I created my blog in December of 2008 as I created my website. This site was to be maintained along with my site. The blogging never manifested,  until now.

 There are many of you out there that believe in what I do so much that I have to find a way to make this blog work. I have the knowledge , the energy and the passion to share enormous amounts of information concerning healing, beauty and everything truly organic.

Lets start out with why this blog is important. Grean and Black are profound colors in my immediate world.

Green represents “The Mother” the one who sustains us. How can I as a bodyworker, mother, and friend take care of the place that sustains me? Lets begin with easy, simple ways to integrate new behaviors daily.

 Always be open to new ways to recycle, reuse and most of all, be conscious of where our $$money$$ is being spent. As I have researched and learned from many green experts… our $$money$$ is what determines what is being produced for the masses.

So if spending is like voting, we must put our $$money$$ on what products we would like to “win” even if it costs a few dollars more now, later, the cost will be less, based on demand.

Everything you see on this blog for personal and business use is purchased with a consciousness of “The Mother”

Every day I will share how easy it is to shift our $$’s and our conscioussness to caring about the 1 thing that sustains our lives and the things we love… in fun and passionate ways ;0)

The Black represents people of color. When you look at the statistics of consumers of depreciating products (cars, clothes, alcohol etc.) blacks dominate in this category.

Another reason for wanting to reach out to this community is to give education and empowerment. It would be awesome to see better, more informed decisions made with their $$’s. A light needs to be cast onto business and products that are creating health and wealth by making conscious, educated choices to move away from producing self deprecating products.

Now you know why I am here. Let the fun begin!

Let’s start with a few of my favorite companies. I will continue to highlight products and services. There are many that call themselves “green”, but on my journey through “productland” I’ve discovered something called “greenwashing” I am dedicating a whole section on my blog to expose companies and products new “green” selling tactics.

We are gonna get down and dirty! I will reveal organic products unlike any others…the excitement of finding products so unadulterated has been a task in itself, but once found its orgasmic… organically ;0)

Continuing the search for purely organic products, there lies the question about our food. My blog will have a section dedicated to food called “Doin’ it Raw”.  This will be a guide to understanding the connections between food/health and beauty.

My blog will also be focused on the link between our product consuption and the people and land that have been used, shining a light on charitible acts of companies that are giving back to “The Mother”.

Last but not least, my specialties will be continuously shared and highlighted. **STOP* PLUG-IN* RECHARGE** this space will provide you with goods, services and stories that will inspire you to continue to create a healthy, beautiful sustaining lifestyle.

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

first blog ever…

http://bodyseasonings.blogspot.com/

You can watch my Newsy greenwashing story here.

www.authorsden.com/ArticlesImage/28895.jpg

Offset Your Infidelity

By Nikki Gloudeman Nov. 19, 2009 motherjones.com

Sound crazy?

That’s because the “service” is an elaborate satire of carbon offsets, the system that allows polluters to justify their sins by paying to reduce emissions elsewhere.

As Mark Shapiro illustrates in the recent issue of Mother Jones, in the wrong hands carbon offsetting=greenwashing. When enviro-villains GM, American Electrical Power, and Chevron recently partnered with the Nature Conservancy, they weaseled out of tougher emission limits by purchasing reserves in a Brazil forest. In return, they got rights to the trees’ potentially lucrative carbon sequestration—while pushing locals from their land. Environmentally responsible? Yeah, right….

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2009/11/offset-your-infidelity

prix-pinocchio.org, communiqué, le 25 novembre 2009

Et les lauréats des Prix Pinocchio du développement durable 2009 sont…

Les Amis de la Terre ont décerné hier soir à Paris les prix Pinocchio du développement durable 2009, sur la base des votes des internautes. Cette année, les lauréats sont Bolloré dans la catégorie « droits humains », Total dans la catégorie « environnement » et EDF dans la catégorie « greenwashing ».

Dans la catégorie « droits humains », c’est le groupe Bolloré qui a reçu le prix avec 35 % des votes pour les conditions de travail déplorables des travailleurs dans les plantations d’huile de palme de sa filiale Socapalm (Cameroun), dont elle est actionnaire majoritaire.

Le groupe Total a quant à lui reçu le prix Pinocchio dans la catégorie « environnement » avec 29 % des votes de cette même catégorie. Les internautes condamnent la multinationale française pour son implication dans le méga-projet pétrolier Kashagan (Kazakhstan), qui s’annonce comme une catastrophe environnementale et sanitaire. Ce cas illustre le double discours du groupe qui, loin de l’image moderne et éthique qu’il cherche désespérément à se donner, continue à investir massivement dans des projets fossiles polluants et archaïques.

Pour le « greenwashing » enfin, c’est EDF qui remporte le prix avec 42 % des votes de cette catégorie pour sa récente campagne de communication « Changer d’énergie ensemble » qui a coûté plus cher que les dépenses du groupe en recherche et développement dans les énergies renouvelables. Ces dernières ne représentent elles-mêmes qu’une part infime du chiffre d’affaires du groupe par rapport au nucléaire.

Les Amis de la Terre organisent chaque année les Prix Pinocchio du développement durable pour dénoncer le bilan désastreux de grandes multinationales, en termes économiques, environnementaux ou sociaux. Les multinationales, toujours aussi peu encadrées, ont de plus bénéficié de financements publics sans précédent pour éviter de pâtir de la crise et ce sont les contribuables et les salariés qui doivent assumer les coûts.

Pour Gwenael Wasse, chargé de campagne pour la Responsabilité sociale et environnementale des entreprises aux Amis de la Terre, « malgré les beaux discours, les multinationales continuent à faire ce qu’elles veulent sans être inquiétées, en s’en tenant à des accords volontaires dont l’inefficacité est flagrante. Dans la crise systémique actuelle, il est plus que jamais temps que les décideurs prennent leurs responsabilités et mettent enfin en place des lois contraignantes. Il n’est plus admissible que les intérêts privés des multinationales continuent à primer sur l’intérêt général, l’avenir de la planète et le bien-être de ses habitants ».

Les résultats des votes détaillés par catégorie sont accessibles sur le site www.prix-pinocchio.org
Les images de la cérémonie seront disponibles en ligne, le 25/11 au soir sur : www.flickr.com/photos/amisdelaterre-france/

Merci à tous d’avoir voté et d’avoir soutenu les Amis de la Terre dans cette action dont cette seconde édition est un succès avec presque 7500 votes, contre 4200 l’an passé !

Plus que jamais, nous dépendons de vous pour défendre nos valeurs de protection de l’Homme et de l’environnement auprès des pouvoirs publics.

Nous vous donnons rendez-vous l’an prochain pour la troisième édition 2010 des prix Pinocchio du développement durable ; d’ici là n’hésitez pas à nous contacter pour nous proposer de nouvelles nominations d’entreprises françaises !

If you give a damn about ethics, you’ve already wondered why the hell it’s no longer taboo (enough) to do something as disgusting as wearing fur. This article from Sunday’s edition of The Guardian, which includes quotes from people who profit from the sale of fur and from PETA co-founder Ingrid Newkirk, definitely merits reading.

(I know many you don’t care for Ms. Newkirk, and certain PETA campaigns definitely leave a bad taste in my mouth, but considering that most media outlets are struggling to attract and keep advertisers these days – and believe me, fashion magazines feature fur so much partly to keep their fur-selling advertisers happy – at least The Guardian is presenting both sides of the issue. Take that, Vogue!)

Writer Elizabeth Day even outs the fur industry’s greenwashing, referring to studies conducted by Ford Motor Company AND the University of Michigan* that indicate the significantly higher amount of energy required to produce a real fur coat (vs. synthetic), though she doesn’t quite have all of her facts straight (leather is NOT a by-product, Ms. Day…please read your own paper’s archives!).

