This is a hall of shame where is listing of a few proven and well-known and unspeculated Greenwashing incidents. The plan here is to update the list as fast as possible with a hope that this list will not have to grow forever. However, you are free to draw your own conclusions and post them as comments as well. To help you draw your own conclusions, many links that bring to perspective different views will also be listed. I will need help from visitors, as well, to keep both list of greenwashing incidents and and links that discuss them updated. Visitors can report their observations of Greenwashing through comments.
-In 1980s, Chevron Corporation launched one of the most infamous greenwashing ad campaigns in history. Its “People Do” advertisements were aimed at a “hostile audience” of “societally conscious” people. Their ads consisting mainly of seducive slogans, quotations, pictures and cartoons lasted for 15 years. The campaign made Chevron one of the only oil companies that people trusted in protecting the environment. In the late 1980s The American Chemistry Council started a program called Responsible Care, which shone light on the environmental performances and precautions of the group's members. The loose guidelines of responsible care caused industries to adopt self-regulation over government regulation.
You can do a reality check yourself and interpret on this companies policies by visiting the following links:
-http://www.envirowatch.org/chevron.htm
-http://www.laluzloca.com/Ad_Club/PDF/green_mkt/ChevronPeopleDo.pdf
-http://www.civilianism.com/futurism/?p=4535
-In 2000, British Petroleum, the world’s second largest oil company, spent 200 million dollars on rebranding their company. Part of their rebranding was use of the slogan "beyond petroleum" and a new green and yellow sunburst design for their logo. A large advertising campaign gave BP a greener appearance to the public, overpowering the voices of activists. But in reality, BP has been cited as the most polluting company in the US based on EPA toxic release data in 1991. BP has been charged with burning polluted gases at its Ohio refinery (for which it was fined $1.7 million), and in July 2000 BP paid a $10 million fine to the EPA for its management of its US refineries. The US Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), a political lobby non-profit organization in the United States and Canada, in a research stated that between January 1997 and March 1998, BP was responsible for 104 oil spills.
You can do a reality check yourself and interpret on this companies policies by visiting the following links:
-http://www.publicintegrity.org/articles/entry/2085/
-http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/may/02/bp-deepwater-horizon-oil-spills
-http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/bps-wins-coveted-emerald-paintbrush-award-worst-greenwash-2008-20081218
-http://www.bp.com/extendedsectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=10&contentId=7036819
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Linguistic Detoxification
The term "linguistic detoxification" is used to refer to a situation where the definitions of toxicity for certain substances are changed through legislation or other government action, or the name of a substance is changed, so that fewer things will come under a particular classification as toxic. THis term was first coined by Barry Commoner, a biologist, ecologist and an environmental activist, beter known for his "4 laws of ecology".
Here are a few such examples:
-Most governments classify some low-level radioactive wastes as "beyond regulatory concern", which permits them to be buried in conventional landfills.
-The United States environment Protection Agency, a government body, has renamed "sewage sludge" to "biosolids". This allows it to be used as fertilizer, despite the fact that it often contains many hazardous materials including dioxin, arsenic, cadmium, lead, and asbestos.
-Even the introduction of the Carbon Emission Trading Scheme may feel good, but it may be counterproductive if the cost of carbon is priced too low, or if large emitters are given 'free credits'.For example the bank MBNA offers an Eco-Logique MasterCard for its customers in Canada. This card rewards customers with carbon offsets every time they buy products using the card. This makes the customers feel that they are nullifying their carbon footprint by purchasing polluting goods with the card. But only 0.5 percent of the purchase price actually goes into purchasing "carbon offsets", while the rest of the interchange fee goes to the bank.
Here are a few such examples:
-Most governments classify some low-level radioactive wastes as "beyond regulatory concern", which permits them to be buried in conventional landfills.
-The United States environment Protection Agency, a government body, has renamed "sewage sludge" to "biosolids". This allows it to be used as fertilizer, despite the fact that it often contains many hazardous materials including dioxin, arsenic, cadmium, lead, and asbestos.
