48
submitted 2 years ago by NightOwl@lemm.ee to c/canada@lemmy.ca
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago

Greenwashing should be illegal. Consumers trying to reduce their personal impact can have their decisions influenced by greenwashing propaganda and end up making misinformed decisions or not hold a company accountable for their true impacts.

[-] FuntyMcCraiger@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 years ago

"How is a natural gas leak bad? It's back in nature where it came from!"

[-] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

"Its an organic compound so its totally safe "

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

It'd be pretty hard to define it, though.

I guess you could require green advertising spending to be some fraction of spending on being green, but that wouldn't really apply to those meat ads about grasslands, because that's genuinely a side effect of their trade. Banning most forms of paid advertising in general would also do it.

[-] yimby@lemmy.ca 12 points 2 years ago

Y'all really don't read the articles. The UN already has reports on greenwashing woth pretty solid definitions and recommendations. The report was linked in the article.

Excerpt from the linked UN report:

Our report also specifically addresses the core concerns raised by citizens, consumers, environmentalists and investors around the use of net zero pledges that make greenwashing possible. Our recommendations are clear that:

• Non‑state actors cannot claim to be net zero while continuing to build or invest in new fossil fuel supply. Coal, oil and gas account for over 75% of global greenhouse gas emissions. net zero is entirely incompatible with continued investment in fossil fuels. Similarly, deforestation and other environmentally destructive activities are disqualifying.

• Non-state actors cannot focus on reducing the intensity of their emissions rather than their absolute emissions or tackling only a part of their emissions rather than their full value chain (scopes 1, 2 and 3).

These recommendations explicitly cover the ad campaign discussed in OP's article, as well as many other greenwashing ad campaigns.

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 2 years ago

You're right, I didn't read this one. I'm surprised that was in there, my bad.

I'm glad and not surprised someone's working on a definition.

[-] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago

Why do they limit that to non-state actors? Are they giving governments a free pass?

this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2023
48 points (94.4% liked)

Canada

8004 readers
302 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS