Coca-Cola Green – we think 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?

Oil companies greenwashing

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).

UK to identify clear guidelines on greenwashing

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

Top greenwashing offender: The United States Government

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

Clean Coal: a giant greenwash

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

The Greenwashing Blog has joined the Hippie Network!

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.

A Blurb About CostCo and Recycling

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.

Greenwashing: Chevy Models and Pretty Leaves Falling Off Trees

This feels desperate. The add reads “Chevy offers more models than Toyota or Honda* (*or Nissan or Hyundai or VW) with an EPA est. 30 MPG highway or better. I like the green leaves?

More information:
-Gas Friendly to Gas Free?
-Your Environment: A Green Agenda (a little sarcastic but I’m not in the best mood right now anyway…)
-Culprits of Greenwashing

Starbucks Shared Planet Tumblers & Marketing

Thank you to Crystal and Ally for these images.

Starbucks Shared Planet. You and Starbucks. It’s bigger than coffee. Use a tumbler. You’ll save 10 cents and another paper cup everytime. But you are buying some plastic material that doesn’t exactly biodegrade (It is, however, 29% post-consumer recycled material). Starbucks is making a ton of money off you when you buy the tumbler and they save extra money when they don’t need to order in as many paper cups. Not that I think it’s a bad idea to use your own coffee mug or a “tumbler.” The Starbucks verbage commands me to “USE A TUMBLER” and by obeying I am apparently doing my part to keep things green and being socially and environmentally conscious. What seems to actually be happenig in this particular campaign is that Starbucks is simply trying to create consumers who don’t think for themselves and feel that by making Starbucks more money they have somehow contributed their part in making the world a better place. I think Starbucks is doing some interesting things with their Shared Planet program, but their marketing campaign is confusing because it seems controlling. Allow me to explain a little:

The Tumbler promotion is part of the Shared Planet campaign that Starbucks is currently running. The Shared Planet statement says, “It’s out commitment to doing business in ways that are good to the earth and to each other. From the way we buy our coffee, to trying to minimize our environmental footprint, to being involved in our local communities.” The statement on the sign then ends by getting you to feel good about your purchase. I’ve heard people say that you are making a guilt-free transaction, which subtly pushes you into buying their products and feeling guilty about buying anything other than their products. “Guilt-free” is not language that Starbucks uses, it is language I have heard used by other people.

On the Starbucks Shared Planet website, you can take the “Mug Pledge” where you will pledge to reuse your mug, or you can take a poll asking whether you will participate in Shared Planet by either (1) Reusing your mug or (2) volunteering in your community. So, if I volunteer in my community I am participating in Shared Planet? And if I reuse my cup I am participating in Shared Planet? This is good marketing because if you take it to it’s logical conclusion, if you volunteer or reuse your cup you may think of Starbucks…much the same way as it’s hard to disassociate the word “apple” with the computer brand of the same name. The problem is that it seems manipulative in that it’s claiming my actions as part of their campaign.

I’m not against Starbucks, I am confused and put-off by their marketing. I think they are doing some good things: “using [their] size for good.” The following links don’t have a whole lot to do with greening things up, but they are an interesting series of links that point out how difficult it is to get the whole story when it comes to Starbucks. The company sounds great sometimes; othertimes it sounds like they are hiding things. I don’t know what to think as a potential customer. I’m sure they are better than many, many other companies. It’s all confusing and overwhelming so I’ve just decided go with my local coffee shop.

-Starbucks opens a LEED certified coffee plant. That is good news in my opinion.
-Make Wealth History points out the irony or trademarking “sharing.”
-The Times Online points out a couple past discrepencies in Starbucks environmental and ethicals stances.
-Investorati has a nice post calling Starbucks to “Honor [their] commitment to coffee farmers.” But that post was written in 2007.
-Starbucks doubles their purchasing of fairtrade coffee.
-Starbucks claims to deliver 100% responsibly grown, ethically traded.
Maybe it just depends on how you look at it all.

Needing Your Help

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.