//Json index for use with feed widgets. Define a unique object name for each blog using the variable jsonObjName. tgbFeed = { "channel": { "title": "The Greenwash Brigade", "link": "http://www.publicradio.org/columns/sustainability/greenwash/?refid=0", "description": "Our hand-picked environmental professionals are on the hunt for greenwash as they examine eco-friendly claims by companies, governments and other groups. They ask tough questions about the mainstreaming of green, from the perspectives of people in the trenches who are focused on these issues 24/7", "published": "Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:00:00 -0800", "language": "en", "items": [{ "title": "Responsible investing for newbies -- share your ideas", "description": "\I’ve been invited to do a short presentation to an investing club on “sustainable stuff and investing.” My plan is to define \socially responsible investing\<\/a\>, then to move on to \Corporate Sustainability Reporting\<\/a\> and to demonstrate it by reviewing reports for one or two of the companies they already invest in. \<\/p\>\n\n\A while ago, the Brigadiers \discussed corporate sustainability\<\/a\> and I had my first and very frustrating foray into trying to find the reports for Seventh Generation. (Update - as predicted, I haven’t tried it since then.) We identified a host of websites and resources that I found overwhelming to navigate. \<\/p\>\n\n\I’m asking my fellow Brigadiers and all our readers: If you had 15-20 minutes to share the two best, most accessible resources, what would you pick? URLs, comics, and memorable phrases — I’m open to anything! \<\/p\>\n", "link": "http://www.publicradio.org/columns/sustainability/greenwash/2009/09/seeking_advice_on_researching.html?refid=0", "pubDate": "Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:00:00 -0800" },{ "title": "Can you tell the difference between sustainable lumber and clear cut lumber? ", "description": "\\\\ $\"hardwoods_numstead.jpg\"$ \<\/a\>\<\/span\>\n(\numstead\<\/a\>, via Flickr)\<\/p\>\n\n\I didn’t think so.\<\/p\>\n\n\A coalition of international environmental groups established the “\Forest Stewardship Council\<\/a\>” (FSC) in 1993 to help you tell the difference. Even though they’re criticized as not tough enough, the FSC’s third-party certification system has become the gold standard for sustainable forest products.\<\/p\>\n\n\Following the old adage, “if you can’t beat them, join them,” the American Forest & Paper Association created its own certification system for labeling sustainably managed forests, requiring all members to ‘self-certify’ that they comply with their “Sustainable Forestry Initiative” (SFI) requirements. (SFI became an independent non-profit in 2007.) Buoyed by the support of behemoth members such as Weyerhaeuser the SFI has grown rapidly, with SFI operations now covering approximately \90%\<\/a\> of the industrial forestland in the US.\<\/p\>\n\n\Michael Brune, executive director of the Rainforest Action Network described the SFI efforts as “a new green coat of paint over the same tired practices” and environmental groups have lined up to fight the SFI certification program producing a sobering \photo gallery \<\/a\>of SFI Certified Logging.\<\/p\>\n\n\The battle is heating up. The U.S. Green Building Council is now poised to recognize SFI certification in their LEED Rating System. Earlier this month, \ForestEthics\<\/a\> filed administrative complaints with the Federal Trade Commission and the IRS claiming that SFI’s “phony ‘green’ certification label misleads consumers and cheats taxpayers.” A certification system birthed by the industry it purports to regulate seems a bit like the fox guarding the henhouse.\<\/p\>\n", "link": "http://www.publicradio.org/columns/sustainability/greenwash/2009/09/can_you_tell_the_difference.html?refid=0", "pubDate": "Thu, 24 Sep 2009 10:00:00 -0800" },{ "title": "Outdated mental models thwart sustainability -- details at 6", "description": "\Last week, \Andrew Revkin noted \<\/a\> the recently released MIT Sloan Management Review/Boston Consulting Group report on the pace and substance of corporate sustainability adoption. I wasn’t particularly surprised at the results nor did it ring any greenwash bells. It’s good but sobering news:\<\/p\>\n\n\\n\\92% of 2,000 respondents said they are addressing sustainability in some way, but…\<\/p\>\<\/li\>\n\\More than 70% said their company has not developed a clear business case for sustainability.\<\/p\>\<\/li\>\n\\Latin American companies see environmental destruction as a major driver but American companies see government regulation as that driver. \<\/p\>\<\/li\>\n\\There is a chasm between intent and action (60% of respondents have no plan overall to address sustainability).\<\/p\>\<\/li\>\n\\Most respondents expressed limited concern about their gaps in technical and operational capabilities needed to address sustainability.