Climate Justice - Greenwashing in the Amazon

Climate Justice – Greenwashing in the Amazon

The environmental justice framework allows social justice policies to be integrated into sustainability (Scholsberg and Collins, 2014). Climate justice, however, underlines the unequal outcomes of the environmental crisis on vulnerable individuals, in addition to the “cumulative disadvantage” and “cascading effects” they face due to globalisation (Harlan et al., 2015, p.128; O’Brien and Leichenko, 2000). The term was first referenced by Weiss in 1989, where he compared its ideologies to intergenerational justice, which oversaw environmental change and justice formulate an extensive relationship over the coming decades (Weiss, 1989; Jamieson, 1992; Shue, 1999). One approach that arose was the historical responsibility perspective, where Neumayer (2000) and Byrne et al (2002) argue that climate justice should be implemented with a ‘polluter pays principle’. Parties that have caused climate change or indirectly harmed communities should reduce it and improve their situation. Less developed communities, seeing continued vulnerability ahead, support this viewpoint as high-income nations and corporations continue investing in harmful socio-environmental practices (Scholsberg and Collins, 2014). In contrast, grassroots movements proclaim a rights-based argument where low-income communities have the right to develop, before being held accountable for addressing climate change (Caney, 2006). However, certain communities worldwide have no say in their land's future.

Greenwashing by large corporations is a substantial example of this, especially in Amazonia. It is a misleading strategy designed to make it seem that a company prioritises environmental investment, undermining the trust of eco-conscious consumers (Yang et al., 2020). Within academia, the environmental impact of greenwashing on this region is well-known. It is common knowledge that Amazonia is a significant source of carbon sinks, maintaining over 100 billion metric tonnes of carbon (Shukla et al., 2022). Various banks, such as JP Morgan, Citi, Bank of America, Unibanco, and Santander, are responsible for financing “46%” ($20 billion) of all oil/gas extraction in the area; the only tracked funds available are through their reports (Robertson et al., 2024, p.5). Many understand they likely invest billions more as humanity draws closer to the 20% threshold of irreversible rainforest damage (Phillips et al., 2017).

However, climate justice focuses on human rights and the distributional effects of environmental change, claiming these effects “disproportionately burden the poorest and least disadvantaged” (Porter et al., 2020, p.293). While the ideology acknowledges the environmental impacts of greenwashing, it serves as a lens to the social aspect and centres on how the process affects the indigenous population. Considering this, climate justice highlights the hidden social cost of greenwashing as climate policy and climate adaptation strategies do not incorporate the protection of indigenous tribes in Amazonia (Osbourne et al., 2024). Robertson and León (2024, p.5) support this, advocating for the historical responsibility approach, highlighting that Amazonia is home to over “500 distinct indigenous communities”, and “59%” of the rainforest is not considered in the “environmental and social risk management (ESRM)” protocol of top gas/oil extractors. Furthermore, their research covers various environmental insights that focus on the social experiences of named tribes, such as the Kichwa communities, where two pipelines burst, releasing 500,000 gallons of oil into the Coca and Napo rivers in Ecuador (Robertson and León, 2024), leading to serious health conditions. Similar bursts also occurred in Peru, with 250 oil spills reported on the Norperuano Pipeline due to over-extraction of minerals. Robertson and León (2024) even proclaim that efforts to reduce greenwashing have led to indigenous leaders being killed, portraying Amazonia to be the Earth’s most violent region for indigenous tribes. To conclude, the argument against greenwashing is strong, as new evidence expresses the combined social and environmental benefit of guaranteeing indigenous land privileges for rainforest conservation (Pacheco and Meyer, 2022).

(600 words)

References:

Byrne, J., Glover, L. and Martinez, C. eds., 2002. Environmental justice: discourses in international political economy (Vol. 8). Transaction Publishers.

Caney, S., 2006. Cosmopolitan justice, rights and global climate change. Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence, 19(2), pp.255-278.

Harlan, S.L., Pellow, D.N., Roberts, J.T., Bell, S.E., Holt, W.G., Nagel, J., Dunlap, R.E. and Brulle, R.J., 2015. Climate justice and inequality. Climate change and society: Sociological perspectives, 2015, pp.127-163.

Jamieson, D., 1992. Ethics, public policy, and global warming. Global Bioethics, 5(1), pp.31-42.

Neumayer, E., 2000. In defence of historical accountability for greenhouse gas emissions. Ecological economics, 33(2), pp.185-192.

O'Brien, K.L. and Leichenko, R.M., 2000. Double exposure: assessing the impacts of climate change within the context of economic globalization. Global environmental change, 10(3), pp.221-232.

Osborne, T., Cifuentes, S., Dev, L., Howard, S., Marchi, E., Withey, L. and Santos Rocha da Silva, M., 2024. Climate justice, forests, and Indigenous Peoples: toward an alternative to REDD+ for the Amazon. Climatic Change, 177(8), p.128.

Pacheco, A. and Meyer, C., 2022. Land tenure drives Brazil’s deforestation rates across socio-environmental contexts. Nature communications, 13(1), p.5759.

Phillips, O.L., Brienen, R.J. and RAINFOR collaboration, 2017. Carbon uptake by mature Amazon forests has mitigated Amazon nations’ carbon emissions. Carbon Balance and Management, 12, pp.1-9.

Porter, L., Rickards, L., Verlie, B., Bosomworth, K., Moloney, S., Lay, B., Latham, B., Anguelovski, I. and Pellow, D., 2020. Climate justice in a climate changed world. Planning Theory & Practice, 21(2), pp.293-321.

Robertson, A., León, A.G., 2024. Greenwashing the Amazon - How banks are destroying the Amazon Rainforest while pretending to be green. Stand.earth Research Group, pp.1-31. [Online]. [Accessed 1 November 2024]. Available from: https://stand.earth/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Stand-Greenwashing-the-Amazon-English-Report-AW.4.1_Print-compressed.pdf.

Schlosberg, D. and Collins, L.B., 2014. From environmental to climate justice: climate change and the discourse of environmental justice. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5(3), pp.359-374.

Shue, H., 1999. Global environment and international inequality. International affairs, 75(3), pp.531-545.

Shukla, P.R., Skea, J., Slade, R., Al Khourdajie, A., Van Diemen, R., McCollum, D., Pathak, M., Some, S., Vyas, P., Fradera, R. and Belkacemi, M., 2022. Climate change 2022: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the sixth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 10, p.9781009157926.

Weiss, B., 1989. In Fairness to Future Generations: International Law Common Patrimony and Intergenerational Equity.

Yang, Z., Nguyen, T.T.H., Nguyen, H.N., Nguyen, T.T.N. and Cao, T.T., 2020. Greenwashing behaviours: Causes, taxonomy and consequences based on a systematic literature review. Journal of business economics and management, 21(5), pp.1486-1507.