So I really like the Winter Olympics – they really put the Summer Olympics to shame. Hockey, luge, figure skating, bobsledding, downhill skiing… and even that sport that combines cross-country skiing and target shooting! (Whose idea was that??)

But this year, a wide variety of activists, in B.C. and beyond, are reminding us that the 2010 Vancouver Olympics aren’t all fun and games. In fact, they’re resulting in huge developments on unceded First Nations land, massive spending on hyper-militarized security, and displacement of poor people and increased homelessness in Vancouver.

And, of course, it’s an opportunity for some good ol’-fashioned corporate PR. Companies from around the world with gruesome environmental and human rights track records – like Dow, Coca-Cola, and General Electric – are lining up to spend millions on funding the Olympics and sprucing up their tarnished images.

And the lead sponsor of the Olympic torch run: Royal Bank of Canada, the ATM for the Alberta tar sands. In fact, their website for the torch run calls on people across Canada to “make a pledge” to “make a better Canada,” and touts RBC’s “Blue Water Pledge” to “support watershed protection” – a little bit hypocritical, given that RBC has pledged $3.8 billion in financing to tar sands companies in the last six months alone.

So a group of folks in Vancouver decided to call RBC on their greenwashing. They issued a callout last week – endorsed by RAN - calling for protests at RBC branches across Canada every Friday at noon, to protest RBC’s attempts to use their Olympic funding to greenwash their role as the world’s biggest financier of the tar sands.

More »

Today, Royal Bank of Canada held a fancy reception for journalists at their new headquarters, the 43-story, $400 million RBC Centre. RBC was practically bursting at the seams with pride at having achieved LEED Gold environmental certification for this new building – and was eager to share their excitement with environmental and business journalists.

So RAN Toronto crashed the party, and reminded everybody that building an environmentally-sound headquarters while serving as the ATM for the tar sands industry is the crassest form of greenwashing.

Outside the building, the RAN Toronto crew held up banners, handed out pamphlets, and informed journalists and RBC employees heading to the event that RBC has extended and underwritten $19.5 billion in financing to tar sands companies since 2007 alone – more than any other bank in the world. (Much to the chagrin of building security – who watched and fumed from inside the lobby.

And before the protest started, two super-sneaky RAN Toronto activists – dressed to a T, and posing as interns in RBC’s Environmental Affairs department – snuck into the event on the 41st floor of the building, and handed out pamphlets to journalists and other attendees, describing a fake new RBC greenwashing program – “an important advertising campaign to convince you that we share your values and should be your destination for Sustainable BankingTM.” We thought the brochures were quite funny – but unfortunately RBC’s security didn’t share our sense of humor, and kicked the two activists out.

This is just one of many RAN Toronto actions against RBC: this crew confronted RBC CEO Gordon Nixon at a financial summit in September, held a die-in at an RBC branch opening in August, appealed to Gordon Nixon’s wife to help us stop the tar sands with a protest and banner hang in July, and confronted RBC executives at a conference at the University of Toronto in June. So maybe it isn’t terribly surprising that RBC security was beefed up for the unveiling of their new headquarters.

It should be clear to RBC by this point that this kick-ass band of rabble-rousers isn’t going to stop until RBC finally comes to their senses, stops their pitiful little greenwashing efforts, and starts taking true environmental leadership by ending funding for the tar sands.

Go RAN Toronto!

Poor Big Oil. They’ve really been taking a hit lately. Between weak climate legislation that would marginally take a bite out of their mammoth profits, billion-dollar lawsuits accusing them of dumping wastewater in some rainforest somewhere, and direct actions blaming them for cooking the climate, oil companies have really been feeling the heat. And I’m sure that many of you, like me, have been saddened that this great American energy giant has been humbled by a bunch of Washington liberals and pinko commie hippie environmentalists.

But never fear: there’s a “grassroots movement” afoot to protect Big Oil’s American right to profit off of environmental destruction!

Recently, Greenpeace leaked a memo from that valiant defender of the oil industry’s rights, the American Petroleum Institute, to “API Member Company CEO/Executives.” The memo showed that a grassroots movement is afoot – led by API’s Executive Committee, with help from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and “a highly experienced events management company” – to fight for Big Oil’s right to profits! This grassroots citizen-led movement (after all, the API are citizens, right??) will be organizing “Energy Citizen rallies” in 20 states across the country!

The objective of these rallies is to put a human face on the impacts of unsound energy policy and to aim a loud message at those states’ U.S. Senators to avoid the mistakes embodied in the House climate bill and the Obama Administration’s tax increases on our industry. … It’s important that our views be heard.

That’s right! After all, spending $700 million on lobbying over ten years – and billions more on advertising – can only get you so much publicity. It’s time for ordinary citizens to stand up and publicly demand justice for the oil industry!

