TRICKS OF THE TRADE
greenwashing
silencing opposition
silencing opposition
Greenwashing is the art of making things seem more environmentally friendly than they really are. Far North Solar Farm Ltd have employed this tactic liberally in local and national press.
silencing opposition
silencing opposition
silencing opposition
From local meetings to demonizing the opposition, for developers it's all about controlling the flow of information.
HOW TO SPOT GREENWASHING - AND HOW FNSF USE IT
What is greenwashing? It’s the act of making something sound more environmentally-friendly than it actually is. Here are some common signs of greenwashing – and their application FOR A Waipara SOLAR FARM
Sign #1: Vague Terms and Slogans
Quoted in the North Canterbury News on August 31st, FNSF say the Waipara proposal “aims to combine agriculture, horticulture and energy production on the same site… it will be a pioneering example of modern, sustainable land use”. Is this greenwashing? Well, the Green Business Bureau advises checking what terms like ‘sustainable’ really mean. "Don’t be fooled by companies saying the right thing”, they recommend. “Look for the evidence to support their claim”. In this case, it turns out even FNSF don’t have the evidence yet – confessing to the North Canterbury News that “technical studies to assess the viability of the agri-voltaic solar farm model” would be completed. In other words, while they’re keen to talk about sustainable agri-voltaics, they really don’t know if it would actually be possible in Waipara.
Sign #2 – Selective disclosure
This is the World Economic Forum’s number 1 sign of green-washing, and means “advertising positive information regarding a product’s environmental performance while hiding the negative”. FNSF and the site’s new landowner Tom Kidner have been all over local, business and farming news, proudly stating that a Massey University study found the areas between rows of solar panels produced nearly 40% more grass than areas that received no periodic shading. Why is this greenwashing? Because what they’ve studiously avoided mentioning is that the same study found grass under solar panels grew 84% less – and on this site, there would be around 300,000 panels. They’re also ignoring the fact that the Massey study isn’t yet finished, and the study’s co-lead has said they need to wait longer to draw any firm conclusions.
Sign #3 – Symbolic actions
“These are claims that draw attention to minor issues without any accompanying meaningful action”, says the WEF. In FNSF’s case, it means telling the North Canterbury News they could potentially develop “a portion” of the Waipara site in grapevines – without mentioning that the majority of their proposed site is classified as highly productive land, on which non-soil-based developments are supposed to be prohibited.
Sign #4 – Using natural imagery
This is number 2 on the Green Business Bureau’s list, and it’s pretty self-explanatory. Again, the GBB say, the important thing is to look for the evidence. FNSF have fed news outlets this pretty picture of vines growing in front of panels - but as noted above, they don’t have the evidence to know if this is genuinely an option for Waipara.
silencing opposition
THE SECRETS DEVELOPERS DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW
From local meetings to demonizing the opposition, for developers it’s all about controlling the flow of information
Let’s face it: developers aren’t stupid. They know that communities are likely to object to their rural landscapes becoming industrialized. It’s such a concern that the solar industry’s bible PV Magazine featured a special piece in June 2023, advising developers on strategies for “overcoming opposition”. The whole article is - amazingly - publicly available, but here we share the highlights.
~
The first tactic is one the article itself employs in its opening paragraph, and one apparently so familiar to the industry it doesn’t need to be spelt out. It’s simple, easy, good old-fashioned name-calling. Forget ‘concerned residents’ or ‘devastated local businesses’ - instead anyone voicing opposition is a ‘NIMBY’. Calling someone a NIMBY (‘Not In My Back Yard’) is a quick and easy way to dismiss any voice developers don’t want you to hear. Never mind that their concerns are genuine and well-founded; they’re just a NIMBY, and not to be taken seriously.
~
Next-up is more name-calling. But instead of targeting the speaker, this tactic targets any facts the developers don’t want you to dwell on. Concerned that solar plants are detrimental to local wildlife? "Misinformation!" Worried about glare from the large-scale panels? “Disinformation!”. (Never mind that both the death of wildlife and impacts of glare are well-known solar plant impacts.) We’ve seen Far North Solar Farm Ltd already employing this tactic. By characterizing inconvenient truths as mis- and dis-information, developers never have to engage with any uncomfortable facts.
~
Instead PV Magazine urge developers to “educate” the community. This is the flip side of the disinformation trick. All information that is negative to a proposal is mis- and dis-information… and all points that paint the proposal in a good light are the real 'facts'. Only the developers can really educate you…
~
…But don’t worry, they don’t plan to educate you too much. Developers are advised to “keep it simple”, as anything
"too technical" may just "increase fear of the unknown”. Of course it’s not possible that communities might want the full picture, rather than a developer’s selected highlights. And as for local residents being quite capable of understanding the details, thank you very much… well, what are the chances?
~
Instead of being open and honest with the full facts, developers are advised to win a community’s trust, and there are plenty of tips on how this can be done. Developers must “align themselves with the insiders”, “have direct interactions with landowners, neighbors, and influential community members” , “buy people a cup of coffee or a beer”, and remember that “a handshake and a smile go a long way”. Shutting down locals sounds cheap, doesn’t it?
~
There’s a back-up plan, too, if locals seem too skeptical. If they can’t build relationships themselves, developers are advised to "find members of the community” to advocate for them. Those loudly extolling the benefits of industrial solar may simply be expressing their own view - or they may have been “mobilised” by a canny developer.
~
There’s much, much more in the PV Magazine article and it is worth a read if you have a spare half hour. From mail-outs to community meetings, from having a "ground game" to having empathy, developers are serious about overcoming opposition. But for all the different tactics, there is one common theme in all the advice...
~
Ultimately, it’s all about shutting down opposition. Developers want to 'understand your concerns' so they can work out how to overcome the opposition. Because at the end of the day, there is nothing you can say, no concern so serious, that a developer will decide to walk away. No matter the opposition, they are never going to decide ‘you know what, we’re not wanted here, let’s go elsewhere’. Be it buying you a coffee, sending you a flyer or calling a community meeting, the goal of these interactions is not to take community opposition on board - it's to find out how to shut it down.