-Even the introduction of the Carbon Emission Trading Scheme may feel good, but it may be counterproductive if the cost of carbon is priced too low, or if large emitters are given 'free credits'.For example the bank MBNA offers an Eco-Logique MasterCard for its customers in Canada. This card rewards customers with carbon offsets every time they buy products using the card. This makes the customers feel that they are nullifying their carbon footprint by purchasing polluting goods with the card. But only 0.5 percent of the purchase price actually goes into purchasing "carbon offsets", while the rest of the interchange fee goes to the bank.
Greenwashing
The term Green washing refers to the practice of some companies and business organizations/institutions of falsely advertising their products and policies as being environment friendly and "green" to fool consumers into buying their products or use their services. The means used may range from showing images of trees or serine forests to using names and quotes that create a seductive notion of nature or even using packaging that is coloured green and make consumers believe that these products are ecofriendly. These companies even make unsubstantiated claims using their own stupid logics of how consumers will do good to nature by buying their products and services.
The term was first coined by Jay Westerveld in 1986. He very rightly noted that, in most cases, little or no effort goes toward environment-friendly practices by these institutions. The actual objective of such "green campaign" on the part of these businesses is increased sales and profit, and no concern for environment.
It is ironic that in most cases more money and effort is spent by these institutions in advertising the products and policies as "green" rather than really adopting the green practices. In 2007, a report titled "Six Sins of Greenwashing" was released by an environmental marketing firm TerraChoice. The study reported that more than 99% of the 1,018 common consumer products that were randomly surveyed made unsubstantiated claims of being "green". A total of 1,753 environmental claims were made, with some products having more than one. Furthermore, out of the 1,018 products studied only 1 was found to be true and not guilty of Greenwashing.
The "Six Sins" stated were:
In 2009, the firm came up with a second report adding another sin to the list:
There also exists an equivalent political term "linguistic detoxification."
For examples of proven Greenwashing see the page "Caught Ungreen-Handed."
The term was first coined by Jay Westerveld in 1986. He very rightly noted that, in most cases, little or no effort goes toward environment-friendly practices by these institutions. The actual objective of such "green campaign" on the part of these businesses is increased sales and profit, and no concern for environment.
It is ironic that in most cases more money and effort is spent by these institutions in advertising the products and policies as "green" rather than really adopting the green practices. In 2007, a report titled "Six Sins of Greenwashing" was released by an environmental marketing firm TerraChoice. The study reported that more than 99% of the 1,018 common consumer products that were randomly surveyed made unsubstantiated claims of being "green". A total of 1,753 environmental claims were made, with some products having more than one. Furthermore, out of the 1,018 products studied only 1 was found to be true and not guilty of Greenwashing.
The "Six Sins" stated were:
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.
In 2009, the firm came up with a second report adding another sin to the list:
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.
There also exists an equivalent political term "linguistic detoxification."
For examples of proven Greenwashing see the page "Caught Ungreen-Handed."
Monday, July 5, 2010
The Reality of Plastic Numbers
I have always been skeptical about using using plastics, and more so, for storing/packing foods. It was good to know that quite a lot of people share my concern, but definitely is not good to a point of "blackwashing" and hoax mongering. Such things make even genuine concerns seem not credible and infidel. My reference is to a recent chain-mail (would like to specify "recent to me," as chain-mails keep circulating perpetually and may be years old) about "plastic nos." and the "safety" of using plastics numbered higher.
Although the claims of the mail seemed to be logically quite possible, I thought of doing some research myself and it turned out that the only truth in that mail was "plastics ... are unsafe ..."
The truth I learnt is as follows:
-Plastic numbers or Plastic recycle numbers are originally called as Plastic Identification Codes, OR PICs. They may also be called as Resin Identification Codes.
-The codes range 1 to 7 and they represent the type of plastic:
> #1 indicates polyethylene terephthalate (PET) or pet plastics, used to make bottles for water and beverages, etc.
> #2 indicates high-density polyethylene (HDPE), used to make grocery bags, milk jugs, agricultural pipe, recycling bins, etc.
> #3 indicates polyvinyl chloride(PVC), used to make Pipe, fencing, rain coats, non-food bottles. etc.
> #4 indicates low-density polyethylene (LDPE), used to make plastic bags, disposable gloves, a variety of containers, wash bottles, tubing, molded laboratory equipments, etc.
> #5 indicates polypropylene (PP), used to make industrial fibers, food containers, and dishware.
