"We're committed to 2040 net-zero goals."
"But how do you plan on getting there?"
"We're committed to it."
Btw, net-zero is just a greenwashing term. Allowing emissions while balancing them on some spreadsheet in some obscure way is not the same as reducing emissions. It allows more pollution while pretending something is being done about it. Hey, like good old recycling.
That is only partially true. With a working CO2 emission trading scheme this "balancing" means massive amounts of cross financing towards beneficial projects, eg for renewable ebergy projects etc. It adds a financial benefit to saving emissions and that is the only language markets seem to understand. It is by no means perfect but it is not just greeneashing and nothing else.
It does depend on what if being done, and if that is effective at all (which are different topics). I agree that using it as incentive is what the market responds to best, but the problem is when the company is using the term themselves rather than as an encouragement for others. That is where it becomes PR rather than any actual drive for change.
Companies operating in the EU are forced to do it so generally it is not just empty PR, at least there. Amazon is operating in Europe but much of its business is outside.
The company remains committed to 2040… er… no- 2050, no- 2060 goals
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)