Now that sounds like a great thing, so we though we’d take a closer look.In a press release, the Marine Stewardship Council applauds McDonald’s” ten-year commitment to sustainable fishing practices:”

“McDonald’s collaboration with the Marine Stewardship Council is a critical part of our company’s journey to advance positive environmental and economic practices in our supply chain,” said Dan Gorsky, senior vice president of U.S. supply chain and sustainability. “We’re extremely proud of the fact that this decision ensures our customers will continue to enjoy the same great taste and high quality of our fish with the additional assurance that the fish they are buying can be traced back to a fishery that meets MSC’s strict sustainability standard.”

McDonald’s will package their seafood products in the US with MSC’s blue ecolabel meant to insure the consumer that the delicious fish sandwich in front of them came from a sustainable fishery and caught using sustainable fishing methods.

What constitutes a sustainable fishery?

The problem begins with defining what “sustainable fishery” means. The Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch List does not consider Alaskan pollock as a “best choice” but rather a more middling “good alternative:”

POLLOCK, ALASKA

The Alaska pollock fishery is generally well managed. However, there are concerns about trawling impacts, bycatch and overall population status. This results in a “Good Alternative” ranking.

The fishery uses midwater trawling gear that’s designed to not impact the seafloor. However, these midwater nets contact the seafloor an estimated 44% of the time—resulting in severe damage to seafloor habitats of the Bering Sea.Alaska Pollock populations are moderately healthy, but their numbers have been declining. Alaska Pollock are now at their lowest levels in over 20 years.

Bycatch rates in the Alaska pollock fishery are generally low, but in recent years, the fishery has caught large numbers of Chinook salmon from stocks that are experiencing dramatic declines. It’s unclear the extent to which the Alaska pollock fishery is contributing to these declines.

There’s also conflicting evidence about the role of the Alaska pollock fishery in the decline of the endangered Steller sea lion and Northern fur seal, both of which rely heavily on Alaska pollock for food. It’s critical that these impacts be explored further.

Problems with sustainable seafood labeling

Many scientists and environmentalists have recently called into question the process used by MSC and Friends of the Sea (FOS), the two principal organizations granting certification and labeling of seafood as “sustainable.” According to an article published last year in the journal Nature an analysis spearheaded by fisheries biologist Rainer Froese of the Helmholtz Centre of Ocean Research, up to one-quarter of seafood sold as sustainable does not meet the criteria.

Just this week a report from National Public Radio took direct aim at MSC, saying that many environmentalists and scientists that have studied the MSC system of seafood labeling is misleading:

“We’re not getting what we think we’re getting,” says Susanna Fuller, co-director of marine programs at Canada’s Ecology Action Centre.”

Fuller says that consumers buying seafood products with the MSC label is “not buying something that is sustainable now.” To be truly accurate, she says, the label would need to include “troubling fine print.”  Most MSC-certified fisheries come with “conditions,” Fuller says, specifying how fisherman need to change their operation or “study how their methods are affecting the environment” (0r both). The MSC gives operators years to comply with these conditions.

“It’s misleading,” says ocean specialist Gerry Leape, “to put a label of sustainability on a product where you don’t have the basic requirement.” Leape sits on the MSC advisory Stakeholder Council on behalf of the Pew Charitable Trusts.

How many McBites can one fishery sustain?

In addition to the concerns raised by environmentalists and scientists as to the efficacy and accuracy of sustainable seafood labeling programs, the question arises how well a fishery can sustain the sudden demand of a growing population hungry for cheap, easy, and fast food. Seafood Watch already places Alaskan pollock in decline and at a 20-year low. What will happen when demand for a McBite scales up? All the concerns raised of declining stocks, bycatch, trawling and impacts on the ecosystem will only be exacerbated.

So is McDonald’s working to “save the oceans” or is it just more fast food greenwashing? Though part of the rhetoric surrounding the launch of the McBites, it isn’t entirely fair to say that McDonald’s is claiming they are “saving the oceans” with the McBite.  But armed with the MSC certification, the giant fast food chain certainly feels justified in claiming they are using fish caught from sustainable fisheries for their seafood products, and that may or may not be entirely true.

