Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to researchers, companies are wrong if they think they can escape censure with a little greenwashing, because weak pledges are an opportunity to attack corporate credibility.
Net zero: despite the greenwash, it’s vital for tackling climate change
May 11, 2021 1.14am AEST
Richard Black Honorary Research Fellow, Grantham Institute, Imperial College London
Steve Smith Executive Director, Oxford Net Zero, University of Oxford
Thomas Hale Associate Professor in Public Policy, University of OxfordIt might seem odd to find supporters of climate action debating the merits of a concept that science shows to be essential for halting climate change, and which is accordingly embedded at the heart of the defining global agreement.
…
In some cases, concerns about the implementation of net zero targets turn into criticism of the concept itself. Recently three climate change academics including former IPCC chair Bob Watson described net zero as a “fantasy” and a “trap”, while Greta Thunberg said that “these distant targets” are about “making it seem like we’re acting without having to change”.
…
The rapidly growing suite of net zero pledges comes with a coherent theory of change. Firstly, if an entity is serious, it will follow its pledge by putting robust measures in place, beginning with immediate actions to cut emissions: not doing so will quickly open up the entity in question to accusations that it is not serious.
Secondly, pledging a target means that the entity can be held to account by voters, shareholders or customers. Thirdly, to demonstrate credibility it may have to apply for accreditation from an impartial mechanism such as the science-based targets initiative, which can validate whether its plan is realistic.
Fourthly, such accreditation mechanisms evolve over time to follow the science. For example, the UN-backed Race to Zero recently published upgraded criteria(in which we were involved); further annual strengthenings await.
Each of these four steps makes the commitment more concrete – and if it is not serious, exposes that clearly.
…
Read more: https://theconversation.com/net-zero-despite-the-greenwash-its-vital-for-tackling-climate-change-160329
For once I agree with with the climate activists.
Greenwashing or token green gestures might have worked back in the days when activists were kids who painted flowers on their hippy vans, but nowadays some of those activists run major companies.
But giving in, giving greens everything they want, is also not an option – genuine carbon net zero would be impossibly expensive.
I suspect anyone who attempts carbon appeasement in the current political environment will quickly discover they have walked into a trap. There are no easy solutions.
With this allegation China is right, maybe people have forgotten the quickly buried news about her German minder and her parents tuition, she is a child actress and obviously learns her lines and performances.
The role models are the before WW2 German Hitler Youth Group girls, and boys, even the pigtail hairstyle.
Isn’t it obvious, and now a new one from Mexico is on the climate stage.
Advertising, sales and marketing works, people are so gullible, but not if the same is repeated over and over and over because the people become bored and stop taking notice.
So Greta is now being replaced by a young person from Mexico, a new star is released with full public relations support and media management.
It is said that the left eat their own. Now they are devouring all those cowardly companies that thought they could appease the green god.
In all of this,the message to understand is there will be no “net zero emissions” without “ negative carbon technology”( Carbon Capture and Storage).
John Kerry says that even getting to “ net zero” still requires CO2 to be then removed from the atmosphere.
No carbon offsets.
Just zero emissions followed by CCS.
It is all explained clearly by Professor Simon Lewis of University College,London in The Guardian, 3 March 2021,“The climate crisis can’t be solved by carbon accounting tricks”.
So there are going to be plenty of sad organisations claiming “ carbon neutrality” when they find they have to start again because the sums they paid to someone, somewhere to plant some trees don’t count.
The Paris Accord is the new Tar-Baby story.