Who Has the Upper Hand?
By promoting their misleading sustainability efforts, companies greenwash their image to hide their environmentally destructive business practices from the public. They divert the market’s attention toward a positive achievement, large or small, to distract consumers from their contributions to pollution. The misleading social media and news campaigns keep the public ignorant of their real investment into their planet-killing activities. The planet pays the price for corporate propaganda.
An issue we are seeing with fossil fuel companies is not only their pollution, but also their donations to colleges who are conducting climate research. If we continue to let fossil fuel companies donate to research projects that contradict their business, we continue to let them have the upper hand in what is actually allowed to be studied. These enormous donations to research groups do not go unnoticed so the companies specifically want the donations they made to be publicized so consumers think they are working towards a greener future, but sadly they just want to take control. In a Yale Climate Connection interview, Bella Kumar, a Fossil Fuel research student at George Washington University, “funders can influence which topics are studied. And in some cases, they influence how results are framed, for example downplaying the negative impacts of burning fossil fuels.” Throwing money around is the easiest way for companies to lie about their intentions and continue emitting fossil fuels into the atmosphere.
When people see positive promotions from their favorite companies planning environmentally friendly efforts, the more greenwashing the companies are able to get away with. Polluters make promises in these campaigns that they do not intend to keep. They are unleashing advertisements for their green campaigns with no actual concrete evidence to support it. By making vague claims saying that they have ambitions to move towards being net-zero, they are secretly granting themselves years of good grace until they return saying their ambitions failed. There is a difference between making a pledge about what you want to achieve, and taking meaningful actions that will actually take you there.
“Companies should be saying exactly how they’re going to reduce their emissions all the way to zero, if they have to rely on offsets — where are those offsets coming from? How credible is the offset company that they’re working with?”
If offsetting is a solution to their own pollution problem, it is clear that these companies have no intention of making needed changes to their own habits. They think paying another company to fix their problems offsets their own pollution, which it does not. If companies continue to use offsetting as a “solution” to their own problems, then their pollution will cause irreversible damage much quicker. According to Angel Hsu, data scientist and founder of Data Driven EnviroLab, if companies are being secretive about their plans to reduce their emissions, then there is likely no plan at all.
Since the COVID-19 epidemic, companies have depended more than ever on promising to work toward open-ended goals to earn customer loyalty. “While consumers have long said that they value sustainability, the COVID-19 crisis perceptibly shifted consumer behavior and enlarged the pool of conscientious consumers willing to pay more for healthier, safer, more environmentally and socially conscious products and brands,” according to PwC research team. Having said, companies do not want to lose their customers because they do not have a plan that involves them moving to net-zero emissions, so developing open-ended goals is the best way to appease consumers for the short-term. Companies pulling publicity stunts to keep their business flow going is only putting off the inevitable of eventually being exposed for nonexistent goals. The cycle continues to go around and around with greenwashing.
A recent tactic from fossil fuel companies is silencing protests that fight against them. Protestors have been attempting to exploit these reckless companies and break the silence on how they are the reason for climate change. Companies can lie about what they are doing behind the scenes, but when it comes into the vision of the public, there is little they can do, or so we think. In Nina Lakhani’s anti-protest research, she interviewed Greenpeace director, Ebony Twilley Martin, who claims, “We are seeing an escalation of tactics to criminalize, bully, and sue those working for climate action, Indigenous rights and environmental justice… [as] oil and gas companies find new ways to delay the transition to clean energy and protect their own profits.” With fossil fuel companies silencing the voices of the public, there is little ways to spread awareness of the damage they are doing to the planet. With over 250 anti-protest bills in place, these environment activists are facing life-altering risks to try and continue the fight against fossil fuel companies and their destruction.
Fossil fuel companies are fighting against the people in order to keep their cash flow going. Greenwashing is not a singular tactic but an array of techniques that include lies, intimidation, deceitful research, vague goals, and happy talk, among others. These sneaky tactics allow them to continue being vicious towards our environment. They are working tirelessly to keep their destructive pollution in the dark, and it is working. Uncovering the lies is the first step to take down greenwashing and the reckless pollution it brings.
References
Hsu, A. (2023, January 10). Data-driven EnviroLab tracks climate action. UNC Global. https://global.unc.edu/news-story/data-driven-envirolab-tracks-climate-action/
PricewaterhouseCoopers. (n.d.). 2021 consumer intelligence series survey on ESG. PwC. https://www.pwc.com/us/en/services/consulting/library/consumer-intelligence-series/consumer-and-employee-esg-expectations.html
Team, YCC. (2023, May 18). The fossil fuel industry is donating hundreds of millions to university climate and Energy Research ” yale climate connections. Yale Climate Connections. https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2023/05/the-fossil-fuel-industry-is-donating-hundreds-of-millions-to-university-climate-and-energy-research/
Counterintuitive Fall 2024 
Couldn’t get out of the first paragraph without noticing this:
. . . which means . . .
means
Now that I got that off my chest, I’ll respond to your actual request for feedback about your argument.
