Posted on

The Seven Sins of Greenwashing – Sin #7

at least it's an honest fake...
GREENWASH
Greenwashing is “the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service.”

SIN #7 – THE SIN OF WORSHIPPING FALSE LABELS
This sin is a relatively new one to the report. According to terrachoice, this sin “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.” So in my ever diligent research mode, I set out to find some of those fake labels.

But then I thought I’ve been trying to get you all to do some of this for yourselves (after all, many of you don’t know me; how reliable am I, anyway?). So I thought I’d post an obviously-fake label to show how ludicrous things can get. I’d bet that I could put the above label on a product and some people would buy it thinking it was actually sustainable, green and eco-friendly. It’s similar to the label on the “organic cigarettes” in my post regarding Sin #5 where they were actually honest in saying “No additives in our tobacco does NOT mean a safer cigarette.” They’re actually quite upfront and “honest” about it, but we still buy the product. Why is that?

I’m reminded of the old bumper sticker that says “If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

We have reached the final sin of greenwashing published by terrachoice in their report titled “The Seven Sins of Greenwashing”. It’s been an interesting journey for me. I have always enjoyed research and finding out the underlying facts to any claim or “news” story. I hope you have enjoyed this series, too.

I’ll leave you with this charge: Don’t get outraged, just pay attention and take the time and energy needed to check it out. And that applies to whatever “it” is.

Posted on

The Seven Sins of Greenwashing – Sin #6

GREENWASH
Greenwashing is “the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service.”

SIN #6 – THE SIN OF FIBBING
Outright lying drives me nuts. I can understand stretching the truth (although I don’t agree with it or condone it), but deliberately messing with the numbers or stats to give a result you want is not acceptable. Period.

Early in 2010, LG Electronics, maker of the refrigerator pictured above admitted to using an illegal device on some of its refrigerators to skew the energy saving results. It’s interesting because the refrigerator actually uses MORE electricity to operate and could endanger your food. So not only was LG lying, it appears they don’t care about your health and safety as much as they care about their energy label.

There was also apparently another instance of a manufacturer putting the big yellow Energy Star guide on their dryer. Does anyone know what’s wrong with that picture? (hint: dryers don’t have Energy Star labels).

As with everything that we read, see or hear, I believe it is our responsibility to check out all claims as best we can from reliable sources. This won’t be a fool-proof 100% guarantee, but I can tell you I’ve easily found the information I’ve wanted for about 95% of the cases I’ve tried to check. That means the correct data is out there and relatively easy to find. We just have to go looking for it. The manufacturers who outright fib are betting we don’t.

And, judging from most of the political stuff ( I thought of a few other, less kind words) out there I’ve heard over the last couple of years, the manufacturers will win that bet; we won’t go looking for that information.

Next Post: Sin #7 – The Sin of Worshipping False Labels

Posted on

The Seven Sins of Greenwashing – Sin #5

GREENWASH
Greenwashing is “the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service.”

SIN #5 – THE SIN OF LESSER OF TWO EVILS
Well, I struggled with this sin. Not that I gave in (have never smoked, never had the desire to smoke), but that there were a couple of pictures I could have used. The lesser of two evils sin deals with making a claim that diverts your attention from the real problems. The picture I decided to use is that of a company that makes organic cigarettes. Really. Organic cigarettes.

And not only that, but the smoke screen (pun intended) continues because not only are these cigarettes organic (natural tastes better, after all), their tobacco has been grown “in a responsible, sustainable way through our earth-friendly and organic growing programs.” The ad goes on to list how they are reducing their “footprint on the earth by using recycled materials and renewable energy sources like wind power.” And, as ATIS547 from flickr (who posted the photo) added after their quote “protecting the earth is as important to us as it is to you” by saying “in other words, the earth is fine — it’s YOU we’d like to see dead.”

I used their picture because they seem to win the prize (at least in my book) for the most attempts at diversion. But I have to confess it was a close one between these cigarettes and the 2011 Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid SUV.

