Waste Management Inc.’s ‘Greenopolis’ Social Network: One Big Greenwashed Ad?

Is ‘Greenopolis’, the new green social networking site, a cool place for like-minded people to discuss their efforts to lower their carbon footprints and help the environment, or simply a multi-billion-dollar corporation’s effort to greenwash its reputation?

Greenopolis is meant to give people an easy way to communicate about green practices, providing environmental resources and facts. There’s also a ‘green merit badge’ system, that while meant to motivate and reward people for making incremental steps toward being more green, reminds me of the sort of my-shit-don’t-stink elitism that turns the general public off of the green movement (Smug Alert!).

TechCrunch, for one, thinks that Greenopolis is basically just an advertisement, and not a very well-thought-out one at that:

Frankly this should just be an application on Facebook and MySpace, it would get better traction. But that’s not what the consultants told Waste Management (a $20 billion company that, well, manages waste), I’m guessing, since today they’ve launched Greenopolis, a social network for greenies.

They’re committed, they say, to connecting people and businesses on green issues, and teach people about ways to be more environmentally sound. Like other social networks, members can create profiles and add friends. Users also rack up Green Points and have a Green Profile, which shows just how much they care about the environment.

Greenopolis, I suspect, is designed to show that Waste Management cares about the environment more than anything else. So in a way, it’s like an advertisement. See ZeroFootprint, a Canadian company we’ve covered that also creates local social networks around carbon offsetting in partnership with cities.

It’s a good point – is there really even a need for a stand-alone green social network? How many social networks can one person participate in? Are Greenopolis’ features enough to draw people away from Myspace and Facebook? Probably not, except for those people who are already committed to environmental advocacy. They’re not likely to get a huge influx of advertisers’ favorite targets: social-network-savvy teens and young adults with impressionable minds and lots of discretionary income.

One thing I noticed while browsing the member directory is that there are an awful lot of marketing professionals and companies pushing ‘green’ products (along with a whole lot of Waste Management employees). Greenopolis has the potential to become a greenwashed marketing free-for-all. Hopefully Greenopolis members approach product marketing on the site with a healthy dose of skepticism.

There’s also the fact that this is coming from Waste Management Inc., a $20 billion dollar company that rebranded themselves as ‘green’ after several toxic spills and illegal dumping allegations in the 80s and an accounting scandal in 1998. Their own ads certainly border on greenwashing – boasting, for example, that the waste they’ve collected has powered over 1 million homes, when recycling waste saves far more energy than burning it could create – plus, trash incinerators are the leading source of dioxins, super-toxic carcinogenic chemicals. Signs on their trucks say ‘Last year we recycled enough paper to save over 41 million trees’, yet they recycle less than 5% of the trash they collect.

Is Waste Management, Inc. using Greenopolis as a way to improve their image? Joe Vaillancourt, managing director of Waste Management’s organic growth group had this to say in a press release put out by the company: “We believe that by promoting and creating a dialogue about things such as conservation, recycling, and renewable energy that awareness about our environmental operations and our business offerings will increase.”

Is Waste Management America’s largest recycler? Yes – no other company has been able to get their foot in the door. But are they doing enough to legitimately call themselves green? No. You can’t trust when companies put out ads claiming to be stewards of the environment – even monster polluter Monsanto claims to be green. Since Waste Management Inc. has a virtual stranglehold on the trash industry in the U.S., they’ll continue to profit regardless of whether they make advances in green waste management practices. And as long as the public is convinced that they’re a green company, they can take their sweet time getting around to environmentally friendly practices that are expensive or inconvenient for them.

It’s difficult to categorically call ‘greenwashing’ on Waste Management Inc.’s ‘Greenopolis’, since the company has made some strides toward being greener – but not as many as they’d like the public to think (just look at their catchphrase – ‘Think Green. Think Waste Management’.) I’d like to see them take cues from Germany, where no biodegradable waste or recyclable materials go to landfills. Naturally, combating the waste problem here in the U.S. will have to be a joint effort between the corporations who package products, the consumers who buy them and waste management companies, so they can’t do it all on their own – but they can do more.

Efforts like creating a ‘green’ social network shouldn’t distract the public from the actual practices of Waste Management, Inc. The company has set themselves up for intense scrutiny through their green rebranding, so they’d better be prepared to put their money where their mouth is, so to speak. Just being the greenest waste management company in the country isn’t enough when other companies are barely making an effort at all. To truly be green, Waste Management Inc. needs to really step up their environmental initiatives.

Greenopolis may hold some value for people who lack any other forum to connect on green issues, though die-hard environmentalists aren’t likely to get much out of it other than possibly networking and/or educating others. As long as members are aware of the potential for greenwashing – and don’t participate as an alternative to actually being active in their own communities – Greenopolis could act as a portal to get green newbies interested and educated in environmental issues.

Link [TechCrunch] + [Greenopolis]

Greenwashing in A Photo: Keeping The Borders Green, Clearcut the Rest

There are few things I love more than a nice Sunday drive through the forest.

