other actors grew, and lessons learned from this experience enabled first steps towards a paradigm shift in the international climate change regime that ultimately led to the progress that was made in the Paris Agreement.
It is, therefore, even more difficult to gauge the outcomes of any given specific COP based on the final agreement alone.
Three conditions that can facilitate progress
It is important to look at the bigger picture. From this perspective, we argue that the UNFCCC process creates three conditions for progress on international climate change policy.
First, the UNFCCC meetings create path dependencies — initiatives that might have small effects to start with, but that may result in increasing returns over time — that stabilize co-operation between states, often simultaneously on multiple topics. Even after the failure of the 2009 Copenhagen conference, nation states continued the yearly meetings and began negotiating a new agreement, resulting in the paradigm-shifting Paris Agreement in 2015.
In the recent meetings in Egypt, there was a significant breakthrough on a provisional agreement for a fund for “Loss and Damage” to compensate poorer countries that are disproportionally affected by climate change. This fund, which is a key part of the solution to addressing climate justice, has roots in the 2013 Warsaw COP meeting. But significant progress was not made until COP27.
Second, the UNFCCC process serves as a focal point for the formation of social network among various government and non-government organizations. By bringing together representatives from cities, regions, businesses and civil society organizations, the UNFCCC summits provide a venue that promotes interaction and facilitates “overlapping multi-level games.”
Put another way, although a lot of the attention directed at COP meetings focuses on the role of national governments, the COP meetings also attract policymakers from other levels of government. These interactions frequently lead to important bilateral or side deals that are often overlooked because news headlines focus on the final COP agreements.
This was seen at last year’s COP26 in Glasgow when the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance (BOGA) was announced. The alliance was co-led by Denmark and Costa Rica, and involved other provinces and states.
The Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance (BOGA) was announced in one of the side discussions at COP26 in Glasgow in 2021. (AP Photo/Alastair Grant)
Third, COP meetings are “critical events” — episodic and widespread socio-political events — that shape the context for social issues or movements. While critical events are unpredictable, COP meetings are regularly scheduled.
This allows civil society to plan to participate in or support the political opportunities that COP meetings provide. It also attracts significant media attention. Society’s involvement in these critical events plays an important role in changing the discourse about climate policy — including the shift in attention towards climate justice and loss and damage — and putting pressure on climate laggard governments.
Failure: a stepping stone to success
Conference of the Parties fail at delaying or stopping climate change. They will continue to fail until they are able to limit warming to 1.5 C.
In the interim, they provide essential conditions for positive change: a stable platform for trust-building and collaboration among countries, a venue for interaction across levels of governance and a critical event to mobilize civil society and media coverage.
These crucial functions need to be protected and expanded. The parties need to demonstrate courage and be willing to make “concessions” in order to move the process forward. This was seen at COP27 as some Western nations gave up their resistance to the “Loss and Damage” fund.
The diverse groups observing the COPs — from within the climate summit venues and from across the world — must be ensured access to participation in these meetings. This will facilitate transparency and provide opportunities for interaction and co-operation across various sectors. And while the private sector has an important role to play, the creeping shift toward making COP a business fair needs to be curtailed. Or else, the next COP will be yet another business-as-usual affair.
This article is republished from The Conversation, an independent nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It was written by: David Tindall, University of British Columbia; Maria Brockhaus, University of Helsinki; Mark CJ Stoddart, Memorial University of Newfoundland, and Marlene Kammerer, University of Bern.
Read more:
David Tindall receives research funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. This is an agency that provides funding for academic research. The funding is for research expenses, not the salary of the author. David Tindall has a volunteer affiliation with the Climate Reality Project Canada, for whom he periodically gives educational presentations to public audiences on climate change.
Mark CJ Stoddart receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).
Marlene Kammerer receives funding from the Swiss Network of International Studies (SNIS).
Maria Brockhaus does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.