Bottom of the Barrel: Newsweek’s Least Green Companies

Which of the S&P 500 companies are the least environmentally friendly? Newsweek unveiled its Green Rankings last week and while there has been a lot of discussion about the top 5, there’s another story to be told in the bottom 5.

Unsurprisingly, nearly all of the bottom-ranking companies on the Newsweek list are in the energy industry. Here they are with their green scores (based on environmental impact, green policies and performance, and reputation):

Consol Energy – Basic Materials – Green Score: 28.65
ConAgra Foods – Food and Beverage – Green Score: 27.49
Allegheny Energy – Utilities – Green Score: 25.04
NRG Energy – Utilities – Green Score: 22.75
Peabody Energy – Basic Materials – Green Score: 1.00

Pretty big drop there for the bottom company, Peabody Energy (the world’s largest private-sector coal company). Peabody Energy comes in dead last thanks to its incredibly high toxic emissions and the negative impact that its product has on the environment.

This company is one of the biggest offenders in violating the Clean Water Act, injecting billions of gallons of coal slurry and sludge into the ground in the past 5 years. Pine Ridge, a subsidiary of Peabody Energy, reported to West Virginia officials that 93 percent of the waste it injected into the city of Charleston has illegal concentrations of chemicals like arsenic, lead, chromium, beryllium and nickel.

Green business expert Joel Makower has a great overview of how the companies were scored and, as he notes, the list isn’t perfect. Since it’s only a list of the S&P 500, far greener companies than the top 5, like Patagonia, are left out. However, it does bring together a lot of data in a way that’s efficient and easy to understand. If only they included a greenwashing factor – each company’s real efforts versus its claims about being green. Maybe next year.

Link [Newsweek] + [Joel Makower]
Photo credit: PeabodyEnergy.com

Green Businesses Get Anti-Greenwashing Packaging Guidelines

For every company that’s intentionally trying to manipulate consumers with vague or misleading green claims, there are many more businesses who are trying to do the right thing, but are sort of confused about what they should say. Enter the new guidelines to packaging sustainability claims developed by Greener Package, which should clarify some important points.

These anti-greenwashing guidelines will be used to review claims made by suppliers who submit their product data to the Greener Package Database.

From Earth 911:

“Consumer demand for sustainably produced products is a key driver in promoting progress at the manufacturing level,” said Victor Bell, EPI’s CEO, “Third-party validation is critical in combating greenwashing, which—if left unchecked—could erode consumer confidence and ultimately the public’s interest in buying sustainable products and packaging.”

The database offers companies that manufacture packaged goods a means to research and compare sustainable packaging materials, containers and suppliers. The data will also feed Walmart’s Packaging Scorecard system.

Submitting a company or material to the database utilizes a “middle ground” developed by Greener Package, where companies submit to a voluntary, third-party review.

“In effect, the reviewer serves as a neutral third party making a good-faith effort to review backup documentation from suppliers to compare to a common guideline in order to save the users of the database time from having to do the same for each listing each time they search,” according to Greener Package.

A service like this is invaluable, especially when fear of greenwashing accusations scares some businesses away from even trying to be greener in the first place. The cost for review will be between $110 and $330, well worth the investment to provide both businesses and consumers with some peace of mind.

Link [Earth 911]
Photo credit: Lunchbreath

Monsanto’s Greenwashing More Outrageous than Ever

It’s a dubious honor, but one that Monsanto doesn’t seem too eager to refuse. The world’s most hated corporation has been aggressively greenwashing its reputation for years and has recently stepped up its efforts to claim that its earth- and people-unfriendly practices are “sustainable”.

In fact, Monsanto’s website is packed full of sickeningly misleading claims about how their iron grip on the world’s food supply is actually good for us and for the environment. There are dozens of different ways in which this is just plain wrong – but The Guardian has focused on one in particular: Monsanto’s thirst for water.

Monsanto trumpets its patented water-efficient seeds, so one would expect the company to be sensitive about its own water usage. However, on the Hawaiian island of Molokai – where Monsanto is the largest employer and does a lot of reseach into genetically modified crops – this corporate giant has caused water shortages.

