Rainforest Action Network is bringing back our popular web TV show Greenwash of the Week. This week our charismatic hosts Nick and Brianna investigate the recent solar announcement by oil giant Chevron, dubbed “Project Brightfield.” Is it Project Brightfield or Project Bulls#%t? Let us know what you think in the comments section of this article.

Stay tuned for more riveting episodes of Greenwash of the Week, sponsored by the We Can Change Chevron campaign at RAN. In the meantime, if you see an example of greenwashing that we should feature on the show, send it to us asap! You can:

• Tweet it to @changechevron
• Post it to We Can Change Chevron’s Facebook wall
• Email it to greenwash@ran.org

Don’t be shy- we’d love to hear your suggestions for our next Greenwash of the Week!

To see all of the GOTW’s, click here.

Click here to watch all the GOTW’s.

We’re about a week behind on this one, but there’s more to come.

In Democratic presidential debate last night, CNN once again failed to ask any questions about global warming. Perhaps not surprisingly, last night’s debate was sponsored by the coal front group Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC).

Considering that this is an ongoing greenwash and a blatant attempt to buy the presidential candidates’ silence on one of the most important issues facing the human race, “greenwash of the century” is probably more accurate. “Americans for Balanced Energy Choices,” the coal industry front group funding the debates, is trying to defend the indefensible. No reasonable argument can be made for allowing the construction of new coal-fired power plants at this point in time, but they’re hoping to build as many new coal plants as possible before the public catches on. All the industry has left are PR smoke-screens (talk of unproven, hypothetical carbon-capture schemes, the myth of clean coal) and outright bribery. Either CNN is even more clueless than their usual coverage would suggest or the coal industry has succeeded in paying off the network to ignore global warming during the debates.

In other words, because the industry knows that they would lose on the merits if any real debate were to be had about coal in this country, they have actually bought out the presidential debates to prevent one from taking place. It’s part of a massive industry greenwashing campaign to keep us burning as much coal as possible for as long as possible. Their efforts have been pretty successful, and not just on CNN: across all major networks in 2007, reporters asked candidates 2769 questions; just 3 were about global warming.

What makes the new card so special?

Well, everytime you make a purchase you earn points, but instead of using the points to get airline tickets or electronics, MBNA buys carbon offsets.

The more stuff you buy, the more offsets MBNA buys.

So basically the message is: buying things is really good for the earth! Want a new riding lawnmower? Charge it and don’t worry about the impact on the climate!

Just keep on shopping!

And exactly how much goes towards helping offset emissions? According MBNA, one half of one percent of your total purchases.

In case you’re keeping track, that’s 99.5% going to Bank of America, one of the biggest financial backers of the coal industry and .5% to planting trees.

And that doesn’t even mention the much deeper point that over consumption itself is driving the climate crisis in the first place and that shopping is not the answer. (follow that last link for an interesting article on Alternet today)

Final point, let’s not fail to notice that MBNA itself won’t even stand behind the offest program it is trying to promote. Check out the small print on the card’s website: “MBNA does not guarantee the overall effect of the carbon offset purchases to actually reduce carbon emissions.”

So, for being a leading funder of coal, among other destructive industries, and at the same time trying to get Canadians to buy more stuff they don’t need while pretending to address global warming, Bank of America and it’s subsidiary MBNA win this week’s Greenwash of the Week Award.

Congrats.

Oh, and I had a great time shutting down some B of A ATMs today, check out the pics on flickr.

The basic idea is that they give you city and you get to decide how to provide the energy for all of the essential products we need every day, our cars, and our homes and businesses.

Your choices include solar, wind, petroleum, coal, and nuclear power among others and your choices are evaluated on their impact on the economy, the environment, and security. Sounds good right? Most greenwash campaigns do . . . at first.

The biggest catch here is that you must include petroleum in your plan. In fact, it is the only fuel source we can’t do without according to Chevron. Well, I guess that shouldn’t come as too much a surprise considering the source. Plus, at some level the basic idea that we can’t simply stop using petroleum tomorrow is correct. But this game doesn’t stop there.

Besides discounting the possibility of using solar power to get more than 25% of our energy needs due to cost, assuming that geographic and “other constraints” make wind power an unrealistic primary choice, and failing to even begin to include peak oil in the analysis, the game insists that we will need to rely on petroleum as a fuel source through at least 2030 and that we will have abundant supply to do so. Both ideas are highly suspect.

The whole game is framed to look like it is simply being practical and using basic economics to figure out the impacts that different energy sources could have on our society. But whenever you try to use more alternative power the game comes up with some vague excuse why it won’t work simply stating that the option is “cost prohibitive” or “inefficient.”

Um, ok. Sorry I asked.

The most upsetting aspect of the game, however, isn’t about the promotion of any particular energy source. It’s the fact that Chevron assumes energy use will just keep on growing forever. I guess they have to say that. If they say energy use could conceivably go down, their shareholders might freak out. Even if you choose “aggressive” energy conservation measures (note the framing) the game still assumes major increases in energy consumption in perpetuity.

In fact, this theme runs throughout Chevron’s “will you join us” greenwashing ad campaign.The real message of the ads is that consumption can’t be stopped:

Personally, I think we need to take the notion of reducing our energy consumption seriously. A 50% increase in the number of cars by 2030 is not inevitable. In fact, the very idea that our consumption will just keep on growing forever is at the heart of so many of the challenges we face right now. Behind global warming, behind mass extinction, behind a water crisis, is the fact that our culture organizes itself around consumption and we measure so much of both our collective wellbeing and our individual wellbeing by looking at how much we are able to consume.