Particularly worth noting is this quote from Newkirk:

“These designers who are given junkets to Scandinavia and are given free material – I hate to call fur a ‘material’ – I suppose they must be desperate. If you’re truly creative, you don’t design with something someone hands you. Fur has lost all its cachet. It’s yesterday. I see prostitutes in Atlantic City wearing fur.“

Which has given me a fantastic idea.

Those who wear fur (and are not in immediate danger of freezing to death if they take it off) choose to do so because they (erroneously) believe it makes them look rich and beautiful. These people are completely self-centered; they rarely, if ever, care about animal cruelty or the environment. The logical thing to do is to remove every last trace of fur’s cachet by consistently associating it with precisely the same sorts of people for whom fur-wearers do not want to be mistaken.

Say there’s a new girl in your neighborhood with a rabbit-fur jacket. Under the guise of being neighborly (and you ARE a good neighbor anyway, aren’t you?), sweetly let her know that the hookers down on Broadway Street wear fur jackets similar to hers; she might want to wear her polar-fleece coat when she goes out.

Or, say a snotty mink-wearer in front of you and your friends at Starbucks yells at the barista. You might choose to say something like this just loud enough for her to hear you:

“God, what a self-entitled slag.”

“I know! Only an overgrown spoiled brat acts that way.”

“She’s probably a hooker. Tacky coat, lower-class manners – no one respectable presents themselves that way.”

“Totally.”

Or, say a fur-wearer is holding a coffee cup and standing outside. Wouldn’t it be awfully embarrassing (for her) if several people plunked loose change into her cup, “innocently” mistaking her for a panhandler? (If she gets bitchy, ask her why she’s dressed like a homeless person if she doesn’t want people to think she actually is homeless.)***

It goes without saying that, in all of these cases, your message will be MUCH more potent if:

• You are well-dressed. Remember, tasteful understatement unless you are a fashion plate!
• You leave the message gear at home (or at least strategically drape your scarf over the “Fur Sucks” button on your messenger bag until she’s gone). It’s counterintuitive for animal-lovers, but trust me, ridiculing fur hags is much more effective if they DON’T realize your true motive. Everyone loves to write off a “freak” or “extremist”, but no one likes being shamed or snickered at by someone they assume is in the majority.
• You are reasonably well-mannered (slightly snarky is okay).
• You have strong enough acting skills to keep a completely straight face (when “mistaking” a fur-wearer for a hooker, anyway).
• If you have an upper-class accent, now’s the time to use it. (If you do not have an upper-class accent, proceed with extreme caution should you dare imitate one; they can be very difficult to get exactly right!)

Ironically, many of the really upper-class people that modern-day fur-wearers seek to emulate rarely, if ever, wear real fur anymore. At a certain level, flaunting money is irredeemably vulgar, and what screams “I’m rich, spoiled, and proud of it” more loudly than a fur coat? Fur is for tasteless nouveaux riches. Truly rich people go for tasteful understatement (case in point: when she was young, Jackie O. wore a cloth coat when mink coats were all the rage, although she certainly could have afforded fur even then).**

Is this a slightly immature idea? Maybe. But it’s definitely far less immature than selfishly and unnecessarily taking another creature’s life without a second thought.

*Note to Ford and U. Mich.: conducting the study again to evaluate how energy-efficient a good fake is these days could bring in very valuable publicity. Green is in, you know. Ditto for compassion. Just don’t let the fur industry bully you into doctoring the results – if that happens, you WILL lose all your credibility when the public finds out.

**Exception: conspicuous outrage. If you come from a well-respected, prominent, and/or notorious family, you can generally wear whatever the hell you want without hearing too many jokes about Bubble or Lady Gaga. However, this only works if you are dressing to express yourself and have a good idea of who you are. Otherwise, you’ll look like you really ARE trying to imitate Lady Gaga…and failing miserably at it.

***Please treat actual homeless people with respect – they are human beings, and many of them have untreated mental illnesses. More than 80% of young homeless people are forced to leave home, often due to abuse. True compassion extends to disadvantaged people, too, so be nice.

They’re Not Green Parts 1 & 2

Chevron Refinery, El Segundo, California

Here they are, folks, the very Hot List of Global Warming’s Worst Merchants of Death. The for-profit companies who put the money they rake in from burning fossil fuels ahead of the safety, welfare and well being of your kids, of your parents, of your grandparents and of everyone you hold near and dear.

They know exactly what lethal damage their products and their manufacture are responsible for, but the money always comes first for these contract killers – unless of course you’re asking them to pay the bill for that damage.

So let’s take a look, straight from our friends at the California Air Resources Board*, at the Top Emitters of Greenhouse Gases in California, for 2008.  I’ve specially highlighted the three out of ten that are within just 10 miles of my home.

1. Chevron Refinery, Richmond: 4,792,052 metric tons
2. Shell Oil Refinery, Martinez: 4,570,475 metric tons

3. BP Refinery, Carson: 4,504,286 metric tons (9 miles from my house)

4. Chevron Refinery, El Segundo: 3,603,446 metric tons (8.4 miles from my house)

5. Dynegy Power Plant, Moss Landing: 2,962,149 metric tons

6. Exxon Refinery, Torrance: 2,852,374 metric tons (5.7 miles from my house)

7. Valero Refinery, Benicia: 2,796,057
8. Tesoro Refinery, Martinez: 2,703,145
9. Southern Calif. Edison-Mountainview Power Plant, Redlands: 2,697,142
10. La Paloma Power Plant, McKittrick: 2,544,398

* Actually, the CARB let the polluters tally up their own numbers, so you best double these public numbers if you want to get the honest total.

Big Congrats to California’s very own Chevron, who spewed more than double the greenhouse gas of their nearest carbon collaborator-  and who does more damage to our health than any other refiner in California.  No one does more harm to the health of children and pregnant women than the Chevron polluters who use toy cars to fool kids into thinking they’re the good guys.  Shameless would be a step up for Chevron.

When you hear these professional global warmers lie and spin and bribe and con, just remember – they do it for money and there is no line they will not cross in exchange for that buck.  They’ll give money to your schools, your libraries, your hospitals – whatever you need, just so long as you let them destroy our climate from your home town.

But don’t worry.  Even if you’re not getting any of that Chevron or Exxon cash, rest assured you’ll be getting the death and destruction that comes from using their products – and from having them made anywhere on the map.

View Larger Map

If you look at the satellite views of these fatal facilities you’ll see acres and acres of unobstructed land just perfect to use for solar power generation.  All of these locations are already heavily hooked up to the grid and would need no new transmission lines to be feeding renewable energy into our electric mix instead of feeding more global warming into the already overheated atmosphere.

If our kids are going to survive and thrive as our generation has – all 10 of the facilities on this list – along with their counterparts all across the USA – must be gone from this map 10 years from now.

Corporate Social Responsibility News: CSR Minute: Climate Counts Corporate Scorecard; Intn’l Oeko-Tex Assoc/Textile Insight’s Sustainability Panel

Comme annoncé sur le blog en octobre, nous avons les noms des lauréats des prix Pinocchio pour le développement durable 2009.

Pour rappel, cet événement est organisé par les amis de la terre, en partenariat avec peuples solidaires et  il a pour but d’illustrer et de dénoncer les impacts négatifs de certaines entreprises françaises, en totale contradiction avec le concept de développement durable qu’elles utilisent abondamment.

