What is Mazda thinking? Dr. Suess’ The Lorax was created to introduce children to the environmental issues of the early 1970′s. The Disneyfied version from the soon-be-released film now hawks the Mazda CX-5, a compact SUV worthy of a Certified Truffula Tree Seal of Approval, mostly, we are told, (about “one billion times”) because of Mazda SkyActiv Technology.

There’s information on Mazda’s website about SkyActiv technology, with a slick intro film describing it as “innovating the emotion of motion.”

Whatever SkyActiv technology really is, it seems [...]]]>

What is Mazda thinking? Dr. Suess’ The Lorax was created to introduce children to the environmental issues of the early 1970′s. The Disneyfied version from the soon-be-released film now hawks the Mazda CX-5, a compact SUV worthy of a Certified Truffula Tree Seal of Approval, mostly, we are told, (about “one billion times”) because of Mazda SkyActiv Technology.

There’s information on Mazda’s website about SkyActiv technology, with a slick intro film describing it as “innovating the emotion of motion.”

Whatever SkyActiv technology really is, it seems particularly cynical to usurp the message of the Lorax to an unsuspecting and uncritical audience made numb by a barrage of meaningless messages designed as pure greenwash. For the Lorax to grumpily (but lovably) endorse the CX-5 with the “Certified Truffula Tree Seal of Approval” is a reason to buy a Toyota Prius and feel sad for Dr. Suess.

Mazda and Universal Pictures, you oughta be ashamed of yourselves.

Related articles

• Truffula Buffs Rebuff Mazda: The Lorax Selling Cars? Enough Is Enough! (streetsblog.org)
• Greenwash and hamming it up – Mazda makes a mess of CX-5 advert | Ed Gillespie (guardian.co.uk)
• How Advertisers Co-Opted the Lorax to Lie About Conservation (motherboard.vice.com)

A person might want to think  twice before suggesting to a resident of Rossport, Ireland that “corporations are people“. For them, the struggle with Shell Oil proves there is one set of laws for the residents of this tiny fishing and farming community and another for the global corporation intent on accessing the resources along the coast of Rossport, trampling the land, the sea, and the very heart of this quiet town.

It is a modern-day telling of David and Goliath, [...]]]>

A person might want to think  twice before suggesting to a resident of Rossport, Ireland that “corporations are people“. For them, the struggle with Shell Oil proves there is one set of laws for the residents of this tiny fishing and farming community and another for the global corporation intent on accessing the resources along the coast of Rossport, trampling the land, the sea, and the very heart of this quiet town.

It is a modern-day telling of David and Goliath, but without the romanticized ending. The story of Rossport, Ireland is a stark example of the growing conflict that cuts through society, tears communities apart, and sets people’s lives asunder.

The award-winning documentary The Pipe tells the story of how the small Rossport community takes on the might of Shell Oil and the Irish State. The discovery of gas off this remote coastal village has led to the most dramatic clash of cultures in modern Ireland. The rights of farmers over their fields, and of fishermen to their fishing grounds, has come in direct conflict with one of the world’s most powerful oil companies.

The film is now available on demand via FilmBuff. Watch the trailer below.

From the synopsis:

When the citizens look to their State to protect their rights, they find that the government has put Shell’s right to lay a pipeline over their own. Already 5 locals have spent 94 days in jail rather than let the proposed Shell pipeline cross their lands. This once tranquil area is engulfed in turmoil, as huge numbers of police drafted in. Normal policing has broken down following baton charges, surveillance, arrests, and a hunger strike by a local schoolteacher.

With the imminent arrival of the world’s largest pipelaying vessel, the Solitaire, a massive security operation is put into action by the State to ensure that the pipe is laid without interference. When all hope seems lost, events take a dramatic turn…

Following the personal experience of three main characters at the height of local tension, The Pipe is a story of a community tragically divided, and the prospect of a pipeline that can bring economic prosperity or destroy of a way of life shared for generations.

Exposing Greenwashing: Asia Pulp and Paper from Winton Media on Vimeo.

A new advertisement by the world’s leading paper company is trying to grow some good pr.

The Asia Pulp & Paper company has released a one-minute ad showing that the company is trying to make up for its destruction of rainforests in Indonesia. The company destroys thousands of miles of rainforest each year and is a leading source of greenhouse gas emissions for Indonesia.

Related articles

On the other hand, “compostable” actually means something. To use that term a product or material must adhere to specific [...]]]> Look around you. Everything you see right now is biodegradable. From the flat panel large screen TV to the plastic fork in you fast food bag. It’s the perfect term for the greenwasher because “biodegradable” only means that a material will break down “over a period of time.” It could take a year, ten years, or ten thousand years. It’s all biodegradable.

