Spot the Greenwash?

Damian Carrington has written an instructive guide on telling the difference between 'real climate policy' and 'greenwashing guff' (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/06/difference-real-climate-policy-greenwashing-emissions). As a starting point, Carrington notes the climate emergency is now so obvious, only the 'truly deluded' deny it is a problem. He also comments, however, that the world is on track, by 2050, for a 0.5% reduction in 2010 emissions. We actually need a 45% cut, in order to (probably?) avoid the worst consequences of climate change. There have been two reactions to the 'new realism' by governments and corporations. One response is coming up with positive-sounding statements, populated by few actions and with long time-frames (greenwash). The other, is to actually adopt measures that will help reduce emissions. Carrington suggests the only way of really judging whether the policies are genuine or not, is to look at their immediate effect on emissions. He then lists many cases, which involve obvious greenwash. For example, the UK government promising impressive-sounding emissions cuts, whilst simultaneously cutting programmes that actually do this. Canada admitting we have an 'existentional crisis', but rapidly developing tar sands extractions. China claiming to be going 'green', whilst building a coal-fired electricity generating station each day. Banks claiming to be supporting 'carbon zero', whilst heavily financing oil exploration. Petrochemical companies going 'greener', whilst opening up new oil and gas fields. People promising carbon capture instalations that rarely materialise. Airports becoming 'carbon neutral', except for their actual flights etc, etc. Carrington says there have been positive developments in the fight against climate change. I can't help feeling, however, a bit overwhelmed by the tidal wave of 'greenwash'.