How to (really) stop the greenwashers.

*Prior knowledge needed to understand this post.

*Subjective = thoughts. What people think, believe, and say. What they may understand or not understand. What they may be honest or dishonest about.

*Objective = actions (activities). What people do and the effects of what they do.

*Thoughtlessness = Not thinking about the effects of actions (including behaviours). For example, not being consciously aware of medical knowledge (not informed or educated), which is the scientific literature (the consensus of that literature) that infers that air pollution is harmful.

*Delusion & illusion = How aligned are the subjective perceptions with objective reality? For example, if a person mistakenly believed that breathing in smoke was healthy, the research, the medical evidence, infers that that person is deluded. Or if a person did not generally think about smoke pollution, that is a, comparably, thoughtless psychology, or a lack of knowledge, that manifest as behaviours that cause harm. So, a delusion is an incorrect belief (perception) that causes harm. Whilst a benign or constructive belief can be termed an illusion (or in some contexts, an adaptation).

Being greenwashed is being deluded (because it causes harm). Therefore, intentional greenwashes are immoral. They know their disinformation is causing harm – they do it anyway (because they’re, comparably, immoral).
When thinking about sustaining ecology ("protecting the environment" or "saving the world"), what organizations are actually (objectively) leading the way? (Are leading by example) Which politicians or industry spokespeople are talking sense or nonsense? Which people are genuinely wanting to sustain ecology and which people are full of BS? Which people are informed, and which people are deluded?

There is so much greenwash & semi-greenwash - it would be constructive to credit those that are demonstrating that they are genuinely leading the way (on environmental issues). Leading by example, not leading people astray with their fake "green" BS. It would be constructive if greenwashes did not profit from their lies. However, the biggest greenwashes on Earth, the fuel industries, are making more profits than at any time in human history. The industries that have deluded so many are being rewarded for their criminal activities (have not been punished for them) https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/climate-deception-dossiers

It takes the knowledge of science to know what is, and what is not greenwash. Understanding that air pollution is harmful requires knowledge of the sciences of chemistry and biology. There are people that understand that air pollution is harmful. There are people that don’t understand, though they believe, or not, that air pollution is harmful, depending on what source of information they trust. Depending on who they trust, and which industries and politicians they trust. There are people that understand that air pollution is harmful, but say the opposite of that in public. In other words, some people become deluded (greenwashed) because they mistakenly trust the people, the industries, and the politicians, that lie about what they understand. Now, this disinformation would be mitigated “overnight” if the majority of people were generally scientifically literate, Unfortunately, that level of education won’t happen “overnight” because many adults are scientifically illiterate, and some adults are even anti-science (due to ignorance, paranoia and greenwash).

Whilst the fossil fuel industries and their associates are those that are most guilty of greenwash, there is also semi-greenwash. There are multitudes of semi-greenwash examples to choose from. For one example, the UK delivery company DPD advertises its "green" credentials by stating that some of its vehicles use biofuels. Burning biofuels is not "green". Suggesting that using biofuels is green – is greenwash. Biofuels are only less polluting when compared to the most polluting fuels such as diesel. Producing biofuels is not "green". Burning biofuels causes air pollution (therefore diseases) & Carbon Dioxide (though less CO2 than, for example, burning coal, diesel, or petrol). Therefore, biofuels are the opposite of "green". Advertising or promoting biofuels as “green” is mismarketing.

How to (really) stop the greenwashing.

This is not “rocket science”! (its ecology). There should be, must be, a (financially) independent science-based regulator, that provides guidelines on what is "green" & what is not. With the authority to stop greenwashing (e.g., fine greenwashes if they don’t comply with those guidelines. Close the repeat greenwash offending businesses). Of course, the greenwashes don’t want there to be a green regulatory authority. The explicit greenwashes are already demonstrating that they are immoral – so what they want (their cognitive bias), isn’t good for our cultures. In other words, we should not care about what “they” want (as their wants are causing an ecological crisis)

The UK delivery company, DPD, amongst many others, also incorrectly advertises its "recycled plastic" as "green". When in fact, true " green" is not using (fossil fuel-based) plastic in the packaging.

