Marketplace

The greenwash lurking across the street

A couple days ago, I wandered into my bank - my secondary bank. I’ve been loyal to a local bank that has the most incredible community investment program for more than a decade. But as a new landlord I need easy rent deposit access, so I opened an account in the almost-as-good local bank right across the street.

I had trash, so I asked the teller whether they had recycling. She said, “No, most banks don’t recycle, but we’re going green - I made this poster,” and held up a sheet of paper. “But I’m waiting to put it up until we have recycling.”

In my surprise (how could they go green if they hadn’t long since figured out recycling?) I responded, “Great! What is the bank doing to be green?” She looked around nervously and said, “We close the blinds to keep the heat out, and…,” she trailed off, “Alex could tell you more…”

I don’t recall my exact words, but I said it would be a mistake to post the sign, recycling doesn’t make for a green business, they’d be greenwashing (I defined it), and in our neighborhood people care about that sort of thing.

Don’t get me wrong, I like this bank. But there’s nothing worse than when a business I’m happy to patronize — because they’re local and support the community — greenwash. Most often, it’s because they don’t know any better.

Somewhere in there, Alex wandered over. He mentioned that this branch had won the “greenest branch” competition, and that the building was green. It’s a super walkable/bikeable/busable location and design, and the finishes are green, but I watched the building go up. Knowing it was supposed to be a green building, I predicted a number of shortcomings, including the overheating problem that results in saving energy by “closing the blinds.”

I offering my services if they were serious about going green. I encouraged a sign that said, “Greenest ——- branch.” We had a good discussion of what they could do as a business and how to get management on board. I answered some of the teller’s personal questions about recycling in her apartment building.

I hope they don’t screw it up. I’m also wondering how I can help them along, because if they go far enough, I’ll move all my accounts to the most convenient bank location ever.

• November 3, 2008 by Janne K. Flisrand
• 1 comments

• tags: banks local business recycling

Eco-labeled pesticides! Are your hands on fire yet?

As I write, millions of you are using EPA-registered pesticides, likely without knowing it, in a marketing-induced frenzy to rid the world of teensy weensy little microorganisms — things like bacteria, fungi and viruses. The hyped marketing isn’t necessary but disinfecting is, as the real-world disease implications are serious.

This fall, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is convening a work group that will discuss allowing companies to make green claims or use eco-labels for disinfectants and sanitizers. Disinfectants and sanitizers are antimicrobials (pesticides), or agents which prevent/destroy/repel/mitigate these pests and they have to be registered by the EPA and used in very particular ways and at very particular dilutions. And be careful with those alcohol-based sanitizers because they are flammable- women with static electricity from stockings watch out!

You may soon be able to spend hours in the cleaning aisle of the grocery store looking at waves, bunnies, earths, check marks and other eco-claims you may (or may not) understand for all those robust disinfectants and sanitizers.

If the EPA, the progressive ISSA (the worldwide cleaning industry association, which is a strong partner with EPA, Design for Environment Safer Detergent Stewardship Initiative, who was recently awarded Championship status by the agency), and other non-profits and academic organizations do their job right, they could harmonize all third-party criteria for environmentally preferable or “green” disinfectants and sanitizers. And good luck! Otherwise, we could start seeing very confusing or contentious claims on products which, well… are designed to kill.

Some would argue there is no room for such claims but there is indeed a difference between what’s in these products. I would prefer that EPA change its own criteria to prohibit these pesky little problematic elements that pose risks from cancer, reproductive disorders, hormone disruption to asthma, permanent eye damage, dizziness and fatigue.

The End of Cause Marketing on Pesticides!!

For as long as there’s been a pesticide program, EPA has clearly and flatly prohibited the use of eco-labels or third party logos on pesticides. However, in what some consider an outrageous departure from this policy, the agency permitted Clorox to feature The American Red Cross® logo on its bleach in 2007, followed by the Sierra Club label on the new GreenWorks® shortly thereafter.

In a fascinating self-reversal (spurred by hostile adverse comments and Minnesota’s refusal to allow such labeled products in commerce), EPA just withdrew its notice, and obviously permission, about third-party endorsements and cause-marketing label statements. Note this didn’t include ecolabels which may open the door to green marketing for pesticides…organic tobacco, anyone?

