In the grand theatre of climate change and our role in it, Big Oil is like the villain who insists on taking the center stage of corporate green washing. As the spotlight shines brighter on carbon footprints, let's pull back the curtain and see how much there is.
Buckle up—this is not a backstage tour; it’s an exposé on the cost of our fossil fuel fascination. Rather, what we have been told is our stake in this constant tussle about our carbon footprint.
WHAT IS CARBON FOOTPRINT? DOES IT EVEN EXIST?
For years, we have been talking about our carbon footprint and the kind of difference we can make personally, even Doofenshmirtz.
What we don't see is just how well we play into the Big Oil marketing tactics of saving their butts. One might believe that the term carbon footprint was popularised by an invested party, like an environmental group.
It may shock you that the passionate idea that shook the world was a term invented and popularised by British Petroleum. Yes, the same fifth largest oil producing company that was responsible for the second-largest oil spill in the world. Even King Charles fell prey to it as he now hates using his helicopter because of its carbon emissions!
Why would a company with the reputation of being a heavy polluter popularize a term that ruins them? The funny thing about marketing is how well a good campaign can spin perspectives. This time, the regular, everyday person was crowned the victim.
In 2004, BP realized just how badly its cash flow would suffer if the carbon-related norms changed. Hence, they hired a public relations company, Ogilvy & Mather, and paid them $250 million from their heavily lined pockets.
This campaign completely revolutionized their image and painted them as torchbearers of sustainability before the world. On the flip side, climate change and specifically carbon footprints were blamed on the everyday individual and their consumption.
BP even created the first-ever carbon footprint calculator to prove the point home. But then you pull this rose-tinted curtain of arguably very tactical marketing, and their actions are hollow.
THE GOOD CORPORATION
In this process, we see how there is an accountability loss. It shows how people end up enamoured with good change-making companies and that there is no check on their actions.
These corporations are so heavily protected because they help a tiny fraction of the population, albeit a powerful fraction. Corporations hold significant influence in policy making. It begs the question of how much they could do if they advocated for natural climate change issues rather than climate neutrality.
TO CONCLUDE WITH
Suppose we choose to look deeper into this. In that case, we also realise that these companies do more to avoid climate talk than help it. For instance, when American candidates voting against productive climate change goals see a tremendous influx of cash supporting their campaign.
There exists so much more to dissect with big corporations. This is not to say that one must not be mindful of the life choices they make. We should all do our part for the environment. However, not because companies guilt us into believing their practices are our mistakes.
On a broader note, this is about not looking at the pretty packaging as the truth. We may never know how rotten things are inside if we never make the effort to look beyond.