Les entreprises suivantes ont été déclarées lauréates des prix Pinocchio par le public, soit 7495  personnes votantes :

• Le Prix Pinocchio “Droits humains” est decerné à Bolloré avec 35% de votes pour son action au Cameroun : Exploitation de salariés dans les plantations d’huile de palme (Cameroun)

Au Cameroun la Société camerounaise des palmeraies (SOCAPALM), détenue à près de 40 % par le groupe français Bolloré depuis sa privatisation en 2000, gère plusieurs plantations de palmiers à huile. Dans une de ces gigantesques plantations d’une superficie de 9000 hectares, à Kienké, au sud-ouest du pays, la SOCAPALM emploie plusieurs milliers de personnes pour la coupe, la récolte et le transport des régimes.

Les conditions de travail de ces ouvriers ont été décrites par plusieurs journalistes qui ont enquêté sur place depuis 2008 comme proches de l’esclavage. Les hommes y travaillent six jours par semaine, parfois sans aucune protection malgré la dangerosité de ce travail très physique, ni aucune protection sociale. Les salaires de misère restent parfois impayés pendant plusieurs mois par les sous-traitants chargés de les recruter, ce qui décourage ceux qui veulent récupérer leur dû. Les droits syndicaux ne sont pas non plus respectés : un leader syndical qui opposait une résistance à ces conditions dégradantes a même été arrêté avant de subir des menaces de mort . Outre leur travail, les ouvriers sont aussi contraints de vivre dans des conditions inhumaines, dans un campement surpeuplé sans eau, ni sanitaires, et quelques heures seulement d’électricité par jour, tandis qu’aucune demande d’amélioration de ces conditions n’a jamais abouti. Pour les populations environnantes enfin, les impacts de la plantation de Kienké sont considérables : expropriation de leurs terres, destruction irréversible de la forêt dont ils tirent leur subsistance, pollution des cours d’eaux par des produits chimiques…

Ce cas est révélateur des conséquences désastreuses des plantations d’huile de palme, énormément consommée dans les produits alimentaires ou cosmétiques consommés dans les pays industrialisés, mais dont les impacts sociaux et environnementaux sont considérables dans les pays du Sud.

Nb (23/11/2009) : par souci d’honnêteté, il convient de préciser que la description ci-dessus comporte une petite erreur, puisque nous apprenons aujourd’hui que le campement comporte en réalité un point d’eau et un sanitaire pour plusieurs dizaines de baraquements. Nos excuses aux votants pour cette inexactitude, qui ne change toutefois pas fondamentalement le constat de conditions de vie très dégradantes

Pour en savoir plus :

- Libération, Les Camerounais exploités des palmeraies de Bolloré, 11/03/2008 : www.liberation.fr/economie/010176109-les-camerounais-exploites-des-palmeraies-de-bollore

- Le Monde Diplomatique, Bolloré au Cameroun, un bilan en images, http://blog.mondediplo.net/2009-06-16-Bollore-au-Cameroun-un-bilan-en-images

- Le Monde Diplomatique, Port, rail, plantations : le triste bilan de Bolloré au Cameroun, avril 2004 : www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2009/04/DELTOMBE/17037

- Site des Amis de la Terre, Huile de palme : un ingrédient discret qui détruit les forêts : www.amisdelaterre.org/-Huile-de-palme-un-ingredient-.html

• Le prix Pinocchio “Environnement” est décerné à Total avec 45% de vote pour le  plus gros projet pétrolier du monde, qui s’avère être aussi le plus dangereux (Kazakhstan)

Total et 6 autres compagnies pétrolières parmi les plus puissantes au monde sont associées depuis le début des années 2000 pour l’exploitation d’un gisement de pétrole au Kazakhstan, dans le nord de la mer Caspienne. Ce gisement, baptisé Kashagan, est considéré comme la plus grosse découverte pétrolière au monde depuis 1968. Prévu pour produire jusqu’à 1,5 million de barils par jour à l’horizon 2020, il ferait du Kazakhstan, pays très corrompu dirigé d’une main de fer par le très autoritaire Noursoultan Nazarbaïev depuis la chute de l’ex-URSS, un des premiers producteurs de brut au monde.

Le développement et l’exploitation de ce gisement s’avèrent pourtant extrêmement problématiques. D’énormes contraintes géographiques, climatiques et géologiques expliquent en effet un budget prévisionnel de 136 milliards de dollars, soit le projet le plus cher jamais financé. Des experts commencent même à s’interroger sur sa faisabilité réelle, vu ses contraintes techniques colossales, ses retards incessants et ses coûts en dérive constante. Le pétrole jaillit en effet de plus de 5000 mètres sous la surface à une température de plus de 100 degrés et à une pression qui peut atteindre les 1000 bars, soit autant de fois la pression atmosphérique. Le pétrole de cette zone est également fortement pollué par des gaz toxiques, dont les mercaptans, qui peuvent être mortels à de très petites concentrations et dont des émanations accidentelles pourraient tuer des milliers de personnes en quelques heures. Son taux de soufre très élevé (jusqu’à 20 %) pose également de graves menaces de pollution : le traitement du soufre n’est pas encore prévu, et les conditions atmosphériques locales pourraient entraîner des pluies acides sur la région Caspienne et jusqu’à l’Europe.

La solution choisie pour l’exportation du pétrole, enfin, est extrêmement préoccupante : il serait transporté par des bateaux spécialement conçus à cette fin à travers la mer Caspienne jusqu’au départ de l’oléoduc BTC en Azerbaïdjan : une marée noire aurait des conséquences catastrophiques pour les écosystèmes de cette mer fermée et les populations côtières des pays avoisinants (Russie, Iran, Kazakhstan, Turkménistan et Azerbaïdjan).

Une mission des Amis de la Terre et d’autres ONG sur place en septembre 2007 avait permis de récolter des témoignages alarmants de la part des autorités et des communautés locales, des scientifiques et de la société civile, attribués au développement du projet Kashagan : mortalité massive d’animaux, chute drastique des prises de poissons, dégradation de l’état de santé des habitants…

Face à ces critiques, Total s’est toujours réfugié derrière son statut de « simple » partenaire du projet, en avançant que seul l’entreprise leader du consortium est responsable des impacts environnementaux et sociaux du projet . La compagnie en est pourtant un des principaux acteurs, et s’est d’ailleurs vu confier fin 2008 la direction du consortium jusqu’en 2015. Elle investira au final dans Kashagan plus de 20 milliards de dollars, autant d’argent qui ne sera pas utilisé pour développer des solutions énergétiques beaucoup moins polluantes et dangereuses sur le plan sanitaire.

Pour en savoir plus :

- Rapport de mission d’investigation par les ONG au Kazakhstan, décembre 2007 : www.amisdelaterre.org/Les-impacts-negatifs-du-projet,3638.html

- Les Echos, « Redistribution des cartes sur le champ géant de Kashagan », 03/11/2008

• Le Prix Pinocchio “Greenwashing” est decerné à EDF avec 42% de votes pour sa pub « Changer d’énergie ensemble ».

Au printemps 2009, la multinationale française de production d’électricité EDF a lancé une très grande campagne de communication de plusieurs semaines, avec pour thème le slogan « Changer d’énergie ensemble », qui est également le titre du rapport Développement durable 2008 de l’entreprise. Cette campagne, extrêmement visible dans les lieux publics et les médias nationaux, faisait appel à des témoignages de particuliers, de salariés d’EDF et de personnalités appréciées des Français, comme le nageur et champion du monde Alain Bernard. Le but de cette campagne était d’essayer de convaincre le grand public, et ses dizaines de millions de clients, que la multinationale agissait concrètement et de façon importante pour promouvoir des alternatives propres aux combustibles fossiles, ainsi que des solutions au réchauffement climatique : économies d’énergie et efficacité énergétique, éolien, hydraulique, etc.

