How to spot greenwashing: written for an Indian citizen

Greenwashing, greenwashing everywhere, but not a drop of climate relief.

Everyone's working on climate change nowadays. Governments are taking climate action, companies are going green, highly capable individuals are innovating, citizens are enthusiastic and engaged. With so much action, what are climate scientists worried about? Surely, we're on track to solving this crisis?

This post is written for average Indian citizens. Citizens who are currently facing heatwaves, urban flooding and extreme weather events. Citizens who have noticed that the monsoon is becoming erratic and the weather is becoming unpredictable. Citizens who don't like extreme heat and are wondering when it will all become better, not just for themselves but for their children, their parents and their family.

 

"When will it get better?"

The following graph shows the atmospheric concentration of heat-trapping greenhouse gases (GHGs) with a solid black line. It will continue to get worse as long as this concentration keeps increasing.

This means that as the black line keeps rising, Indian citizens should expect the situation to get worse each year. Worse in terms of more heatwaves, more extreme weather events, more unpredictable weather and more erratic monsoons.

Source: NOAA

This is irrespective of whether India's own carbon emissions rise, stabilize or fall. The climate impacts we will experience (suffer) have nothing to do with our historical responsibility or our per capita emissions. They depend on the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere.

Perhaps you noticed the indirect answer. "It will continue to get worse as long as this concentration keeps increasing." This does not mean it will start getting better as soon as this concentration starts reducing. There are lags in the climate system. We are currently not experiencing the full effects of our emissions, we're being "saved" by a lag. Similarly, we will also see recovery with a lag.

 

"What action can we take?"

There are two categories of "climate action": mitigation and adaptation.

Mitigation means that we try to reduce the problem in the first place. This can only be done by actions which lead to reductions in GHG levels -- i.e. actions which pull the black line down in the graph above. Adaptation means that we try to cope with the problem.

Both are necessary for each country of the world, including India.

 

"But why should India do anything if we didn't cause this crisis?"

The principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities is (justifiably) a centrepiece of international negotiations. India has no obligation to any other nation to reduce its carbon emissions (i.e. contribute to mitigation). Historically, we have contributed very little to the black line in the graph above.

I repeat: India has no obligation to any other nation to mitigate.

But if the Government recognizes that the climate crisis leads to suffering among its own citizens, it is reasonable to expect that it will do whatever it can to mitigate. As a citizen, you and I have a right to demand that our Government tries to mitigate this crisis, not for answering to any other nation but for our own well-being.

One view is that if the Government cannot possibly mitigate the crisis, it should focus on adaptation. But this is only half the picture. Imagine an overflowing bathtub. There is a strong flow from the tap, and you are given only a spoon to take water out. If the Government focuses only on adaptation without mitigation, it will increase the flow from the tap while trying to increase the size of the spoon. As of now, there is absolutely no reason for hoping that we can make a spoon of a sufficient size. The size at which the spoon is growing is minuscule compared to the increase in the tap flow.

 

"But what about all the climate action that's taking place?"

This brings me to my main message about greenwashing. Greenwashing refers to making false claims about being environment-friendly. In the broad sense, it can be used to refer to any of the environmental problems - air pollution, water pollution, biodiversity loss, etc. Here, I focus only on climate change.

Every time a Government (not just India) or a company makes a false claim about taking climate action, they are greenwashing. This includes exaggerations. If someone claims they are reducing their emissions by 10x amount, whereas in reality, it is only x amount, it is also greenwashing.

I remind the reader that there are only two things that qualify as climate actions: mitigation or adaptation. Sadly, the rest is only greenwashing. It helps the reputations of greenwashers, but it does not help citizens.

Enough theory, let's apply this to a real-world example.

"Thankfully, compared to the rest of the world, India is already on the next level when it comes to mitigating climate change through renewable interventions."

I am quoting directly from a remarkable article written by Ashish Khanna, CEO of Tata Power Renewable Energy Ltd. I found it remarkable, because it is a remarkable instance of greenwashing. To be quite clear, it is not greenwashing actions of Tata Power Renewable Energy Ltd. It is greenwashing policies by the Indian Government. That a private company feels the need to greenwash Government policies is another remarkable observation in itself, but one that I cannot address.

This is quite a common claim, made repeatedly by the Government at multiple fora. This also seems to be widely believed within the country, thanks to the relentless and unquestioning parroting by the media. It could be for perfectly benign reasons -- perhaps we all want to believe something good is happening. We want to believe that India is taking concrete steps in mitigating the crisis, for our futures and for the futures of our loved ones. Unfortunately, that is not true. The key point is this:

Adding clean energy sources to existing unclean sources does not reduce emissions. 

It does nothing to pull the black line down, from the graph above. The only way to pull the black line down (in the context of energy) is to replace unclean sources with clean ones.

I expect some outrage over this fact, since a lot of the nationalist climate sentiment depends on our solar achievements. Please do not misunderstand me: investing in solar energy is the right step towards climate action, it is just not climate action yet. I like to call this pre-mitigation. It is a necessary step towards eventually mitigating, but as of today, it is an energy security solution, not a climate solution.

Applying the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility means that India is not required to compete with other nations in mitigating the climate crisis. That is unequivocally true. But it does not mean that the definition of "mitigation" changes for India. Mitigation means the same thing across the world, and it is not a good idea to delude ourselves by coming up with alternate definitions. No other country has the right to judge or dictate India's efforts, but surely the citizens have a right to demand more than pre-mitigation?

The climate crisis is not resolving itself anytime soon. We should expect to cross the 1.5 ℃ target within the decade. On our current trajectory, we are headed towards more than 3 ℃ of warming by the end of the century. As of now, I do not expect to return to a stable, comfortable climate in my lifetime. There are hundreds of man-made metrics that can be used to distract us from hard climate truths. But lulling Indians into a false sense of security is not in the interest of the nation.

And so, dear citizen, the next time you read about yet another brilliant move to solve the climate crisis, especially one that claims to be about mitigation, ask this simple question -- what amount of GHG reductions can we expect from this? Does it even lead to emissions reductions?

The answer will usually not be as comforting or as brilliant as the claim.

===

If you like such posts, you may subscribe here.