1. You open strong by making what sound like clear claims about corporations. They mislead the public into believing that they’re environmentally conscientious, you tell us, when in fact their business practices are destructive.
But you don’t actually say what sorts of lies they tell.
And you don’t actually say what their practices destroy.
Read your sentences carefully and isolate the practices language.
—”their destructive business practices”
—”what is truly happening behind the scenes.”
—”not really knowing what is going on”
—”what they’re putting their money towards”
The closest you come to letting readers know you’re talking about a systematic poisoning of the earth is:
—”misleading environmental sustainability efforts”
—”the planet is paying the price”
It wouldn’t take much to get readers’ attention and make sure they know the score, BlogUser. Start with a startling fact or an eye-catching example.
Look how the National Resources Defense Council starts its essay on Greenwashing:
You could have done something similar in your first paragraph and given your readers a VERY clear example of what you mean by greenwashing.
This paragraph is slightly shorter than yours, but look how much more it accomplishes:
While I’m sharing the results of my own research on this fascinating topic you’ve chosen, I think you might like browsing what I found when I asked Google “what sins does greenwashing cover up?”
I particularly liked the 7 Sins identified by the College of County Cork, Ireland:
What a handy way to identify TYPES of Greenwashing (in case you want to beef up your Definition argument 🙂 )
The sin of the hidden trade-off
The sin of no proof
The sin of vagueness
The sin of worshiping false labels
The sin of irrelevance
The sin of the lesser of two evils
The sin of fibbing
Just Argument Notes for Paragraphs 2-8. I promise.
2. You have a brilliant point to make: that fossil fuel companies FUND CLIMATE RESEARCH SO THEY CAN CONTROL THE CONCLUSIONS. It deserves to be said really clearly, but it took me to the end of the paragraph to understand the claim. It’s OK to say it in terms as straightforward as the all caps claim above. Once you post that “BIG CLAIM AHEAD” sign on your highway shoulder, THEN you can quote your source and explain how the companies BUY good news about their business practices.
3. This is another brilliant point that you somewhat bury. The sign I’d be posting here would say: “POLLUTERS MAKE PROMISES THEY DON’T INTEND TO KEEP.”
4. Does the quote come from Angel Hsu? It’s hard to tell from your layout. I don’t feel well prepared to understand it. You might have to explain offsets BEFORE your deploy the quote, after which we’ll appreciate the impact of Hsu’s accusation.
5. In case you’re unaware, “offsets” don’t require companies to do ANYTHING to reduce their own dirty practices. Instead, they pay some other company, entity, or country, to NOT POLLUTE in a particular way, say by providing Brazil to preserve an acre of rainforest. The company goes along polluting, but they claim to have “offset” their own sin by funding some virtue somewhere else. Here’s a link to an explanation of Carbon Offsets.
https://www.offsetguide.org/understanding-carbon-offsets/what-is-a-carbon-offset/
6. I will start to sound repetitious (if I don’t already) before I get to 8, I imagine, BlogUser. You could start this paragraph with a bold claim like others I’ve suggested. For example:
The thought process here, and throughout, is that busy readers will usually read the first sentence of every paragraph to decide whether to devote 15 minutes to your article. If you withhold your main idea until the end every time, a scan will miss it every time.
7. A more recent tactic that we have been seeing from fossil fuel companies is attempting to silence protestors who are fighting against them.
Yeah. Like that. Paragraph 7 posts a big sign by the highway: They SILENCE PROTEST.
8. Nice. Remind your readers that greenwashing is not just one tactic. It’s a whole array of clever techniques that include lies, intimidation, phony research, vague goals, and happy talk, among others. Take a little credit for helping your readers recognize the sneakier aspects of greenwashing, but warn them that companies are smart too, and they’ll continue to figure out new ways to confuse us and hide their real sins.
Provisionally graded. Revisions are always recommended (required for two short arguments) and Regrades are always available. Put your post back into Feedback Please and request a regrade when you’ve made significant improvements.
I appreciate you providing me with these comments, I will go back and edit to improve my argument. Thank you.
By promoting their misleading sustainability efforts, companies greenwash their image to hide their environmentally destructive business practices from the public. They divert the market’s attention toward a positive achievement, large or small, to distract consumers from their contributions to pollution. The misleading social media and news campaigns keep the public ignorant of their real investment into their planet-killing activities. The planet pays the price for corporate propaganda.
—Produced in an in-class workshop with the permission of BlogUser246. Thank you, BloogUser.
—DSH
Made some changes, I did not add the 7 sins of greenwashing because it is in my rebuttal argument. Please let me know your thoughts.
I’m ready to declare this finished, BlogUser. The claims are so much easier to spot and harder to ignore. In the weeks we’ve been working together, your writing has become direct and powerful. I hope you sense the improvement, too, and aren’t just humoring me. 🙂
Great! I sense the improvement as well.