Greenwashing corporate America
When is a "green" ad a misleading ad? When are public communications an act of "greenwashing?"
An amazingly broad spectrum of companies -- from Wal Mart to Constellation Energy -- are trying to promote themselves as ecologically friendly these days. Perhaps it's because of growing public concern about global warming, perhaps its because the Democrats have taken control of Congress and are debating greenhouse gas control legislation.
But whatever the reasons, corporations seem increasingly driven by the idea that they need to "brand" their oil companies, big box stores, coal-burning power plants and airlines as somehow gentle on Mother Earth. This is especially true in the arena of global warming, where many are buying "carbon offsets" -- making payments to third parties to plant trees and subsidize wind farms instead of reducing their carbon dioxide emissions.
I've written about the difficulties in verifying these "Orwellian Offsets" before. And today The New York Times is writing about how the Federal Trade Commission, which sets standards for the accuracy of advetising claims, is holding hearings on how an "offset" should be defined. If you want to hear a webcast of yesterday's hearing, click here. This is the first in a series of hearings the federal agency is holding on green marketing.
I report on the environment and Chesapeake Bay. A native of West Virginia, I have focused mainly on Maryland's environment since moving here in 1983. Along the way, I've crewed aboard a skipjack in the bay, canoed under city streets up the Jones Fall from the Inner Harbor, and gone deep underground in a western Maryland coal mine. Recently, I have been covering the growth and development transforming the landscape. I love seafood, rambles in the country and good stories. I hope to share some here.
Comments
Tom: You are right to ask the question about the reality behind corporate claims to be environmentally friendly, but this activity is nothing new.
How many people recognize that "powered by clean natural gas" on DC Metro buses is just a marketing claim from an industry whose product has large negative environmental impact and poses measurable dangers to its consumers? Natural gas may be "cleaner" than its competition, but it is certainly not "clean" in an absolute sense. If it were, the buses would not need tailpipes to allow safe operation, they could just vent the waste products into the bus.
The phrase "clean coal" is another marketing term that is growing in use, giving some less critical thinkers the idea that the coal industry has solved its massive environmental issues. There is not one single coal plant in the entire world that is actually capturing and sequestering its carbon dioxide, yet presidential candidates talk about the fact that they only support new coal plants that do. What is their plan for the 700 or so plants that are already operating and releasing about 6 billion tons of CO2 each year in the US?
Large industries have been marketing themselves as green for a very long time, and many mainstream environmental groups play along because the corporations often support their fundraising. Of course, the support itself is often laundered through foundations or individuals to protect the "environmentalists" from association with the big, bad, corporate or industrial interests.
Posted by: Rod Adams | January 21, 2008 2:50 AM