‘Greenwashing’: Painting a Facade of Ecological Concern
By Ben Zimmer, Nov. 10, 2022, WSJ

When the U.N. climate conference known as COP27 kicked off earlier this week in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt, one notable no-show was the Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg. The U.N. conferences, Ms. Thunberg explained to a gathering in London, “are
mainly used as an opportunity for leaders and people in power to get attention, using many different kinds of greenwashing.”

“Greenwashing” refers to superficial attempts by corporate and political leaders to present an environmentalist or “green” image. That may involve overstating the impact of climate initiatives such as the use of carbon offsets to make up for
greenhouse-gas emissions. Or it may involve making a show of eco-friendliness while clamping down on climate activism.

Other ‘whitewashing’ spinoffs used by activists include ‘purplewashing’ for feminist issues and ‘redwashing’ for leftist issues.

The term “greenwashing” is often credited to the New York environmentalist Jay Westerveld, who reportedly used the term in a 1986 essay that cast a critical eye on hotels that urged guests to reuse their towels as an environmental measure. Mr.
Westerveld told me that the word caught on in New York environmental circles before spreading more widely.

“The word ‘greenwashing’ just came to me,” Mr. Westerveld recalled in a 2011 interview. “It seemed really logical, pretty simple, kind of like whitewashing.”(Around the same time, others hit upon “greenwash” or “greenwashing”
independently, as it appeared in newspapers in Colorado in 1983 and Tennessee in 1987.) The term works as a colorful riff on “whitewashing,” which has long referred to covering up faults or giving the false appearance of respectability.

Historically, “whitewash” was a mixture of water and powdered chalk or slaked lime, as calcium hydroxide was traditionally known. It was applied to walls and other surfaces to give them a fresh appearance without the need for scrubbing. Examples date
to the 1580s, as in an account of a Puritan clergyman in the English town of Ashford who covered up his church’s Catholic images by having them “slubbered over with a white wash that in an hour may be undone.”

Literal whitewash persisted for centuries—think of Tom Sawyer in Mark Twain’s telling, convincing his friends and neighbors to whitewash a fence so that he can avoid the tedious chore. But the more metaphorical meaning of glossing over faults or
errors emerged by the 18th century. When Edward Lewis published a flattering biography of Henry VIII in 1768, one reviewer wrote, “All the white-washing Mr. Lewis bestows upon Henry never can clear him from the charge of being, in civil and domestic
matters, a barbarous and unrelenting tyrant.”

Further variations on the “whitewashing” theme retained the idea of deceptive image-making while swapping out “white” for another color or related term. “Pinkwashing,” for instance, was originally used to criticize companies for cynically co-
opting breast cancer awareness campaigns and their pink ribbons. Eventually “pinkwashing” also came to be used to refer to groups insincerely displaying support for LGBTQ rights—also sometimes called “rainbow washing.”

Other “whitewashing” spinoffs used by activists include “purplewashing” for feminist issues and “redwashing” for leftist issues. In Canada, “maple-washing” has been used to refer to sanitizing the country’s history of racist treatment
of indigenous groups. And “sportswashing” is reserved for when sporting events are used to rehabilitate a government’s reputation.

In environmental circles, “greenwashing” has proved popular enough that it has inspired other terms for shady practices such as “greenscamming.” And at COP27, many companies are taking a step back from trumpeting ambitious-sounding claims of
helping the environment by setting emissions targets. The sudden lack of publicity around corporate climate-action efforts has been dubbed “green-hushing.” With so many potential pitfalls in promoting a truly eco-friendly agenda, it’s not easy
going green.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/greenwashing-painting-a-facade-of-ecological-concern-11668113593

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

fake

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 3:11:30 AM UTC+8, David P. wrote:

‘Greenwashing’: Painting a Facade of Ecological Concern
By Ben Zimmer, Nov. 10, 2022, WSJ

When the U.N. climate conference known as COP27 kicked off earlier this week in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt, one notable no-show was the Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg. The U.N. conferences, Ms. Thunberg explained to a gathering in London, “are

mainly used as an opportunity for leaders and people in power to get attention, using many different kinds of greenwashing.”

“Greenwashing” refers to superficial attempts by corporate and political leaders to present an environmentalist or “green” image. That may involve overstating the impact of climate initiatives such as the use of carbon offsets to make up for

greenhouse-gas emissions. Or it may involve making a show of eco-friendliness while clamping down on climate activism.

Other ‘whitewashing’ spinoffs used by activists include ‘purplewashing’ for feminist issues and ‘redwashing’ for leftist issues.