So I offer Chevron our Greenwash of the Week award not just for glossing over serious alternatives to oil, not only for coupling destructive business practices with an ambivalent message about the environment, but for doing all that while consistently pushing the message that no matter what happens energy consumption will just keep growing forever.

This week’s greenwash is a double-whammy: greenwash meets astro-turf. If you’re not familiar with that last term, it refers to a “grassroots” organization that’s actually the phony creation of a powerful, moneyed interest group.

As reported by the good people over at PR Watch and the Asbury Park Press, Exelon, a New Jersey nuclear power provider, paid to lobbyists to set up a front group called the “New Jersey Affordable, Clean, Reliable Energy Coalition.” The mission of the group was to support nuclear in general and license renewal for an aging local plant in particular. Exelon also funded a “study” on the supposedly high cost of shutting down the plant. From PR Watch:

The coalition will “advocate for nuclear energy and, more specifically, a 20-year license extension for the aging Oyster Creek plant” in Lacey, N.J. However, “the lobbyists neglected to point out they are being paid by Exelon Corp., Oyster Creek’s owner. There also was no mention of that fact on the coalition’s Web site until a news story about their being front men for Exelon appeared in Friday’s Asbury Park Press.” Since the Nuclear Regulatory Commission “is expected to reach a decision on relicensing by January,” reasons the paper, “much of the lobbyists’ energy will be directed at the decision-makers themselves.” Judging by a press release, one of NJ ACRE’s arguments is that “the loss of Oyster Creek and the need to replace its electricity in the face of steadily rising demand would cause significant economic hardship.” The release says shutting down Oyster Creek would cost $190 million in increased energy prices and $126 million in lost “economic activity,” citing a study funded by Exelon.

For more on the trouble with nuclear power, check out Toben’s post from last month. RAN recently signed on to this simple statement about nuclear power, reproduced in its entirety below:

“We do not support construction of new nuclear reactors as a means of
addressing the climate crisis. Available renewable energy and energy
efficiency technologies are faster, cheaper, safer and cleaner
strategies for reducing greenhouse emissions than nuclear power.”

However they capitalize it, BP is the winner of our nearly-weekly “Greenwash of the Week” award.

Why?

1. Because they put a revolting ad in my local paper today explaining that thanks to to BP we can all look forward to solving global warming by using hydrogen.

2. Because their entire brand identity is based on trying to convince people that burning fossil fuels is somehow the best thing we can do for the environment.

No, really, their ad guy says so.

Anyhow, a while back BP partnered with Rio Tinto (a giant mining company which, surprise surprise, has a history , er long history, er very long history of doing terrible things) to form a new company: Hydrogen Energy.

Well, that isn’t so bad? Maybe they just want to get a head start and beat their competition at providing clean renewable energy for everyone and a super low cost.

Um, maybe.

But if you even ever-so-gently scratch the surface of their marketing campaign you’ll see they’re just up to the same old same old: burning fossil fuels, causing global warming, abusing human rights, and making us all pay for it.

How do I know? Well, I took a minute and read their proposals.

I’ll spare you all the stupid and boring details, but here’s the gist as far as I can tell:

They want to keep mining coal, burn it, pollute, emit greenhouse gasses and then use the byproducts of that process to produce hydrogen and carbon dioxide. The hydrogen then gets used as an energy storage medium.

And the CO2?

Their brilliant plan is to bury it under the city of LA. Yeah, toxic compressed CO2 buried underground in Southern California. What could go wrong?

More importantly, the proposal to spend $2 billion on a power plant that would power “up to” 325,000 homes (their number–ingest grains of salt here) does NOTHING to reduce carbon emissions.

Nothing.

Even giving them all the benefit of the doubt in the world (which BP certainly has earned) it is so important to notice that their plan is to KEEP ON BURNING COAL for power. Only after the bulk of the damage is done do they propose that we get a little tiny bit more electricity at a huge cost while using dubious means to contain the pollution.

I’m pretty sure BP is going to win this title a number of times, but we’ve gotta start somewhere. Congrats BP, you made the Greewash of the Week.

This week’s greenwash? Subaru’s farcical new ad about their “green” plant in Indiana, which they describe as a “role model for the environment” that has been “designated a wildlife habitat.” If that’s not enough for you, check out the longer version here (listen to how the actor says the word “rabbits.”)

Now, first of all, it turns out that the certification scheme that they used to get that designation, the NWF’s backyard habitat program, while laudable, isn’t exactly what I’d call “rigorous.” If you’d like to get your yard certified, fill out the form on this page. (Bonus: see if you can spot any actual wildlife in the Google Earth images of the Subaru plant).

Second, and more importantly, Subaru is a car manufacturer. The plant in which they build their cars, while not insignificant, pales in comparison to the fact that they build cars at all. They don’t make plug-in hybrids, or hybrids of any kind. As this discussion over at Switchboard points out, they reclassified much of their fleet as light trucks to escape emissions standards. The very nature of their product supports unsustainable lifestyles.

Diverting attention from their environmental impact as a whole to the plant where they make their cars is a classic greenwash, and it’s our first Greenwash of the Week.