Marketplace

Roadside greenwash reminders from coal country

Riding through Pennsylvania on my way home from a lovely family wedding a few days ago, I had a glimpse into why greenwash detectors like our blog are extremely important for society to continue its march toward sustainability. Interstate 76 was lined with billboards by Families Organized to Represent the Coal Economy, lauding coal as "clean & green" and saying that without coal, many of the state's cities would be in the dark.

While coal's current importance in our country (we generate almost half our electricity from the fuel) is clear, the statement "clean & green" is certainly a stretch. The group did include a caveat that said "with new technologies" but the new technology of carbon capture and storage is completely untested in the world marketplace. Their claim seems like calling a Hummer "clean & green" because it is conceivable that consumers would purchase plug-in hybrid Hummers because plug-in hybrid is largely understood (though none are on the market yet).

In such times when green is chic and PR executives claim their clients to be so, consumers need two essential elements to cut through the noise:

The first is the establishment of transparent standards that can compare business practices within sectors (and potentially across sectors). Some of the best ones include LEED standards for green building and an emerging tool called STARS being put together by AASHE to weigh green cred between college campuses. We need to keep improving and expanding user-friendly standards for folks to gauge the greenness of different companies and their goods.

The second vital element is the public voice of watchdogs: whether they be Bill Moyers-types in the media, institutions in the nonprofit sector and academia, and even bloggers like us -- as long as our notes are read by a wide enough audience.

I hope green continues to stay chic and that more greenwash-vigilant entities rise up to empower consumers and citizens with verifiable knowledge that the products and services we buy live up to our values. Props to Marketplace for their efforts, and here's hoping we can make more progress in the months and years ahead!

• July 9, 2008 by Dennis Markatos
• 0 comments

• tags: coal standards watchdogs

Stop belching, Bessie! You're ruining the environment!

What a riot! How complex is a story about:

• The genetically engineered bovine growth hormone, somatotropin, trade name Posilac...
• which is not approved for use in Australia, Canada, Europe, Japan, or New Zealand...
• whose 1993 FDA approval led to the dismissal of several questioning FDA scientists that wanted more test data given the paucity of data given to support the approval...
• which Monsanto claims reduces both methane (from dairy cow belching and farting -- mind you, the first far exceeds the latter) and energy use generally from efficient feeding...
• and the discussion of which raises more fart jokes than a Cub Scout camping trip?

The research paper, which I could not find, was co-authored by a researcher from the venerable Cornell University but apparently co-authored by a Monsanto consultant and employee. Can anyone say bias? I found the core inconsistency on Monsanto's own web site which says that "[r]esponses to POSILAC are greatest when quality feed is available for consumption at least 20 hours a day." So, how can it be that a herd, laden with somatotropin, would require less food when the cow obviously has to be chowing down almost 24-7?

Judith Capper of Cornell claims that "switching a million cows onto somatotropin would lead to savings equivalent to removing 400,000 family cars from the U.S. roads." Well, that's a treat! How about creating electricity with cow manure? Or using energy efficient lights in the outrageously energy-intensive dairy industry? Or find new fuels for transport of the raw milk to processing plants which are now going half full?

Fluid milk production is not just about the cows (opens PDF). It's about using large tracts of land for production, the use of nutritionally poor ryegrass which gives cows indigestion (belching + farts = methane), and cooling and refrigeration along a continuum of growing food, housing and feeding of cows. Other farm-centric studies mention changing diets of the ruminants (their 4 stomachs digest food as opposed to humans' gnarly intestines), water conservation measures, free cooling during winter months (this offer does not apply in Hawaii), heat recovery, boiler efficiency controls and adjustable speed drives on ventilation fans.

Bottom line is that Monsanto is under tremendous pressure for its very aggressive tactics with farmers over its weed and feed products (they spy on and then sue small farmers), its shop-worn excuses for not being upfront about labeling its genetically engineered products (if it's safe then why worry about labeling?) and of course it's perennially under fire for Posilac which Monsanto admits gives cows mastitis and may also contribute to human cancers because it increases the hormone Insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1).

There's no argument that methane is a serious contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Even Estonia is taxing farmers (image at right from Cape Cod Today) for their cow's sins, and you can still download Kelly Ripa on Saturday Night Live in the Center for Cow Fart Study skit, a testament that the issue must be real.