La réalité est pourtant toute autre, et moins flatteuse pour l’énergéticien français. Dans son rapport Développement durable 2008, EDF affirme que les « énergéticiens sont confrontés à la nécessité de changer de modèle » pour répondre aux défis environnementaux, sociaux et économiques à venir. Mais on y lit aussi que le budget effectivement consacré par EDF à la recherche et au développement (R&D) des énergies renouvelables s’élevait en 2008 à 8,9 millions d’euros, alors que le budget R&D total d’EDF la même année s’élevait à 421 millions d’euros. La part consacrée aux énergies renouvelables, modèle énergétique de demain, représente donc 2,1% du total. Enfin, selon le magazine Terra Eco, la campagne de publicité d’EDF « Changer d’énergie ensemble » a coûté au total 10 millions d’euros pour sa conception et sa diffusion…

Au-delà du vernis des discours, les chiffres sont donc cruels : EDF consacre dans la réalité plus de moyens à communiquer sur ses engagement dans les énergies renouvelables, qu’à faire de la recherche sur ces dernières ! Un moyen peut-être pour l’énergéticien français de tenter de faire oublier qu’il reste essentiellement producteur d’électricité nucléaire. Une source d’énergie dangereuse pour la santé et la paix dans le monde, non-renouvelable, productrice de quantités énormes de déchets polluants dont le traitement n’est toujours pas assuré, et qui, en nécessitant d’être couplée à la consommation d’énergies fossiles polluantes pour produire l’électricité en période de pointe, est très loin d’être neutre en terme d’impact climatique.

Pour en savoir plus :

- Terra Eco, « EDF plus voyant qu’éclairant » par Emmanuelle Walter, 29/06/2009 : www.terra-economica.info/EDF-plus-voyant-qu-eclairant,4981.html?var_recherche=edf (accès payant)

- Rapport annuel Développement durable 2008 d’EDF : www.edf.com/html/RA2008/index.html (cf. page 10)

image credit: flickr user iirraa

McDonald’s is going green — or rather, their logo is in Europe. By the end of this year, around 100 German McDonalds restaurants will switch their trademark red background to a deep hunter green in hopes of promoting a greener image. Some have already made the switch in Great Britain and France.

So what’s actually behind this change? In an article by the Associated Press, Hoger Beek (vice chairman of McDonald’s in Germany) is quoted as saying,

“With this new appearance we want to clarify our responsibility for the preservation of natural resources. In the future we will put an even larger focus on that.”

Again, it seems that the trend of going green is potentially reeking more havoc than doing good. McDonalds can change their colors all they want, but until they are environmentally active, the sign is all greenwashing. Not to mention a company that pretty much sustains our nation’s ever-growing beef industry will never be an environmentally-friendly venture, just due to its nature.

Instead of spending the money on green marketing and promoting a false sense of being eco-friendly, why not put the money into tangible change?

Die Klima-Lügendetektor ist noch immer einsame Spitze im Aufdecken von ‘Greenwash-Aktivitäten’. Aber die FTD hat heute auch eine interessante Fotoserie.

Ach, und wo wir doch bei den Zynischmachern sind: das Klima-der-Gerechtigkeit-Blog verweist auf nettes Kabaret:

Der oder das PROLLblog(in) begrüßt die Entscheidung(in) von McDonald’s, in der BRD fortan zu dem schwungvollen Symbol(in) der mütterlichen Brüstinnen nicht mehr rote, sondern grüne Farbe und Farbin zu verwend(inn)en. Endlich findet die Farbe und Farbin der nach Genuss der labberigen Stopfmasse hervorgebrachten Galle und Gallin eine Würdigung in der corporate identity des beliebten Volksvergifters und extrem ausraubbeuterischen Drecksladens.

Allerdings geben wir dem/der recht erfolgreichen Unternehmer(in) zu bedenken, dass die Farbe und Farbin braun sowohl das im Unternehmen gegenüber den Ausbeutling(inn)en gepflegte Menschenbild(in) als auch die besondere Qualität(in) der an die Kunden verkauften Nahrung wesentlich besser repräsentieren würde.

Der oder das PROLLblog(in) begrüßt die Entscheidung(in) von McDonald’s, in der BRD fortan zu dem schwungvollen Symbol(in) der mütterlichen Brüstinnen nicht mehr rote, sondern grüne Farbe und Farbin zu verwend(inn)en. Endlich findet die Farbe und Farbin der nach Genuss der labberigen Stopfmasse hervorgebrachten Galle und Gallin eine Würdigung in der corporate identity des beliebten Volksvergifters und extrem ausraubbeuterischen Drecksladens.

Allerdings geben wir dem/der recht erfolgreichen Unternehmer(in) zu bedenken, dass die Farbe und Farbin braun sowohl das im Unternehmen gegenüber den Ausbeutling(inn)en gepflegte Menschenbild(in) als auch die besondere Qualität(in) der an die Kunden verkauften Nahrung wesentlich besser repräsentieren würde.

Well, they had it coming.  Last week, NBC Universal (owned by GE) declared it Green Week on the network, an effort within its larger Green is Universal campaign.  Before this week, I just brushed it off as yet another big company jumping on the bandwagon of using green to market themselves as hip, cool, forward thinking and innovative.  Then they launched Green Week.  And the jokes began.  This is in fact the network’s 3rd year of doing a Green Week where, as one late night talk show host jabbed, “they ask everyone to go green by watching TV!”

Well, there’s more to it than that but aside from the message they are trying to spread, the campaign is riddled with greenwashing and overuse of the term green in general.

On the Green is Universal home page, their backdrop features cute little sayings like

Green lives here

Green connects here

Green shops here

Wait, what?  Green shops here?  What the hell does that mean?

If that isn’t asinine enough, try clicking through their “Make Green Count” section where they suggest – wait for it – turning off your computer to save energy.  Oh, and the lights.  Also, use reusable water bottles!  OMG revolutionary.  You mean if I turn OFF my lights, it will save energy?  WHY HAVE I NEVER BEEN TOLD THIS BEFORE?

Oddly enough, they never suggest turning off the television to save energy.  But then if you did that, you would miss all of the little green messages being broadcast through popular shows like 30 Rock and The Office.  So really the message here?  Watch TV – save the planet!  That seems like an environmental platform even conservatives could rally behind.

Maxim Magazine had the best attempt at broadcasting the ironic hilarity of NBC Universal’s promotion of green.  Enjoy:

The tree is my favorite part.

The lesson here is: If you really aren’t green at all, please don’t vomit the word out of every orifice of your company.  You’re rendering the term completely useless and doing nothing real to help the environment.  And it’s 2009 – you can’t fool us anymore.  We have the Google.

Posted by: Ashley / follow me on Twitter

Whew! Why is it so hard for us to believe? It is very disappointing to hear about so much greenwashing going on. Consumers, we have to be on our toes!

Dr. Bronner’s press release:

Top-selling natural soap brand Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps applauds the final recommendation by the Certification, Accreditation, and Compliance Committee (CACC) of the USDA’s National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) on Solving the Problem of Mislabeled Organic Personal Care Products set forth this week. The recommendation urges the National Organic Program (NOP) to regulate personal care products and “ensure consumers and businesses alike that the products have an unquestioned home in the USDA National Organic
Program.” The current regulatory approach fails to protect consumers from misleading and deceptive organic labeling of personal care because compliance with the NOP is currently voluntary, not mandatory.