From The Guardian:

Nature on Molokai has suffered badly from the invasion of Monsanto and other big-farm companies. In recompense, Monsanto puts money into a Nature Conservancy programme on the island to “preserve biodiversity and protect water sources”.

The company has nonetheless gained a bad reputation there as a water bully. As a local journalist wrote there last year in the Molokai Dispatch, “Monsanto’s thirst for more water” threatens its future on the island. “Like most large corporations, Monsanto’s number one priority is to maximise profits. In this case it means planting as many acres as possible, and using a lot of water,” wrote Todd Yamashita.

Recently, during a drought that emptied reservoirs and forced the local irrigation company to demand 20% water cutbacks from local farmers, Monsanto insisted on the right to take more water and lobbied for a new aquifer to be tapped.

Of course, this is only one small example of Monsanto’s jaw-dropping offenses. The capacity for evil that this company has is seemingly endless. Learn more:

Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear
Millions Against Monsanto Campaign
Monsanto – SourceWatch
MonsantoWatch
The World According to Monsanto (Documentary)

Link [The Guardian]
Photo credit: Greenpeace

Localwashing in Pictures at Grist

We’re always on the alert for ‘greenwashing’, but what about ‘localwashing’? It turns out, big corporations are just as eager to make money off your dedication to buying local as they are off what they see as “the green trend”. From Walmart to Citgo, huge companies are trying to lure our dollars out of our pockets using misleading and often downright deceptive ads claiming that they’re “local”.

Grist put together an amazing collection of the 12 of the most outrageous examples. Check out these three (images are at Grist):

Citgo: “Local. Loyal. Like it should be.” The crop of new billboards from the petroleum company owned by Hugo Chavez’s Venezuelan government makes sense only if the rather undemocratic president lives around the corner from you. Which he doesn’t.

Barnes & Noble: Maybe you’ve heard of this cute little bookstore around the corner. It’s got a DIY-looking video blog with the tagline, “All bookselling is local.” Except when it isn’t.

“Hellmann’s Mayonnaise, a U.S.-based subsidiary of European processed-food behemoth Unilever, has seen fit to subject Canada (Canada?) to an eat-local campaign,” reports Grist Food Editor Tom Philpott. He’s dumbfounded. Here are those locally sourced ingredients of which Hellmann’s is so proud:

WATER, MODIFIED CORN STARCH, SOYBEAN OIL, VINEGAR, HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP, EGG WHITES, SALT, SUGAR, XANTHAN GUM, LEMON AND LIME PEEL FIBERS, COLORS ADDED, LACTIC ACID, (SODIUM BENZOATE, CALCIUM DISODIUM EDTA) USED TO PROTECT QUALITY, PHOSPHORIC ACID, NATURAL FLAVORS.

It’s absurd, but the sad thing is, a lot of people will fall for it. Head to Grist for the rest of the list, which includes Starbucks and Lay’s.

Link [Grist]

Mother Jones Unveils the Greenwashed Truth about Fiji Water

On their website, Fiji Water brags, “Our rainfall is purified by equatorial winds after traveling thousands of miles across the Pacific Ocean.  Winds that carry acid rain and pollutants to other parts of the planet just don’t come our way.”

What they don’t mention are the environmental impacts Fiji Water creates by shipping their pricey product all the way around the world – or the fact that Fiji citizens still don’t have easy access to the clean, fresh water that is bottled and sold around the world. In fact, if Fijians want to drink to drink clean water, they have to buy bottled Fiji Water in stores for almost the same price that Americans pay.

Fiji has branded itself as “green bottled water”, and that irony seems to be lost on the kind of people who should be fighting such greenwashing. Fiji Water’s co-owner, Lynda Resnick, is a liberal donor who proudly touts her friendship with people like Laurie David and Arianna Huffington. Tens of thousands of bottles were handed out at the 2008 Democratic Convention, and Al Gore himself drank it during a discussion about climate change in 2006.