On the other hand, “compostable” actually means something. To use that term a product or material must adhere to specific scientific criteria. Essentially, a material must break down into measurably tiny and environmentally benign parts within a specifically limited time frame. The following video from VivBizClub spells out the difference between biodegradable and compostable. Don’t be greenwashed!

Related articles

• 5 Things You Might Not Know About Composting (casasugar.com)
• Bioplastics Debate: Could They Harm The Environment? (huffingtonpost.com)
• Compostable vs. Biodegradable (vivbizclub.com)

Water bottles. And lots of ‘em.

I recently came across my first bottle of Dasani water in the “PlantBottle” introduced last year. CocaCola, owners of Desani, claims the new plastic material is made partially from plants and is 100 percent recyclable.

Some say it is a small step in the right direction.

Others say it’s greenwash and a step in the wrong [...]]]> What’s the one thing aliens (or whomever) are sure to find after this thing we call “civilization” has long slipped into Earth’s turbulent past?

Water bottles. And lots of ‘em.

I recently came across my first bottle of Dasani water in the “PlantBottle” introduced last year. CocaCola, owners of Desani, claims the new plastic material is made partially from plants and is 100 percent recyclable.

Some say it is a small step in the right direction.

Others say it’s greenwash and a step in the wrong direction.

Maybe the real core problem is the idea of putting water in a single-use container in the first place. But if we are going to use plastic water bottles, as we seem to do, then making them from materials with a even a slightly reduced environmental footprint is a good thing. Just don’t think it’s much more than a gesture in the right direction of what is really needed.

What do you think?

Related articles

• Coca-Cola and PepsiCo’s plant-based bottles still damage the environment. (slate.com)
• Coca-Cola ramps up sustainability credentials with global division (mantrameds.wordpress.com)

Most major retailers like Best Buy and Walmart, have electronics recycling programs for consumers to safely dispose of their electronics gadgets and appliances. Home Depot ostensibly offers one as well, but you might not know that if you talked with a Home Depot customer service representative.

A reader tip from John tells the following story:

John wanted to recycle an old microwave so he called Home Depot’s customer service department to get recycling information. John contacted one and then [...]]]> From a reader tip:

Most major retailers like Best Buy and Walmart, have electronics recycling programs for consumers to safely dispose of their electronics gadgets and appliances. Home Depot ostensibly offers one as well, but you might not know that if you talked with a Home Depot customer service representative.

A reader tip from John tells the following story:

John wanted to recycle an old microwave so he called Home Depot’s customer service department to get recycling information. John contacted one and then a second representative, neither one, John reports, had any idea of what to tell him.

John finally got an answer from Micaiah Holley from Home Depot’s Customer Support Center, informing John about their partnership with 1-800-Cleanup, a recycling hotline offered by Earth911. The problem is two out of three customer reps at Home Depot knew anything about it. At least that is John’s experience.

It may not rise to the level of full-blown greenwash, but how well a company, or any organization, disseminates information about its sustainability and environmental stewardship programs is a true reflection of how important those values are to that organization.

Image credit: The Lazy Environmentalist (image is not that of our tipper. Thanks John for the tip!)

The latest ads from Chevron have real people – Chevron people – addressing real issues, showing everyday folk like you an me what a great thing Chevon is doing for us.

“It’s time oil companies get behind the development of renewable energy” Who can disagree with that? Or “Oil companies should support the communities they are a part of.” Indeed.

Nobody interested in a sustainable future based on a new energy economy and social justice can really disagree with these well-crafted statements at the [...]]]>

The latest ads from Chevron have real people – Chevron people – addressing real issues, showing everyday folk like you an me what a great thing Chevon is doing for us.

“It’s time oil companies get behind the development of renewable energy” Who can disagree with that? Or “Oil companies should support the communities they are a part of.” Indeed.

Nobody interested in a sustainable future based on a new energy economy and social justice can really disagree with these well-crafted statements at the heart of Chevron’s latest public relations campaign, We Agree. Any greenwashed PR worthy of a multi-national energy behemoth like Chevron should deliver no less than such a positive message that places itself squarely in the center of a bright, cheery future.

On it’s face, the message is good, positive – even hopeful and optimistic. But that’s the insidious thing about greenwashing. It looks and sounds really good. Blatant lies and outright false advertising is for two-bit chumps that think they’ll never get caught in their lies and deception. Just ask ex-Congressman Chris Lee as an example of such a chump for a lesson on how that works.

Chevron’s campaign has generally mixed just enough truth, combined with powerful storytelling and world-class production, in an effort to divert attention to the total picture, the full truth, the real story. It’s a very sophisticated shell game, as Carol Pierson Holding writes in CSRHub.

Pierson wonders why Chevron isn’t “tooting their own horn” with the news that they are selling their four remaining coal mines and getting out of coal entirely. Surely that falls within the message of getting “behind the development of renewable energy,” Pierson wonders. So why doesn’t Chevron want us to know about the divestiture of coal?

