Independent and alternative media in the UK have boisterously criticized the Guardian newspaper for allowing E.On to sponsor their Climate Change Summit again this year. The Guardian has long had a reputation for being the most environmentally conscious and conspicuous mainstream newspaper in the UK. I attended the Summit this year. I listened to E.On’s Dr. Paul Golby try to explain away lobbying the British government to build a new coal fired power station at Kingsnorth and attempting to negotiate with the British government for an escape clause to 100% CCS by 2025. And then came the Q&A from an audience half filled with activists working for environmental non-profits.
The question is did E.On get away with greenwash? Not inside the Summit, no. None of the other delegates were going to let it.
The Guardian’s Jo Confino addressed E.On’s sponsorship of the Summit in his closing remarks. He explained that the Guardian did consider what it knows (what the world knows) about E.On’s understanding of its role in climate change. Confino explained that E.On may not be doing things that are fantastic for the climate right now, but it’s trying to change. By inviting E.On to the table, the Guardian believes, it is helping to foster debate and “more debate is good debate.”
E.On’s participation in the Summit does two things: First it provides a platform from which E.On can run its climate friendly policies by the environmental community. If E.On truly wishes to gain the environmentally friendly reputation it wants, then doing everything that it can to put itself into the way of environmental activists and letting those activists vet its policy is a smart business move. Second, sending representatives and exposing itself to a Q&A puts E.On in an exposed position where the company literally has its thinking checked by the environmental community.
Confino said that the Guardian wouldn’t allow a Malaysian palm oil company to sponsor the Summit. Assuming that’s true, then it's safe to assume that E.On’s future participation in the the Guardian’s Climate Change Summit is contingent upon its continued efforts to “green” its business. It is worth recognizing E.On for having good intentions. Not many companies would put themselves in that position.
In any conflict it's too easy to paint the other side with a bad-guy brush instead of embracing them. If the indymedia is any indicator, environmentalists are keen to shove E.On into a corner instead of engaging with them. The Guardian is right on—E.On is attempting to be transparent by letting environmentalists have go at them, face to face. As Confino himself pointed out at the start of the Summit, the recession has been good for green transparency—emission reduction requires huge capital investment now in order to save later. In this way the recession has, to a certain extent, flushed out the committed from the greenwashers. E.On is clearly committed to cleaning up its act. Its thinking may be in error at the moment but at least it's participating in the public debate. Environmentalists have a responsibility to keep E.On there.
The question is did E.On get away with greenwash? Not inside the Summit, no. None of the other delegates were going to let it.
The Guardian’s Jo Confino addressed E.On’s sponsorship of the Summit in his closing remarks. He explained that the Guardian did consider what it knows (what the world knows) about E.On’s understanding of its role in climate change. Confino explained that E.On may not be doing things that are fantastic for the climate right now, but it’s trying to change. By inviting E.On to the table, the Guardian believes, it is helping to foster debate and “more debate is good debate.”
E.On’s participation in the Summit does two things: First it provides a platform from which E.On can run its climate friendly policies by the environmental community. If E.On truly wishes to gain the environmentally friendly reputation it wants, then doing everything that it can to put itself into the way of environmental activists and letting those activists vet its policy is a smart business move. Second, sending representatives and exposing itself to a Q&A puts E.On in an exposed position where the company literally has its thinking checked by the environmental community.
Confino said that the Guardian wouldn’t allow a Malaysian palm oil company to sponsor the Summit. Assuming that’s true, then it's safe to assume that E.On’s future participation in the the Guardian’s Climate Change Summit is contingent upon its continued efforts to “green” its business. It is worth recognizing E.On for having good intentions. Not many companies would put themselves in that position.
In any conflict it's too easy to paint the other side with a bad-guy brush instead of embracing them. If the indymedia is any indicator, environmentalists are keen to shove E.On into a corner instead of engaging with them. The Guardian is right on—E.On is attempting to be transparent by letting environmentalists have go at them, face to face. As Confino himself pointed out at the start of the Summit, the recession has been good for green transparency—emission reduction requires huge capital investment now in order to save later. In this way the recession has, to a certain extent, flushed out the committed from the greenwashers. E.On is clearly committed to cleaning up its act. Its thinking may be in error at the moment but at least it's participating in the public debate. Environmentalists have a responsibility to keep E.On there.
Comments (0)
Post a Comment