It’s true that Fiji Water is remarkably transparent about their carbon footprint – it’s right there on their website, and you won’t get that from any other bottler. But efforts to cut back on the amount of plastic used in bottles and donations to environmental causes don’t cancel out the fact that this company is shipping water across the globe in plastic bottles.

From Mother Jones:

The offsetting effort has been the centerpiece of Fiji Water’s $5 million “Fiji Green” marketing blitz, which brazenly urges consumers to drink imported water to fight climate change.

Selling long-distance water to green consumers may be a contradiction in terms. But that hasn’t stopped Fiji from positioning its product not just as an indulgence, but as an outright necessity for an elite that can appreciate its purity. As former Fiji Water CEO Doug Carlson once put it, “If you like Velveeta cheese, processed water is okay for you.”

And the sad thing is, people buy that message – to the tune of millions and millions of dollars a year.

Read Mother Jones’ full account of Fiji Water’s environmental and social impacts, and check out this June 2008 New York Times article as well.

Link [Mother Jones] + [New York Times]

How to Properly Greenwash Your Packaging

This hilarious cartoon by Lunchbreath provides an easy-to-follow guide for companies to come up with a quick way to call themselves ‘green’ and hope for the cash to start rolling in.

Plus, the consumer gets to put this packaging in their recycling bin so everyone who passes by their home sees it and thinks, wow, that guy is such a goddamn hero! It’s a win-win.

Link [Lunchbreath] via [Treehugger]

6 Nominees for the Climate Greenwash Awards 2009

On the eve of the World Business Summit in Copenhagen, the world’s worst climate greenwasher will be crowned. The Climate Greenwash Awards 2009 highlights the ways in which businesses have promoted false solutions to the climate crisis, insisting that we can continue burning coal and oil.

The 6 nominees are:

• ArcelorMittal – nominated for profiting from the EU emission trading scheme (ETS) by lobbying governments to get surplus free emissions permits and failing to make real cuts in CO_2 emissions. The steel giant also promotes pseudo-solutions to climate change such as “lightweight steel cars”, nuclear plants and carbon capture and storage (CCS).
• BP – nominated for their enthusiastic lobbying for carbon trading as a false solution to climate change, for cutting their investment in renewable energy, for massive investment in fossil fuels and for, inspite of all this, claiming to be green.
• DONG – nominated for selling coal-based energy production as climate action
• Repsol – nominated for blatantly greenwashing their operations, presenting an image of corporate responsibility towards communities and the environment, while in reality exacerbating the climate crisis, endangering indigenous people and damaging the environment.
• Shell – nominated for making misleading claims about its action to tackle climate change while withdrawing investments from renewable energy supplies.’
• Vattenfall – nominated for its green spin on climate change, portraying itself as a climate champion while lobbying to continue business as usual, using coal, nuclear power, and pseudo-solutions such as agrofuels and carbon capture and storage (CCS).

You can help choose the winner! Read more about each company’s greenwashing offenses and then vote online at www.climategreenwash.org today and tomorrow.

Link [Greenwash Awards] via [The Good Human]

‘Clean Coal’ Group Making False Claims in Online Ads

An online advertisement by the American Coalition for Clean Coal Energy (ACCCE), a front group for the coal and electricity industries, claims that 72% of opinion leaders support coal electricity. The ‘America’s Power’ ad, which has appeared on The Washington Post, The Hill and other news websites, redirects to a page that contains blatant falsehoods in an attempt to hoodwink the public into supporting coal.

SolveClimate took a closer look at the report. The first problem is with the ACCCE’s definition of ‘opinion leaders’, which basically translates to a tiny percentage of the American population – far too small of a number of individuals in the U.S. to be able to generalize the results of the poll. The ACCCE survey also claimed that the 72% represented “a significant increase over the past year and the highest level of support since the group began polling almost 10 years ago” – which sounds impressive until you find out that the ACCCE wasn’t even founded until 2008.

