When I envisioned the transportation plan for the Climate Change conference currently taking place in Copenhagen, I
immediately thought of carpooling, bicycles, and hybrid buses. The self-stated City of Cyclists would stand for no less, right? Sadly, I could not have been more wrong. It turns out limos and private jets will be transporting many of the delegates to the conference, with demand exceeding the supply available in Copenhagen. Not to fear, delegates! You’ll be happy to hear that you will not be left Limo- or jet-less as you make your way to discuss how to reduce greenhouse gases: limos will be drive hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden to meet demand (reaching upwards of 1,200 limos in the city), and the extra 140 private jets expected during the peak period of the conference will be flown off to regional airports – or to Sweden – to park, returning to Copenhagen to pick up their VIP passengers. Are delegates – many of whom do not even need to be at the Conference – attempting to make a statement and bring attention to the irresponsible and excessive use of vehicles and, more generally, unnecessary travel? Sadly, I don’t think this is the case. In a world awash in greenwash, it seems even the largest Climate Change conference in the decade isn’t immune.
Greenwashing is not a new concept – it’s been around since environmental products and services started hitting the market in the 70s. However, as ‘going green’ has become big business – sales of organic products alone went from $10 billion in 2003 to more than $20 billion in 2007 – organizations, in their bid to capitalize on the green movement, have become more shrewd in their claims-making. A recent survey by Terra Choice Environmental Marketing found that out of 1,018 products, all but one failed to live up fully to their green boasts. Take, for example, McDonalds. McDonalds is very keen on being seen as green, and what better way to do this than to re-paint your signage with the color green? Pair this with some vague claims about the environmental action you’re taking, and your golden! Green! To be fair, the Fast Food giant has been making some important strides to becoming more environmentally friendly – like converting used oil to biodiesel – but this does not negate the impact of the very un-green factory farms McD relies on for their supplies.

Which of the six sins of Greenwashing is this ad committing?
Another favorite is Huggies disposable diapers. Adding approximately 3.5 million tons of waste to America’s landfills every year, disposable diapers are about as un-green as you can get. When Huggies debuted their ‘Pure & Natural’ line of diapers, one would think, perhaps, they’re made out of biodegradable material? Have re-usable properties? Made out of a thinner material which produces less waste? Although these are noble suggestions, it seems they’re just too … green. The ‘Pure and Natural’ line, in fact, boasts a small piece of organic cotton on the outside of the diaper that does not even come into contact with the baby’s skin. Check out this article for some more frightening examples. On the opposite side of the spectrum there’s Norway, who have banned all car ads from using the terms ‘green’, ‘environmentally friendly’ and ‘clean’ on the grounds that all cars contribute to global warming.
So what is a consumer to do? With such vague and misleading claims permeating the market, how can one make wise and responsible decisions? First, I’d encourage you to check out the Greenwashing Index. This website allows consumers to post ads that might be examples of greenwashing and rate them on a scale of 1 – 5 –with one being a little green lie, and 5 being an outright falsehood. In addition, you might want to become familiar with the ‘six sins of greenwashing’, which include the sins of irrelevance, no proof, vagueness, lesser of two evils, hidden trade-off, and fibbing. The sin of vagueness, for example, is when a product trumpets the fact that it is ‘chlorofluorocarbon free’, even though these chemicals have been banned for years. A pat of the back for following the law, company X! This Montreal Gazette article discusses some ways of avoiding these traps – for example, making sure the “green” product you’re thinking about purchasing has independent certification, like Environment Canada’s EcoLogo seal, and not just house-brand environmental logos.
How do you evaluate claims of Green-ness in the products and services you use? What ridiculous and unwarranted allegations have you come across? Have you been duped? Share your stories here on The Daily Gumboot!
Did you enjoy this post?
May we also suggest:
McCurry: I’m lovin’ it! When McCurry decided to shorten the name of their restaurant from the rather wordy, ‘Malaysian Chicken Curry’, they may have … Continue reading →...
Hullo!
In Germany we had the “Abwrackpraemie” this year, a car scrap-bonus, meaning that if you got rid of your old car (more than nine years old) you got up to 3500 Euros from the federal government if you bought a new one – I’m not kidding! Just one big subvention program for the automotive industry here. Total joke. All of the population – duped.
I mean, it’s ridiculous. My dad still drives his old Mercedes from 1961. It’s a vintage car, yes. But one so battered by daily use and almost fifty years of drivnig you’d hardly associate it with the luxury item vintage cars represent to some (well, the two have grown old together). And yes, before we had some of the engine parts exchanged, it used lead-fuel up to 1989.
But still: I bet that the ecological footprint of driving one car for decades is better than buying a new one every five or so years, no matter how “green” those new cars are. In fact, my dad had some articles in one of his vintage-car magazines proving that point.
I mean, come on, in only one BMW plant, 80 (!) new cars come from the conveyor belt in A MINUTE. How good could that be for the environment? And they’re good for scrap after ten years, economically speaking.
If the stigma were removed from using stuff as long as it lasts, from cars to clothing to phones and what not, a lot would be won, I guess.
Just one example, we could go on about this for hours. The whole conference in Copenhagen is really turning into satire. Remindful of this Pet Shop Boys-track: “I’m with stupid…”
*Fake Pete
This is the best post on this blog ever ahnds down. It is excellently researched and very well written with lots of relevint and insight that’s well timed and up to date.
Fake Pete, take a mocking for what it is don’t make Germany account for the many amount of sins of our world here. We can’t change it so better make fun of it qlall and accept it as a team!,!
- Real Pete
Yeah (Real) Pete, you’re right. But when I think of what we could’ve achieved here if they’d spent that money on researching hybrid drives or electric cars… it’s just obviously dumb to sponsor yester-tech, innit?
The Petes make great points.
This is an exceptional article that really inspires and reflects the new direction of this publication. From its form to its content, “Awash in Greenwash” makes a strong case for the wholly complex nature of “sustainability” and corporate social responsibility. As a guy who likes complicated ideas – after all, life is complicated – this really, really resonated with me; however, complicating things and making a produce exist in shades of gray invariably leads to confusing and total lack of connection. For example, the 1,400 limousines debacle in Copenhagen does much to attribute a “greenwashing” title to group of people and organizations that were, in spite of their colossal failure, trying to make a difference. On the flip-side, Tide is very, very proud of how there are fewer trucks on the road because of their newly designed containers combined with newly condensed washing detergent. Could’ve been a useful idea 10 years ago, folks.
So, Michelle, thanks for complicating things in a very edutaining way!
- JCH
Pingback: Truly Eco-Friendly, Or Corporate Greenwashing? | WebEcoist
Green is truly in. I would like to introduce you to an amazing product that reduces harmful tailpipe emissions by at least 10%, a huge benefit to the environment. Feel free to visit http://twitter.com/gerardmicu for more information.
Thanks Gerard. How did you like the article?
Pingback: Truly Eco-Friendly, Or Corporate Greenwashing? | we must know