By making individuals responsible for reducing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, the oil industry is deflecting responsibility for making profound changes in their production practices.
Surprise surprise, I show up in a thread like this.
Lets get to it, shall we?
One particularly significant rhetorical strategy the oil industry has adopted is to place responsibility for climate change mitigation and adaptation on the individual.
It’s classic divide and conquer. The whole argument is bullshit. It’s like blaming someone for lighting a candle seconds before someone else throws a Molotov at their house.
Over the past three decades, the five biggest U.S. oil companies have spent more than US$3 billion on marketing and donations to boost their communications with the general public and political decision-makers.
Of course they have. I spoke a bit a few weeks back about how corporate reputation is a key driver to change, and a major consideration in how companies operate. This one has it added driver of political/regulatory influence.
Greenwashing” enables them to turn their role on its head and present themselves as genuine environmental saviours by investing in coastal restoration and promoting an eco-responsible, community-based industry.
Good! They should invest! It’s a sign that reputational pressure is working! What we need to get good at here, is not buying the shit they sell in terms of results. Oh cool! You restored 0.023 ha of coastline and it worked well. Golf clap. Instead of eating their story up, we should say ‘great we love that!, now what about the rest of the coast?’
Our influence is small, and individually we can’t change them, but enough people calling them out and calling for specific changes and projects can drive them to consider further investment.
Surprise surprise, I show up in a thread like this.
Lets get to it, shall we?
It’s classic divide and conquer. The whole argument is bullshit. It’s like blaming someone for lighting a candle seconds before someone else throws a Molotov at their house.
Of course they have. I spoke a bit a few weeks back about how corporate reputation is a key driver to change, and a major consideration in how companies operate. This one has it added driver of political/regulatory influence.
Good! They should invest! It’s a sign that reputational pressure is working! What we need to get good at here, is not buying the shit they sell in terms of results. Oh cool! You restored 0.023 ha of coastline and it worked well. Golf clap. Instead of eating their story up, we should say ‘great we love that!, now what about the rest of the coast?’
Our influence is small, and individually we can’t change them, but enough people calling them out and calling for specific changes and projects can drive them to consider further investment.