Some companies think they can jump on the green bandwagon (thereby sharing in the dramatically increasing sales in the green market) without really trying.  We wrote about steps to greenwash your product here.  But some companies don’t even read our guide and trying half-assed, half-witted attempts at greening their products.  Cracked did a lovely job of calling out 6 half-assed attempts at greenwashing here.

Seriously?  The Fur Council of Canada has the nerve to call the sale of fur an “ecological choice in harmony with nature”.  Last time we checked, the processing of fur requires the death of an animal.  There is no amount of carbon credit or offset you can purchase to make fur an environmentally friendly clothing option.

Among their claims: “If we don’t use part of what nature produces, we will use petroleum-based synthetics or other materials that may damage the environment…”

Read more about this afront to the environmental movement.

Here is a bit more greenwashing from Coca-Cola.  Although they are encouraging consumers to recyle, which is a good thing, they imply a bit more eco-friendliness than is accurate.  See this post to learn more about what Coke does to “be green”.

This is a good time to mention that just because a company is discussed on our blog, doesn’t mean we think all of their efforts are a sham.  Coke is doing a big thing by spending advertising dollars to help people remember to recycle.  Greenwashing or not.

This example of greenwashing is not as disgusting as some we’ve seen.  But as the user from the Greenwashing index suggested, the implication of this ad is the troublesome part.

Coca-Cola is not “green” or eco-friendly in any way.  We looked into the company’s eco record and found the following.

The pros: We found this program, a collaboration between Coke and Ecoist that seeks to repurpose misprinted bottles and cans.

They developed a new can that uses 5% less aluminum, saving 15,000 metric tons of aluminum every year.  The down side: it is being used in the UK only.

The cons: Although Coke released a new “eco-friendly” bottle made in part from molasses and sugar, they plan to test the new packaging in their Dasani bottle water line.  Does anyone else smell an oxymoron?  Bottled water is one of the biggest affronts to environmental well being in the 21st century.

Their corporate website has a lot of information about sustainability, or does it?  Don’t you hate it when greenwashers place a picture of a really happy person when talking about their environmental friendliness?  These images are available all over the web and are simply a marketing technique.  No, this woman is not shining in eco-orgasmic appreciation of Coca-Cola’s green efforts.

They talk a good talk in the opening flash animation but don’t outline any specifics.

Here is an example of their greenwashing: They claim to have reduced water consumption by 9% since 2004.  Woah!  You mean you have reduced 9% of your water usage in only 6 years?  That was probably an economic choice.  Of course, they can always add more sugar to their product…

Our vote: Coke is not green.  Actually, it’s kind of a weird brown color – why is that appealing?

Petroleum companies have some of the deepest pockets and therefore can rebrand themselves on a whim.  Well, when their V.P. of Marketing tells them they should.  So why haven’t they all started calling themselves “green”?  They have!  In fact, the biggest three have all started marketing campaigns indicating how environmentally friendly they are:

Nomatter how you brand it, or how “green” you paint your product, it is still black, polluting, caustic, volatile, limited, foreign-made and fatal.

If these companies want to impress us, they should indicate how much of their immense profits they are pouring into renewable energy (No, “Clean Coal” doesn’t count).

One of the perennial themes of the greenwashing movement is the lack of governmental oversight.  The green movement is a recent development in our culture and Government often takes years (or decades!) to catch up.

Because of this lack of oversight, companies can throw out false claims about their environmental friendliness virtually unchecked.  The UK has seen a lot of greenwashing lately and a new steering committee has been formed to develop tighter guidelines to supervise environmental claims made by companies.

The committee will include the Advertising Standards Association.  The ASA fields complaints about greenwashing in advertising so they are suitably placed to head up this effort.

Source: BusinessGreen.com

The Greenwashing Blog just joined the Hippie Network, and we’re feeling confident.  Enough to challenge one of the biggest greenwashers right off the bat?  We think so.

The United States Government is one of the worst greenwashers in the history of the term.  Here are some examples of the environmentally misleading statements and programs hailed by the Government that fall very short of the truth.