Look to the Gulf

The reason lay in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico. With an equal lack of fanfare, Chevron recently announced a $4 billion investment in the aptly-named Big Foot deepwater drilling rig to be located 225 miles south of New Orleans.

But don’t look at that! Pay no attention to “Big Foot”! Look instead at the all the millions of dollars (with a small “m”) invested in what is listed in their 2009 annual report as “other” projects.

There is no doubt that Chevron does invest time and energy into renewable energy projects, but do they tell the whole story? No. Do they paint an overly rosy picture? Yes.

Being a good neighbor

Multi-national corporations can have a big impact on local communities, for good and ill. In its We Agree campaign, Chevron touts healthcare programs and training of indigenous engineers, teachers and farmers as “more than good business,” driving the point home in one ad with an Angolan engineer, ostensibly a Chevron employee, saying “It’s my country’s future.”

Indeed it is. But there is more to the record of Chevron in Angola than a well-spoken engineer claiming the positive influence of his employer for his country. Much more.

It’s one thing to have a positive influence in local communities, quite another to turn those communities into “company towns,” as Chevron has done throughout Africa and the Third World.

Chevron would rather you look at training programs or a clinic or two- not bad in and of itself – than the trail of environmental destruction, political instability, and social injustice it has left it its wake. Offering another view of Chevron’s community activism is Angola resident Agostinho Chicaia: “The solution? Discontinue Chevron’s oil exploration in Cabinda, as it is the mother of our disgrace, bringing poverty, environmental problems, and armed conflict.”

And now Chevron faces an $8 billion judgement from a court in Ecuador resulting from environmental destruction in the Amazon for which it is being held responsible. Chevron, of course, claims that the judgment has no legitimacy and is accusing the Ecuadoran government of influence peddling in the court’s decision – so much for neighborliness.

Keeping it real

So is Chevron greenwashing with their We Agree campaign? Yes.

(I hear some of you out there: “Well, Duh!” But I hear, or soon will, my accusation of greenwashing on Chevron’s part as the ranting of an “environmental whacko.”)

Call it “soft greenwash” if you will. They present a good message, but what is missing in the gloss and craft of its delivery is the full picture. Chevron claims, among other things, that they “are behind the development of renewable energy” and “support the communities they are a part of.” All tinged with a bit of altruism, because it’s “more than good business.”

It smacks ultimately as disingenuous.

What we need from oil companies is an honest discussion, not high-production public relations. Instead of Chevron’s We Agree, perhaps more of Shell’s Signals and Signposts. It isn’t as warm and fuzzy, but it’s a lot more real.

Image credits: Rainforest Action Network, jonathan mcintosh; courtesy Flickr

Like a parasite, [...]]]> This post is commentary on Hunter Richards‘ article “Software to Hold Greenwashers Accountable” published in the Software Advice Blog.
——
It is very much the wild west in the world of green advertising and corporate “green certification” programs. With little confirmation or verifiable standards, companies can appeal to a growing eco-awarness among consumers with little fundamental backing for such claims. Scientifically honed messages push an image of eco-friendliness and sustainability, stretching the truth at best and often peddling outright lies.

Like a parasite, greenwashing makes it that much more difficult for business and consumers alike to find a healthy balance between commerce and long term sustainability. Greenwashing is insidious, confusing consumers interested in making right choices for their families, tainting the idea of “green,” and leaving many cynical and apathetic to the idea – even as many companies make honest and significant efforts to become more sustainable and offer more eco-friendly choices.

But how to curb the temptation to go for the quick buck that some simply can’t resist? Is there a way to tame the “wild west” of greenwashing?

A new sheriff in town – carbon accounting software

Writing in the blog Software Advice, Hunter Richards makes the case for taking a page from the methods and tools used to hold corporations accountable for their financial reporting and apply those same concepts to “carbon accounting.”

Richards argues that, despite the recent widespread shenanigans on Wall Street, the United States remains a leader in corporate financial accountability. Using computerized financial tracking, combined with rigorous government oversight and generally accepted accounting principals (GAAP), companies are required to accurately account for their financial dealings and reporting. There have been obvious breaches in the system, but with modern software technology, regulation, and GAAP, Enron-style subterfuge would be much more the norm than the exception.

With the advent and growth of Enterprise Carbon Accounting software (ECA), combined with accepted principals of accountability, the same can be true of how corporations report their environmental footprint.

But to be effective, ECA technology must integrate with a solid infrastructure of principals; Richards lays out five fundamental principals:

Richards describes these principals in greater detail in his article, but generally speaking, I take these points generally as working to insure transparency, awareness, and responsibility in green claims and reporting. From top to bottom all participants - government, business, and consumers – must take on the responsibility of creating, cajoling,  and demanding a green economy. This requires informed decision-making by consumers that rests on honest and transparent reporting and information from business.

