猫咪社区

Generation Z has grown up in the shadow of the climate crisis. Global leaders promised they would act. But despite grave warnings by leading experts on climate change, every year for the past four decades, the world has been largely paralyzed by inaction. Meaningful progress has been obstructed by fossil fuel companies鈥� intentional obfuscation of responsibility for the climate crisis.

The result? The climate crisis is now reality. Globally, due to climate change, and that number is set to increase with the higher temperatures, desertification, and more extreme weather events on their way.

But who鈥檚 at fault? The identified 90 companies, mainly fossil fuel companies, that are responsible for two-thirds of carbon emissions. Despite this, global leaders still somehow conclude that individuals are to blame.

At the COP26 conference last October, leaders regurgitated the same tired talking points about individual responsibility, insisting that the public change its consumption patterns, even as companies urge people to consume at unprecedented rates. This is unsurprising given that there were 鈥攖wo dozen more than the largest country delegation鈥攄espite fossil fuel companies being banned from participating directly. Experts argue the integrity of the talks was compromised by the presence of these fossil fuel lobbyists, whose influence led to the Glasgow Climate Pact containing commitments to rather than phasing it out. This deal gives fossil fuel companies the social license to continue business as usual. 

Writing for , columnist George Monbiot described individual responsibility as one of the most significant lies ever told by the fossil fuel industry and the PR companies that devise their messaging. And still, these messages continue to be perpetuated by leaders worldwide.

鈥淭he myth of individual responsibility has origins in 40 years of the creation of societal order fixated on individualism by the Republican Party,鈥� says Robert Brulle, visiting professor of environment and society at Brown University. The first mainstream manifestation of this individual focus, he says, was BP inventing the concept of the 鈥�.鈥� It鈥檚 a that has fundamentally reshaped how the public views the climate crisis.

Suggesting turning off the lights or driving less loses sight of the global severity of the climate crisis and shifts the focus off those with the greatest capacity and responsibility to make meaningful change.

惭别濒颈蝉蝉补听础谤辞苍肠锄测办, associate professor of media studies at Rutgers University and co-author of , describes it as 鈥渕isdiagnosing and misunderstanding the scale and scope of the [climate crisis]. It keeps [humanity] external to the environment instead of seeing us as part of the environment.鈥�

This externalization of responsibility allows fossil fuel companies to downplay their role in the climate crisis and undermine climate litigation, regulation, and activism.

Individualizing the responsibility is an insidious weapon within the fossil fuel industry鈥檚 arsenal, which includes greenwashing and woke-washing. By obfuscating the reality of the climate crisis, it has exacerbated climate consequences and caused long-term damage to climate justice efforts.

To counter this, climate action plans must place blame where it belongs and focus on the problem鈥檚 immediacy. Two main ways of achieving this are collective action and requiring the companies that caused the problems to be at the forefront of finding solutions.

Greenwashing

Greenwashing is a multibillion-dollar PR campaign run by fossil fuel companies to market themselves as environmentally friendly. It began in the 1970s and 鈥�80s.

鈥淸Fossil fuel] companies figured out that it鈥檚 not popular to be against the environment,鈥� Aronczyk says. 鈥淭here is no way that a company could say they are anti-environment and be legitimate.鈥�

And so the fossil fuel industry uses advertising to greenwash its ongoing contribution to the climate crisis. Companies use various messaging tactics to 鈥減osition themselves as contributing to the public interest rather than working against it,鈥� Aronczyk says. 鈥淭hey started using tactics like raising awareness and coalition-building to support their interests.鈥� For example, Shell has to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 by offering more low-carbon products and transitioning into renewable energy sources.

But according to an analysis from environmental lawyers at ClientEarth, the truth behind Shell鈥檚 greenwashing paints a grimmer portrait. According to the company鈥檚 , Shell has no intention of reducing its production by 2030 and is still committed to exploring new oil and gas sources. Shell is currently going ahead with off the coast of South Africa and plans to continue to grow its fossil gas business by 20% in the coming years.

There is no indication that Shell has aligned its investments with its reduction targets either: The company鈥檚 2020 indicates that Shell has allocated just $2 billion to $3 billion per year for investment in renewable energy while investing roughly $17 billion into fossil fuel production.

In May, the Hague District Court that Shell鈥檚 planned emissions reduction of 20% was insufficient and said the company must raise its decarbonization commitments. Under the ruling, Shell will need to reduce emissions by 45% by 2030, compared with 2019 levels. Shell is the ruling.

