The Greenwashing Blog» Billboards

More greenwashing from Coca-Cola

Cyrus — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:02:33 +0000

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.

Clean Coal: a giant greenwash

Cyrus — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 12:51:16 +0000

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

Needing Your Help

Cyrus — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 04:56:44 +0000

Hello subscribers, just letting you all know that you are more than welcome to submit your own greenwashing images and I will publish them here on the blog for you. just email them to thegreenwashingblog(at)gmail(dot)com.

Greenwashing: Nestle Plastic Water Bottle

Cyrus — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:07:51 +0000

I pulled the above image from the One-City blog. The add is for the Nestle Pure Life water bottle, which has an “Eco-Shape” (notice the trademark there). With this fashionably thinner bottle that has 15% less plastic we can all make a difference. Notice the asterisk* next to the “15% less plastic.”

I’ve looked into it and on the Nestle website it says the bottles now have 30-40% less plastic which might be nice. The note for the asterisk was very hard to find; it was covered by other text and itself was not text, it was a text-turned-image so I couldn’t copy and paste, also the color made it hard to read. It’s the grey text here:

The part I can read says, “… .5L bottles across twelve cities. Over 130 different .5L bottles were weighed across the water, soda, juice and tea categories. On average, the Eco-Shape bottle was found to be the lightest .5L bottle on the market containing 30% less plastic when compared to the average of other .5L bottles.” It’s actually really hard for me even to determine what this means. Are they saying they have less plastic when you compare it to the weight of other bottles? Does that mean that they aren’t actually looking at the exact numbers and statistics of how much plastic goes into their product compared to others, they are just measuring it solely by the weight of other same-sized bottles? Does anyone have a better idea at what this means?

It does seem like they are using less plastic than they use to, even if their measurment standards are a bit unreliable. But I’m not sure that I want to buy their product simply because their bottle has a little less plastic. Let’s be honest here, plastic is never really that great of a thing. If it doesn’t get recycled it lasts a super long time and it’s not actually “easier to live with” as the Nestle web-site claims. I’ve become increasingly wary of the plastic packaging that is wrapped around every little thing, like breath mints, fruit at Trader Joes (that’s another story), and water. We are told we can just throw it away, as if throwing it away is going to make it disappear forever…–>

Have you heard about the North Pacific Gyre, the giant mass of plastic soup in the Pacific Ocean that is about twice the size of Texas? See what happens to a good deal of the plastic we produce:

Can’t see the video? Go here.

Marketing Green Or Greenwashing: Clorox

Cyrus — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 16:16:04 +0000

Clorox Green Works – natural and biodegradable cleaning wipes. This is where I get confused as to what is greenwashing and what is not. Certainly it’s a form of manipulative advertising. We see in the ad that it says these cleaning wipes are 99% natural and biodegradable, which if that is true, is pretty stinking cool. The Ecollo blog seems to think Clorox is doing something special. If they are actually making some major improvements, is it wrong to put their plastic bottle in the middle of a grassy, green photo with flowers and sunshine? Is it okay to use words like “naturally?” I’m not sure, but it all seems like manipulative marketing anyway. The caption reads, “Just what the world needs. Another cleaning product…Actually they’re exactly what the world needs.” What do you all think?

Greenwashing: Chevron

Cyrus — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:35:16 +0000

Chevron’s advertisement that reads “I will leave the car at home more” and on the side it says “Human Energy.” Picture taken in San Francisco in February, 2009.

Greenwashing New York City: Dress Green

Cyrus — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 20:11:16 +0000

Greenwashing photos from a billboard advertisement in a New York City subway. Dress Green and watch The Green on the Sundance Channel. Sponsored by Lexus, Citi bank, and others.