The real issue may come down more on how fisheries get certified and what that actually means for long-term sustainability under the stress of satisfying a high-demand fast food product. The public depends on independent, transparent and reliable certification programs to make the right choices.

As Tom Philpott says in Mother Jones, McDonalds could be doing a lot worse. But for the hungry consumer looking for a good fish sandwich made with truly sustainable fish, caveat emptor – buyer beware. Be, at least, a little skeptical.

The post McDonalds: Saving the Ocean or Fast Food Greenwashing? appeared first on Greenwashing News and Information: The Greenwashing Blog.

The case against Google

Two Sides has publicly admonished Google for making what they say are inaccurate claims about the paper industry; in addition, they insinuated that Google’s involvement in a campaign to save trees is hypocritical, since their daily operations could actually have a significant, detrimental impact on the environment. Two Sides further believes that Google’s “greenwash marketing” goes against standards set up by the United States Federal Trade Commission.One of the issues that Two Sides has with Google is the fact that the Internet giant utilizes an astonishing 2.3 million megawatt-hours (Mwh) per year of power. In addition, e-waste is quickly becoming a much bigger problem than ever before; electrical devices are considered hazardous material once they have been put into the trash. Two Sides also pointed out that research shows paper copies may actually be better for the environment than documents viewed on a computer screen. It is important to note, though, that this claim is only valid if the paper copy is either used several times or looked at by multiple people. A bill sent to a customer by a Jersey City pest control company would typically not fall into this category. In addition, the study being referenced was not published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Finally, Two Sides emphasized that the United States plants more trees than it cuts down. During the last five decades, tree volume has actually increased in forested areas. One common complaint against the paper industry, though, is that it has the potential to harm the rainforest and the animals that call that area their home. Two Sides did not address this issue when speaking out against Google and the Go Paper in 2013 initiative.

A history of activism

Two Sides has been vocal about anti-paper initiatives in the past as well. About six months ago, the organization spoke out against several UK companies, including Vodafone and British Telecom, and caused the majority of them to take back their negative claims regarding the paper industry and its impact on the environment. They were also instrumental in getting the National No-Print Day campaign cancelled, which was spearheaded by Toshiba.

Only time will tell if the open letter that Two Sides wrote to Eric Schmidt, the chairman and CEO of Google, will cause the company to rethink their Go Paperless campaign. For their part, the Two Sides organization seems committed to bringing awareness to the problems they see with the initiative.

—————–

About the author: In addition to writing on a variety of green topics, Chris is also does college admissions consulting.

Main image Credit: Some rights reserved by Yodel Anecdotal

The post Is Google Greenwashing? Why the Paper Industry is Speaking Out Against an Online Giant appeared first on Greenwashing News and Information: The Greenwashing Blog.

“Eco-friendly,” “Sustainable,” “Green” 

The fact is that the trade show industry as a whole is one of the most wasteful on the planet. Approximately 60 million people attend trade shows every year. Each one of those people produce, on average, 20 pounds of trash, for a whopping total of 1 billion pounds of waste annually. Of course, most trade shows have nothing to do with our granola-crunching brethren seeking eco-enlightenment or make no effort to suggest they are “green.” But given that the trade shows are second only to the construction industry in the amount of aggregate waste produced, they probably should.Even some of the greenest among us sometimes get caught up in the moment while attending a convention or trade show. Perhaps it’s a bit of the “what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas” mentality. I might be a good eco-steward at home, making sure to recycle and not waste (or consume) too much paper, but out on the road, anything goes. Right?