A tall order

I have no argument with Richards’ premise. But given the current political climate – as it were – over global warming, anything smacking of carbon regulation, even if it means just honest reporting of carbon footprint, feels like a tough sell.

That doesn’t mean it isn’t worthwhile or unnecessary. In fact quite the opposite – it is essential, and we face probably some of the toughest times ahead in fighting resistance to substantive change. The push-back to an economy-wide adoption of basic environmental accounting – ultimately the fundamental cost of doing business – comes principally from vested interests entrenched in the “old” economy, where any environmental regulation equates to “lost jobs” or “economic hardship.” It is a false choice. So many use greenwashing simply to placate the public with slick greenwash while spend billions lobbying Congress to stop or weaken effective regulation.

Those stuck in a failed status quo, cynically greenwashing the truth to exploit a marketing trend, must be held accountable.

Will carbon accounting software and standards eliminate greenwashing?

No, at least not entirely.

As with lapses in financial accounting, greenwashing will not likely be completely vanquished, even under strict carbon accounting principals. Like I said earlier in this post, greenwashing is insidious, as the latest greenwash ad campaign from Chevron demonstrates.

But we must work to make it harder and more difficult for such campaigns to gain traction, easier for consumers to spot greenwashing when they see it, and provide business with clear rules and incentives that makes greenwashing unproductive and real sustainability the best choice for forward-thinking companies to thrive in the new economy.

Image credit: Carbon Statement

In Part One we laid the foundation. Showing how the NRA uses slick marketing and well-produced multimedia to deliver a message supposedly promoting green business practices, emphasizing the advantages of appealing to the eco-minded customer and implementing sustainability best practices. The NRA says they offer the Greener Restaurant program as a solution for restaurateurs.

In Part Two we saw step-by-step how an imaginary restaurant - Green [...]]]> Over the past three days we’ve seen what we’ve been calling “A Greener Shade of Greenwash” from the National Restaurant Association (NRA).

In Part One we laid the foundation. Showing how the NRA uses slick marketing and well-produced multimedia to deliver a message supposedly promoting green business practices, emphasizing the advantages of appealing to the eco-minded customer and implementing sustainability best practices. The NRA says they offer the Greener Restaurant program as a solution for restaurateurs.

In Part Two we saw step-by-step how an imaginary restaurant - Green Wallace Wash – becomes Certified/Recognized by the NRA as a “Greener Restaurant” three times over, all by doing nothing more than paying the annual membership fee and going online and making false claims about its internal sustainability program – all endorsed by the National Restaurant Association’s Greener Restaurant program.

We discuss the National Restaurant Association’s attempt to sidestep accountability for a program with no standards, benchmarks, or verification by insisting such burden is on the shoulders of the consumer, not the organization granting the endorsement.

In Part Three we examined the Conserve Solutions Center, a pavilion planned for the exhibit floor of the upcoming National Restaurant Association Restaurant Hotel-Motel Show in Chicago on May 22-25.

The Conserve Solutions Center is promoted as an opportunity for business-to-business marketing of “green business solutions,” an opportunity to display green products and services for interested restaurant owners.

We saw how “Troy,” a prospective exhibitor at the Conserve Solutions Center submitted four items for consideration: two products made of virgin plastic, one cleaning product clearly stated as made from 100% Chlorine and ethyl cellusolve (a chemical listed in California as a hazardous material), and a Styrofoam cup. When specifically asked if the products were acceptable for inclusion at the Conserve Solutions Center, a representative from the NRA replied in an email: “Your products are a great fit for the Conserve Solutions Center”.

We have established a clear pattern of the kind of cynicism, deception, and false claims that define the worst in greenwashing. It should not – indeed it can not – be the burden of the customer to benchmark and verify claims implicitly and explicitly endorsed by the organization issuing the endorsement - or the endorsement means nothing. That is a truth the semantical argument in which the National Restaurant Association would have us engage over a “recognition” vs. a “certification” program cannot dissuade.

The National Restaurant Association has undertaken a sophisticated, well-planned, and intentional greenwash campaign. It ultimately hurts those it professes to help, casting doubt and suspicion on legitimately benchmarked and verified sustainability programs.

And there’s one more thing.

Lobbying against the environment

By virtue of what we have seen over the past few days, it is clear that the National Restaurant Association is marketing sustainability as a top concern. But that’s just the veneer over which lay the true agenda.

All one need do is follow the money. The National Restaurant Association is the single largest financial contributor in the industry supporting politicians blocking any progress on climate change and energy policy reform.  They are charging $250 for businesses to access a website that gives them a fake certification that isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.  And finally, they charging up to $4,000 for businesses to claim to be green in their Conserve pavilion, regardless of how green their products are.

The NRA needs to know that the public and restaurants are smarter than that.  They deserve more than that.  The NRA needs to know that the environment is not for sale.