Photo credit: George Steinmetz

Confessions of A Greenwasher: Like an AA Meeting, but with More Guilt

Hello, my name is Stephanie Rogers, and I’m a former greenwasher. It’s true. I know, I’m ashamed. I’m a writer and graphic designer from Asheville, North Carolina and once worked for a company that was attempting to jump on the eco-friendly bandwagon. When I say attempting, I mean they had good intentions and were really trying to be legit, but realized after a good six months of planning that they were in way over their heads.

Being the staff writer, I was in charge of coming up with all kinds of ways to justify calling the products we were selling ‘green’. “Was part of it possibly handmade? Can we verify whether it was handmade by an 8-year-old in Cambodia? No? Okay… hmm.” It could get particularly challenging when said product had, for example, a solar component, but the main part of it was shipped in on a boat from China. Moral dilemmas galore.

That’s just one of many reasons why I’m happy to be joining EarthFirst. I’m excited that instead of being a part of the problem, I can now be a part of the revolution that’s gathering steam - the call to change. I’m dedicated to earth friendly practices in my own life and am constantly seeking ways I can improve, and I’m psyched to share in that process with all of you. So howdy, EarthFirst readers - I hope this is the start of a beautiful friendship (sniff).

Coal- Cheap. Abundant. Cheap.

Our fearless leader Jordan sent me this gem last night after seeing my post about “Clean Coal” yesterday. I like it because it’s close enough to something the Coal Industry would actually put together. I want a Hummer.

Let There Be Organic Tobacco: Smokers Deserve Healthy Cancer Sticks

Environmental Graffiti got in a snit about greenwashing by the tobacco industry:

The cigarette industry knows that there are smokers who can’t kick the habit, but still want to go green. Recently, roll your own cigarettes have been promoted as a more eco friendly, cleaner alternative to regular smokes. That’s not the case, however, as roll your own cigarettes were recently found to have more chemicals than regular cigarettes.

Other companies are rolling out organically grown cigarettes. While this tobacco isn’t doused in pesticides during its growth, the previously mentioned problems still apply. So what’s a green smoker to do? Nothing.

I’m not going to defend the greenwashing by tobacco companies, but is it realistic to expect everyone to stop smoking for the benefit of the environment? Call me a cynic, but my guess is that I have a better chance of being elected President in November than that happening. Smoking tobacco is not going anywhere and if we really want to save the world we need to figure out a way to give people their cancer sticks without destroying the rain forest in the process. Smokers should be able to buy minimally processed, chemical free Fair Trade tobacco.

Tobacco companies should be called out for their bullshit greenwashing, but at the same time they should be encouraged to actually get a handle on the environmental impact of their business. If we can get the tobacco industry to get on the bandwagon maybe we’ll have luck in convincing the Drug Cartels to green up their product line. A guy can dream can’t he? (Note: I don’t smoke cigarettes, just the random shisha)

Link [Environmental Graffiti]

A Green Wal-Mart? Not So Fast…

Ah Wal-Mart, the giant behemoth of a corporation, with a larger GDP than most countries and a matching environmental footprint to boot. Sure, they’ve been making noise about going eco-friendly and some blogs have fallen all over themselves to grace them with the mantle of green, but we’re still talking about a company with over 7,000 (and growing) stadium sized stores that makes most of their money selling tons of cheap plastic crap shipped over from China.

Alex Goldschmidt, online editor at Wal-Mart Watch, does a good job of killing the golden calf that is a green Wal-Mart in a guest essay at Grist titled But three of its stores have skylights. How bad could it be?. Here’s a snip, head over and read the whole thing, it’s really good.

Wal-Mart’s public relations efforts help hide the fact that despite all its talk, the company isn’t any greener than it was in 2005 when it laid out a series of company-wide environmental initiatives. The fact remains that Wal-Mart’s energy use is still rising. Until the company significantly reduces the amount of energy used to earn a dollar, its sustainability initiatives remain fundamentally flawed. Several aspects of the company’s basic business model hinder this kind of comprehensive change:

Land consumption and pollution. With the average Wal-Mart Supercenter the size of a football stadium, and parking lots often three times that size, each Wal-Mart store consumes massive amounts of land and the parking lots contribute to water pollution. Multiply that by over 7,000 Wal-Mart stores worldwide, and plans to build hundreds more every year. Wal-Mart frequently chooses to build new stores rather than renovate old ones, multiplying its impact on local land resources.

Car culture. To shop at Wal-Mart stores, consumers must drive cars. Wal-Mart has contributed to a jump of more than 40 percent in the amount of vehicle-miles American households travel for shopping purposes since 1990. Studies also show that larger stores, such as Wal-Mart, pull customers from a larger geographic area, which results in increased traffic — a 200,000 square-foot Supercenter, on average, generates over 10,000 car trips during a weekday, and even more on the weekend. Increased traffic results in increased carbon emissions.

Energy consumption. We applaud Wal-Mart’s efforts to cut energy use in some stores, but the company has a long way to go. Every few years Wal-Mart opens a few greener stores and hundreds of its traditional, energy-draining stores. While Wal-Mart hopes to make its existing stores 20 percent more efficient by 2013, the energy used by the hundreds of new stores it opens every year will significantly offset any savings and its carbon footprint will only grow larger.

So the take away here is that despite Wal-Mart’s admirable efforts to spin itself green, they remain a vastly unsustainable company with a grossly unsustainable business model. in short- Wal-Mart still sucks.

Link [Gristmill]