Well, not so fast bucko. Despite that ubiquitous ad campaign we’ve all seen ad-nauseum, Las Vegas is well aware of the challenges of sustainable meeting standards (as any neon-lit oasis in the desert must be eventually). As a member of the Green Meeting Industry Council, Las Vegas is one example of how the trade show and convention industry is working hard not only to change the image of the industry, but to make substantive progress in curbing the excessive waste generated at events. The Convention Industry Council has formalized voluntary Envoronmentally Sustainable Meeting Standards covering  guidelines for event producers and participants that cover nine “segments” representing the full spectrum of event  planning and production – from site selection to exhibits.

The adoption of the certified Sustainable Meeting Standards continue to gain acceptance throughout the industry, making clear the economic as well as environmental advantages of efficiency, conservation, and waste reduction.

Doing your part to green your trade show experience

For the individual road-warrior (even if the meeting is just a bus ride across town) the steps to reducing your trade show eco-footprint involve some common sense, planning, and perhaps a bit of technology. Here are some tips:

• Keep your head in the cloud (get information online): For most events these days, theres and app for that. Use it. That’s the first step in reducing the amount of paper you consume and waste. Individual exhibitors should also have information about their products and services online as well. Use less paper!
• Avoid bright shiny objects (you don’t need the shwag): Consider why you’re really at the event; most likely it’s to get information and make contacts, not stuff your bag with useless plastic junk with a company logo on it.
• Pack light (but still pack): Bring your own cloth bag for whatever paper and other items you must have (it won’t be much), bring a water bottle, and perhaps a sandwich. Pack lightly, tread lightly.

The post Sustainable Trade Shows: Green or Greenwash appeared first on Greenwashing News and Information: The Greenwashing Blog.

This installment from a new “Hidden Costs” video series from InsuranceQuotes.org takes a look at the health, economic, and environmental characteristic of bottled water.

Featured image credit: ToddMorris, courtesy flickr

The post Bottled Water: the Hidden Costs appeared first on Greenwashing News and Information: The Greenwashing Blog.

Breaking Through the Corporate Green Washing of Biodegradable Packaging

A common myth surrounding biodegradable products is that they are a more environmentally friendly option, since it will just return to nature once dumped in the landfill.  The fact is that nearly nothing biodegrades in the local landfill because it was not designed to let decomposition happen.

Many of the biodegradable plastics and other packaging materials require oxygen flow to properly decompose over time.  The way our landfills are designed causes very poor oxygen flow, thus stunting or in some cases stopping the all-important decomposition process.

The EPA’s website provides an overview of the modern landfill and how protections from methane emissions, unstable soil conditions and ground water pollution produces an air-tight barrier.  If its air tight, oxygen can’t come in, thus decomposition is stunted.  It’s interesting how our environmental protection measures are actually interfering with the modern eco-products.

So what’s the Optimal Solution?

Finding the optimal solution is a little difficult, as with most green initiatives, the right solution is complex and is situation specific.   The new biodegradable plastics are not recyclable, except for a few towns that have the special facilities.  Therefore, in many cases the very solution that was supposed to help reduce waste is causing more.

It would be irresponsible of us not to call out the inherent waste we produce from single use packaging, such as plastic grocery bags and plastic water bottles.  The obvious alternatives are reusable bags and reusable water bottles which are BPA free.  However, let’s assume that we can’t solve our wasteful society in a single article and look at other alternatives.

Until the technologies change or the world migrates to a sustainable packaging approach, using the traditional recyclable materials makes more sense.  This extends the life, nearly indefinitely for many materials such as plastics, cardboard and similar.

The idea behind biodegradable packaging material is sound, however the product lifecycle needs to be re-evaluated.  If the product could obtain the desired and quick decomposition inside a landfill setting, it would have a hero’s welcome.

—

Matthew Speer is the founder of iFame Media, a Tampa marketing agency that owns iSustainableEarth.com, a website providing water conservation tips for our future generations.

Image courtesy of nuchylee / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

The post The Misconceptions Surrounding Biodegradable Packaging appeared first on Greenwashing News and Information: The Greenwashing Blog.