Woke-Washing

As ClientEarth has indicated, greenwashing is a thinly veiled attempt at reputation laundering鈥攐ne that is becoming increasingly easy for the public to see through. So companies are now engaging a new tool to delay efforts to curb emissions鈥攐ne rooted in social justice arguments.

Colloquially known as woke-washing, these marketing campaigns aim to persuade people that fossil fuel companies are fighting for the poor, the , and . Companies are pumping billions of dollars into fossil fuel propaganda that casts the industry as integral to society. This process of co-opting social justice arguments is derived from companies getting good at using the tactics of social movements to justify their actions.

The woke-washing strategy usually takes one of two forms: either warning that a transition away from fossil fuels will adversely impact poor and marginalized communities, or claiming that oil and gas companies are aligned with those communities. As an example, Chevron is one of many companies that posted 鈥淏lack Lives Matter鈥� on during the 2020 BLM protests. Ironic, considering that fossil fuel pollution disproportionately and that Chevron paid soldiers and police to shoot on Chevron鈥檚 oil platform in 1998.

Woke-washing represents a transformation point for corporate PR.

鈥淯p until recently, companies were reluctant to enter into partisan battles, as they didn鈥檛 want to alienate potential consumers,鈥� Aronczyk says. But she says that changed as the youth market grew and being political became trendy. 鈥淸Companies are] capitalizing on a market trend but also help to create it by reducing social justice movements to a commodity.鈥�

This tactic makes consumers feel like they鈥檙e achieving social justice goals by engaging with brands. For instance, buying products from Chevron is marketed as supporting BIPOC communities. This effectively compromises the original messaging of the Black Lives Matter movement as well as climate change benchmarks.

What Real Solutions Look Like

The solutions to climate change are complex. Many solutions, like implementing multilateral instruments to hold corporations liable for failures to set out realistic targets for emissions reductions, depend on policymakers enacting the appropriate policies to trigger systemic change. However, the machinations of capitalism and governance mean that meaningful change through policy is slow.

Additionally, part of the solution is to force companies to be honest about climate change. But the long-term effect of these disinformation campaigns is public uncertainty about the role fossil fuel companies play in causing the climate crisis.

The results of the COP26 talks, which United Nations Secretary-General Ant贸nio Guterres as insufficient, have further set back climate progress by entrenching the legitimacy and value of the fossil fuel industry.

The often-touted solution of changing individual consumption habits is a nonstarter. It feeds into the narrative of individual responsibility that the fossil fuel industry has manufactured. Ethically, yes, one should reduce meat consumption and use public transportation more often. However, those things will not single-handedly make a difference in the grand scheme of things: An individual can save a meager 2.6 tons of carbon dioxide by going carless, which can鈥檛 compare with the 1.38 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent Shell emitted last year.

鈥淭here is a dire need to overcome the messaging of individualism that has been ingrained within society,鈥� Brulle says. 鈥淵our individual actions, while admirable, need to be backed up against collectivism鈥攑articularly collectivism that calls fossil fuel companies to account.鈥�

He identifies practical solutions, such as urging one鈥檚 congressional representative to look into corporate greenwashing. This is particularly relevant because of ongoing investigations into greenwashing by the . Additionally, communities can support lawsuits against greenwashing campaigns, such as the one filed by the state of Massachusetts against .

Collective action has already had tangible results within the private sector. After environmental activists placed legal pressure on the U.K. government to disallow drilling, Shell recently off the Shetland Islands, citing that there was not an economic case for the project. Community organizations in Australia also caused Scott Morrison, the Australian prime minister, to announce that a controversial proposal to drill for oil and gas off the New South Wales coast .

Private equity investors, too, are ditching fossil fuel investments in favor of green assets. This is mainly due to the rise in public demand for climate accountability. Furthermore, organizations like Clean Creatives are engaging in of PR firms that work with fossil fuel companies.

Still, Aronczyk stresses the need to place companies at the forefront of finding solutions to the climate crisis. 鈥淎dvocating solutions can contribute to the problem,鈥� she says. 鈥淚t suggests that we as individuals should find the solutions. By doing that, aren鈥檛 we letting decision-makers and policymakers who need to make system-wide changes off the hook?

鈥淲e have to be careful not to suggest that individual solutions can be carried out instead of pushing the large decision-makers to develop and implement solutions,鈥� she says. 鈥淭hey鈥檙e already diverting resources to distracting people from the larger issues at hand when they could rather use those resources to find actionable solutions.鈥�

CORRECTION: This article was updated at 11:51a.m. on Feb. 1, 2022, to clarify that 惭别濒颈蝉蝉补听础谤辞苍肠锄测办 co-authored the book with Maria Espinoza. 聽Read our corrections policy here.