More »

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’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.

Last week RAN supports shut down one of the biggest and most ambitious online corporate greenwashing campaigns.

To mark its 100th anniversary two weeks ago, General Motors launched a new interactive website, gmnext, where the public was encouraged to submit photos, videos and comments in order to help the company answer questions like “how should GM best address global energy issues we’ll face for the next 100 years?”

Yeah, it’s typical corporate greenwashing, but with a new “web 2.0″ spin where the company pretends to care what the public thinks.

So last week we posted photos on the site of student activists in Michigan protesting at the Detroit auto show. Then we asked our supporters to go comment on the site and tell GM what the public really thinks about how the automakers should address global warming and energy issues.

GM’s response? They turned off public comments.

So much for the fancy interactive that GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz said “encourages open and honest interaction.”

I guess it wasn’t really public discussion the company wanted. Big surprise.

One of GM’s PR flacks claimed that they were shutting off the interactive features because “we have no intention of letting a vocal set of activists highjack the conversation with invective and dogmatic misinformation.”

What were these comments filled with “invective and dogmatic misinformation” actually like?

“GM needs to stop thinking of “green” as an advertising term and nothing more. Really committing to better gas mileage and alternative fuels–NOT including ethanol, which is not environmentally sound–will be better publicity for you than mere sloganeering.”

“Since the most famous quote from Ioccoca, “How much clean air do we really need?”, the auto industry has let the public down. Most citizens believe that the auto industry has it’s hands in the oil pockets as well. Whether that is true or not, we will never know. What we do know is that the “green” options are simply not good enough. We don’t wish to see the auto industry pat themselves on the back for what we perceive as a poor job. It is just not good enough yet. This group pushes so that the industry doesn’t stop working on it. No pats are deserved yet. Cutting emissions is great, but we want better. So less patting on the back and more work is what they want.. I have to fully agree. What the production of these batteries do to the enviroment is disgusting. We have a long way to go. No kudo’s until this job is done and done responsibly. Ethanol is not a solution either. It takes just as much energy to produce as oil.. so where is the benefit, and now people are starving due to the lack of corn. Iceland uses meat that is unconsumable. Why are we not? A better job has been done by other countries.. step up to the world plate please and stop patting..”

Sounds less like dogma than clear well-reasoned comments by people who care.

Of course, GM is shutting down the interactive features of their new marketing campaign because the comments they got aren’t in line with their branding, not because they are inaccurate, mean-spirited, or dogmatic.

My take: I think that as more and more companies move towards trying to use fake “web 2.0″ “interactive” features to promote their greenwashing, we’re going to keep on them and show through our actions that the public isn’t going to let them get away with anything short of real action. Greenwashing on the web isn’t going to be easy for them.

So I say thank you to everyone who helped shut down one of the biggest greenwashing campaigns by one of the most powerful corporations on earth.

Wow… if you think that the Malaysian Palm Oil Council’s advertisement (see Stan’s Post) is atrocious, check out the intro video at Malaysian Palm Oil Board’s website.

Amazing, huh? The Malaysian Palm Oil Board’s mission is to “enhance the well-being of the Malaysian oil palm industry through research, development and excellent services”… which is exactly what they do… even if it means ignoring all facts.

According to the video, a monocrop palm oil plantation is “essentially a planted forest”. Well, to me, a forest implies more than one kind of tree, the ability to support a variety of wildlife, and net carbon storage– all of which a palm oil plantation fails to do.

The best part of the video, I’d say, is where they list the environmental attributes of the palm oil industry. Did they mention the clearing of the rainforest, the burning of that forest to clear the land, the resulting erosion and water pollution? Nope. Actually, they claim that palm oil plantations do the opposite.

The question then stands: Have these people ever visited a palm oil plantation, or heck, even spoken to a person who has ever visited a palm oil plantation?

Cause I’ve visited plenty, and I can tell them, they are all sorts of wrong.

Its scary that these that the Malaysian Oil Palm Council and Oil Palm Board can put together these advertisements and share them with the world. Its scary to think that people might actually believe them. More incentive to spread the word about palm oil, and for right now, take advantage of the only thing that these advertisements are good for, and have a good laugh.

Here’s an old GE Video I recently stumbled upon.

It’s a 2005 recipe to sell “clean coal” from General Electric’s “Eco-magination.”

1. Dress some super-models up like coal miners

2. Oil their bodies up and set them loose in an underground mine

3. Co-opt a traditional anti-corporate anti-mining folksong, Sixteen Tons.

4. Throw in some lines like: “Now, thanks to emissions-reducing technologies from GE Energy, harnessing the power of coal is looking more beautiful, every day.”

And viola, you get this General Electric “clean coal” video:

Eco-magination, my ass!