• July 7, 2008 by Heidi Siegelbaum
• 5 comments

• tags: cows methane Monsanto

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

About a week after this post, I received an e-mail from the marketing
firm working on Blue: We "immediately realized that you are right. The info on what makes Blue so green was definitely hidden on the site. We moved that up to the homepage for everyone to see."

Excellent!

Their language on what makes Blue so green could use some more specifics and be more comprehensible to consumers. What does it mean to save 5,000 gallons of water per year? Is that a 1% improvement or a 30% improvement over what's normal? They could also avoid stating the obvious ("higher levels of insulation") and highlighting tiny things like "Locally Quarried Granite in some units." But they're trying and getting close.

The e-mail also included an invitation for coffee to "make sure we are speaking the right language." And a tour of Blue.

We met, and I'm happy to report that while Blue isn't perfect, they are doing a good job. They have an interesting underground parking construction method that they didn't highlight on the info sheet and great stormwater management - again not on the sheet. They're also doing education with prospective and new tenants.

I'd live there.

• July 11, 2008 by Janne K. Flisrand
• 1 comments

• tags: green building marketing

"Up to 70% recycled content"

Thanks to Corporate Climate Response News, I learned that the FTC is still on the trail of greenwashing, and heard about a stellar example of greenwashing from Vice President Frank Hurd of the Carpet and Rug Institute, which certifies Green Label and Green Label Plus carpets.

He described one carpet manufacturer (not a CRI member) who advertised their carpet as including “Up to 70 percent recycled content.” Of course, that label is technically and legally accurate on carpet that has recycled content anywhere between zero percent and 70 percent. A good marketing department will make sure that the “up to” is in very tiny type, and “70 percent recycled content” is very large… and all but the most careful consumer will give them credit for 70.

Brigadiers weighed in before the first of the FTC workshops which addressed carbon offsetting.

Now the FTC workshops are complete, and they say there will be new Green Guides, probably in 2009.

I’m anxious to find out whether they will be meaningful and what they will address. I hope they’ll be published before Americans are tired of “green” in all its untrustworthy forms and shift interest to something else.

Tell us your thoughts: What aspects of green marketing most need FTC guidance? Carbon offsets? Green building? Corporate sustainability reporting? What sorts of guidelines would be most useful?

• July 24, 2008 by Janne K. Flisrand
• 1 comments

• tags: marketing standards watchdogs

An oil man who gets the energy big picture

Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens is helping to spur the renewable energy revolution our country and the world need.

You’ve probably seen his PickensPlan.com advertisements running over the last few days. I am one observer who is ecstatic that he is putting his resources toward such an initiative.

T. Boone Pickens is promoting a 10-year plan that would help lower US emissions and focuses on reducing our dependence on foreign oil. He has made hundreds of millions betting on the recent rise in the price of oil and gas, and firmly believes that our world is in an oil crisis as supply stagnates while demand climbs higher. He sees our current oil import bill of almost $700 billion per year as economically crippling and wants to replace oil with wind power. By increasing wind power from its current 20 gigawatts to 400 gigawatts over the next 10 years (a 35% growth rate similar to the rate of the last ten years), the plan would free up enough natural gas to run a quarter of US vehicles and lower our oil import bill by $200-plus billion per year by 2018.

Pickens is running advertisements throughout the country to get Presidential candidates to take oil scarcity seriously and make sound energy policy a top priority in their Administrative agenda. For a swift-boat veteran funder in 2004, I think his election efforts will do a lot more good this time around. Though in addition to wind, I would recommend 20 gigawatts of solar power (a similar growth rate to wind’s) to provide for new energy needs as fossil fuels increase in price.

Some complain that he has an interest in wind power succeeding, so he is just being self-serving. But I think his plans to build the world’s biggest wind farm in west Texas at 4 gigawatts shows he is putting his money where his mouth is. It gives his goals legitimacy. And Texas’ recent approval to support 18.5 GW of transmission lines to send wind power from rural west Texas to the cities in the central and eastern part of the state makes the Pickens Plan that much more reasonable. I may not agree with Pickens on many political issues but when it comes to energy, I appreciate his contributions toward helping our country move from laggard to leader in the renewable energy revolution. His strong investments, by ordering the first GW of wind turbines for his record-breaking wind farm, shows he is not just a green talker — but also a green walker.

