{"id":1091,"date":"2025-11-20T08:35:04","date_gmt":"2025-11-20T08:35:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/noapuertobaru.com\/?p=1091"},"modified":"2025-11-20T08:35:04","modified_gmt":"2025-11-20T08:35:04","slug":"greenwashing-the-green-speech-industry","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/noapuertobaru.com\/en\/articles-2\/greenwashing-the-green-speech-industry\/","title":{"rendered":"Greenwashing: The Green Talk Industry"},"content":{"rendered":"

Words often promise more than reality. The <\/span>greenwashing, <\/span><\/i>\u00a0it doesn't just consist of advertising campaigns, but of political and communicational strategies that <\/span>they manipulate environmental language to legitimise extractivism<\/b>.<\/span><\/p>\n

In this way the so-called <\/span>\u201cEco-ports\u201d<\/span><\/i> they promise <\/span>\u201csustainable tourism\u201d<\/span><\/i> y <\/span>\u201cblue progress\u201d<\/span><\/i>, but unfortunately, behind the green rhetoric lie irreversible damages. Environmental marketing can conceal the environmental impact. The report by <\/span>CSF <\/span><\/a>Compare Latin American cases where major port projects promised development and modernisation, but in practice caused profound damage to ecosystems and communities.<\/span><\/p>\n

The expansion that displaced communities: the case of the Port of Santos (Brazil)<\/b><\/p>\n

The <\/span>Port of Santos<\/b>, the largest in Latin America, was presented as a <\/span>model <\/b>aimed at boosting S\u00e3o Paulo's economy through technology and energy efficiency. However, the CSF analysis (based on Ferreira & Clauzet, 2014 and Rajab et al., 2020 pp. 17-21) reveals that the port's expansion <\/span>buried large areas of mangrove forest<\/b> y <\/span>disrupted the flood patterns<\/b> in the traditional community <\/span>Cai\u00e7ara of Isla Diana<\/b>, dependent on artisanal fishing.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The report shows that the port project generated <\/span>loss of traditional livelihoods<\/b>, cultural displacement and the breaking of community bonds, whilst the promises of employment and infrastructure <\/span>they were never fulfilled<\/b>.<\/span>
\n<\/span>This case highlights how the <\/span>corporate language of \u201cprogress\u201d was instrumentalised to legitimise industrial expansion<\/b>, rendering social and environmental costs invisible.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cSince 2003, the way of life of the traditional *cai\u00e7ara* inhabitants of Diana Island has been affected by negative socio-environmental impacts due to the installation of new port terminals... despite commitments made to mitigate these impacts, they were not properly fulfilled.\u201d<\/span><\/i> (CSF, 2024, pp. 19\u201321)<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

Cumulative impacts and ecological erosion: the case of Buenaventura (Colombia)<\/b><\/p>\n

The Port of Buenaventura has been publicly presented as an \u201ceco-efficient port\u201d, according to the media and authorities, who highlight its supposed environmental commitment despite scientific evidence regarding erosion, mangrove degradation and accumulated pollution.<\/span><\/p>\n

The CSF report<\/span> (pp. 26\u201330) <\/span>document, based on the <\/span>National Environmental Licensing Authority (ANLA, 2020)<\/b>, that continuous dredging and port expansion caused <\/span>severe coastal erosion, loss of mangroves and pollution from hydrocarbons and heavy metals<\/b>.<\/span><\/p>\n

The report lists <\/span>(p. 28) <\/b>the <\/span>cumulative impacts<\/b>loss of subtidal habitats, bioaccumulation of pollutants, reduction of fishery resources and displacement of Afro-descendant communities.<\/span><\/p>\n

Although a speech of \u201cenvironmental responsibility and shared progress\u201d was broadcast, in practice <\/span>the local populations did not benefit from the port growth<\/b>, and social indicators (employment, housing, security) continued to deteriorate.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cPort activities and dredging caused loss of biodiversity, habitat modification, displacement of the coastline and significant effects on traditional artisanal fishing communities.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

(CSF, 2024, p. 28)<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

The cases analysed by the CSF (2024) evidence a common pattern (pp. 33\u201334):<\/span><\/p>\n