President of Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, David Bronner said, “Dr. Bronner’s strongly believes that the best and most effective way to protect consumers of organic personal care products is for the USDA to make the National Organic Program (NOP) standards mandatory for personal care. We applaud this recommendation as a step forward in improving the current regulatory regime.” The Certification, Accreditation and Compliance Committee will present the recently released document to the NOSB at its public meeting in early November for a vote. Dr. Bronner’s full formal comments submitted to the NOSB can be found at the link below. In related news, Whole Foods is requiring that all supposedly “natural” and “organic” personal care products in their stores test below 10 parts per million for the probable carcinogen 1,4 Dioxane. 1,4 Dioxane is produced when the petrochemical Ethylene Oxide is attached to primary cleansing and moisturizing ingredients in a process called Ethoxylation. “We’re fed up with organic cheater brands who use high-foaming ethoxylated detergents in bodywashes and shampoos that produce 1,4 Dioxane contamination” says David Bronner. “Petrochemical compounds like Ethylene Oxide have no place in organic personal care ingredients. This is just
one of many violations of basic organic criteria by organic cheater brands, and demonstrates why federal NOP regulation is necessary.”

In July, Dr. Bronner’s filed its Second Amended Complaint against numerous personal care companies that use non-organic pesticide-intensive agricultural and/or petrochemical material to make the main cleansing and moisturizing ingredients of their mislabeled ‘Organic’ products. That Complaint charges defendants with false advertising in violation of the federal Lanham Act, based on the fact that the labeling and marketing of their products as “Organic” is misleading and confusing consumers. Defendants had the case transferred to federal district court in San Jose, CA and moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that USDA/NOP is considering
regulating personal care products even though these same defendants strongly oppose such regulation. Arguments on those motions will be held on Friday, September 25. The entire Second Amended Complaint along with background on the case is posted online at:
http://www.drbronner.com/usda_organic_body_care.html
###

On their website, we’re urged to boycott these “fake” organic brands.
Amazon Organics, Avalon Organics, Desert Essence Organics, Earth’s Best Organic, Giovanni Organic Cosmetics, Head Organics, JASON Pure Natural and Organic, Nature’s Gate Organics, Organics by Noah’s Naturals

Dr. Bronners also urges us to buy these certified USDA organic brands.
Alteya Organics, Baby Bear Shop, Badger, Bubble and Bee Organic, Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, Indian Meadow Herbals, Intelligent Nutrients, Kimberly Parry Organics, Little Angel, Mercola, Miessence Certified Organics, Nature’s Paradise, OGmama and OGbaby, Organicare, Organic Essence, Origins Organics, Purely Shea, Rainwater Organic Lotion, Rose Tattoo Aftercare, SoCal Cleanse, Sensibility Soaps/Nourish, Terressentials, Trillium Organics, Vermont Soap

Do you look for the certification logo when you buy?

Maybe going with the word “Organic” on the label isn’t enough.

Read more about the campaign

Dr. Bronner’s video on the topic:

This week, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged four executives of Mantria Corporation for perpetrating a $30 million Ponzi scheme based on phony development of the purportedly “carbon negative” soil additive biochar (charcoal). Mantria claimed to be making 25 tons per day of the climate-cleaning carbon booster, but the company has actually never sold any biochar and has just one facility working on future production.

Mantria and its partner firm Speed of Wealth held hotel ballroom get-rich-quick seminars at which investors were told that Mantria was the world’s leading biochar producer. Its “BioChar University” seminar promised attendees paying $20,000 each a four-day tutorial on profiting as early investors in the climate change mitigation scheme. Mantria and Speed of Wealth seminars featured videos showing purported celebrity endorsements and statements in support of biochar production from President Obama, former President Clinton, Walmart President Mike Duke, actor Matt Damon and others. Some of the dignitaries were fooled by the company: a recent Clinton Global Initiative event feted Mantria along with other companies, and a press release listed the company’s BioChar project as among several promising efforts to mitigate global warming.

Among the four indicted in the SEC fraud complaint were Mantria CEO Troy Wragg, who was featured in a glowing 2007 Philadelphia Business Journal profile for his rags-to-riches eco-friendly real estate success. Speaking of the company’s environmentally-friendly developments, Wragg told the Journal, “”We are human beings first, we are businesspeople second, and this is what we believe in. It’s the right way of doing things.”

But residents near the company’s real estate were less enamored than the Clintons or the press. Mantria recently boasted of “five Master Planned Communities” in development on its Tennessee properties, but a nearby landowner noted that the area remained undeveloped two years after the company’s purchase, and wondered if the deal was an investment scam. Others suggested the company’s claims of booming development in the region were a fraud. After a Mantria presentation in Dunlap, Tennessee, attendees were highly skeptical. Several local residents smelled a rat a year before the SEC came in. As one stated:

To me, this seems like someone won the lottery and is trying to turn their $30 million into more using other people’s money. There will be no homes built there by Mantria. There will be no gates, or magnificent waterfalls. They’ll do just like they always have done in the past. They’ll try to sell the “sizzle”. They’ll talk about a utopian scenario of life, they’ll discuss all of the “what-could-be” imaginings….They are selling the idea, not the homes.

In addition to Speed of Wealth and Mantria’s biochar scam, Wragg boasted about 11 Mantria corporate entities, including the Bank of Mantria, Mantria Industries, Mantria Financial, Mantria Records (and star recording artist, the hip hop duo I.C.E. Bloc, aka, Infinite Cash Entertainment BLOC), and a purported marketing arm in China. Wragg’s BioChar Brokers took orders for its BioChar products, but scientists and environmental advocates who ordered samples never received them.

Biochar (charcoal), made by burning wood, grasses, manure or crop residues, is controversial even without being linked to investment fraud. It is promoted for preventing climate breakdown, replacing fossil fuels, improving soil fertility, reducing deforestation and other purported benefits. Many proponents call for large-scale charcoal plantations of monocrop, industrially-farmed trees, which Biofuelwatch notes “would be devastating and involve large-scale deforestation and other ecosystem destruction.” One biochar booster has called for plantations covering 1.4 billion hectares (more than the total current area of cropland on Earth). Biofuelwatch and other watchdog groups note the absurd and dangerous proposals from some biochar proponents, from creating the charcoal using old tires and other potentially toxic wastes, to using giant microwave ovens to char plantation-grown trees.

An international declaration from 147 organizations earlier this year stated that biochar projects fail to address the root cause of changing climates and called for exclusion of biochar from carbon offset agreements, stating “(we) strongly oppose the inclusion of soils in carbon trade and offset mechanisms.” The groups warned that creating a biochar industry would threaten indigenous people and encourage the commodification of soil.

Beware false prophets, and especially those masquerading as conservationists (or at least ‘green’) when they are not, in fact, doing anything for conservation at all. But this blog site isn’t about typical greenie evil-corporation-making-a-mess-of-the-Earth sermons (there are plenty of those); it’s instead about real conservation science that has/should/could have a real biodiversity benefits. This is why I highlight the bitey and the toothless together.

With the slow (painfully, inadequately, insufficiently slow) maturation of environmental awareness and the rising plight of biodiversity in general (including our own health and prosperity), it has become almost chic to embrace a so-called ‘green’ perspective. This approach has blown out into a full-scale business model where in many wealthier nations especially, it’s just plain good business to attract the green-conscious consumer to buy more ‘environmentally friendly’ products. Problem is, so many of these products are the farthest thing from green you can imagine (see examples here, here & here). This stimulated the environmentalist Jay Westerveld to coin the term greenwashing in 1986. Greenwashing is basically defined as activities that misleadingly give the impression of environmentally sound management that thereby deflect attention away from the continued pursuit of environmentally destructive activities.