At this point, you will no longer see non-profit logos on products but you may see an eco-label on disinfectants and sanitizers in the future. All I can say is read the label carefully — very carefully— and keep this number handy: (800) 858-7378, the National Pesticide Information Center and remember your friends at Tufts University and Beyond Pesticides.

• November 5, 2008 by Heidi Siegelbaum
• 3 comments

• tags: Clorox eco-labels EPA

Greenwash alert: Minnesota jobs policy

Yesterday, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty presented an extension of JOBZ (Job Opportunity Building Zones) to incorporate jobs related to renewable and clean energy.

This morning’s response from progressive think tank Minnesota 2020 is a quick poll titled “Greenwashing JOBZ” asking for readers’ opinions on the initiative.

For readers outside Minnesota, our popular Republican governor has long supported JOBZ. In essence, companies get tax breaks for creating jobs in economically-struggling mostly-rural areas of the state. The state auditor’s office found it a not-very-effective policy. Pawlenty has also put forth some ambitious energy policies, but lately he’s seemed to hold them at arm’s length, and as someone working in the area of energy efficiency, implementation has been lacking.

When I saw the poll title, I wondered: can anything can be greenwashed? Mostly, it’s a term applied to products, but policy? I went right back to the TerraChoice 6 Sins of Greenwashing.

Using their definitions, the claim works for me, although it’s a bit of an exaggeration.

(Note to self: How much do my preconceived opinions of the program and my assessment of Pawlenty’s commitment to energy initiatives color my evaluation?)

If you accept that JOBZ isn’t a success, the Sin of Irrelevance applies - paint over poor policy with green jobs. Green has nothing to do with JOBZ, and maybe we won’t notice whether it’s creating jobs or not if we’re thinking about GREEN.

The Sin of No Proof is a gimme — claims about future policy success lack proof by definition.

Is Minnesota 2020 stretching, calling this policy greenwashing? Is it impossible to tell until we can test the success or failure of the program years from now? Or, am I simply unable to see through my partisan preferences?

• November 11, 2008 by Janne K. Flisrand
• 3 comments

• tags: green jobs Minnesota Policy

A requiem for ethanol?

Representatives attending the recent American Banker’s Association’s Agricultural Bankers Conference predict over 40 ethanol companies will fail by 2009. On the heels of bankruptcy by industry giant Vera Sun and 24 of its subsidiaries, Mark Lakers of the Agribusiness and Food Association predicts industry consolidation.

The specter of consolidation sounds just like (guess who?) banking and automobile manufacturing — except ethanol producers, farmers and their corpulent intermediary Archer Daniels Midland don’t have to beg for help because they are celebrating their 30 year anniversary of government largesse.

I’m not convinced this is a requiem for ethanol, a fuel born as a commodity for drunks (it was a prohibited grain alcohol before it became a fuel) that has enjoyed a long history of tax subsidies, tariffs, loans and other love, starting with President Carter in the 1970s.

Even if we devoted our entire corn crop to ethanol, it would still only replace 15% of our annual fuel demand.

Corn-based ethanol, made from corn starch as opposed to the plant’s fiber or perennial grasses such as switch grass, carries a doozie of an environmental punch:

• Pollutes surface and groundwater with pesticides and fertilizers.
• Exacerbates the Gulf of Mexico Dead zone.
• The most energy-intensive crop grown. Period.
• Rapidly depletes topsoil and promotes topsoil erosion.

And while it’s not completely responsible, ethanol is part of the fuel vs. food quandary that’s doubled prices on wheat, soybean and corn in the last year, leading to food riots in Mexico, Pakistan, Italy, and Indonesia. In China, a marked increase in cooking oil prices led to a store riot killing three.

The ethanol industry is already drunk with excessive taxpayer-supported subsidies and bi-partisan support in Congress but now it’s facing opposition from a fascinating consortium of revolters ranging from The National Turkey Federation, National Cattleman’s Beef Association and (the very conservative) Grocery Manufacturer’s Association to the Environmental Working Group, Food for All and Earth Policy Institute.

In a mano-o-mano wrestling match, we can pair up Emeril and Rachael Ray against Dick Durbin, with an apartment sized E-85 vehicle and a Le Creuset French Oven as door prizes. For a light touch, check out the film King Corn and yet another fun You Tube explanation of the dangerous delusion called ethanol.

• November 22, 2008 by Heidi Siegelbaum
• 3 comments

• tags: ethanol