Marketplace

FIJI water by the numbers

Manufactured luxury by the numbers:

• 5,500 miles per trip from Fiji to Los Angeles (the closest Fiji Water destination point in the US)
• 46 million gallons of fossil fuel
• 1.3 billion gallons of water
• 216,000,000 lbs of greenhouse gases

... and that's in just one year. Oh, then there's the chemical cocktail we call PET plastic with a 12% recycling rate in the US. You know, that substance that never breaks down and is found in little pellets worldwide, covering a continent-sized sheet in the Pacific Ocean.

This is the face of Fiji Water. Rob Walker recently reported about Fiji's new commitment to sustainability explained on fijigreen.com whose sexy byline is "Every Drop is Green." Like other difficult nuanced discussions such as Wal-Mart's greening through energy, employee programs and dramatic supply chain refinements, this to me is another lipstick on a pig story.

Fiji is a very successful business model. They experienced a 40% sales increase in 2007 and expect the same this year. Fiji is a distance from Seattle, almost 6,000 miles in fact. The company benefits from the South Pacific Convergence Zone which dumps over 3,000 mm of rain a year into a pristine aquifer, gifting the exotic, silica-y water consumed by millions of marketing receptive Americans (one of Fiji's marketers claimed unsubstantiated health benefits from silica).

But here is where the problem starts. Fiji is using staggering amounts of energy, water, and fossil fuels to take a naturally occurring product (which is not regulated like drinking water here in the US), put it in an inherently problematic container and then have that forever-container tossed into landfills or incinerators all over America (and Asia, where we have a healthy export market for plastics).

Even if we set aside a moment the drawing down of a pristine aquifer (yes, recharged by a lot of rain), the green house gas emissions, the use of an available fuel source to make plastic, the unavailability of plastic recycling infrastructure through the US, and the incredibly dirty bunker fuel used in ocean freighters in what the company describes as "carbon efficient transportation," there's the chemical issue.

Plastic water bottles are made of PET, which is an acronym for polyethylene terephthalate. It would be alright if used once but many people refill the bottles time and time again, releasing the chemical DEHA which is a known carcinogen. Other competing plastic bottles are emerging as bad boys as well, including the camper's beloved Nalgene which now offers a BPA-free bottle. Bisphenol A (BPA), a reproductive toxin which has shown to have adverse effects on women and developing fetuses at surprisingly low levels, is used in water bottles and tin cans.

Virtually every problem associated with bottled water would be alleviated if each of us could manage to make one, $15-$17 investment in a new generation of sexy, green bottles: Sigg and Klean Kanteen to name a few. Away with climate change, toxics, depleted water, dirty bunker fuel and yet another highly successful campaign based on want. The same very successful marketing strategies have been used to sell you antibacterial products and SUVs and the joke is not only on you, but on all of us planetary citizens.

• June 6, 2008 by Heidi Siegelbaum
• 8 comments

• tags: bottled water Fiji Klean Kanteen Sigg

Shh - don't tell anyone - these apartments are green!

Riding home the other night, I saw a big sign: "The First Green Apartments in Minneapolis. move2blue.com"

I've been wondering what they meant - suspecting the worst. When I dug deeper, I found a green building problem that in my job I've seen is global in the residential green building world.

On their marketing website, I looked eagerly for details on what made them green. Not only did I find nothing, I didn't even find claims that they were green.

The problem: people building green aren't telling anyone, and if they do, they don't provide any proof.

If you read the developer's website, you learn that Blue will be the first privately-funded LEED certified apartment building in Minneapolis. (That "privately-funded" is very important, because there are five Minnesota Green Communities projects in Minneapolis, one of which is going for LEED certification - and will probably be done before Blue.)

They've recently added a link that I almost didn't find - hidden on the front page is the Race 4 Green, but again, no more details. Is keeping what makes it green a secret a "clever" marketing ploy?

The secretiveness screams greenwashing. The basic lesson of hunting greenwash is to look for details and evidence; obscuring information or providing none is a loud indicator of guilt.

I can't tell whether this is greenwashing or not. The only reason I suspect it might not be is personally knowing a couple members of the development team.

Why is it so hard for developers to market green homes effectively?

Here are my tips:
1: Tell customers what you are doing. How will it affect the occupant? How will it affect the environment?
2: How will buyers or renters know you've done what you said? Is it Energy Star certified? Forest Stewardship Council certified? How many gallons of water does it use, and how does that compare to "normal" faucets?

Why is that so hard?

• June 9, 2008 by Janne K. Flisrand
• 1 comments

• tags: green building marketing