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!

This week Bank of America subsidiary MBNA launched their new Eco-Logique MasterCard credit card for Canadian consumers.

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.

Thanks to the good ole San Francisco Chronicle for once again calling my attention to an oil company just begging to win our Greenwash of the Week award. Alright, Chevron, your new online video game Energyville is our big winner.

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.

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.”