Well, not that the problem has disappeared, or even dissipated (if anything, it’s growing), but I don’t want to focus on that here. Instead, I want to highlight a recent paper in which I was involved that outlines too how environmental groups can be guilty of almost the same sin – claiming businesses, practices, individuals, corporations, etc. are far more environmentally destructive than they really are. This, we termed blackwashing.

The paper by Koh and colleagues entitled Wash and spin cycle threats to tropical biodiversity just came out online in the journal Biotropica, and therein we describe the greenwashing-blackwashing twin conservation evils using the oil palm controversy as an excellent example case. Just in case you didn’t know, much of the tropical world (especially South East Asia) is undergoing massive conversion of native forests to oil palm plantations, to the overwhelming detriment of biodiversity. I’ve covered the issue in several posts on ConservationBytes.com before (see for example Tropical forests worth more standing, Indonesia’s precious peatlands under oil palm fire & More greenwashing from the Malaysian oil palm industry).

Briefly, we demonstrate how the palm oil industry is guilty of the following greenwashes:

• Palm oil plantations are safe for tropical biodiversity – They are most definitely not (see Fitzherbert et al. 2008, Koh & Wilcove 2008, Brüle & Eltz 2009, Danielson et al. 2009, Venter et al. 2009)
• Oil palm is planted forest – It is not, either in terms of the amount of carbon it sequesters or the biodiversity it supports (see above point).
• Native forest conversion no longer occurs – An outright lie (Chazdon 2008, Butler 2008).

On the either side, various environmental groups such as Greenpeace, have promoted the following blackwashes:

• Orang-utan will be extinct imminently – A gross exaggeration, although something we believe is eventually possible.
• Avoided deforestation schemes (e.g., REDD) will crash carbon-trading – Again, even economists don’t believe this.

For details, see the paper online.

Now, I’d probably tend to believe some of the less outrageous claims made by some environmental groups because if anything, the state of biodiversity is probably overall worse than what most people realise. However, when environmental groups are exposed for exaggerations, or worse, lies, then their credibility goes out the window and even those essentially promoting their cause (e.g., conservation biologists like myself) will have nothing to do with them. The quasi-religious zealotry of anti-whaling campaigns is an example of a terrible waste of funds, goodwill and conservation resources that could be otherwise spent on real conservation gains. Instead, political stunts simply alienate people who would otherwise reasonably contribute to improving the state of biodiversity. Incidentally, an environmental advocacy group in Australia emailed me to support their campaign to highlight the plight of sharks. I am a firm supporter of better conservation of sharks (see recent paper and post about this here). However, when I read their campaign propaganda, the first sentence read:

“Almost 90 % of sharks have been wiped out“

I immediately distanced myself from them. This is a blatant lie and terrible over-exaggeration. Ninety per cent of sharks HAVE NOT been wiped out. Some localised depletions have occurred, and not one single shark species has been recorded going extinct since records began. While I agree the world has a serious shark problem, saying outrageous things like this will only serve to weaken your cause. My advice to any green group is to get your facts straight and avoid the sensationlist game – you won’t win it, and you probably won’t be successful in doing anything beneficial for the species you purport to save.
CJA Bradshaw

Koh, L., Ghazoul, J., Butler, R., Laurance, W., Sodhi, N., Mateo-Vega, J., & Bradshaw, C. (2009). Wash and Spin Cycle Threats to Tropical Biodiversity Biotropica DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2009.00588.x

Due to its luxurious softness, smooth hand, flowing drape and easy price – bamboo has gained entry into the apparel and fashion industry.  It’s being touted as the latest and hottest sustainable eco fabric but some are starting to question this.

There’s no denying that bamboo is wonderfully beneficial for the planet.  It does not require the use of chemical pesticides,  requires very little water to grown and it does not require replanting after harvesting because its vast root network continually sprouts new shoots.  It’s not until we begin to look at the manufacturing processes that the “eco friendly” luster is tarnished due to the use of heavy chemicals, many of which are toxic.

Bamboo is pulped using traditional kraft pulping technology which is notoriously toxic.  The bamboo fibre is ground up and treated with chemicals that turn it into a liquid pulp.  The liquid is then pressed through a spinneret. The extruded streams of liquid harden into fibers that are then woven together to make bamboo fabric.  Rendering bamboo from a plant to a yarn involves a chemical process – the same process that is being used for conventional rayon and viscose which are a ‘regenerated cellulose fiber’s made by man.  This process is highly polluting and involves carbon disulfide emissions.  Breathing low levels of carbon disulfide can cause tiredness, headache and nerve damage and it has been linked to neural disorders in workers at rayon manufacturing facilities.

The Federal Trade Commission recently sued four small bamboo-clothing manufacturers earlier this year, citing them for false labeling.  The companies had used language such as “natural,” “biodegradable,” and “antimicrobial.”  The FTC said, “Bamboo fabric isn’t natural since it’s a textile developed by chemists.”  The agency also stated that the biodegradable and antimicrobial qualities of the plant don’t survive the manufacturing process.  The FTC released the following article based on their findings – “Have You Been Bamboozled by Bamboo Fabrics?”.

CRAILAR Advanced Materials provides an alternative to the pollution caused by traditional cellulose pulping for the textile market.   The CRAILAR pulping process is a much gentler process when compared to Kraft pulping and produces a pure cellulose with properties that exceed those of the best pulps on the market.  The processing chemicals used, while not certified organic, are almost completely recycled.  In fact, over 95% of the chemicals we use are recycled and reused while the balance is consumed during the process.  Unlike many of the so-called eco fibers (bamboo and soy for example) which rely on dirty technology to process them, our patented CRAILAR Advanced Materials process is not only gentle on the fibre itself, but is also a much cleaner and sustainable approach to regenerated cellulose yarn.

Sign up for our newsletter to ensure you’re kept up to date with our progress.

Dit najaar lijkt het al bananen wat de klok slaat op mijn blog

Patrick Wauters werd woensdagavond door het weekblad Trends uitgeroepen tot Marketeer van het Jaar 2009. Wauters bouwde Chiquita in Europa om van een traditionele bananenverkoper tot een verdeler van energiesnacks.

lees op trends.be : “Patrick Wauters (Chiquita) is Marketeer van het Jaar “

Hij is de man achter een nieuwe dynamiek van het merk Chiquita. Bananen als tussendoortje in de benzinestations (één banaan voor 1 euro), individuele porties ananas in een plasticverpakking, smoothies op basis van bananen samen met andere fruitsoorten en Chiquita-producten als dessert bij McDonald’s.

Dit citeer ik van de website van Trends.

Worden zo’n marketeers tegenwoordig ook gescreend op het ethisch gehalte van wat ze proberen te verkopen? Wel… ja en neen. Trends slalomt er zo’n beetje rond.

Zo bleef ook Koen Van Bockstal van Oxfam Fairtrade tot op het allerlaatste moment in de running voor deze prijs.

Maar blijkbaar blijft het propageren van ongetwijfeld veel winstgevendere oneerlijke handel ook in tijden van recessie de voorkeur genieten.

Ik citeer uit een artikel van GetUp!-magazine over Chiquita (januari 2008):

Op vijftien jaar tijd heeft Chiquita Brands International een ware gedaanteverwisseling ondergaan die zelfs de grootste critici niet kunnen ontkennen. Toch blijft er nog een stap die de onderneming (nog?) niet heeft willen zetten: die van de eerlijke handel.

