What is worse: climate change denial or greenwashing? We certainly have no shortage of either. Climate change denial can be disastrous, of course. Just look at what happened in the province Valencia (Spain) in October 2024, when terrible flash floods killed over 230 people just because the climate change-denying premier, Carlos Mazón, did not think the storm of the century warranted sending out warnings to people to stay high and dry that day. The economy can’t stop! Climate change denial is of course also behind Trump’s “drill, baby, drill!” philosophy and the reason he is waging war left, right, and center: gotta kill the poor before they arrive at your doorstep seeking climate-refugee status.
But is greenwashing any better than climate change denial? It recognizes climate change exists, yes, but then it goes on with business as usual (i.e. “drill, baby, drill!”) beneath a false cloak of do-goodism. Just look at the architectural competition to design “an iconic landmark that will become a ‘new world wonder’ – one whose design and visitor experience fosters deep emotional connection and inspires large-scale behavioral change in response to the climate crisis” (my emphasis). And what is going to be inside this landmark? “Companies and organisations will be able to host events and retreats that support future thinking, alongside hospitality experiences that extend the project’s regenerative message, including a hotel and multiple restaurants” (my emphasis). Ah, so it’s a tourism facility. You would think that affordable housing might better fit an effort to be “sustainable,” since housing is a fundamental necessity and in a climate crisis we perhaps shouldn’t build things that are unnecessary. But no, how much potential is there for media buzz and greenwashing in housing? A landmark hotel works much better in that regard.
The competition brief states: “Our mission is to inspire sustainable lifestyles through architecture, design, and storytelling.” It stresses, like so many corporations like to stress, that sustainability is an individual “lifestyle” choice as opposed to an urgent political and legislative matter (of course: corporations abhor legislation!). That is a big mistake. Sustainability is not going to happen because some people suddenly decide to start living a greener lifestyle. The green lifestyle choice has long been available, and it’s simply not catching on.
The problem with eco-tourism is that it’s an oxymoron. Some tourists may try out novel “experiences” like “sustainability,” but then, when they get home, they get in their cars and drive everywhere just as they have always done. Tourists to Barcelona often say “oh, what a wonderful city to explore by foot and public transit!” But of course, such mobility is perfect for tourists, whereas it’s a drag otherwise. Walt Disney understood that perfectly when he designed his theme parks: cars must be left outside the magic kingdom in the giant parking lot. Sustainability can be a nice tourism experience, yes, but can it “inspire” a permanent lifestyle change?
In many ways, greenwashing is no different than climate change denial. Both are delusions, the only difference being that greenwashing deludes people into thinking that they are being sustainable (when in fact they are not). If climate change is to be slowed down, then a massive change of lifestyle is indeed necessary, but it’s going to have to be one based on degrowth and consuming much less of everything. Doesn’t sound like a lotta fun, does it? Much more amusing to fly to another city, stay in a “100% sustainable landmark” hotel, and go shopping for “sustainable” products that we don’t need but that make us feel really good about saving the planet.
Criticalista 