Tag: Greenwashing

How Fossil Fuels, Plastics, and Agrichemicals Delay Climate Action

/ activist360
Split-screen visual with two contrasting scenes: Left Side: A sandy beach littered with plastic waste, including plastic bottles, straws, and various other trash items, emphasizing pollution and environmental degradation. Right Side: A serene and clean beach at sunset, with a golden sun reflecting on the calm waves of the ocean, symbolizing natural beauty and a sustainable, unpolluted environment. The image symbolizes the contrasts between environmental harm and the potential for a clean, thriving ecosystem.
Split-screen visual with two contrasting scenes: Left Side: A sandy beach littered with plastic waste, including plastic bottles, straws, and various other trash items, emphasizing pollution and environmental degradation. Right Side: A serene and clean beach at sunset, with a golden sun reflecting on the calm waves of the ocean, symbolizing natural beauty and a sustainable, unpolluted environment. The image symbolizes the contrasts between environmental harm and the potential for a clean, thriving ecosystem.

Unmasking Climate Obstruction

Climate change is one of the most pressing issues of our time, but did you know that some of the biggest industries in the world are working together to block meaningful action? Fossil fuels, plastics, and agrichemicals are deeply connected, and they often use clever strategies to delay or deny the need for urgent climate action. These industries are obstructing progress and impacting on our planet as well as the health of ourselves and our loved ones.

Fossil Fuels and Climate Change

The Root of the Problem

Burning fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas is the main driver of climate change. These fuels release greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere. These gases trap heat, causing the Earth’s temperature to rise. This leads to more extreme weather, rising sea levels, and harm to ecosystems and biodiversity.

But the problem doesn’t stop there. The fossil fuel industry is deeply connected to two other major industries: plastics and agrichemicals. Together, these industries form a powerful network that resists policies aimed at reducing fossil fuel use.

Plastics and Agrichemicals: Hidden Contributors

Plastics and Pollution

Plastics are made from fossil fuels, and their production contributes significantly to climate change. Every year, millions of tons of plastic waste end up in our oceans, harming marine life and ecosystems. Over time, plastics break down into tiny particles called microplastics, which pollute water, soil, and even the food we eat.

Agrichemicals and Their Impact

Industrial farming relies heavily on chemicals like fertilizers and pesticides, which are also made from fossil fuels. These chemicals can contaminate water sources, harm wildlife, and disrupt ecosystems. For example, pesticides can kill beneficial insects like bees, which are crucial for pollinating crops. Fertilizers can cause algal blooms in water bodies, leading to “dead zones” where marine life cannot survive.

How Industries Block Climate Action

Social Media and Misleading Messaging

Companies in these industries often use social media platforms like X to spread messages that downplay the urgency of climate action. They ignore the problem of our reliance on fossil fuels. For example, ExxonMobil has promoted carbon capture technology as a solution, but this technology is not yet widely used and doesn’t address the continued extraction of fossil fuels.

Shifting Blame to Individuals

Instead of taking responsibility, these industries often shift the blame to individuals. They might encourage people to recycle more or use less water, while ignoring their own role in creating pollution and climate change. This tactic distracts from the need for large-scale, systemic changes.

Greenwashing

Many companies engage in “greenwashing,” where they make themselves appear environmentally friendly without taking meaningful action. For instance, they might highlight small sustainability projects while continuing to expand fossil fuel production. This creates a false impression that they are part of the solution, when in reality, they are part of the problem.

Lobbying Against Change

These industries spend millions of dollars lobbying governments to resist stricter environmental regulations. They argue that such rules would hurt the economy and cost jobs, even though these regulations are essential for protecting the planet and public health.

Impact on Biodiversity and Health

Harm to Wildlife

The production and use of fossil fuels, plastics, and agrichemicals have devastating effects on biodiversity. For example:

  • Plastics harm marine life, with animals like turtles and seabirds often mistaking plastic for food.

  • Pesticides kill beneficial insects like bees, which are vital for pollinating crops and maintaining ecosystems.

  • Fossil fuel extraction destroys habitats and contributes to deforestation, threatening endangered species.

Health Risks

These industries also pose serious risks to human health:

  • Air and water pollution from fossil fuel extraction and processing can cause respiratory diseases and other health problems such as cancer.

  • Chemicals from plastics and agrichemicals can contaminate drinking water and food supplies, leading to long-term health issues, including cancer.

What Can We Do?

Raise Awareness

One of the most important steps is to raise awareness about how these industries work together to block climate action. Share articles like this one, and talk to friends and family about the issue. The more people know, the harder it will be for these industries to continue their obstruction.