Want hoewel de multinational rekening houdt met ecologische
en maatschappelijke normen, heeft ze tot op heden de specifieke economische normen met betrekking tot eerlijke handel genegeerd. Zoals (nagenoeg) alle multinationals weigert Chiquita het mechanisme van de marktprijzen op te geven voor een systeem dat de aankoopprijs
aan de werkelijke productiekostprijs koppelt. Deze prijs is uiteraard variabel naargelang de producten en de streek, maar omvat een reeks imperatieven waaronder de productiekost, een correct loon en degelijke
werkomstandigheden, evenals de mogelijkheid om te investeren in collectieve projecten (verbetering van de werkomstandigheden,
vernieuwing van het materiaal, enz.).

Met de ISO-, SA8000- en RFA-certificaten op zak vervult Chiquita Brands International een groot deel van het contract in de eigen productiezones, maar dat is niet noodzakelijk het geval voor onafhankelijke producenten van wie de onderneming bananen koopt.

Volgens de normen opgesteld door Max Havelaar, bedraagt de ‘fair price’ voor een kist van 18 kg bananen ten minste 6,75 dollar. In de klassieke handel kan het concurrentie-effect de prijs doen dalen tot minder dan twee dollar voor diezelfde kist, wat een ware armoedespiraalveroorzaakt.

Terwijl de impact voor de eindklant minimaal is (prijsstijging van 5 tot 10%), vertegenwoordigt dit een verdubbeling of verdrievoudiging van het loon van de kleine producent.

Hoewel Chiquita de marktleider blijft op de Europese markt en zich niet bedreigd voelt door bananen met fairtradelabel, speelt de huidige marktcontext in het voordeel van de ethischere ondernemingen. Op tien jaar tijd hebben de fairtradebananen in België een marktaandeel van amper 6% veroverd, maar in Zwitserland is dat nagenoeg 54%.

Overigens een zeer goed en evenwichtig samengesteld artikel in die GetUp! Het geeft Chiquita ook heel veel goede punten. Omwille van haar inspanningen inzake duurzaamheid (het Groene Kikkertje, weet je wel). Maar hoe duurzaam is boeren bewust in armoede houden?

Want laat ons eerlijk zijn. Bananen verkopen aan 1 euro in tankstations: dat opent toch perspectieven om de bananenboeren eindelijk uit hun lijden te verlossen. Een lijden dat vandaag aangewakkerd wordt door de bananenoorlog tussen de Britse harddiscounters.

en verder…

Eerder postte ik Britse harddiscounters voeren bananenoorlog en verklaren ondertussen de oorlog aan fair trade.

Ook haalde ik een klassieker uit de boekenrek van een wereldwinkelier naar boven: “De geheimen van Chiquita onthuld”. Voor de hstorische volledigheid zullen we maar zeggen.

En in oktober onthulden we het geheim achter het succes van Alberto Contador : fairtradebananen met Max Havelaar-keurmerk !

ook nog…

AZIE: eerste fairtradebananen in Aziatische winkels

http://www.freshplaza.com/news_detail.asp?id=54084

Fair trade krijgt nogal eens de kritiek erg ‘noordgericht’ te zijn. Hiermee wordt dan o.a. bedoeld dat het vooral een éénrichtingsverkeer zuid-noord is.

Echter, steeds meer vormen van zuid-zuid-fairtrade zien tegenwoordig het levenslicht.

The Pros and Cons of Ecotourism in Costa Rica

http://www1.american.edu/TED/costa-rica-tourism.htm

Greenwashing Index

http://www.greenwashingindex.com/

What Is Greenwashing?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=greenwashing-green-energy-hoffman

‘Greenwashing’ Costa Rica

http://www.worldhum.com/travel-blog/item/greenwashing-costa-rica-20090123/

Greenwashing is the unjustified appropriation of environmental virtue by a company, an industry, a government, a politician or even a non-government organization to create a pro-environmental image, sell a product or a policy, or to try and rehabilitate their standing with the public and decision makers after being embroiled in controversy.

The U.S.-based watchdog group CorpWatch defines greenwash as “the phenomena of socially and environmentally destructive corporations, attempting to preserve and expand their markets or power by posing as friends of the environment.” This definition was shaped by by the group’s focus on corporate behavior and the rise of corporate green advertising at the time. However, governments, political candidates, trade associations and non-government organizations have also been accused of greenwashing.

The 10th edition of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary defined greenwash as “disinformation disseminated by an organization so as to present an environmentally responsible public image. Derivatives greenwashing (n). Origin from green on the pattern of whitewash.”

In 2008 the environmental group Greenpeace launched a website Stop Greenwash to “confront deceptive greenwashing campaigns, engage companies in debate, and give consumers and activists and lawmakers the information and tools they need to … hold corporations accountable for the impacts their core business decisions and investments are having on our planet.”

Usage

Greenwashing was coined by NY environmentalist Jay Westerveld in a 1986 essay regarding the hotel industry’s practice of placing green placards in each room, promoting reuse of guest-towels, ostensibly to “save the environment”. Westerveld noted that, in most cases, little or no effort toward waste recycling was being implemented by these institutions, due in part to the lack of cost-cutting affected by such practice. Westerveld opined that the actual objective of this “green campaign” on the part of many hoteliers was, in fact, increased profit. Westerveld hence monitored this and other outwardly environmentally conscientious acts with a greater, underlying purpose of profit increase as greenwashing.

The term is generally used when significantly more money or time has been spent advertising being green (that is, operating with consideration for the environment), rather than spending resources on environmentally sound practices. This is often portrayed by changing the name or label of a product, to give the feeling of nature, for example putting an image of a forest on a bottle containing harmful chemicals. Environmentalists often use greenwashing to describe the actions of energy companies, which are traditionally the largest polluters.

Norway’s consumer ombudsman has targeted automakers who claim that their cars are “green”, “clean” or “environmentally friendly” with some of the world’s strictest advertising guidelines. Consumer Ombudsman official Bente Øverli said: “Cars cannot do anything good for the environment except less damage than others.” Manufacturers risk fines if they fail to drop the words. Øverli said she did not know of other countries going so far in cracking down on cars and the environment.

In addition, the political term “linguistic detoxification” is used by some environmentalists to describe when, through legislation or other government action, the definitions of toxicity for certain substances are changed, or the name of the substance is changed, so that fewer things fall under a particular classification as toxic. An example is the reclassification of some low-level radioactive waste as “beyond regulatory concern”, which permits it to be buried in conventional landfills. Another example is the EPA renaming sewage sludge to biosolids, and allowing it to be used as fertilizer, despite the fact that it often contains many hazardous materials including PCBs, dioxin, arsenic, cadmium, lead, and asbestos. The origin of this phrase has been attributed to environmental activist and author Barry Commoner.

Several activities designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions may be considered merely symbolic greenwash. For example, Earth Hour encourages consumers to switch off electric appliances for 1 hour. This may make people feel good about a minor inconvenience without creating any sustained reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

Similarly, introduction of a Carbon Emission Trading Scheme may feel good, but may be counterproductive if the cost of carbon is priced too low, or if large emitters are given ‘free credits’. For example, Bank of America subsidiary MBNA offers an Eco-Logique MasterCard for Canadian consumers that rewards customers with carbon offsets as they continue using the card. Customers may feel that they are nullifying their carbon footprint by purchasing polluting goods with the card. However, only 0.5 percent of purchase price goes into purchasing carbon offsets, while the rest of the interchange fee still goes to the bank.