In summary, the "green" that many industries advertise, is nothing more than, at best, slightly less polluting. A national green regulator would be comparably easy to set up. Organisations that comply could be awarded a true green logo, that they can put on their products & services (e.g., electric delivery trucks). In other words, the businesses that are at least not greenwashing consumers and are using the best available sustainable methods. Without an effective regulator, greenwash will never be mitigated (there are too many people that are ignorant about what is "green" & or will lie for money).

A green regulator is not “rocket science” (complicated). We already use, for example, a 1,2,3, etc, or an A, B, C, etc, or a star rating system on product energy rating.
The green regulator can use an “eco’ rating traffic light system. For example:

1. Green = businesses (models) that are (scientifically) evaluated as being ecologically sustainable - are to be the only businesses that can use the true green logo on their products and services.

2. Amber = businesses that are (scientifically) evaluated as being not presently ecologically sustainable, however, have demonstrated that they are actively improving. Aiming to be ecologically sustainable.

3. Red = businesses that are (scientifically) evaluated as being not ecologically sustainable. And cannot be ecologically sustainable (not objectively possible. Not practical). Those businesses that are demonstrating that they are not ecologically sustainable and there is insufficient scope for improvement. For example, the coal industry (the fossil fuel industry).

Branded as criminals (because they are) = Those businesses that are demonstrating that they are not ecologically sustainable can never be ecologically sustainable but are deceiving the public about this. For example, the fossil fuel and biofuel industries (e.g., businesses that sell and promote Carbon-based fuels using “green” tech-sounding nonsense. E.g., “carbon capture”).

Note – some people may say, to paraphrase “why should scientists be the authority of what is green or is not green?. Who put them in charge!”. However, that’s an ignorant and biased point of view. A science-based regulator is only the organisation that is needed to make sure that businesses concur with the science. Because the regulator is based on the scientific literature, anyone that is knowledgeable of the scientific literature can know if, or not, that regulator is being scientifically informed (i.e., a transparent regulatory system in which any knowledgeable person can critically evaluate that system. i.e., a peer review regulator). This means that the regulatory system can be apolitical and only favour businesses that are demonstrating their green credentials. To reiterate, because there are many industries & lifestyles that are harming ecology, there are many people that will be against a scientific green regulator (there is a psychological reason why humans are trashing the planet & that reason isn’t prudence [a well-intended and informed intelligence])

So, if we have the knowledge to understand what is “green” (sustainable methods) and what is not - plus we can easily implement a scientific overseer to evaluate businesses' “green” credentials, what is stopping us? Are Ignorant and or immoral humans preventing “us” from sustaining ecology? The greedy greenwashes (the liars) are greenwashing the ignorant. The corrupt politicians that, on the one “hand” talk about mitigating climate change, and yet, on the other “hand” advocate opening a coal mine (e.g., UK’s Conservative party). Why don’t they advocate a green regulator that is “following the science”? Is it because they’re (rich &) corrupted by their own personal vested interests (rhetorical questions)

Fundamentally, mitigating human-caused climate change (ecological degradation), is about mitigating ignorance and corruption (crime). We honestly can sustain our environments (“nature”), but dishonesty and corruption mean they, the decision makers, are not (in general). To turn the “tide” of ecological destruction around, to reverse that trend, honesty must pay! Reverse the trend that, for example, the fossil fuel industries are making profits from their corruption (profit from their harm). Those that exploit nature, that exploit people's trust, are the worst of us (they must not be rewarded).

Sociopathological behaviours and ecocidal behaviours must not be rewarded!

#knowledge #intelligence #science #ecology #AirPollution

#politics #business #economics

#AntiIntelligence #GreenWash #propaganda #FossilFuelIndustry #BioFuels #WoodFuels #SmokePollution

How to (really) stop the greenwashers.

