Are companies using Twitter to greenwash and hide bad environmental performance?

Companies and related consumer behaviours contribute significantly to global carbon emissions. However, consumer behaviour is shifting, with the public now recognising the real and immediate impact of climate change. Many companies are aware and seemingly eager to align to consumer’s increasing environmental consciousness, yet there is a risk that some companies could be presenting themselves as environmentally friendly without implementing environmentally beneficial processes and products (i.e. greenwashing). Here, using longitudinal climate leadership, environmental messaging (Twitter) and stock price data, we explore how climate leadership (a relative climate change mitigation metric) and environmental messaging have changed for hundreds of UK companies. Using the environmental messaging, we also assess whether companies are simply greenwashing their true climate change performance. Finally, we explore how climate leadership and environmental messaging influence companies’ stock prices. We found that companies (on average) have increased their climate leadership (coef: 0.14, CI 0.12–0.16) and environmental messaging (coef: 0.35, CI 0.19–0.50) between 2010 and 2019. We also found an association where companies with more environmental messaging had a higher climate leadership (coef: 0.16, CI 0.07–0.26), suggesting messaging was proportionate to environmental performance, and so there was no clear pattern of using Twitter for greenwashing across UK companies. In fact, some companies may be under-advertising their pro-environmental performance. Finally, we found no evidence that climate leadership, environmental messaging or greenwashing impacts a company’s stock price.

Valuing the Impact of Forest Disturbances on the Climate Regulation Service of Western U.S. Forests

The protection and expansion of forest carbon sinks are critical to achieving climate-change mitigation targets. Yet, the increasing frequency and severity of forest disturbances challenge the sustainable provision of forest services. We investigated patterns of forest disturbances’ impacts on carbon sinks by combining spatial datasets of forest carbon sequestration from biomass growth and emissions from fire and bark beetle damage in the western United States (U.S.) and valued the social costs of forest carbon losses. We also examined potential future trends of forest carbon sinks under two climate-change projections using a global vegetation model. We found that forest carbon losses from bark-beetle damage were larger than emissions from fires between 2003 and 2012. The cumulative social costs of forest carbon losses ranged from USD 7 billion to USD 72 billion, depending on the severity of global warming and the discount rate. Forest carbon stocks could increase around 5% under Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5 or 7% under RCP 8.5 by 2091 relative to 2011 levels, mostly in forests with high net primary productivity. These results indicate that spatially explicit management of forest disturbances may increase forest carbon sinks, thereby improving opportunities to achieve critical climate-change mitigation goals.

What shapes cognitions of climate change in Europe? Ideology, morality, and the role of educational attainment

Cognitions about climate change are of critical importance for climate change mitigation as they influence climate-relevant behaviors and the support of climate policy. Using about 30,000 observations from a large-scale representative survey from 23 European countries, this study provides two major findings. First, important policy-relevant climate change cognitions do not only differ by individuals’ ideological identity (left versus right) but—independently—by their moral identity, that is, the pattern of endorsement of the moral foundations: Care, Fairness, Liberty, Loyalty, Authority, and Purity/Sanctity. In particular, controlling for ideological position, the cognitions that the world climate is changing, that climate change is human-made, and that climate change impacts are bad are significantly negatively related to stronger endorsement of the Authority and Sanctity foundations while being positively related to stronger endorsement of the Loyalty and Fairness foundations. Second, not only the ideology-related cognitive divide but the morality-related divide is larger in individuals with tertiary education, consistent with the idea that individuals with greater science literacy and numeracy use these skills to adjust their cognitions to their group identity. The finding that better education may amplify rather than attenuate the ideology and morality dependence of decision-relevant climate change cognitions sheds doubt on the proposition that better education unambiguously furthers the prospects for climate change mitigation.