Complex Numbers

Greenwashing

I'd like to propose an alternative definition today. For "Journalistic Intentions"  [18+]:

Greenwashing

From what I understand, "greenwashing" is intended as a riff on "whitewashing," which, despite its name, is not meant to be about racism, but rather about the covering up of flaws through surface cosmetic measures. Originally it was literal, as you'd whitewash, say, a barn, to make it look better and protect it from the elements (it's a particular cheap type of paint that relies on a chemical reaction to make the surface it's on look bright white). Then they started applying the word to covering up a person's scandals by downplaying their bad acts and making them look like better people. Still later, it did acquire a race connotation, like when people of European descent portray characters of color in plays, TV shows, and movies.

The point being that definitions evolve; someone had to use the term in the new way for the first time, and then it caught on.

So this is me, proposing an alternative definition for greenwashing, not based on whitewashing, but on brainwashing.

First, the accepted definition of the term, in my own words:

Greenwashing is when a company markets itself and/or its products as environmentally friendly, while they're actually polluting like a little bitch. Like claiming to have a "sustainable" food, which, when you dig into it, is actually grown in cleared areas of former rainforest in northern Brazil. Or pretending the clothes you sell are Earth-friendly, while the bleach used on the fabrics kills all the fish in the Congo River.

And now, my proposal:

Greenwashing is the process of attempting to convince the average person that the planet's environmental problems are all our fault, and if we'd just change our habits and attitudes, we could reverse global warming, clean up all the lakes, and de-plasticize the oceans.

It relies on the same neuroticism as any other form of advertising: Something is Wrong in Your Life, and Here's What You Need To Do About It.

Thing is, it's not entirely wrong. Consumer habits certainly contribute to environmental degradation. The problem is that if you leave it up to us to fix it, ain't nothin' gonna happen.

If the pandemic showed us anything, it's that there will always be people who are not on board with the solution to a global crisis. Not only not on board, but also actively working to thwart any efforts at amelioration. For instance, trucks modified to "roll coal" at bicyclists and/or Prius owners.

There's no reaching those people, and it amounts to the equivalent of: for every cup of water we each pull out of the ocean in an attempt to battle sea level rise -- because that's what any one individual's effort can amount to -- you get someone else scoffing at their puny, insignificant effort and, moreover, pissing two cups of urine back into the same ocean.

Attempting to convince us that it's All Our Fault only plays with our little minds, and the result goes nowhere. Not only are we fooled by the original definition of greenwashing, believing every corporate claim about environmental friendliness while said corporation is busy dumping toxic waste into the harbor, but in the bigger picture, putting the onus on us (pun intended, as always) to fix, say, global warming only inconveniences us while other people benefit from their own flagrant flaunting of any attempts to get them to do better.

Take littering, for example. There were campaigns against throwing shit out of your car onto the side of the road. Places introduced substantial disincentives in an effort to stop littering, and they did work, to some extent. And yet... there is still litter. Maybe not as much, but all it takes is one or two plastic coffee cups to disturb the pristine green of the road verge. Some states, like my own, try to further fix the problem by some sort of adopt-a-highway program, where organizations or individuals are tasked with picking up litter from the roadside in exchange for some free publicity.

The obvious problem with that is: there's a certain subset of people who, if they know someone's going to come along and pick up the trash, will be more likely to throw their faux-environmentally-friendly McDonald's bags out the window when they think no one's looking.

In other words, we're being greenwashed into believing that something we, as individuals, do can actually make a difference. And sure, if everyone were on board with it, that might actually be the case. But everyone is not on board with it, there is no practical universe where everyone will be on board with it, and in accordance with Lone Asshole Theory, all it takes is one person to destroy the hard work of thousands.

All of which is not to say that you or I should be the Lone Asshole. But there's no sense in believing that you can actually make a difference.