The Tahoe hybrid gets an amazing 20 mpg in town (better than the 15 mpg of the standard Tahoe) and hauls up to eight people. My problem is I rarely see more than one or two people in most any SUV. And that’s where the issue arises for this sin: the increase in fuel economy actually diverts your attention from the real problem. And that is that most times, you don’t need an SUV for carting one or two people around.

So I guess I just want to point out that we should, once again, be very discerning in the ads that bombard us all the time. The cigarettes even have the disclaimer “No additives in our tobacco does NOT mean a safer cigarette.” Oh, really?

And I’ll be the first to say if you regularly cart six or eight people around, the Chevy Tahoe hybrid might be a good choice for you. But if you’re like most of us who drive around with one (at most two) people in our vehicles, maybe a smaller car (or the bus…) might be a better option.

Don’t get sucked into the hype; stay focused on the real issues.

Next Post: Sin #6 – The Sin of Fibbing

Posted on

The Seven Sins of Greenwashing – Sin #2

"Mother Earth Approved"
photo by Adam Kuban
Today we’ll dive into Sin #2, The Sin of No Proof. But first, as a reminder, here’s a definition of Greenwashing:

GREENWASH
Greenwashing is “the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service.”

SIN #2 – THE SIN OF NO PROOF
The Sin of No Proof is one where there isn’t a readily-available way to verify the claim. So my picture here of a wine “bottle” that claims to be “Mother Earth Approved” would be deceptive in that you can’t verify that claim. I visited the website for this wine and I think this is probably done largely in jest, but it’s still a claim that can’t be substantiated. The cartons are made of paper, “a renewable resource that comes from trees.” and are recyclable (much like milk cartons).

But many of the claims on this particular product’s website about package ratio, CO2 footprint, fuel efficiency (because they are lighter to transport) would be difficult to quantify. Sometimes a manufacturer will make claims that try to snow you with facts or figures or fine print that really can’t be determined or with data that is irrelevant or so vague as to be irrelevant.

“Green Guides” is a publication of the Federal Trade Commission that is seeking to set out some strict guidelines for what is appropriate in an advertiser’s claim and what isn’t. One example they give is a good indicator of what we need to be aware of:

“A trash bag is labeled ‘recyclable’ without qualification. Because trash bags will ordinarily not be separated out from other trash at the landfill or incinerator for recycling, they are highly unlikely to be used again for any purpose. Even if the bag is technically capable of being recycled, the claim is deceptive since it asserts an environmental benefit where no significant or meaningful benefit exists.”

As with all advertising claims, green or not, we as consumers need to be smart and aware. We need to pay attention, read closely how claims are worded and be sure we make the best decisions we can on our product purchases. The purpose of advertising is to get us to buy the product. And while many manufacturers will make accurate claims, there are those who will not. And with the proliferation of “green” as a consumer buzz-word and desire most of us have, we need to be even more aware.

Next Post: Sin #3 – The Sin of Vagueness

Posted on

The Seven Sins of Greenwashing – Sin #1

Eco-Friendly Disposable Diapers
In 2007, 2009 and 2010, a company called terrachoice published a report titled “The Seven Sins of Greenwashing”. And although they found that 95% of “green” consumer products they surveyed were found to be guilty of one of the seven sins, things do seem to be improving. More manufacturers are really living it, not just selling it. In my effort to raise your awareness of “green” claims (and being able to discern the truth about them), I want to post the seven sins here so you can have a better perspective and keep your guard up about manufacturers’ claims.

GREENWASH
Greenwashing is “the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service.”

SIN #1 – THE SIN OF THE HIDDEN TRADE-OFF
The first sin is suggesting a product is “green” based on a narrow focus without drawing attention to larger environmental issues. The example they use is that of paper from sustainably-harvested forests may not take into account the incredible amount of water and resources that go into producing that paper.

I’m reminded of an old ad that said “8 out of 10 dentists recommend Brand X sugarless gum for their patients who chew gum.” Or “Brand Y Beer is America’s number one imported German Beer.” Both are very narrow areas of focus that may (or may not) miss the larger picture.

