About fucking time! Corporations have claimed POTENTIAL forests that would have covered more than the entire surface area of the planet to "offset" REAL and IMMEDIATE environmental effects! It's the biggest scam since capitalism itself!
this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2024
288 points (99.0% liked)
Europe
8484 readers
1 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe πͺπΊ
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, π©πͺ ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out [email protected]
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 12 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
While I am against green washing, there is a reason companies do that vs going with the alternative. You can expect prices of goods to go up very quickly in the near future.
This is peak "I don't understand what this is about, buti still have an opinion".
Companies are paying for a fake seal of greeness. The law will not allow fake green washing, so companies will stop spending money on it. Surely prices should go down, right?
Surely you can show me an example of this fake seal of greeness? I work on several sustainability teams, but I don't know what I am talking about. I would love if you showed me.
The magic of the internet. Doesn't matter the topic, it might be green washing, nuclear power, 17th century french clothing or paranormal activities, the person with the dumbest take always happens to be an expert on the topic. You can start by reading the article, the you can check this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p8zAbFKpW0 Or this https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/23/ceo-of-worlds-biggest-carbon-credit-provider-says-he-is-resigning
I'm amazed you work on sustainability teams, but are like "duh, green washing is bad, but being actually sustainable is less profitable, so, you know, fuck that, it's the logical conclusion"
Sorry if I went to hard on you, but it's hard to know if you're trolling or so much part of the problem that you don't even realize.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=6p8zAbFKpW0
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
This is an example for greenwashing which this law wants to prevent:
And you understand, why it is preferable that prices go up and actual green products are sold to pseudo - green products at a lower price, right?
Of course there's a reason. It's called fraud. If they sell not so "green" products, then greenwashing is fraud, plain and simple.
They are still allowed to sell those not so green products for cheap, but they are no longer allowed to outright lie about the colour.
Thatβs ok. Then the actual green products will not rise as much as the not so green products.