Support Stronger Regulations

Advocate for policies that limit fossil fuel production and promote clean energy. Contact your local representatives and let them know that you support stricter environmental regulations.

Reduce Your Reliance on Plastics and Chemicals

While individual actions alone won’t solve the problem, they can still make a difference. Reduce your use of single-use plastics, choose organic foods when possible, and support sustainable farming practices.

Hold Companies Accountable

Support organizations and campaigns that hold fossil fuel, plastic, and agrichemical companies accountable for their actions. Look for brands that are genuinely committed to sustainability and avoid those that engage in greenwashing.

Summing Up

The fossil fuel, plastics, and agrichemical industries are deeply connected and often work together to resist climate action. They use social media, lobbying, and misleading messaging to delay or deny the need for urgent action, all while continuing to harm the environment and public health. To address climate change, we need to look beyond just energy and focus on the entire petrochemical industry, including plastics and agrichemicals.

By raising awareness, supporting stronger regulations, and making sustainable choices, we can push back against these industries and work toward a healthier, more sustainable future. Together, we can unmask climate obstruction and demand real action for our planet.

Source: Kinol, A., Si, Y., Kinol, J., & Stephens, J. C. (2025). Networks of climate obstruction: Discourses of denial and delay in US fossil energy, plastic, and agrichemical industries. PLOS Climate, 4(1), Article e0000370. https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000370.

Climate Litigation: A Growing Force in the Fight Against Climate Change

/ activist360


As the world faces increasingly severe climate impacts, governments and corporations are being held accountable through a surge of climate-related lawsuits. A recent study, Research Areas for Climate Litigation, conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) in September 2024, highlights the critical role of climate litigation in driving action where traditional policy-making has often fallen short.

The Rise of Climate Litigation

Since 2015, more than 1,800 climate-related lawsuits have been filed worldwide, with at least 230 new cases in 2023 alone. The United States, United Kingdom, and Australia have become the primary hubs for this legal activity, while other regions, especially parts of Africa, have seen limited litigation.

The UCS study emphasizes that this growing body of legal action requires strong scientific evidence to be effective. To that end, scientists and researchers are increasingly collaborating with legal teams to provide the necessary data, helping courts make informed decisions on climate cases. The study aims to bridge gaps between science and law by identifying key research priorities that can strengthen future litigation efforts.

Key Research Areas for Climate Litigation

The study highlights three priority research areas that are essential for advancing climate lawsuits:

  1. Attribution Science: This field connects specific climate impacts to particular sources of emissions. Courts need this science to establish a clear causal link between climate change and its effects, such as extreme weather events. The study calls for more geographically diverse research, particularly in regions like the Global South, where climate data is scarce.

  2. Climate Change and Human Health: Legal arguments are increasingly focusing on the health impacts of climate change. Vulnerable groups, including older adults, infants, people with disabilities, and those in poverty, are especially at risk from worsening air quality, heatwaves, and water scarcity. The study points to a need for more research linking climate change to health outcomes like asthma, cardiovascular diseases, and heat-related illnesses.

  3. Economic Modeling: Courts rely on economic data to assess the costs of climate change. This includes not only the direct damages caused by extreme weather events but also the costs of adapting to a changing climate and the economic opportunities lost due to inaction. The study calls for robust economic modeling that can predict future costs and benefits under different climate scenarios.

Strategic Research Areas for the Future

Beyond the priority areas, the study identifies five strategic research areas where further scientific evidence is needed to support climate litigation:

  1. Legal and Financial Accountability: Holding corporations accountable for their emissions, particularly in industries like fashion and cement, requires more detailed research on how financial institutions contribute to climate change by funding fossil fuel projects.

  2. Disinformation and Greenwashing: The study stresses the importance of exposing and countering misleading claims made by corporations about their environmental practices, which can mislead consumers and delay meaningful climate action.

  3. Fair Share Analysis and Compliance: Understanding whether corporations and nations are meeting their climate goals is critical. The study highlights the need for standardized emissions metrics and tracking, especially for corporations with complex supply chains.

  4. Environmental and Social Impacts: Research on how climate change affects ecosystems, biodiversity, and human communities—especially in remote regions with limited data—is vital for comprehensive environmental impact assessments.

  5. Emissions Accounting and Reductions: Courts need better methods for tracking and reducing emissions, particularly those related to the indirect effects of products, known as Scope 3 emissions. The study also calls for research into the effectiveness of renewable energy credits and other mitigation strategies.