The eco-friendly disposable diapers shown above will still go into the landfills and, in my opinion, miss the whole point of whether or not disposable diapers are even a good way to go. Another example is the compostable or biodegradable disposable cups for coffee or water. An incredible amount of water goes into just making these cups, they are used once, then discarded. So while we have “backed up” from styrofoam cups to a more eco-friendly version, we have missed the point that we’re still throwing them away! A washable, reusable cup or glass (or diaper) will have a much more friendly impact on our world and our resources. And you know, it will cost less money in the long-term.

The three “R’s”, reduce, reuse, recycle start with reduce. We need to be willing to step back a bit and look at reducing what we consume first. Before we reuse something (which is the second step) and before we recycle something (third step), we should consider whether or not we should even be using it in the first place. And once we determine if we need to use it, do we really need something disposable or can we use something over and over? We get sucked into the “green” compostable cups or corn-based forks when a little extra time and effort washing glass cups and metal forks might be a better solution.

Our church is starting a new direction with our coffee bar on Sunday mornings. We are switching to glass cups and plates, metal forks and we’re going to wash them. It will be a bit of a challenge (the dishwasher is at the other end of the facility and a long walk), but our team is committed to at least giving it a try. Much of this stems from our belief of stewarding our planet and our spiritual response to our Creator, but you know, I think we’re going to find out we save money, too. And when you get into a win-win situation like that, it’s a good thing.

Next Post: Sin #2 – The Sin of No Proof

Posted on

Simple Sometimes is Really Good

OK, so a few days ago I dissed on the one-cup coffee makers with all the disposables. Now for something truly sustainable and amazing. It’s the Niagra Stealth HET (High Efficiency Toilet). Made by Niagra Conservation, the Stealth toilet is a single flush, using only 0.8 gallons. Most of the new dual flush toilets are 0.9 and 1.6 gallons per flush, depending on whether or not you are flushing #1 or #2. This toilet uses air-assist to achieve the results and seems to work very well.

I haven’t actually used one or seen it “in action”, but all indications are that it’s pretty amazing. It recently received recognition as one of the Top 10 Green Products for 2010 by the Environmental Building News organization.

It also is simpler, with less moving parts. It uses air and vacuum in the filling to help the efficiency of the flush, is quiet and retails for about the same as a good quality standard toilet: $300. It currently comes only in white. But it may the future of HE toilets.

Posted on

Advent Conspiracy – Give Presence

Sunday, November 28 marks the beginning of Advent. A few years ago, a group of pastors in Portland, Oregon started the Advent Conspiracy. Their concept was simple: Worship Fully, Spend Less, Give More and Love All. You’ve probably noticed in my posts that I have a tug in my heart toward those who are the disenfranchised and the less fortunate. And actually, how this fits a simple, sustainable lifestyle is this: we have so much, if we lived just a little simpler, just a little less in the American-Dream-Consumption-Mentality, we could share. Even just a little.

I also have a good friend, Emily, who has a tug in her heart toward an awesome organization called Heifer International. Heifer International was founded in 1944 by a midwestern farmer named Dan West. His story is fascinating. Click here to read it.

Because of Emily and the Advent Conspiracy, I decided this year to lobby my online friends (Facebook and other) to donate an Ark through Heifer. The Oregon Ark is our team and our goal is $5,000. That $5,000 will provide a bevy of animals, two-by-two around the world to people in areas of extreme need.

The Advent Conspiracy mentions how Americans spend $450 BILLION every year on Christmas. Watch their video here. How many times have you bought a gift out of obligation? How many times have you received a gift out of that same obligation?

I’m suggesting, as they do, that you consider buying ONE LESS gift this Christmas. Just one. And consider sending that $25 to Heifer through The Oregon Ark Team to help people around the world who really NEED a sustainable source of food and income.

Food. Income. Hope.

Consider helping your neighbor this Advent Season.