*Priors.

*Subjective = thoughts. What people think, believe, and say. What they may understand or not understand. What they may be honest or dishonest about.

*Objective = actions (activities). What people do and the effects of what they do.

*Thoughtlessness = Not thinking about the effects of actions (including behaviours). For example, not being consciously aware of medical knowledge (not informed or educated), which is the scientific literature (the consensus of that literature) that infers that air pollution is harmful.

*Delusion & illusion = How aligned are the subjective perceptions with objective reality? For example, if a person mistakenly believed that breathing in smoke was healthy, the research, the medical evidence, infers that that person is deluded. Or if a person did not generally think about smoke pollution, that is a, comparably, thoughtless psychology, or a lack of knowledge, that manifest as behaviours that cause harm. So, a delusion is an incorrect belief (perception) that causes harm. Whilst a benign or constructive belief can be termed an illusion (or in some contexts, an adaptation).

Being greenwashed is being deluded (because it causes harm). Therefore, intentional greenwashes are immoral. They know their disinformation is causing harm – they do it anyway (because they’re, comparably, immoral).
When thinking about sustaining ecology ("protecting the environment" or "saving the world"), what organizations are actually (objectively) leading the way? (Are leading by example) Which politicians or industry spokespeople are talking sense or nonsense? Which people are genuinely wanting to sustain ecology and which people are full of BS? Which people are informed, and which people are deluded?

There is so much greenwash & semi-greenwash - it would be constructive to credit those that are demonstrating that they are genuinely leading the way (on environmental issues). Leading by example, not leading people astray with their fake "green" BS. It would be constructive if greenwashes did not profit from their lies. However, the biggest greenwashes on Earth, the fuel industries, are making more profits than at any time in human history. The industries that have deluded so many are being rewarded for their criminal activities (have not been punished for them) https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/climate-deception-dossiers

It takes the knowledge of science to know what is, and what is not greenwash. Understanding that air pollution is harmful requires knowledge of the sciences of chemistry and biology. There are people that understand that air pollution is harmful. There are people that don’t understand, though they believe, or not, that air pollution is harmful, depending on what source of information they trust. Depending on who they trust, and which industries and politicians they trust. There are people that understand that air pollution is harmful, but say the opposite of that in public. In other words, some people become deluded (greenwashed) because they mistakenly trust the people, the industries, and the politicians, that lie about what they understand. Now, this disinformation would be mitigated “overnight” if the majority of people were generally scientifically literate, Unfortunately, that level of education won’t happen “overnight” because many adults are scientifically illiterate, and some adults are even anti-science (due to ignorance, paranoia and greenwash).

Whilst the fossil fuel industries and their associates are those that are most guilty of greenwash, there is also semi-greenwash. There are multitudes of semi-greenwash examples to choose from. For one example, the UK delivery company DPD advertises its "green" credentials by stating that some of its vehicles use biofuels. Burning biofuels is not "green". Suggesting that using biofuels is green – is greenwash. Biofuels are only less polluting when compared to the most polluting fuels such as diesel. Producing biofuels is not "green". Burning biofuels causes air pollution (therefore diseases) & Carbon Dioxide (though less CO2 than, for example, burning coal, diesel, or petrol). Therefore, biofuels are the opposite of "green". Advertising or promoting biofuels as “green” is mismarketing.

How to (really) stop the greenwashing.

This is not “rocket science”! (its ecology). There should be, must be, a (financially) independent science-based regulator, that provides guidelines on what is "green" & what is not. With the authority to stop greenwashing (e.g., fine greenwashes if they don’t comply with those guidelines. Close the repeat greenwash offending businesses). Of course, the greenwashes don’t want there to be a green regulatory authority. The explicit greenwashes are already demonstrating that they are immoral – so what they want (their cognitive bias), isn’t good for our cultures. In other words, we should not care about what “they” want (as their wants are causing an ecological crisis)

The UK delivery company, DPD, amongst many others, also incorrectly advertises its "recycled plastic" as "green". When in fact, true " green" is not using (fossil fuel-based) plastic in the packaging.