“Seven Sins of Greenwashing”

In December 2007, environmental marketing firm TerraChoice gained national press coverage for releasing a study called “The Six Sins of Greenwashing” which found that more than 99% of 1,018 common consumer products randomly surveyed for the study were guilty of greenwashing. A total of 1,753 environmental claims made, with some products having more than one, and out of the 1,018 studied only one was found not guilty of making a false or misleading green marketing claim. According to the study, the six sins of greenwashing are:

• Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off: e.g. “Energy-efficient” electronics that contain hazardous materials. 998 products and 57% of all environmental claims committed this Sin.

• Sin of No Proof: e.g. Shampoos claiming to be “certified organic,” but with no verifiable certification. 454 products and 26% of environmental claims committed this Sin.

• Sin of Vagueness: e.g. Products claiming to be 100% natural when many naturally-occurring substances are hazardous, like arsenic and formaldehyde (see appeal to nature). Seen in 196 products or 11% of environmental claims.

• Sin of Irrelevance: e.g. Products claiming to be CFC-free, even though CFCs were banned 20 years ago. This Sin was seen in 78 products and 4% of environmental claims.

• Sin of Fibbing: e.g. Products falsely claiming to be certified by an internationally recognized environmental standard like EcoLogo, Energy Star or Green Seal. Found in 10 products or less than 1% of environmental claims.

• Sin of Lesser of Two Evils: e.g. Organic cigarettes or “environmentally friendly” pesticides, This occurred in 17 products or 1% of environmental claims.

‘Sin of Worshiping False Labels’

• The Sin of Worshiping False Labels is committed by a product that, through either words or images, gives the impression of third-party endorsement where no such endorsement actually exists; fake labels, in other words.

In addition, the 2009 study pinpointed three areas of consumer goods with the greatest level of greenwashing: children products, cosmetics, and cleaning products. In all three cases, marketers manipulate a consumer’s safety concerns and fears by capitalizing on the supposed health and safety benefits of “green” living.

In the case of children products, one might look primarily to toys and baby products like “biodegradable” building blocks or BPA-free silverware. For cosmetics, companies often use labels such as “naturally pure” to offer a seemingly “organic” personal care product. Finally, the greenwashing in cleaning products is evident in the “biodegradable” toilet paper, or the “non-toxic” bleach, or the “100 percent recycled” paper towels.”

Across the three product platforms of marketing, vague and ambiguous labeling allows a consumer to believe he/she is purchasing a product with greater eco-friendly benefits. Yet just as greenwashing misleads, these labels do not always carry substantial accreditation or scientific backing to prove the assertions and exacerbate the backlash of green marketing.

Examples

• Bush Administration’s Clear Skies Initiative, which environmentalists have argued actually weakens air pollution laws.

• Many food products have packaging that evokes an environmentally friendly imagery even though there has been no attempt made at lowering the environmental impact of its production.

• An article in Wired magazine alleges that slogans are used to suggest environmentally benign business activity: the Comcast ecobill has the slogan of “PaperLESSisMORE” but ComCast uses large amounts of paper for direct marketing. The Poland Spring ecoshape bottle is touted as “A little natural does a lot of good”, although 80% of beverage containers go to the landfill. The Airbus A380 airliner is described as “A better environment inside and out” even though air travel has a high negative environment cost.

• According to Fred Pearce’s Greenwash column in The Guardian, “clean coal” is the “ultimate climate change oxymoron” — “pure and utter greenwash” he says.

• The Advertising Standards Authority in the UK upheld several complaints against major car manufacturers including Suzuki, SEAT, Toyota and Lexus who made erroneous claims about their vehicles.

Opposition to greenwash

Organisations and individuals are making attempts to reduce the impact of greenwashing by exposing it to the public. CHOICE in Australia offers a chance to report greenwash claims. Greenwashing Index, operated by the University of Oregon, allows cases of greenwashing to be rated. Greenpeace, the international environmental organization, has a blog that allows greenwashing claims to be rated. Greenwashing blogs also exist to reveal any untruths in claims that are made. The British Code of Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing has a specific section (section 49) targeting environmental claims.

The allure of greenwashing

Organizations are attracted to engage in greenwashing for a wide range of reasons including:

• attempting to divert the attention of regulators and deflating pressure for regulatory change;

• seeking to persuade critics, such as non-government organisations, that they are both well-intentioned and have changed their ways;

• seeking to expand market share at the expense of those rivals not involved in greenwashing; this is especially attractive if little or no additional expenditure is required to change performance; alternatively, a company can engage in greenwashing in an attempt to narrow the perceived ‘green’ advantage of a rival;

• reducing staff turnover and making it easier to attract staff in the first place;

• making the company seem attractive for potential investors, especially those interested in ethical investment or socially responsive investment.

Rough rules of thumb for detecting greenwash

Big budget greenwash campaigns are designed to defuse scepticism of journalists, politicians and activists. Some rough rules of thumb for testing whether the claims made by a company, government or NGO stack up are:

• Follow the Money Trail: many companies are donors to political parties, think tanks and other groups in the community. Few companies actually disclose in their annual reports exactly whom they are donating to, even though it is shareholders money. Ask about all their donations, not just those they boast about in glossy documents such as the corporate social responsibility reports.

• Follow the membership trail: Many companies boast about the virtues of their environmental policy and performance but hide their anti-environmental activism behind the banner of an industry association to which they belong. Find out what industry association companies are members of and check and see what their policies are. Assume that all individual companies support the trade associations policy positions until such time as they publicly state that they don’t agree with them or they resign. (See the article on the third party technique, a central plank in most PR campaigns).

• Follow the paper trail: Most companies, or their trade associations, will make submissions to government and other inquiries on a wide range of issues. Often these submissions will be posted to a website. They will also send lots of letters to politicians and government agencies, which can be accessed by Freedom of Information Act searches. Ask about submissions made by the company and their lobbying on issues you are interested in. You will probably discover that instead of lobbying for tougher environmental standards, they are busy trying to weaken the ones that exist.

• Look for skeletons in the company’s closet: Every company has major problems that it doesn’t want the public and regulators to know about. Some companies include information in the annual reports about problems that have been in the news in the last year. More often, there will have been problems, occasionally reported in the media, which they don’t want to tell shareholders about. Check for information on the company with watchdog groups and in the media and compare that with what they disclose.

• Test for access to information: Many companies will make lofty claims about their commitment to transparency and providing information to ’stakeholders’. Don’t just take them at their word. In their reports they will probably refer to environmental impact statements, reviews, audits, monitoring data and other information. If it relates to an issue you are interested in, ask to see it. And remember that ‘commercially confidential’ is just corporate speak for ‘no’.

• Test for international consistency: Most companies will operate to different standards in other countries. Check and see whether their operating standards and procedures are consistent or whether they opt for lower standards where they think they can get away with it.

• Check how they handle their critics: Some companies go to extraordinary lengths to try and silence their critics. This can involve everything from legal threats (see the article on SLAPPs) to funding and collaborating with police and military forces.

• Test for consistency over time: It is common for a company to launch a policy or initiative and then starve it of funds. Or a company will make promises when they are under public pressure but never implement them when the spotlight fades.

This week I wrote two scripts at Newsy. On Tuesday, I teamed up with a few other writers to research about write a script about the three-day UN world food/hunger summit, which began Monday. This was a difficult script to write because it was so hard to find videos relating to the story.

Here’s the end product: Hunger summit story

On Thursday, I wrote the script for a story I had come across earlier in the week. This story still needs producing before it goes onto the Newsy site, but it was about “greenwashing”, the process of misleading consumers to believe that products are ec0-friendly when they may not be. It’s also about a new program that has developed to certify companies on their “green” practices. It’s significant because right now consumers see all kinds of labels proclaiming products are “green” or “organic” or “environmentally friendly” when there’s no true, official certification.  I’ll post a link once this story is up (hopefully later on this break)!