Posted on

Easy Doesn’t Always Mean Simple

My wife and I were out and about today and visited Bed Bath & Beyond. As we wandered through the store we came upon one of those product demos for a Krups Nescafe Dolce Gusto Piccolo 15 Bar Single Serve Beverage Maker (whew!) in Titanium/Black. I had been talking about doing some product reviews and had some thoughts mulling around on different products I could comment on.

But this one tipped the scale for me. As we listened to the demo, we saw how you could take individually-wrapped “capsules”, insert them into the machine, flip the lever and, viola! have an espresso or cappuccino in just minutes. For regular espresso, only one capsule is needed, but for a cappuccino, it takes two. And, of course, the pods are disposable.

By now, you may have sensed where I’m going with this. To enjoy the easy brewing of an eight ounce cappuccino, I will throw away, two capsule containers (plastic, I think, but not recyclable since they are contaminated with food waste) and for every eight cups, will consume a small cardboard box (which at least is recyclable). And the cappuccinos will cost me about $1.13 each (for just the capsules).

There are many ways to brew coffee and espresso without disposing and filling landfills. I have an espresso machine that has a metal reusable portafilter. Nothing disposable in it. And my coffee grounds make a great addition to the compost bin (if you’re so inclined).

For regular coffee, there are the cone filters that are washable and reusable. Single cup and for the brewers. And at $1.25 per cup for the Krups Nescafe Dolce Gusto Capsules, you’ll pay for the cost of a $10 reusable filter in a few days and even a fancy, durable $300 espresso machine in several months. I’ve had mine for two years and it’s still going strong.

Does this take more time? A little. Is it less money? A lot. Is it better all-around? Absolutely.

Posted on

Empty Buses and Mass Transit – Part 2

Money and Subsidies

It often really gets down to money. Seems like that’s always the case, doesn’t it? Just for the record, some facts from Lane Transit District (LTD) on the most recent costs and expenses…

LTD has, as of May 2010, an annual ridership of over 11 million boardings. For perspective, my daily ride to and from work alone would be considered 4 boardings. After all, there are only about 250,000 people in the Eugene-Springfield area. The average passenger fare is $0.62 of the actual expense of $2.91 (about 21%). The remainder is made up from payroll taxes. An all-day pass costs a passenger $3 and a monthly pass is now $48.

I am an employer so I know full-well about the payroll tax. I think there is part of the rub. Bottom line is none of us really like paying taxes. Doesn’t matter if it’s payroll, income, sales; if it’s a tax, we don’t like it. Now that we’ve got that on the table, taxes are necessary in our culture. And we can debate taxes and subsidies and name things whatever we want and probably reach no concrete solutions.

But the argument I often hear is for the bus system to be self-supporting. That we shouldn’t subsidize it and it should run just like a business. I understand that view, but unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective), virtually all forms of transportation are subsidized (maybe with the exception of bicycling, but let’s talk bike paths and bike lanes…).

Most of the argument is centered around cars when people talk subsidies for the bus. I really think that’s because those arguing that point only drive cars and don’t ride the bus. If it doesn’t affect me, it doesn’t matter as much. It’s much easier to support a tax on cigarettes when you don’t smoke.

But where this argument breaks down is in the oil subsidies that exist. Many people don’t realize that the oil and gasoline industry (even while raking in billions in profits), is one of the most heavily-subsidized industries out there. And I’m going to make you Google that yourself; do some searching and see what you come up with.

So my first thought was “let’s just get rid of ALL the subsidies; oil, gas, bus, etc” and let the free market rule it all. But then I got to thinking that would probably mean a bus trip would cost $15, a gallon of gas would cost $10 or more and what about the person making minimum wage trying to get to and from work? I think you can quickly see the vicious cycle we are in. As I am wont to say: Everything is connected.

I really think the answer is balance. And perspective. If you complain about the bus, do you ride the bus? If you complain about the new bike bridge over Delta Highway, do you walk or bike? If the answer to either of those questions is “no” or “no, but…” go back and read my Transportation Options post. Then walk, bike or ride the bus one day.

It can change your perspective.

Next Post: Social Equity and Culture