Losses and Damages: A Cross-Cutting Theme

One of the study’s most important cross-cutting themes is losses and damages—the economic and non-economic harms caused by climate change that can’t be prevented through adaptation or mitigation. The study calls for more research to quantify these losses, especially in terms of intangible cultural heritage, social structures, and ways of life. Understanding these losses is critical for communities seeking reparations for the damage caused by climate change.

Why This Study Matters

As climate litigation accelerates globally, the need for solid scientific research to support these cases becomes more urgent. The UCS study provides a roadmap for scientists looking to contribute to the legal battle against climate change by focusing on areas where their work can have the greatest impact. This research will not only improve the effectiveness of climate lawsuits but also push governments and corporations to take more meaningful climate action.

Summing Up

Climate litigation is emerging as a powerful tool in the fight against climate change. With over 1,800 lawsuits filed since 2015, the legal community is increasingly relying on science to prove the connections between climate change, its impacts, and the entities responsible. The Union of Concerned Scientists’ 2024 study highlights the critical research areas—such as attribution science, health impacts, and economic modeling—that will strengthen these legal efforts.

For those interested in how climate change is being addressed through legal channels, this study underscores the vital role that science plays in holding governments and corporations accountable. As the impacts of climate change worsen, the importance of this intersection between science and law will only grow.

Source: Merner, L. D., Phillips, C. A., & Mulvey, K. (2024). Research areas for climate litigation: 2024 report. Union of Concerned Scientists.

Eco-Labels vs. Greenwashing, Q&A With EarthTalk

/ activist360 / Leave a comment

There are so many eco-labels out there these days. How can I tell which ones are valid and not just “greenwashing”? 
– Penny Rasmussen, Calumet, MN                            

With countless products now available labeled as “eco-friendly,” “safe for the environment” or “organic,” it’s hard to know which ones are actually good for the planet. Many are legitimate, but lots of others feature deceptive or unsubstantiated claims. And even the legitimate labels vary a lot in meaning. Truly valid ecolabels are awarded by independent third parties, not the companies who sell products on which they’re featured. These days many companies are placing misleading claims and nonsense labels on their products to create the illusion of environmental friendliness, a practice known as “greenwashing.”

Third parties, on the other hand, require that products meet certain specific criteria before granting the right to display their eco-label. When we know they are trustworthy, eco-labels can serve as a potent means for altering consumer behavior in a way that benefits the environment.

There are some common eco-labels that we can vouch for given decades of trustworthy certifications. The U.S. government’s ENERGY STAR label identifies products, devices, and appliances that meet stringent energy efficiency standards. If you buy an ENERGY STAR certified dishwasher, you know you’re saving energy (and money) versus other models that don’t qualify.

Another trustworthy eco-label seen often on coffee, fruits, tea, paper or furniture is “Rainforest Alliance Certified,” a designation for foods and building materials sustainably sourced from tropical rainforests. The non-profit Rainforest Alliance runs this program in part by vetting producers throughout the tropics.

These Rainforest Alliance Certified coffee plants are grown under natural shade created by native tree species on this Guatemalan coffee farm. Credit: Charlie Watson, FlickrCC.
These Rainforest Alliance Certified coffee plants are grown under natural shade created by native tree species on this Guatemalan coffee farm. Credit: Charlie Watson, FlickrCC.

If you like to know the products you buy are sourced sustainably by workers who were not exploited and were paid a living wage, look for the “Fair Trade Certified” label. Almost a million workers across 45 different countries currently benefit from the sourcing or production of Fair Trade items.

Meanwhile, the “Certified Organic” label signifies that food contains at least 95 percent organic ingredients. Plant-based foods bearing this label have not been treated with petroleum-based fertilizers or conventional pesticides, and have not been genetically modified. You can rest assured that any “Certified Organic” animal products you consume have not been treated with antibiotics or growth hormones and were fed organic feed and allowed access to the outdoors. And any products labeled “Made with Organic Ingredients” contain at least 70 percent organic ingredients.

Some other trustworthy labels include LEED, GreenSeal, FSC-Certified, Salmon-Safe, WaterSense and Non-GMO Project Verified. If the label in question isn’t mentioned above, it might be worth investigating. Sharing what you know about eco-labels, whether by word-of-mouth or via social networks, is a fantastic way of helping the environment. As awareness grows, those you have enlightened will be able to exert an ever-greater positive force upon the market.

CONTACTS: ENERGY STAR; Rainforest Alliance; Fair Trade Certified; USDA Certified Organic; LEED; Green Seal; Forest Stewardship Council; Salmon-Safe; WaterSense; Non-GMO Project Verified.

EarthTalk® is produced by Roddy Scheer & Doug Moss for the 501(c)3 nonprofit EarthTalk. Send questions to: question@earthtalk.org.