Greenwashing and hypocrisy

Face On/Face Off in environmentalism

“I think it is insane that people are gathered here to talk about the climate and they arrive here in private jets.”
—Greta Thunberg in 2019¹

Environmental sustainability has become a global clarion call echoed by governments, organizations, and individuals alike. As the threat of climate change looms ever larger, so goes the argument, the need for genuine action has never been more pressing. To most people’s surprise, climate activists glueing themselves to the tarmac has not mitigated climate risk. Amid the fervour for green initiatives and the misallocation of capital into low-efficiency energy sources, a troubling phenomenon known as greenwashing has emerged, mirroring the personal hypocrisy often displayed by individuals.

Greenwashing refers to the practice where companies mislead consumers about the environmental benefits of their products or practices. This deceptive strategy allows businesses to capitalize on the growing consumer demand for sustainable products without making substantial efforts to reduce their environmental impact. The essence of greenwashing lies in its superficial commitment to environmentalism—a veneer designed to obscure unsustainable practices. Greenwashing in business is somewhat akin to green parties in politics, which too are a veneer for redistribution and collectivist ideology rather than serious tackling of climate risks.

Corporations often tout minor eco-friendly initiatives while continuing to engage in significant environmentally harmful activities. For instance, a company might advertise its use of recyclable packaging while maintaining a high carbon footprint through its production processes. This selective transparency is akin to the hypocrisy displayed by individuals who advocate for environmental causes but fail to align their personal behaviour with their public stance.

Just as greenwashing serves as a corporate facade, hypocrisy represents the personal dissonance between one's professed beliefs and actual behaviour. Environmental activism demands consistency, yet many individuals fall short. A notable example is King Charles, a prominent advocate for environmental sustainability. Despite his public efforts to promote green policies, such as championing organic farming and renewable energy, his lifestyle has occasionally come under scrutiny. The use of private jets and maintaining multiple residences have raised questions about the true extent of his commitment to environmental principles.

Hypocrisy is betrayal. At its core, hypocrisy is a profound betrayal of self and others. It involves deliberately concealing true intentions and actions to gain social acceptance, power, or admiration. This deceit creates a facade of righteousness, behind which lies a starkly contrasting reality. Such behaviour is not just a minor moral lapse; it is a significant breach of ethical conduct that can have far-reaching consequences. That said, the deceit is also a propaganda technique.

“The road to power is paved with hypocrisy. And casualties.”
—Francis Underwood

Hypocrisy makes cooperation impossible. One of the most damaging aspects of hypocrisy is its ability to destroy trust, a vital component of any relationship, whether personal, professional, or societal. When someone is exposed as a hypocrite, it becomes impossible to take their words or actions at face value. The revelation that a person's outward demeanour is a mask for their true, often selfish motives leads to a breakdown in communication and collaboration.

Cynicism and faux sophistication

Hypocrisy breeds cynicism. When people witness hypocritical behaviour, especially in those they look up to, they become sceptical not just of the individual but of the values and principles they represent. This scepticism can lead to a broader distrust in institutions and societal norms, fostering an environment where genuine virtue is overshadowed by suspicion and doubt. The result is a community where authentic expressions of integrity and morality are questioned and undervalued.

“His essential problem is that he has very poor judgment. And we don't say this because he's so famously bright—academically credentialed, smooth, facile with words, quick with concepts. (That's the sort of intelligence the press and popular historians most prize and celebrate, because it's exactly the sort they possess.) But brightness is not the same as judgment, which has to do with discernment, instinct, the ability to see the big picture, wisdom that is earned or natural. Mr. Obama can see the trees, name their genus and species, judge their age and describe their color. He absorbs data. But he consistently misses the shape, size and density of the forest. His recitations of data are really a faux sophistication that suggests command of the subject but misses the heart of the matter.”
—Peggy Noonan (b. 1950), American author and columnist ²

The disjunction between public advocacy and private behaviour undermines the credibility of the environmental movement. When leaders and influencers display hypocrisy, it sends a mixed message that can erode public trust and weaken the resolve to address environmental challenges genuinely.

The United Nations' Conference of the Parties (COP) conferences serve as pivotal gatherings for global leaders to negotiate and commit to climate action. These conferences have become emblematic of the potential for significant progress and the prevalence of greenwashing and hypocrisy.

Many countries arrive at COP conferences with grandiose pledges to reduce carbon emissions and transition to sustainable energy sources. However, these promises often fall short when scrutinized against actual policies and actions. For example, while many nations pledge to phase out fossil fuels, they continue to subsidize and invest in fossil fuel industries. This discrepancy highlights a form of international greenwashing, where the facade of commitment masks the reality of action.

The conferences themselves can sometimes be seen as platforms for performative environmentalism. The extensive carbon footprint associated with hosting thousands of delegates, often travelling by air, to discuss climate change is a stark contradiction. Such instances exemplify the broader issue of hypocrisy within the environmentalist movement, where the rhetoric of sustainability does not always align with the realities of implementation.

Greenwashing by companies and hypocrisy by individuals are parallel forms of deception that undermine the environmentalist movement. Both practices involve projecting a false image of commitment to sustainability while continuing behaviours that contribute to environmental degradation. This dual facade impedes genuine progress by creating a misleading narrative that obscures the need for substantive change.

For companies, greenwashing is a strategic move to maintain consumer support and market share in an increasingly eco-conscious world. It allows them to appear progressive without undergoing the costly and challenging transformations necessary for true sustainability. For individuals, hypocrisy can stem from a variety of motivations, including convenience, social pressure, or a lack of awareness. Regardless of the cause, both forms of deception erode the integrity of the environmentalist movement.

1. Time to 'get angry', teen climate activist says in Davos, AFP, 24 January 2019.

2. Peggy Noonan, The Unwisdom of Barack Obama, Wall Street Journal, 18 September 2014.