I think the first time I ever heard the word ‘greenwashing’ was in the late ’80s or maybe early ’90s after I saw a flier from McDonald’s about how they didn’t use beef from the Amazon. I brought the flier home to show my mother, an environmentalist, because I was so proud to show her that even big giant companies were doing good things and that her work was really making a difference.

She looked at it for about three seconds and told me “that’s greenwashing.” She explained the word to me and although I was sad to see my evidence of the mainstream adoption of environmentalism debunked, I realized for the first time that in a lot of ways claiming to “go green” when you’re not can be worse than just doing bad stuff in the first place.

Well, I’ve obviously come a long way since then and you may have already seen one of our “Greenwash of the Week” posts.

You’d think I would be pretty aware of the scope and quantity of greenwashing out there. I thought I was too.

More »

We decided to do something a little different with this greenwash of the week: video! Here’s our own Robin Beck on the Virgin Air biofuel greenwash:

This week, General Motors Vice Chairman, Bob Lutz, defended his remark dismissing global warming as a “crock of s**t.”

For a moment, the remark felt like a refreshing glimmer of honesty—a break from the company’s misleading eco-pr and green concept cars. But Lutz took it a step further by insisting that his global warming denial has no bearing on GM’s product development, which he oversees.

Honestly, if a 911 operator told you they thought your heart attack was a crock of s**t, do you think your ambulance would be coming on time?

As gas prices soar and temperatures rise, the last thing we need is a corporate leader stuck in the past; someone who lacks the humanity and the forward thinking to address the real problems associated with global warming. As product development chief of GM, does Lutz expect us to believe he is the best candidate for developing innovative solutions to a problem he doesn’t think is real?

And we wonder why America’s largest car company is unwilling to take the lead in better fuel efficiency and alternative fuel sources?

We’ve been getting some good press lately about how GM’s public relations people decided to turn off some features on gmnext.com and hold a special forum in response to our supporters’ concerns about their environmental practices (they also killed some of the images we uploaded before they ever went live). GM poured untold resources into creating this site in part to improve their environmental image; our online supporters forced them to scale it back considerably inside of a month.

This sort of online marketing is a real priority for them. From the Detroit News:

Two dozen company executives conducted chats on the site last month, including GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner. “We give a lot of importance to Web sites,” Wagoner wrote. “In fact, we have shifted a significant amount of our marketing spend to digital marketing. We’re also devoting a lot of our communications resources to social media.”

GM has also routinely invited bloggers to company press events and to meet with top executives.

Clay Voorhes, an assistant professor of marketing at Michigan State University, said the effort by GM is “part of a new push for authenticity by companies.”

A recent article in the Globe and Mail (not online) seemed to buy into the idea that GM was really trying for “authenticity.” The reality, however, is that these companies are making a push for the appearance and aesthetic of authenticity, not for authenticity itself. When the latter rears its sometimes-ugly head, they back off. In another article from the Financial Times, a spokesman states that their goal is “credibility:”

GM set up the website www.gmnext.com only last month as a springboard for ideas on future automotive technologies. The site was immediately bombarded by the carmaker’s critics. Posts included pictures of protestors at the Detroit motor show calling on the industry to combat climate change and to create more environmentally friendly jobs.

…

“We want to get as many voices in this debate as possible,” a company spokesman said. He added that: “We can’t just pick the friendly questions if we want this to be a credible conversation.”

So here’s the question for GM’s greenwashing crew: can they allow enough public feedback to appear “credible” while still avoiding uncomfortable criticism from knowledgeable, organized environmentalists? Here’s a hint: it might require making real, substantive changes outside of the PR department.

As promised, General Motors hosted a live webchat to address “corporate greenwashing” for RAN supporters yesterday.

The Detroit News covered the event, featuring GM executive Brent Dewar “answering” questions from more than 65 RAN supporters (I use scare quotes because of the large number of questions he ignored and the indirect responses he gave to the most pointed inquiries).

The article quotes Clay Voorhes, an assistant professor of marketing at Michigan State University saying that the effort by GM is “part of a new push for authenticity by companies.”

Of course, it would be more accurate to describe it as a “push for the appearance of authenticity” because the corporate world isn’t really trying to genuinely communicate in an honest way with people. Instead, they believe that if people think a particular corporation is more “genuine” or “authentic” then those people will buy more of whatever the corporation is selling.

Nonetheless, I think it is important for us to recognize that the meme of “authenticity” is taking hold in corporate marketing.

What I loved about this series of actions connected to gmnext.com, was that RAN supporters stood up, together, to challenge that meme. They sent a very clear message to the company that people aren’t just going to accept declarations of “authenticity” by corporations without serious actions and commitments on the corporation’s part behind those declarations.

Otherwise, we’re going to call it like we see it. And what we see is more corporate greenwashing.

On that note, I’ll wrap up by sharing my other favorite part of this whole experience. I don’t think I’ve ever actually seen a giant company use the term “greenwashing” in their own marketing. But, when I went to the chat, there it was. Looks like we won the framing battle on this one.

Last week I told you that RAN supporters shut down interactive features on General Motor’s new greenwashing website, gmnext.com.

We posted pictures of student activists at the Detroit auto show protesting automakers on the site and thousands of RAN supporters flooded GM with comments supporting the students and asking the giant automaker to take real steps, not just greenwashing PR, on climate and green jobs.

Within a matter of hours GM shut down comments on the site.

Then, Christopher Barger, Director of Global Communications Technology for GM, came to our blog and wrote that they turned of the interactive features because “‘dialogue’ does not mean ‘open to demagogues.’” One of his employees–who it seems didn’t realize that her IP address identified her as part of the GM PR machine–going by the name “betty” also commented on our blog and started a lively conversation.

I know, hilarious.

Anyhow, Mr Barger also promised that they “are planning to have an open forum — possibly even a series of them – in the coming weeks where we will address green jobs, the quest for 100 mpg cars and other pressing environmental issues.”

Well, to give him credit, GM has announced the first of those forums.

Mr. Barger left a note on our blog and everyone who left a comment on the site got an email today announcing that:

“GM executive Brent Dewar will be on hand to answer your questions about GM’s environmental policies and initiatives. The chat will take place Wednesday, February 6 from noon to 1 p.m. EST. To access the chat, go to http://www.gmnext.com/LiveChat.aspx and register with your e-mail address. On the day of the chat, click the “Enter Chat” button and join the conversation.”

Great! Let’s ask some questions! I’ll be in the chat and I hope to see lots of RAN supporters there asking GM why they are doing so little about global warming, green jobs and social justice.

Don’t expect a lot of candor or honesty, we are, afterall, dealing with the PR apparatus of one of the biggest corporations in the world. Instead, I expect more of the same–greenwashing slogans and little real action.

Coming to us via Think Progress:

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.

The Malaysian Palm Oil Council is promoting their product as the green alternative to oil (of the non-Malaysian Palm variety). They’re running a series of ads each ending in “Sustainably produced since 1917″. I’m all for turning people away from the sticky black goo, but mowing down pristine rainforests to do so is not what I call sustainable. More »

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.”

BP . . . bp . . . bP?

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.

More »