The term “greenwashing” is often credited to the New York environmentalist Jay Westerveld, who reportedly used the term in a 1986 essay that cast a critical eye on hotels that urged guests to reuse their towels as an environmental measure. Mr.

Westerveld told me that the word caught on in New York environmental circles before spreading more widely.

“The word ‘greenwashing’ just came to me,” Mr. Westerveld recalled in a 2011 interview. “It seemed really logical, pretty simple, kind of like whitewashing.”(Around the same time, others hit upon “greenwash” or “greenwashing”

independently, as it appeared in newspapers in Colorado in 1983 and Tennessee in 1987.) The term works as a colorful riff on “whitewashing,” which has long referred to covering up faults or giving the false appearance of respectability.

Historically, “whitewash” was a mixture of water and powdered chalk or slaked lime, as calcium hydroxide was traditionally known. It was applied to walls and other surfaces to give them a fresh appearance without the need for scrubbing. Examples

date to the 1580s, as in an account of a Puritan clergyman in the English town of Ashford who covered up his church’s Catholic images by having them “slubbered over with a white wash that in an hour may be undone.”

Literal whitewash persisted for centuries—think of Tom Sawyer in Mark Twain’s telling, convincing his friends and neighbors to whitewash a fence so that he can avoid the tedious chore. But the more metaphorical meaning of glossing over faults or

errors emerged by the 18th century. When Edward Lewis published a flattering biography of Henry VIII in 1768, one reviewer wrote, “All the white-washing Mr. Lewis bestows upon Henry never can clear him from the charge of being, in civil and domestic
matters, a barbarous and unrelenting tyrant.”

Further variations on the “whitewashing” theme retained the idea of deceptive image-making while swapping out “white” for another color or related term. “Pinkwashing,” for instance, was originally used to criticize companies for cynically

co-opting breast cancer awareness campaigns and their pink ribbons. Eventually “pinkwashing” also came to be used to refer to groups insincerely displaying support for LGBTQ rights—also sometimes called “rainbow washing.”

Other “whitewashing” spinoffs used by activists include “purplewashing” for feminist issues and “redwashing” for leftist issues. In Canada, “maple-washing” has been used to refer to sanitizing the country’s history of racist treatment

of indigenous groups. And “sportswashing” is reserved for when sporting events are used to rehabilitate a government’s reputation.

In environmental circles, “greenwashing” has proved popular enough that it has inspired other terms for shady practices such as “greenscamming.” And at COP27, many companies are taking a step back from trumpeting ambitious-sounding claims of

helping the environment by setting emissions targets. The sudden lack of publicity around corporate climate-action efforts has been dubbed “green-hushing.” With so many potential pitfalls in promoting a truly eco-friendly agenda, it’s not easy
going green.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/greenwashing-painting-a-facade-of-ecological-concern-11668113593

It is more an opportunity for America in creating new multi-billion dollar of so-called carbon capture businesses. The heavy expenditure in infrastructural of facilities in the building of capturing of carbon dioxide in the air in the atmosphere. Imagine,
there is a machiense sucking in air from the atmosphere.

It then separated out the carbon dioxide for processing and return the oxygen back to the atmosphere. The carbon dioxide is then mixed with cement to produce concrete and then dumped into the deep bored holes into the ground which will serve as a vault
to bury the carbon dioxide.

In countries where such massive processing facilities are not affordable, the carbon dioxide will be compressed into compressed carbon dioxide in the huge tanks in ships for shipment to other countries like Western allies such as US, Australia, Germany,
Japan and other EU countries for them to process the entire process.

They will charge the country by making money from them for the shipping transporting and handling costs, the entire processing costs, and finally the transportation and deep bored holes or deep sea for its burying costs.

They claimed that it has been proven to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, as the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is shown to have reduced and the temperature in air is now also not so hot. They claimed that high investment cost in carbon
capture infrastructure has proven to work in reducing carbon dioxide in the air.

Hence, one can see how the West thinks it works and thus forced on countries to capture carbon dioxide in the air for casting into concrete and dumping into deep earth in dep rocks to fossilise and fuse with the oil found in deep earth crusts to turn
concrete casted with carbon dioxide has proven to have increase the fossil oil in the ground.

As one can see, it is quite a drama to read their claim of oil extraction in the future to have come with dissolving the carbon dioxide concrete into oil. It's laughable to see capturing carbon dioxide and damaging the deep earth instead. It would be
cheaper if they can capture the carbon dioxide from the air and then bottled it into soft drinks like coca cola and pepsi to produce its fizzy gas effects in the drinks. Right?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)