California Prop 37: The supporters and the opposition

The Cornucopia Institute released information regarding which brands are for Prop 37 and which ones are against it. Annie’s, Late July, Applegate and Uncle Matt’s are part of approximately 40 supporting brands, while Kashi, Welch’s, Horizon and Heinz are among those against the idea. Dissenters also include many brands that are well-loved and trusted by people around the country, like Honest Tea and Lara Bar. Most of the brands opposed are part of larger companies; for example, Horizon is a brand belonging to Dean Foods and Kashi is part of Kellogg.So far, the opposition has contributed nearly 35 million dollars in an effort to stop GMO labeling. Check out the infographic below to see if your favorite brand is on that list.

This seems to be a classic case of greenwashing or green sheen, when a company intentionally gives out erroneous facts about their service or product in an attempt to get the public to buy it. In this case, the companies are promoting themselves as being invested in the “green” movement, although behind the scenes, they are trying to stop environmental laws from going into effect. While these companies aren’t the first to do it, that certainly doesn’t make it okay; when green washing occurs, the public becomes wary and skeptical of all environmental triumphs, even the legitimate ones.

Taking a stand

There are a few things that the public can do to fight back against these companies. First, go to the Prop 37 petition online and sign it. Start a campaign and write to companies that haven’t contributed monetarily to helping Prop 37 succeed. Let the companies that have contributed know how much you appreciate what they have done. Also, work toward becoming greener in your own life. Whether it is as simple as installing energy-efficient lighting, working with a green certified Danbury exterminator, or as complex as buying solar panels for homes, it is important to be a good example.

Finally, when you are out shopping, stay away from the brands that are fighting against GMO labeling. Let your family and friends know what you are doing so they can join in if they would like. Social media is a great way to get the word out.

Featured image credit: Organic Connections

The post Fighting Against Proposition 37: Why Some Organic Companies Don’t Want GMO Labeling appeared first on Greenwashing News and Information: The Greenwashing Blog.

But how long will the collective memory of Greenwash Gold 2012 last? If the shared memory of environmental abuse itself is any indicator, “not that long” may be the best answer. The iconic image of the oil-slicked pelican (or sea turtle, or tern, or plover) no longer airs during prime time, but BP’s post-spill “public service” ads, featuring standard greenwashing fodder, mostly certainly do.

Grandfatherly fishermen stroll along pristine beaches aside smiling BP executives night and day, apparently. BP’s website is quite literally awash with green, one of its less subtle marketing maneuvers. But it’s been more than two years since everyone from President Obama to the office gossip declared the Deepwater Horizon explosion “the worst environmental disaster in American history.”

The green font on BP’s website waxes sentimental about the company’s “sustainability” practices, including desire “to be a safety leader … a world-class operator, a good corporate citizen and a great employer.” All this to “earn back trust and grow value.” After all, they’re one and the same; corporations that the public trusts do indeed grow their own value. If environmental activists want to stop them, then they have to keep greenwashing scandals from flying off the shelves and into the hands of, well, consumers.

Therein, of course, lies the rub: greenwashing works precisely because it equates sustainability with consumption. And there’s nothing Americans like to do more than consume. Most environmental activists have neither the income nor the media connections necessary to fight greenwashers on their own turf (i.e., your TV screen), which means that the outcome of this particular battle will likely be decided by the prize itself: consumers. All they have to do is start complaining.

The good news is that lots of them already are. In California, two recent lawsuits against water bottlers, Fiji Water and Aquamantra, accused of greenwashing indicate a groundswell of consumer and political discontent with how easy it is becoming to be green.

If Kermit only knew.

But class-action lawsuits and suits brought by attorneys-general are viable only because American consumers have invested the Federal Trade Commission with the power to protect them from fraud and deception. That protection indeed extends to the prosecution of greenwashing.

However, the public can expect the FTC to serve its dedicated function for only as long as the citizenry insists upon it. It’s not hard to submit a complaint about greenwashing; in fact, it’s as easy as filling out a form online – what FTC.gov calls a “Complaint Assistant.” The same is true with greenwashing scandals. If media literacy and environmentally responsible consumption continue to thrive, greenwashing scandals can’t die down. Consumers can keep them alive by purchasing genuinely green products and supporting media entities that educate them about greenwashing.