From SolveClimate:

The next claim is that “the poll shows that Americans are very optimistic about the future for coal. When asked the question ‘do you believe coal is a fuel for America’s future?’ — 69% of Americans agreed (compared to only 26% who disagreed).”

This claim is an outright lie.

According to the survey’s own methodology, 600 people who qualified as “opinion elites” were polled. It is not possible to generalize the results of a survey from a tiny selected minority out to the entire population at large. It would be like polling just my immediate family about our car buying habits and then trying to apply that to my entire community.

Without a statistical method to correlate your data with the wider population, you cannot draw any conclusions for the wider population. The press release doesn’t even attempt to provide a margin of sampling error. Riehle also said a margin of error wouldn’t be appropriate for the poll – “It’s not statistically the same kind of animal” as a Gallup poll or other random survey of the population, he explained.

So, what it comes down to is manipulation of poll results to convince Americans that “opinion leaders”, i.e. smart people who should know, believe that coal is the fuel that we need now and heading into the future.

Surprising? Not at all. The dirty energy industries are desperate to hang on. The backlash against so-called ‘clean coal’ scares them. Stunts like this are the last pathetic gasps of a dying industry, and they know it.

Link [SolveClimate]

Earth Day Fail: Coca-Cola Promotes Bottled Water

Is it just us, or do big corporations just not get what it means to be green? Recently, Pepsi attempted to convince us that bottled water could be green with their new ‘Ecofina’ bottle, which is made with 50 percent less plastic but is still WATER IN PLASTIC BOTTLES. Now, Coca-Cola apparently chose Earth Day to promote their bottled water, Dasani.

From Eco Office Gals:

As I went through my email yesterday morning, I saw one from My Coke Rewards that really disappointed me.  For anyone that doesn’t know My Coke Rewards are points you can collect from entering codes on the inside of the bottle caps and cases of Coca Cola Products.

So, let me just share this email with you first:

“Earth Day is a great time to celebrate the many wonders of the world—like cool, crisp refreshing water. In honor of Mother Nature, you can earn Double Points with DASANI.

April 20th through the 30th, enjoy any 12-pack of DASANI*—then enter your codes to boost your balance with Double Points—it’s a great way to enjoy Earth Day.”

Basically, they are encouraging people to buy plastic bottle for Earth Day, and get rewarded for it!

Plastic bottles, in honor of Mother Nature. Wow, how amazingly green of you, Coca-Cola. Way to celebrate Earth Day, indeed. Because what the earth really needs is more cool, crisp, refreshing, overpriced tap water in plastic bottles that will end up in landfills and in waterways.

Read more about the gulf between Coca-Cola’s green marketing and their actions in this press release by Corporate Accountability International.

Link [Eco Office Gals]

Seventh Generation Separates Green Myth from Fact on ‘Big Green Lies’

Tired of being lied to about all things green? On Earth Day, Wednesday April 22nd, environmental activist and Seventh Generation President Jeffrey Hollender will separate green myth from facts on a special called ‘Big Green Lies’ on the Fine Living Network.

From the corridors of power to the halls of your home, follow the crew of BIG GREEN LIES as they perform mad science, track down the partisan experts, expert partisans, average citizens, rabid researchers, and other oracles who think they’ve got the ecological answers you’re seeking.  Tune in as host and Seventh Generation CEO Jeffrey Hollender dispatches his team of off-kilter operatives to locations around an overheated globe to separate ecological facts from fiction, addressing the issues that no one’s had the chutzpah to take on until now. Take a sneak peak at some of our attitudes to a few myths (yes, yours and mine!)  at www.biggreenlies.com

“As the name implies, Big Green Lies aims to reveal the falsehoods behind prevalent green myths and settle long-standing debates,” said Jeffrey Hollender. “Our team tackles a few of those questions in our first episode:

•       Is the planet really having a cow over our appetite for beef?
•       Would the world be better off if some of us didn’t drive a Prius?
•       Should a smog alert be issued for our living room?
•       Paper or plastic-which really has sustainability in the bag?
•       Are disposable diapers as guilty of environmental sins as everyone thinks?

