One word marked the first climate conference since the beginning of the pandemic: “greenwashing”.
Literally, the term means “green wash” and indicates that a proposal or action only looks sustainable, but in practice has no effect against global warming, or even worsens the catastrophe elsewhere in the country or the world.
An example of the first cases are the goals for the reduction of polluting gases presented by several countries, without being accompanied by an in-depth study and a concrete planning of measures to cut these emissions.
The Bolsonaro government’s review of its promise of cuts for 2030 was also accused of being “greenwashing”: although raised from 43% to 50%, in absolute numbers the effort offered is equal to or even less than that indicated in 2015.
This is because, last year, the calculation base was expanded. The percentage increase made now by Brazil is not enough to offset this new value.
Another example is the Australian ad to encourage cleaner transport. Instead of subsidizing the purchase of electric cars, it just promises more refueling stations, while it continues to extract coal from its mines and burn that fuel to produce energy.
And, this Friday (12), previously scheduled to be the last day of the climate conference, the disclosure that deforestation in Brazil reached a historic record in the month of October faded the greenish tone with which the Environment Minister, Joaquim Leite, he sought to cover his speeches.
With the growing concern of consumers and investors about the impact of companies’ activities on society and the environment, “greenwashing” has also expanded into corporate advertisements, which environmental entities seek to unmask.
One such case is that of companies that promote themselves by investing in hydrogen, a fuel that does not pollute when used but can cause emissions when produced, if this is done using dirty energy sources such as gas or coal.
Large banks were also denounced for founding pro-decarbonization entities, while, on the other side of the coin, they are among the largest funders of polluting activities, including oil companies or those linked to deforestation, such as large exporters of soy produced in the Amazon territory.
Companies that have been losing consumers and financing because they are linked to the climate crisis sought to take advantage of the exposure generated by COP26 to present a sustainable image or at least try to reverse the restrictions they face.
The ever-suspicious fossil fuel industry has registered 503 lobbyists. If it were a country, it would have the largest COP delegation, excluding that post from Brazil. According to Global Witness, the number exceeds the sum of delegations from the eight countries most affected by the climate crisis in the last 20 years: Puerto Rico, Myanmar, Haiti, Philippines, Mozambique, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Pakistan.
Brazil, by the way, is among the 27 official delegations that have registered fossil fuel lobbyists among their members. The pavilion in which the Brazilian minister of the Environment worked was also sponsored by a sector that has sought to disconnect its image from that of deforestation: agribusiness.
.
