The reality isn’t clear respective reduction of co2 in neutral emission
companies
In the world we live the consumption of resources and try to be green is a contradiction that looks like a conflict. The fifth part of the biggest companies with the high emission of CO2 have been concluding that the best way to be sustainable and rentable “carbon neutral” is paying to others to compensate environment impact. The forest is a clear and excellent example of that but is not clear that this companies are doing something about it and we can miss the artificial sheets that could consume 100 more co2. But the companies look are not doing too much about it.
The business to been green
“Carbon neutral” is a new market every company wants to be green or “neutral emission”, but the reality is that is not easy. The highly cost an investment to design a plant to reduce the carbon emission or a massive mobility if its need it. But their biggest machinery of marketing transforms this delicate subject in other artefact of consumption.
Everyone wants to be green
It is known that the machinery of marketing has been really focus in create a conscience of sustainability and eco-friendly relationship whit their campaigns but not in action. According to The research, published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, examined the records of ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell and BP, which together are responsible for more than 10% of global carbon emissions since 1965. The researchers analysed data over the 12 years up to 2020 and concluded the company claims do not align with their actions, which include increasing rather than decreasing exploration In the case of finland you can be eco friendly if you got the certification iso 14001 butis paper there will not be a following process to observe that the condition continues the same with the time. But the biggest loser of all this we are all of us. Buying products that said green don’t make you eco-friendly even worse if you confuse organic with ecological product.
Comments