You might be thinking, can the president of a huge company selling green products really be trusted to give us the full truth about green issues? It’s easy to be skeptical when we just found out that 98% of green products contain false claims on their labels or in advertising. I guess we’ll just have to tune in on Earth Day at 9pmET/PT to find out.

Link [Big Green Lies]

Most ‘Green’ Products Making False Claims

It was bound to happen: as ‘green’ gained popularity with the public, more and more companies jumped on the bandwagon, just hoping to make a buck off the trend. Some of those products really are environmentally friendly, and an improvement over their conventional competitors. Others aren’t green at all – and a new study by TerraChoice Marketing has found that those ‘others’ actually make up 98% of the self-proclaimed ‘green’ products on the market.

From Reuters:

TerraChoice increased its list of greenwashing sins this year to seven from six, adding “worship of false labels” for marketers who mimic third-party environmental certifications on their products to entice consumers.

Other sins in the report include lack of proof, vagueness, irrelevance and outright lying. Products that make environmental claims and are sold in big box stores in the United States, Canada, Britain, and Australia were surveyed.

“The good news is that the growing availability of green products shows that consumers are demanding more environmentally responsible choices and that marketers and manufacturers are listening”, said TerraChoice Chief Executive Scott McDougall.

“The bad news is that TerraChoice’s survey of 2,219 consumer products in Canada and the U.S. shows that 98 percent committed at least one sin of greenwashing and that some marketers are exploiting consumers’ demand for third-party certification by creating fake labels or false suggestions of third-party endorsement.”

Those bastards! This is seriously a huge, vexing problem. It just underlines the fact that you can’t trust marketers and advertisers – they’ll do practically anything to sell a product. Many of them have zero scruples. The best thing you can do is research a company and its products as thoroughly as you can before purchasing. It’s too bad TerraChoice didn’t name names, or we’d at least know who we can trust for sure.

Link [Reuters]
Photo credit: SinsofGreenwashing.org

Greenwashing at its Best: “Even Our Store Bags are Disposable”

The Good Human spotted quite an amazing example of greenwashing this week in the Santa Fe New Mexican newspaper. It seems that a pet store called Zoe & Guido’s Pet Boutique thought they’d jump on the ‘going green’ bandwagon in an attempt to drum up sales… and failed miserably.

From The Good Human:

The ad is kind of grainy, so if you cannot read it, here is what it says – “We are Going Green! Hemp and organic collars, toys, beds, disposable doggie bags…even our store bags are disposable!“. This is a great example of a company proclaiming to “go green” to sell products while not even bothering to find out what it actually means. Greenwashing at its best! This is what we all have to be on the lookout for as companies try to jump on the bandwagon without actually doing anything green at all.

The people who created this ad are clearly totally oblivious, and as ridiculous as it is to think that disposable bags are eco-friendly, the worst part is all the Sante Fe consumers who will just trust the ‘We’re going green’ and not take a critical look at what the store is actually offering. That’s why calling out greenwashers is important – ads like this totally dilute the message and people get screwed over.

The Good Human recently started up a new series called ‘Greenwash of the Week’, and they’ve found some real gems. Check out past examples including ‘biodegradable’ plastic water bottles, MTV attacking greenwashers (ironically) and plasma TVs instead of posters.

Link [The Good Human]

Can a 15,000-Square-Foot Mansion be Green?

It’s indulgent and opulent, with all of the bells and whistles multi-millionaires expect from a seaside mansion in a wealthy Florida community. Dubbed ‘Acqua Liana’, this 15,000-sq-ft megahome has 8 bedrooms, 11 bathrooms, 2 elevators, two laundry rooms, two wine cellars, a movie theater and a guest house. It’s also supposedly ‘eco-friendly’, with a state-of-the-art air purification system, reclaimed wood and CFL light fixtures. The home just recently went on the market for an astounding $29 million.

But isn’t the term ‘green mega-mansion’ an oxymoron? How can such a large home ever hope to be truly green?

