.parent {
display: inline; position: relative; line-height: 30px; float: left; color: #82be41;
}
.parent a{
margin: 10px;color: #82be41;text-decoration: none;
}
.parent:hover > ul {
display:block;position:absolute;
}
.child {
display: none;
}
.child li {
line-height: 30px;width:115%;text-align:left;
}
.child li a{
color: #82be41;
}
ul{
list-style: none;margin: 0;padding: 0px; min-width:10em;text-align: center;float: right; font-weight: 550;
}
ul ul ul{
left: 100%;top: 0;margin-left:1px;
}
li:hover {
background-color: white;
}
.parent li:hover {
background-color: white;
}
.expand{
font-size:10px;float:right;margin-right:5px;
}
.parent a p{
display: inline; margin: 10px;color: #6e706b;text-decoration: none;
}
Opinion: Political Greenwashing
written by Josefina Artigas |February 14, 2021
Design: Jaclyn Yost
At this point, no one can deny that the impending ecological crisis will require global cooperation and solidarity. To slow down the rate at which climate change will create irreversible harm, we have to come together to curtail our carbon emissions, divest from fossil fuels and change our consumption habits. The challenges ahead will deal with implementing meaningful political, economic, and social change, which by itself is no easy feat. An additional challenge we must prepare for will be looking out for claims by nativist groups trying to legitimize their racist and anti-immigration stance through environmental language and policy. This form of political ‘greenwashing,’ or trying to pass as environmentally conscious, is not new, and we can trace its roots to the 1970s. To understand just how dangerous this nativist movement is, we have to dive into its history and why its justification might be ill-placed.
Greenwashing Explained
Greenwashing is commonly known as a marketing practice used by corporations to give the impression that their products are environmentally friendly. With increasing awareness of climate change’s effects, we’re seeing more companies pivoting their strategy towards this goal. These companies’ claims are often unwarranted and just a way to appeal to a larger customer base. Political greenwashing takes the same approach. Political greenwashing is attempting to advocate and implement policy using an environmental framework but not necessarily having the environment in mind. The history of this political strategy illuminates the need for public discourse.
Origins of Political Greenwashing
The specific flavor of greenwashing we’re talking about today is one that goes back to the ’70s. In 1968, Paul Ehlrich published ‘The Population Bomb’, looking at how overpopulation would lead to mass starvation and the natural environment’s degradation. Immensely popular at the time, the book renewed the public’s interest and fears of how overpopulation would lead to extinction. Those who held anti-immigration sentiments took the message in the book and ran with it. Nativists used the impact of human extinction to justify their belief that immigrants were the leading cause of all the environmental problems. In reality, Ehrlich argued that the global population was too large for the earth to sustain, but it was too late. Many of those who wanted to justify their anti-immigration views found the perfect ammunition.
After the release of Ehlrich’s book, we saw the rise of anti-immigration groups such as Progressives For Immigration Reform (PFIR) and Federation for American Immigration Reforms (FAIR). What set these groups apart from other anti-immigration groups was their strategy and branding. These groups spent insane amounts of money trying to appeal to environmentalists by paying for ads in popular liberal publications. What they were after was to establish legitimacy for their non-liberal ideals through the environmental movement.
Evolution of Greenwashing
The reality is that this political greenwashing is not going away, and anti-immigration outcry has seen an increase in popularity in the last couple of years. The Christchurch and El Paso mass shooters were from two different parts of the world but shared the same ideals. Both blamed immigration (of non-white people) as the primary cause of climate change in their manifestos. Both used this belief to justify their violence. This alarming trend must be addressed and taken seriously.
Keeping it in Perspective
The argument that immigrants are to blame for climate change’s dangerous effects also disregards both the legacies of colonialism and carbon emissions’ historical contributors. In reality, those who contribute most to climate change and pollution are the most powerful and influential regions, such as China, the U.S., and the European Union (26.1%, 12.67%, 7.52%, respectively). Decreasing carbon emissions is a global task, but it’s essential to recognize who are the major players and who is most responsible.
Historically, the United States has emitted more CO2 than any other country to date and holds 25% of all emissions ever. This amount is twice the quantity that China has released over its history. Often, rapidly industrializing nations face the blame for the acceleration of the destruction of the environment. In reality, these nations have historically contributed the least amounts of CO2 and have lesser legacies of pollution. Additionally, the people who have benefited the most from the destruction of the environment are not immigrants but rather corporations and industry giants.
What to Keep in Mind
The truth of the matter is that most of these ‘conservationists’ who are anti-immigration are not concerned with preserving the environment. Instead, what they are trying to protect is the influence they possess over society. These conservationists have tied the destruction of the environment with the destruction of white culture and white power. Only the migration of Brown and Black people is really in question. To gain legitimacy and support, these groups are attempting to align themselves with environmental movements.
Slowing down climate change is a global problem. We have to work together to make lasting changes. To pass effective legislation, we must address the issues most pertinent to climate change, such as those who have and will experience the environmental crisis’s worst effects. Communities of color and low-income groups must be prioritized and ensure that people will benefit from a green economy and infrastructure. There are many challenges up ahead in remedying climate change, and we need to work cooperatively to make it work. Immigrants are not only part of our country but also part of the solution. We should not tolerate arguments that would marginalize such a vital sect of the population.
For more information, check out:
Southern Poverty Law Center Greenwashing Report
The Extremist Campaign to Blame Immigrants for U.S. Environmental Problems
Emissions from the Top 10 Contribute 68.71% to Global Emissions
A Visual Breakdown of CO2 Emissions
meet the author
Josefina Artigas
Josefina is a content writer at ecomadic. They hold a BS in Biochemistry and a minor in sociology. Their interests include cooking, anime, and coding. They are passionate about the intersection of sustainability and social justice.
ecomadic 