In summary, the "green" that many industries advertise, is nothing more than, at best, slightly less polluting. A national green regulator would be comparably easy to set up. Organisations that comply could be awarded a true green logo, that they can put on their products & services (e.g., electric delivery trucks). In other words, the businesses that are at least not greenwashing consumers and are using the best available sustainable methods. Without an effective regulator, greenwash will never be mitigated (there are too many people that are ignorant about what is "green" & or will lie for money).

A green regulator is not “rocket science” (complicated). We already use, for example, a 1,2,3, etc, or an A, B, C, etc, or a star rating system on product energy rating.
The green regulator can use an “eco’ rating traffic light system. For example:

1. Green = businesses (models) that are (scientifically) evaluated as being ecologically sustainable - are to be the only businesses that can use the true green logo on their products and services.

2. Amber = businesses that are (scientifically) evaluated as being not presently ecologically sustainable, however, have demonstrated that they are actively improving. Aiming to be ecologically sustainable.

3. Red = businesses that are (scientifically) evaluated as being not ecologically sustainable. And cannot be ecologically sustainable (not objectively possible. Not practical). Those businesses that are demonstrating that they are not ecologically sustainable and there is insufficient scope for improvement. For example, the coal industry (the fossil fuel industry).

Branded as criminals (because they are) = Those businesses that are demonstrating that they are not ecologically sustainable can never be ecologically sustainable but are deceiving the public about this. For example, the fossil fuel and biofuel industries (e.g., businesses that sell and promote Carbon-based fuels using “green” tech-sounding nonsense. E.g., “carbon capture”).

Note – some people may say, to paraphrase “why should scientists be the authority of what is green or is not green?. Who put them in charge!”. However, that’s an ignorant and biased point of view. A science-based regulator is only the organisation that is needed to make sure that businesses concur with the science. Because the regulator is based on the scientific literature, anyone that is knowledgeable of the scientific literature can know if, or not, that regulator is being scientifically informed (i.e., a transparent regulatory system in which any knowledgeable person can critically evaluate that system. i.e., a peer review regulator). This means that the regulatory system can be apolitical and only favour businesses that are demonstrating their green credentials. To reiterate, because there are many industries & lifestyles that are harming ecology, there are many people that will be against a scientific green regulator (there is a psychological reason why humans are trashing the planet & that reason isn’t prudence [a well-intended and informed intelligence])

So, if we have the knowledge to understand what is “green” (sustainable methods) and what is not - plus we can easily implement a scientific overseer to evaluate businesses' “green” credentials, what is stopping us? Are Ignorant and or immoral humans preventing “us” from sustaining ecology? The greedy greenwashes (the liars) are greenwashing the ignorant. The corrupt politicians that, on the one “hand” talk about mitigating climate change, and yet, on the other “hand” advocate opening a coal mine (e.g., UK’s Conservative party). Why don’t they advocate a green regulator that is “following the science”? Is it because they’re (rich &) corrupted by their own personal vested interests (rhetorical questions)

Fundamentally, mitigating human-caused climate change (ecological degradation), is about mitigating ignorance and corruption (crime). We honestly can sustain our environments (“nature”), but dishonesty and corruption mean they, the decision makers, are not (in general). To turn the “tide” of ecological destruction around, to reverse that trend, honesty must pay! Reverse the trend that, for example, the fossil fuel industries are making profits from their corruption (profit from their harm). Those that exploit nature, that exploit people's trust, are the worst of us (they must not be rewarded).

Sociopathological behaviours and ecocidal behaviours must not be rewarded!

#knowledge #intelligence #science #ecology #AirPollution

#politics #business #economics

#AntiIntelligence #GreenWash #propaganda #FossilFuelIndustry #BioFuels #WoodFuels #SmokePollution