Inhabitat caught up with the developer responsible for this monstrosity, Frank McKinney, and asked him some tough questions about the supposed greenness of his high-dollar creation.

The average American household consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours of electricity per year. How much electricity is Aqua Liana expected to consume? Is there any way to quantify the energy consumption of the house?

Don’t know it in kW but I can tell you in terms of electric bill….for a 15,000-square-foot [house], $4,500 would be the average electric bill.

Our electric bill, when you combine the solar application, the inflated wall panels, the insulation in the attic, our electric bill will be hovering around 800 bucks. That’s a 70% reduction. It’s not that the folks who buy the house can’t afford it, but the footprint they’re leaving is no greater than a half a million dollar house that would be 3,000 to 35,000-square-feet. We’ve signed up for net metering, selling electricity back to the provider. January, February, and March we will have a zero electric bill. The home owner will be credited money toward their future bills. We love the evergreen solar panels. They’re great, they’re efficient, they’re cheaper. Efficiency when it comes to energy is where we’re headed and having an electric bill of zero is in the future.

Read the rest of the interview at Inhabitat and decide for yourself whether this gigantic home is really green.

As for us, we say HELL NO. It’s almost sorta got a green tinge. It’s greener than other excessive mansions typically are, that’s for sure. But a home this large can never be truly green. Sure, rich people who don’t give a shit about the environment are going to continue building ridiculously gigantic homes – and use massive amounts of energy all the while – but this is putting lipstick on a pig, if you’ll permit the tired expression.

Being truly green means using space and resources wisely.  If this home were to be occupied by multiple families, putting every square foot of space to optimal use, that would be one thing. But how much do you wanna bet one spoiled couple with a couple chihuahuas ends up moving into this place, if it ever sells?

Link [Acqua Liana] + [Inhabitat]
Photo credit: Acqua Liana/Frank McKinney

Lighter Footstep Dissects the ‘GreenWashBall’

If you’re going to name your product ‘GreenWashBall’, you’d better make damn sure that it’s not, um, greenwashed. You’d think that the makers of this laundry detergent replacement product would have thought of that, but it seems they didn’t. Lighter Footstep had the opportunity to test the product out and found that it lives up to its name, and not in a good way.

The GreenWashBall claims that it can help you wash your laundry without detergent. It’s a green plastic ball filled with a handful of small round and cylindrical ‘powerful ceramics’ that supposedly “break water into smaller pieces increasing its speed and penetration factor.” According to the product website,

The powerful remote infrared rays emitted by GREENWASHBALL ceramics break the hydrogen molecules of water to increase molecular movement. This gives water a high penetration capacity and improves its washing properties.

The GREENWASHBALL emits negative ions which weaken the adherence of dirt on fabric so that it is easily removed without the use of detergent.

So, did it work? Lighter Footstep’s Chris Baskind chose some particularly gnarly laundry to put the GreenWashBall to the test, and was surprised to find that when the load was dry, everything was clean, smelled fresh, and was even light and fluffy. Then he started wondering whether it was really the GreenWashBall that did the trick.

My testing was unscientific, so I’m not saying that GreenWashBall doesn’t work. But I can think of at least one reason my clothes came out clean: I washed them. In detergent.

While we generally think of detergents in terms of the stuff we buy at the store, any compound used for cleaning is a detergent. That includes water — it suspends dirt until it can be rinsed away. Warm water introduces a surfactant effect, dissolving dirt and oils. We’re strongly conditioned by advertising to believe laundry cannot be cleaned except through the introduction of soaps and foaming agents.

Just for fun, I did a final load of laundry similar to that of the first batch. Using nothing but warm water, the results seemed identical to those with the GreenWashBall. Lesson learned. We can probably save money and turn out better quality laundry by reducing the amount of detergents we use.

After posting about it on Twitter, Lighter Footstep began receiving questions about the product like what kind of plastic it’s made from, what’s inside, and how does it really work. Those questions aren’t really answered on the product website or literature. And, the company even claims the GreenWashBall has anti-bacterial action, which they back up with a vague statement about “remote infared rays emitted by GreenWashBall”. Sounds fishy.