• July 19, 2008 by Dennis Markatos
• 4 comments

• tags: oil Pickens wind

Is KB Home commiting a "random act of greenness"?

Joel Makower reflects upon the evolving definition of greenwash in a recent post titled, "How Bad is Greenwashing, Really?" He explains how greenwash in the late 80's and early 90's referred to "deliberate and cynical attempts by companies to mislead the public."

Fast forward to 2008, and corporate America has moved beyond abject denial and cover up to a phenomenon Makower calls "Random Acts of Greenness." They recognize that the public is demanding environmental responsibility, and are taking steps to do better (often motivated by the good PR that follows). Now the concern is that 'sustainability' is such a new concept among the general public that we have trouble evaluating the significance of these corporate green claims.

Case in point: KB Home recently announced a company-wide commitment that all communities opening in 2009 will meet "Energy Star" certification.

Is this greenwash?

The cynic in me wants to shake a tsk-tsk finger at them and say, "Great, green suburban single-family home development on green field sites. Big deal. That's like a 'green' 12-mile-per-gallon Hummer with recycled carpet and bamboo trim." It's their urban sprawl development pattern that is unsustainable.

However, this does represent a significant commitment on their part. Energy Star is not the norm. And they're only able to make the commitment because they see a market of consumers asking for green homes. For a business to stay in business, there must be a market for their product. They could commit to only building carbon-neutral, net-zero energy homes on urban infill sites, but they would soon be out of business. The American public isn't asking for that product...yet. Maybe this effort will even drive demand.

I'm inclined to restrain my cynicism and say, "Bravo HB Homes, well done."

• July 25, 2008 by Jim Nicolow
• 5 comments

• tags: Energy Star greenwash KB Home

"Location, location, location" - a message lost on Warm Springs Tribes

Planners at The Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs don't seem to be familiar with the well-known marketing mantra: location, location, location.

The Tribes are embroiled in a highly controversial proposal to build a 603,000 square foot off-reservation mega-casino (roughly three times the size of a Wal-Mart super store) in tiny little Cascade Locks, Oregon, adjacent to,and some would argue -- in the very heart of -- one of this region's spectacular gems, the Columbia River Gorge.

Its proponents argue that it will be built to LEED standards and apparently carbon offsets would be used after construction starts, "possibly by planting trees." And where will these trees be planted or by whom?

It makes sense to evaluate siting decisions by looking at context, scale, site characteristics and little niggling things like greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.

The Columbia River Gorge, 80 miles long and up to 4,000 feet deep, was designated as a National Scenic Area in 1986. The area generates millions of dollars each year in nature-based tourism revenue and is home to threatened salmon, bald eagle and old growth forests.

To my eyes, this is yet another lipstick-on-a-pig story:

• Round trip travel from the Warm Springs Reservation to the proposed casino site is a whopping 220 miles (the Interior Department in a recent memo (link to PDF on page) stated it would give greater scrutiny to tribal benefits as the distance increases between the acquisition -- here the industrial site in Cascade Locks -- and the tribe's reservation.)

• The site -- in addition to 603,000 square feet worth of buildings -- will include 25 acres and an additional 35 acres of pure unforgiving parking lot, utilities and other hard surfaces. 20 acres of parking lot = 413,000 gallons of polluted runoff from one, one-inch rain event (and if you know the area, rain is a regular companion out there)

• The casino would draw 3 million visitors annually and would require an expansion of Interstate 84 over a salmon bearing stream, including "de-watering" the stream. Last time I checked, fish don't drive. Can anyone say traffic, climate change and poor air quality? The Forest Service is already plagued by poor air quality in the Gorge, where visibility is impaired 90% of the time.

LEED standards don't address contextual siting, scale, community opposition or adjacency issues so although it's admirable to build to LEED standards, it alone is a poor indicator of a project's environmental sustainability. The community of Cascade Locks is equally divided and its local government very boldly denounces its opposition. In a list of 20 hyperlinked documents, oddly the only one not working was the link to the Environmental Impact Statement. How coincidental...

Similar to the issues raised by mega mansions scattered across the nation, enraging neighbors and creating visual discordance (ugly is bad enough, huge-ugly is insufferable), scale, location and climate change are deal breakers when dealing with complex smart growth and sustainable development issues.

• July 27, 2008 by Heidi Siegelbaum
• 2 comments

• tags: casinos LEED siting Warm Springs