Greenwashing: The Cash for Clunkers Program

Called one of the most successful programs of the Obama administration of 2009, the cash for clunkers program subsidized the trade-in of older, less environmentally friendly vehicles.  Sounds great right?  Look deeper.

The program states “New cars give off less emissions. This will be a help to the environment.” The truth is, the environmental impact of creating a new car far outweighed the benefits of driving a slightly newer car that gets slightly better mileage.  Let’s see this for what it is, an economic development tool.  Which it was very successful at.  And that’s fine, but don’t call it an environmental program.

Greenwashing: The Environmental Protection Agency

It almost seems too ironic to be true, but the United States Environmental Protection Agency is an incredibly insulting greenwashing offender.  The EPA is charged with the responsibility of protecting the citizens of the United States from environmental threats.

Their mission is to Protect Human Health and the Environment.  They claim to be running hundreds of programs to protect us yet delayed the release of scientific evidence that proves greenhouse gasses are harmful to our health.

Greenwashing: Copenhagen and Hopenhagen

We went to Copenhagen with a little hope that something might come from it.  That was the whole idea behind the Hopenhagen movement.  But with corporate sponsors as “founding partners” there was never any hope.  (We’ll get to the “founding partners” later in the week).

The United States came away from Copenhagen $100 Billion more in debt, and without any meaningful commitment from any world leader including President Obama.  As was the case previous to the Obama Administration, there was no real commitment to changing our ways.

Sources:

• http://planetgreen.discovery.com/home-garden/cash-clunkers-government-greenwashing.html
• http://www.epa.gov/epahome/aboutepa.htm
• http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/science/earth/08epa.html
• http://www.grist.org/article/2009-12-18-climate-activists-declare-copenhagen-agreement-a-disaster

The idea of clean coal is one of the most flagrant and offensive examples of greenwashing seen yet.

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Technology is by far the most prominent offender.  This article at Inhabitat outlines the true cleanliness of coal.  By the Coalition’s definition “clean coal” actually means

Clean coal technology: Any technology to reduce pollutants associated with the burning of coal that was not in widespread use prior to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.

However, you wouldn’t know this definition by their advertisements. This billboard seen in Pennsylvania paints a pretty different picture of coal as a “clean, green” energy source.
Source:
http://www.greenwashingindex.com/ad_single.php?id=971

As of today, The Greenwashing Blog have been welcomed into the Hippie Network.  They are a progressive network of eco-minded blogs bent on delivering relevant, useful and interesting information to the blogosphere.  The Greenwashing Blog will still focus on examples of inaccurate claims of environmental benefit.

I know this blog is about greenwashing, but I’ve decided that every now and then I will take the liberty to tell a story about a company or place that isn’t even thinking about being green whatsoever. I think it is especially important to call this to attention seeing as how the United Nations has arranged a summit with world leaders in December to make some serious commitments about reducing carbon emissions.

Visit Portland, Oregon and you’ll find one of the most innovative cities in the United States in terms of environmental consciousness and keeping the world free of pollutants and chemicals. Granted, not everyone is on the same page, but generally speaking Portland is actively fighting climate change with “sustainable” ideas. Drive 10 out of the city to the Wilsonville CostCo and you have another story altogether.

The image above is the container that comes with a chicken ceasar salad. The container is a hefty plastic that is apparently microwave safe and the bottom tells us to recycle, reduce, and reuse. Everyone who orders a salad gets one of these. You sit at the tables and eat the salad and then you have to throw away this huge piece of plastic before you leave. There is no recycling. I took the hunk of plastic to someone in charge and they said to me that I would just have to throw it away. What a total waste! Can you imagine how many of these they throw away every week? I take 10 minutes to eat a salad and because of it this plastic thing is going to be here for the next 500+ years.

It’s important to press your local businesses to adopt practices that are going to be better for the environment. We are the ones who can change this. Demand recycling and don’t buy things that are marketed to you as “disposable.” These products are not truly disposable. “There is no such place as ‘away.’”

On another note, check out the Living Plastic Free blog, a blog that truly challenges us to buy less plastic. My one purchase at CostCo gave me just as much plastic as this person gets in one whole year.