So it works the same as plain water, and it costs a whopping $39.99. That takes some greenwashing balls.

Link [Lighter Footstep]

Greenpeace Awards BP with ‘Emerald Paintbrush’ for Worst Greenwashing of 2008

‘Beyond Petroleum’. That was the slogan for BP’s ad campaign that sought to convince us that they’re a green company, investing in renewables and turning toward a clean energy future. Of course, they weren’t fooling anyone who knew better – BP was dropping mere pennies into renewable energy while continuing to make billions of dollars in profits off fossil fuels.

That’s how they managed to earn Greenpeace’s ‘Emerald Paintbrush’, awarded in a humorous ceremony at BP’s headquarters in London.

From Treehugger:

Greenpeace evidently chose BP as their first award recipients due to their expansive 2008 ad campaign which emphasized the company’s commitment to developing and investing in alternative energy sources. According to Greenpeace’s sources, BP instead devoted 93 percent of its investment fund for 2008 for development and extraction of fossil fuels.

Solar power development allegedly received just 1.39 percent, and total renewable energy investments were under 7 percent.

The Greenpeace spokesman who presented the award said, “You wouldn’t know it from their adverts, but BP bosses are pumping billions into their oil and gas business and investing peanuts in renewables. They’ve won the 2008 Emerald Paintbrush award because their slogans suggest that they are serious about clean energy, while their actions show they’re still hell-bent on oil extraction.”

According to Greenpeace, BP is responsible for the same amount of emissions as the entire nation of Portugal (64.96 metric tons).

BP definitely deserves the criticism. The Huffington Post called them out a couple weeks ago on having put $3 billion into the tar sands industry while simultaneously bragging about their so-called environmental responsibility. BP obviously thinks we’re an incredibly gullible bunch, so they deserve the little show Greenpeace put on in their lobby – and much, much worse.

Link [Treehugger] + [The Huffington Post] + [Greenpeace UK]

Twist & Spout: Greenwashed Plastic Spout to Reuse Soda Bottles

A product called the ‘Twist & Spout’ aims to extend the usefulness of plastic bottles. It’s a screw-on spout that can turn, say, a 2-liter soda bottle into a watering can. The concept of turning a plastic bottle into something useful is a great idea, since plastic is piling up all over the world like a plague – except, the Twist & Spout is made of (new) plastic. Huh. Yeah.

GreenUpgrader first noticed the problem with this idea, saying:

The spout could be used for the obvious, such as watering the garden or perhaps attending to the family fish bowl. However, since this thing is made of plastic and aids in the consumption of plastic bottles (which the Twist and Spout requires for its function) does this really do the environment any good?

So, let’s get this straight: for $8, you can get one twist & spout that will allow you to reuse plastic bottles a few times until you start to get nervous that you’re pouring chemical- and bacteria-laced water into your pet’s water dish, or onto your tomato plant. $8 that you could have spent on non-plastic watering can that will last virtually forever.

Noble idea, bad execution. How about making the spout out of recycled materials instead of new plastic?

You tell me – do you think it makes sense? Would you buy it?

Link [re:modern] via [Green Upgrader]
Photo credit: WorldWideFred

Lexus Reprimanded for Greenwashing

Lexus was recently forced to pull an ad claiming that its premium hybrid SUV was “perfect for today’s environment” and “perfect for today’s economic climate”.  Though the automaker claimed they were only trying to compare their hybrid comparably to non-hybrid SUVs, England’s Advertising Standards Authority disagreed, concluding that the ad misled people into thinking the SUV is more environmentally friendly than it really is.

Greenwashing is definitely running rampant right now, with manufacturers all too eager to cash in on what they see as a trend among buyers. MTV recently released a public service announcement warning us about just this – ironic, given their recent trashing of a pristine Costa Rican island for a reality show.

The fact is, even brands that you generally consider ‘safe’ will occasionally release a product that doesn’t quite meet green standards in their industry – but they won’t tell you that.  Always check out the specs – whether it’s a car, a food product, cosmetics, clothing or home furnishings.