> #6 indicates polystyrene or more commonly 'styrofoam', used to make plastic utensils, toys, package fillings, video cassettes and cases, etc.
> #7 indicates 'others', which could be nylon, fiber glass (the resin part), polycarbonates, acrylics, and various other plastics that are not classified among the above.
- The main purpose of these numbers is to make it easier to identify and segregate similar type of plastics before recycling them and decide whether to recycle, downcycle, or discard (as land fills)/incinerate them.
- These numbers mean the same in all countries and PICs are to be used internationally.
- These codes do not indicate how often they can be reused, how hard the item is to recycle, or how often the plastic was recycled. It is an arbitrary number and has no other meaning aside from identifying the specific plastic.
- Just because it has a number surrounded by the recycle triangle doesn't mean it will be recycled and hence it is environment friendly (any such claim amounts to "greenwashing"). It all depends on the polymer used, how far it is from the nearest recycling center, in what condition it is received by the recycler, or in general how feasible it really is going to be for the recyling center to recycle it, e.g., most LDPE and PET plastics land in land fills, or even worse get discarded in oceans or incinerated if the recycling center is not around 30 km of its collecting site as the transportation cost will exceed the money they can make by recycling it.
-In such cases (or any case for that matter) it is best to avoid buying such plastics (or any plastics) or items that bring these with them or at least reuse them as long as possible (don't worry all plastics are as safe, or otherwise, as the rest of them.)
I hope with this bit of information folks will be more cautious in selecting and implementing information on net or elsewhere and more importantly will be more responsible in dispensing the information and the plastics themselves.
Although the claims of the mail seemed to be logically quite possible, I thought of doing some research myself and it turned out that the only truth in that mail was "plastics ... are unsafe ..."
The truth I learnt is as follows:
-Plastic numbers or Plastic recycle numbers are originally called as Plastic Identification Codes, OR PICs. They may also be called as Resin Identification Codes.
-The codes range 1 to 7 and they represent the type of plastic:
> #1 indicates polyethylene terephthalate (PET) or pet plastics, used to make bottles for water and beverages, etc.
> #2 indicates high-density polyethylene (HDPE), used to make grocery bags, milk jugs, agricultural pipe, recycling bins, etc.
> #3 indicates polyvinyl chloride(PVC), used to make Pipe, fencing, rain coats, non-food bottles. etc.
> #4 indicates low-density polyethylene (LDPE), used to make plastic bags, disposable gloves, a variety of containers, wash bottles, tubing, molded laboratory equipments, etc.
> #5 indicates polypropylene (PP), used to make industrial fibers, food containers, and dishware.
> #6 indicates polystyrene or more commonly 'styrofoam', used to make plastic utensils, toys, package fillings, video cassettes and cases, etc.
> #7 indicates 'others', which could be nylon, fiber glass (the resin part), polycarbonates, acrylics, and various other plastics that are not classified among the above.
- The main purpose of these numbers is to make it easier to identify and segregate similar type of plastics before recycling them and decide whether to recycle, downcycle, or discard (as land fills)/incinerate them.
- These numbers mean the same in all countries and PICs are to be used internationally.
- These codes do not indicate how often they can be reused, how hard the item is to recycle, or how often the plastic was recycled. It is an arbitrary number and has no other meaning aside from identifying the specific plastic.
- Just because it has a number surrounded by the recycle triangle doesn't mean it will be recycled and hence it is environment friendly (any such claim amounts to "greenwashing"). It all depends on the polymer used, how far it is from the nearest recycling center, in what condition it is received by the recycler, or in general how feasible it really is going to be for the recyling center to recycle it, e.g., most LDPE and PET plastics land in land fills, or even worse get discarded in oceans or incinerated if the recycling center is not around 30 km of its collecting site as the transportation cost will exceed the money they can make by recycling it.
-In such cases (or any case for that matter) it is best to avoid buying such plastics (or any plastics) or items that bring these with them or at least reuse them as long as possible (don't worry all plastics are as safe, or otherwise, as the rest of them.)
I hope with this bit of information folks will be more cautious in selecting and implementing information on net or elsewhere and more importantly will be more responsible in dispensing the information and the plastics themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