On the one hand, the future looks promising: “greenwashing,” as a word, is becoming common parlance. Trends in consumer behavior indicate sincere, if sometimes misguided, concern with environmental stewardship, and every year the U.S. celebrates Earth Day with a bit more fervor. On the other hand, Earth Day’s 40^th anniversary, which should have been cause to celebrate decades of progress in environmental stewardship, coincided with the Deepwater Horizon explosion. A month later, BP stock prices took a similar plunge; one share in the company lost roughly half its value from January to June that year. But BP Global has rebounded. Two years after the initial explosion, BP’s stock value closed at around $40 a share.

Investors are clearly willing to let BP “earn back” at least some of the “trust” the corporation solicits on its website. It’s up to the public to remember why those words appear in a wash of bright green in the first place.
——————–
Matthew Speer is the founder of iSustainableEarth.com, a site dedicated to providing real solutions for real people – helping everyone embrace a sustainable living.

The post Do Corporate Greenwashing Scandals have a Shelf-Life? appeared first on Greenwashing News and Information: The Greenwashing Blog.

Guest Post by And Lloyd

Ecotourism has become something of a buzzword in recent years, but what does it really mean? Hotels that change towels and sheets every third day call themselves sustainable, but this is an over-simplification. According to Newsweek, this is a symptom of greenwashing: how everyone has been led to believe that going green refers only to environmental issues, such as recycling and turning off the heating. However, according to TIES (The International Ecotourism Society) sustainable tourism includes responsible travel that leads to the conservation of natural resources and the upliftment of local communities. Here are some reasons why sustainable tourism should become more popular in Australia – minus the greenwashing.

It’s is no longer a niche market

A few years ago, to travel sustainably meant you had to go way off the beaten track and spend your holiday with hill tribes. According to Watoday.com.au, sustainable travel is becoming more mainstream. An excellent example is that of Kangaroo Valley. It was the first town in Australia to ban plastic bags and its green principles draw people from all over the world. Sustainability is encouraged by the usual environmental methods, like enforcing recycling and collecting rainwater. But it’s also achieved by supporting local businesses. One of the most popular restaurants in Kangaroo Valley has its own permaculture garden, so you know all of your meals come from organic, locally produced vegetables.

Even a trip to Sydney can be sustainable

You don’t need to visit Kangaroo Valley to be an eco-tourist. Newsweek uses the example of taking a trip to Washington D.C. You could make it sustainable by supporting local businesses and by buying local produce at farmers’ markets instead of eating at McDonald’s. Of course, you could also be more energy efficient in your hotel by turning off the air-conditioning when you leave and bringing your own toiletries with you. You could even make a point of only using public transport, which will contribute to the local economy. Or, even better, you could rent a bicycle!

Australians need to see Australia

Australians are known for their worldwide backpacking exploits, and this is because not enough is being done to encourage domestic travel. According to HospitalityMagazine.com.au, locals need more compelling reasons to explore their own vast, natural wonderland. Sustainable domestic travel has huge untapped potential. If promoted correctly, it would benefit the local economy by enabling job creation and saving the planet. Most importantly, it would ultimately fulfill the aims of TIES by improving the well being of people.

——————-

Ang Lloyd writes on behalf of Now Learning, an online education portal that promotes higher education in Australia, including IT diplomas and tourism and hospitality courses.

The post Sustainable Tourism: It’s Not Only About the Environment appeared first on Greenwashing News and Information: The Greenwashing Blog.

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)

The post Message of The Lorax Co-Opted by Mazda to Push SUV: Pure Greenwash appeared first on Greenwashing News and Information: The Greenwashing Blog.

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.

The post The Pipe: One Set of Laws for the People of Rossport, Another for Shell Oil appeared first on Greenwashing News and Information: The Greenwashing Blog.