Link [Matter Network] + [YouTube]

Natural, Organic, Ecocert – Which Eco-Labels Can You Trust?

In a society where greenwashing is rampant, it’s easy for well-meaning people to simply trust that the labels on the products they’re buying actually mean something.  By now, there are so many ‘eco-labels’ out there that purportedly certify products as safe and natural, it can get pretty confusing as to what they even mean.  While you definitely shouldn’t trust a product that merely calls itself ‘natural’ without any kind of certification, an official-looking seal doesn’t necessarily make the product all that great either. So, which ones can you trust? The Daily Green has taken a comparison created by David Bronner of Dr. Bronner’s castile soap fame and added text that explains them.

From The Daily Green:

USDA “Organic” – ***** (5 Stars)
When you see the word “organic” you know what it means. U.S. standards back it up. If the entire product is labeled USDA Organic it contains at least 95% organic ingredients, and any ingredients that aren’t organic are included only because organic versions don’t exist in a commercially viable quantity or quality. If the labels says “made with organic,” it has at least 70% organic ingredients.

As Bronner writes, these products have “no synthetic preservatives or petrochemicals” and the statements on labels are backed up with “rigorously enforced compliance.”

NSF ***+ (3.5 Stars)
NSF International, a U.S. not-for-profit, develops standards and certification for products. Its rating system is a “responsible compromise” between the makers and consumers of products and the cosmetics industry, according to Bronner. It allows a few synthetic preservatives that are identical to compounds found in nature, according to Bronner.
The rest of the certifications rated include ‘Natural Products Association’, ‘Ecocert’, ‘Certified Natural Cosmetics’ and four more.

Check out The Daily Green for the full list!

Link [The Daily Green]

Be Wary: Corporations Have Big Plans to Profit from Global Warming

It’s time to go on greenwashing high alert.  Companies are getting the message that they’re not going to continue making profits if they’re seen as being bad for the environment, as the public becomes more educated and passionate about the fight against global warming. Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean that all of those companies are starting to do the right thing and clean up their acts.  Some are choosing to present themselves as eco-friendly even as they pollute the earth, eager to cash in on the green movement.

From Alternet:

For example, proponents of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), an artificial hormone that boosts a cow’s milk production, now cite a study published at Cornell University “proving” that using rBGH is green. When the study came out, newspapers wrote clever headlines about reducing cows’ carbon “hoofprint.” Yet the basis of the study (that cows treated with rBGH eat the same amount as cows not treated with the hormone) was flawed, and the study was written by a group including Dale Bauman (who has received funding from Monsanto, the company then behind rBGH, in the past) and a Monsanto consultant. (Monsanto owned rBGH and marketed it under the brand name Posilac until it sold the product to Eli Lilly and Company last month.)

In reality, the way to reduce a dairy cow’s carbon hoofprint is to allow her to graze on pasture to reduce the amount of grain in her diet. As a perennial, grass does not require annual planting. Nor does it require fertilizer (beyond the manure fertilizer the cows apply to the pasture themselves). The cows also replace the machinery to harvest, process and transport their food that would be required for a diet of grain. But a cow receiving rBGH cannot enjoy a diet of mostly grass; she simply cannot take in enough calories a day via grazing to support increased milk production. Only a higher-calorie grain diet — one that makes cows sick — can support the metabolism of a cow on drugs.

Alternet points out that companies like Monsanto, Syngenta and Bayer are pushing the lie that genetically modified crops are going to get us through the climate crisis, and that many people won’t dig deep enough into the science behind it to learn the truth.

It’s clear that even as the oil industry finally dies a slow, long overdue death, other greedy, unscrupulous industries will step in to take its place. We’ll always be battling money-hungry corporations that will do anything to gain the sort of power that the oil industry has attained, and we definitely can’t give up.  Let’s not allow Monsanto et al to get us off track.

Link [Alternet]
Photo credit: Flickr user gina pina

Next Page »