Share this page!

Christine Arena Profile picture
Twitter logo
27 Nov, 5 tweets, 2 min read
50 years of greenwashing: "A new report published by the Council on Economic Priorities [shows] that much corporate advertising on environmental themes is irrelevant or deceptive. A large percentage comes from the worst polluters." – Science News, Nov 1971
sciencenews.org/archive/enviro…
Advertising environmental commitments has NEVER driven the biggest polluters to invest more in environmental initiatives. On the contrary: The sole purpose of greenwashing is to allow polluters to continue polluting, unrestricted.
The most polluting companies on earth — Exxon, Chevron, etc. — invest just 1% of their assets in clean tech. They intend to increase oil & gas output in coming years. And they want to do so free of regulatory intervention.

That’s why they spend $$ on deceptive ads & greenwash.
Communications agencies currently claiming to be helping their fossil fuel clients "accelerate" clean energy transitions via greenwash are: (a) lying, and (b) bound to be found liable for the resulting harms caused.
In the next six months, I suspect State AGs will name the most offending PR and Ad firms as defendants in their ongoing litigation against oil co's, while @OversightDems will focus closely upon them as well.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Christine Arena

Christine Arena Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ChristineArena

Christine Arena Profile picture
30 Nov
RESEARCH DROP: @RBrulle and C. Werthman’s new paper, “The Role of Public Relations Firms in Climate Change Politics,” provides the most comprehensive look to date on how PR firms are a major force in obstructing climate action.

This 🧵 breaks it down.
cssn.org/wp-content/upl…
2/ The major contribution of this paper is that it helps illustrate why we are where we are on climate policy today. Instead of climate denial or scientific misinformation, our focus needs to turn to climate obstruction and corporate propaganda.
3/ The paper answers three questions:

1. Which PR firms are most utilized by the fossil fuel industry?
2. What is the extent of their involvement in climate politics?
3. What activities do they undertake to advance fossil fuel interests?
Read 20 tweets
Christine Arena Profile picture
14 Nov
As the case against fossil fuel industry marketers escalates, it's important to clearly define what we mean when we talk about climate disinformation and greenwashing. While these practices are closely related, they are different. This 🧵 explores how.
2/ Climate disinformation is information that directly contradicts climate science. This includes denial discourse (“the science is still uncertain”) as well as delay discourse (“individual consumers are responsible,” “fossil fuels are part of the solution,” etc.).
3/ Presently, delay discourse is the more prevalent form of climate disinformation. This paper by
@giulio_mattioli @seb_levi @TimmonsRoberts @JKSteinberger et al. explores the issue and provides an excellent visual framework: cambridge.org/core/journals/…
Read 21 tweets
Christine Arena Profile picture
13 Nov
The view that PR and Ad firms shouldn’t promote fossil fuel interests is science-based. A 1.5 degree threshold demands rapid decarbonization and a phase out of fossil fuels. So those of us urging for divestment are advocating for 1.5 degrees, rather than 2.8.
We can and will explore all the important nuances to this conversation in the coming months, but a big part of this comes down to math. Are we for 1.5 or 2.8 degrees?
To put the degree difference into perspective, at 1.5 degrees, 70 to 90% of coral reefs are likely to die off worldwide. At 2 degrees, 99% are lost,” per @IPCC.

Thus, if we delay even a year or two more, we will pass a point of no return.

npr.org/2021/11/08/105…
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @ChristineArena has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @ChristineArena!

Read all threads by @ChristineArena

:(