5 ms·

Exactly this is the reason, but I'll go even further and say that no corporation will advertise something "green" that might require actual effort on their part

Exactly this is the reason, but I'll go even further and say that no corporation will advertise something "green" that might require actual effort on their part. The clear fact is that environmental impact is almost entirely the fault of corporations. Advertising for consumers to do anything to impact this is distracting them from the real issue: the corporations advertising to them. It is for this reason that you will never find anything that makes sense advertised as green or efficient. Corporations are things that exist solely to exploit: nothing in their core impulses moves them to be kind or understanding. Anything that makes it seem otherwise must be regarded with suspicion.

opportune 4y ago
In my experiencing greenwashing is just as likely to be used to shame normal consumer behavior into reducing costs for businesses (do you really want those plastic utensils with your takeout? Do you really need to use that much water in your hotel room? Do you really need fresh towels every day?) as it is to actually help the environment. Most of the time corporations claim to be doing something in a carbon-neutral way it's because they are purchasing offsets where you just have to believe that they are actually computing the carbon costs appropriately and the offsets are "real" anyway.
- antifa 4y ago
  > do you really want those plastic utensils with your takeout? There's a place where I always uncheck "include utensils" and they always give me 8 people's worth of them anyways.
- kmacdough 4y ago
  At its core, "reduce" generally benefits both the environment and the bottom line. Additionally, many employees wish their company was more environmental, but cannot make their case unless it aligns with the business. A slight rewording of your point highlights the opportunity: change happens when business and environmental needs align. This means, the people's best (only) play is to craft policies and institutions that align business incentives with environmental goals (e.g. emission cap 'n trade, grants, etc.). For example, a central repository of public holistic impact assessments could force PR teams to focus on real impact over trivial greenwashing campaigns. While the national level gets the most focus, local/state governments can move move faster and serve as models for larger change.
futureshock 4y ago
This is it right here. There’s been an enormous amount of blame shifting onto consumers, who have almost nothing to do with environmental impacts, as if not using plastic straws could have any impact whatsoever. This is intentional on the part of government as it confuses voters into thinking the problem has been solved or is a moral failing. Our leaders know full well that consumers and corporations have no power to act on this themselves. They will suck up any resources presented to them in the lowest energy configuration. Capitalism demands it. Regulation and governance is the only solution to tragedy of the commons. All else is noise being created by leaders who have been bought and paid for.
_ea1k 4y ago
You only have to look at the relative scarcity of EV L2 chargers at Disney properties to see this first hand. How many Earth Day commercials have they run over the years? But a few bucks to support their own customers is too much?

opportune 4y ago

In my experiencing greenwashing is just as likely to be used to shame normal consumer behavior into reducing costs for businesses (do you really want those plastic utensils with your takeout? Do you really need to use that much water in your hotel room? Do you really need fresh towels every day?) as it is to actually help the environment. Most of the time corporations claim to be doing something in a carbon-neutral way it's because they are purchasing offsets where you just have to believe that they are actually computing the carbon costs appropriately and the offsets are "real" anyway.

antifa 4y ago
> do you really want those plastic utensils with your takeout? There's a place where I always uncheck "include utensils" and they always give me 8 people's worth of them anyways.
kmacdough 4y ago
At its core, "reduce" generally benefits both the environment and the bottom line. Additionally, many employees wish their company was more environmental, but cannot make their case unless it aligns with the business. A slight rewording of your point highlights the opportunity: change happens when business and environmental needs align. This means, the people's best (only) play is to craft policies and institutions that align business incentives with environmental goals (e.g. emission cap 'n trade, grants, etc.). For example, a central repository of public holistic impact assessments could force PR teams to focus on real impact over trivial greenwashing campaigns. While the national level gets the most focus, local/state governments can move move faster and serve as models for larger change.

futureshock 4y ago

This is it right here. There’s been an enormous amount of blame shifting onto consumers, who have almost nothing to do with environmental impacts, as if not using plastic straws could have any impact whatsoever. This is intentional on the part of government as it confuses voters into thinking the problem has been solved or is a moral failing. Our leaders know full well that consumers and corporations have no power to act on this themselves. They will suck up any resources presented to them in the lowest energy configuration. Capitalism demands it. Regulation and governance is the only solution to tragedy of the commons. All else is noise being created by leaders who have been bought and paid for.

_ea1k 4y ago

You only have to look at the relative scarcity of EV L2 chargers at Disney properties to see this first hand. How many Earth Day commercials have they run over the years? But a few bucks to support their own customers is too much?