Greenwash and the Rise of the Mad Men

There's a reason why marketing executives are highly paid.

Since the rise of the rampant consumerism which has spread throughout the world since the dawn of the industrial revolution - and particularly since the end of the Second World War - businesses flogging their wares have paid vast sums of money to slick men - and, later, women - in nice suits to think up ways of making their product stand out from the crowd.  Vivid colours, attractive women, and catchy slogans have all helped to make the likes of Coca-Cola, Nestle and McDonalds a staple of the diet of millions throughout the world.

These magicians help to maintain a company's image and to enusre that the customer keeps coming back for their product, whilst bad press is swiftly and smartly swept aside.  Take the tabacco industry as an example - for many years, cigarettes were sold on the back of making the consumer feel comfortable, safe and sexy. Look at the attractive woman, she's smoking... if I smoke, maybe she'll sleep with me?  Hell, cigarettes were even good for you! Magic. So you could have sex and get healthy, all at once.

Of course, then came 1964 and the bubble burst.  All of a sudden, apparently, cigarettes weren't good for you any more.  Some clever people who had actually read up on the science told the marketing suits this, and they had to change tack.  But instead of retreating in the face of such evidence, the executives instead pleased their clients by coming up with more subtle ways to advertise - and now they were doing it to children!

Still, the important thing was that the clever marketing people were still coming up with clever ways to sell not-so-clever products, and making a mint off it.

Meanwhile, back in the 21st Century, the same thing is happening, but this time the culprit is not the stench of cigarettes, but the stench of Greenwash.

Every day, new examples are cropping up: the home delivery service proudly proclaiming that its factory-to-warehouse-to-distributor-to-customer set-up is 'eco-friendly'; the plastic packaging shouting loudly that it is 'biodegradable'; and the smug morons adorning an EDF television advertisement, patronising us all with their tales of how they're saving the planet by turning off a lightbulb and turning their telly off.  Funnily enough, I'm turning my telly off, too.  Right now, whilst watching you smug gits.  How's that for a carbon saving, EDF?

The problem isn't necessarily what these advertisements are saying - of course we can all be a little smarter with our energy, if only for the cost savings, and the life-cycle of the products we buy is almost as important as the impact of the product itself.  The problem is the way in which these companies and their marketing executives are allowed to get away with advertising green credentials by emphasising such small details, whilst doing little to make the core of their business smarter and more sustainable.

This was highlighted recently in a report written by The Future Laboratory, reported in the Independent: 

The snapshot of British boardrooms, which surveyed executives at companies with turnovers between £50m and £500m, is a shot in the arm for the environmental movement, which has had a rocky year. It follows a report for the UN in June that showed 93 per cent of the world’s top chief executives see sustainability as important to their company’s future success.

All well and good on the face of it, but the words need to be backed up with actions, and there is currently very little evidence of this happening.  Over the last few weeks, not only have UK firms been criticised for failing to factor climate change into their business plans, it has also been revealed that less than half of eligible companies have signed up to the Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme, as it has been rebranded).

So behind all of the hype, behind all the advertising and marketing and PR budgets, businesses are continuing to operate on a business as usual basis.  

Tobacco is still bad for you, and years of scientific and medical evidence has ensured that its advertising is minimal.

So sustainability and green credentials are now the new buzzwords for marketing executives to hang their massive salaries on.  EDF still operate a carbon-intensive industry, plastic still doesn't biodegrade, and home deliveries still rely on vast distances being covered in short periods of time.  And it is still allowed for companies to advertise the complete opposite...

Sooner or later, such greenwash will start to wear thin on the general public.  Climate change already has its own PR problem, and such tactics will soon start to have the opposite effect, turning consumers away from the genuinely sustainable practices.

Organic, fairtrade, eco-friendly, green... such words are now becoming so widespread that their meaning is almost lost.  Time to reclaim them from the marketing executives...

Welcome to Climate Legacy

Last night I had a dream...

I was working, part-time, as a scientific advisor at Westminster, and had been called to a meeting with a senior minister to discuss climate change.  After about 5 minutes it became clear that this minister - charged publicly with delivering policies on the matter - had no idea what he was talking about.  He knew only headline information about the science, and struggled with the difference between 'weather' and 'climate'.  In the end, I stormed out, causing much anger within his office, and eventually quit the position.

Myriad details and backgrounds which are irrelevant here mark the dream out as perhaps more interesting than the above suggests, but it certainly got me thinking; just how much do our politicians know about the science and the reality of climate change?

There are numerous websites and leaflets and magazines throughout the world which warn of impending Earthly doom, many of which completely miss the point, and many more which provide counter argument and dismiss the subject as either myth or conspiracy. It must be easy for the average politician to grab at these headlines and allow the details to fall from their grasp.

Given their job, some might see this as fair enough - most ministers will find themselves shuffled around departments over the years, so they need to adopt a 'jack of all trades' approach to their learning.  But when a minister appears on our tellies or in our papers to preach 'green living', do we trust what they're saying?  Do we know for sure that they even understand what they're saying?

Even worse is the potential for hypocrisy - something most politicians are no stranger to, admittedly - where the likes of David Cameron and Ed Miliband regularly enjoy telling the rest of us just how much they're doing to fight climate change, by bravely insulating their lofts and cycling a few miles each day.  But they're doing it to gain popularity and appear modern and relevant, right?  How much do they actually understand of the reasons why they're doing it?

When I was a teenager, I made the rather arbitrary decision that the concept of 'global warming' was a load of old scare-mongering nonsense.  Sunspot cycles were to blame, and sea level rise was a myth - when an ice cube melts in your drink, the overall level stays the same, everyone knows that!

Later, of course, I came to realise that this was just bad understanding of basic science.  Slowly but surely, the headlines started to sink in, the 'reality' became a little clearer, and I began discussing the subject with friends and acting knowledgeable because I'd read a New Scientist article or two.

But, once I'd decided to attend University to learn more, I came to realise that this is barely skimming the surface of climate science, and the actual reality is mind-bogglingly complex.  The interactions of the planet's various systems and cycles are so tangled and woven that it becomes almost impossible to understand the whole just by studying one aspect - its like pulling a thread out of a garment and using it to work out whether it was a jumper, a t-shirt or a pair of trousers.

Trying to preach green living using only headline knowledge is dangerous; trying to do so with a complete understanding of the science is near impossible since there's just too much to know. In both instances, there is a tendency to reduce the reality of modern life to the background.

In between the headlines and the complex whole, however, lies a middle-ground of understanding, where basic concepts are made clear, myths are dispelled, and the world becomes the stage on which the science is set.

This is where I believe politics should tread with regards to climate change and Earth sciences; diving down into the detail beneath the headlines.  I believe it is important for a politician to understand the basic scientific concepts of long-wave and infra-red radiation and their interactions with atmospheric gases, without going as far as studying the concept of radiative forcing.

This is also the idea behind Climate Legacy - to promote sustainable living, blending the science with the reality, using education instead of scorn to ensure that the legacy we leave behind is one we can be proud of.

Climate change is neither a threat to the existence of the planet - just to our way of living on it - nor a global conspiracy.  It occupies that middle ground.

Starting as a simple blog, Climate Legacy aims to blossom into so much more - a website, information, events, blending with photos and videos and links to further detail.

So how much do our politicians really understand about the science of climate change?  Climate Legacy aims to find out.

This is just the beginning...