\<\/p\>\<\/li\>\n\\“Experts” in sustainability were much more likely to see the value creation/ business case for sustainability than executives less familiar with sustainability principles.\<\/p\>\<\/li\>\n\<\/ul\>\n\n\\And now, from my own non-statistically significant informal observations:\<\/strong\>\<\/p\>\n\n\\n\\People always fudge on surveys because we want to appear better or more noble than we really are. The truth lies in action. Sustainable progress in product development, manufacturing and supply chain alignment can be at odds with the public posture and lobbying efforts of a corporation which brings into play the \sustainable product vs. the not-so-sustainable Board or company\<\/a\> evaluation. \<\/p\>\<\/li\>\n\\The report indicates that an outdated mental model was one of the most significant barriers to sustainability plans and action. I have spent 20 years listening to rhetoric about “the environment” as anathema to strategic business objectives. What’s really at fault? \<\/p\>\n\n\\n\\Most companies are not \true learning organizations\<\/a\> capable of suspending the belief they know everything and actually listening to others;\<\/p\>\<\/li\>\n\\Exquisitely effective anti-environmental frames and messaging;\<\/p\>\<\/li\>\n\\Obscure “nature is sacred” arguments by many NGOs and public agencies which fail to make the business case for business value creation;\<\/p\>\<\/li\>\n\\A flat-earth orientation to the world which defies physics, natural systems and is grossly ignorant of our perilous and delicate reliance on Earth systems;\<\/p\>\<\/li\>\n\\Obscene expectations for short-term returns by investors, which lead to dubious business decisions;\<\/p\>\<\/li\>\n\\A lack of a direct feedback loops: We can delay, hide or export all the impacts of an inefficient and injurious business model and still get up each morning and drive our SUVs without batting an eye; and\<\/p\>\<\/li\>\n\\A tendency for corporate spokespersons to spew rhetoric about how awful government is and how “environmentalists” are disconnected from core business values.\<\/p\>\<\/li\>\n\<\/ul\>\<\/li\>\n\<\/ol\>\n\n\The derriere we save may be our own as we wend your way through the sustainability matrix. Saving that derriere should be a core strategy for businesses everywhere because it’s not just about earth physics but the volatility of resource prices, civil war occasioned by climate change and a cranky and environmentally aware younger generation that may not want to work for you or buy your products… if you fall down on the job.\<\/p\>\n", "link": "http://www.publicradio.org/columns/sustainability/greenwash/2009/09/outdated_mental_models_thwart.html?refid=0", "pubDate": "Mon, 21 Sep 2009 21:17:56 -0800" },{ "title": "A business guide to preventing greenwash", "description": "\“\Understanding and Preventing Greenwash: A Business Guide\<\/a\> (opens PDF)” was just published by BSR and Futerra Sustainability Communications. The report finds that trust in business is at record lows with only 13 percent trusting advertising. \(I’m frankly surprised they could find a survey pool where even 13 percent say they trust advertising.)\<\/em\> \<\/p\>\n\n\Highlighting continued growth in demand for environmentally responsible products (nearly \40%\<\/a\> of the American market now chooses green products over other options), the report finds that greenwash is bad for business and cites ways customers, regulatory bodies, NGO’s, and the media are beginning to stop greenwash.\<\/p\>\n\n\The authors urge that businesses understand the US Federal Trade Commission’s “Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims” and take precautionary measures to avoid being accused of Greenwash—the FTC has begun to step in, recently charging Kmart with making “\false and unsubstantiated claims that their paper products are ‘biodegradable.’\<\/a\>“—and provides example practices for reducing the risk of greenwash, including Lifecycle Analyses and NGO partnerships.\<\/p\>\n\n\Maybe greenwash is a gateway drug, and mainstream companies will now begin to move beyond greening their PR message to greening their actions.\<\/p\>\n", "link": "http://www.publicradio.org/columns/sustainability/greenwash/2009/08/a_business_guide_to_preventing.html?refid=0", "pubDate": "Mon, 17 Aug 2009 06:19:21 -0800" },{ "title": "Answering your questions: Bottled water vs. soda?", "description": "\Thanks to Toni from Winston-Salem NC for writing in to ask why environmental tips focus on reducing the use of bottled water, but don’t tend to address soda. \<\/p\>\n\n\\n \Being a bottled water lover for 1+ years now, I am trying to figure out why soda bottles are not a concern as well? I would rather see a bunch of people drinking fresh water than sugary soft drinks any day, but that is just me…so why water bottles only?\<\/p\>\n\<\/blockquote\>\n\n\Although indeed convenient, bottled water has all these things going against it:\<\/p\>\n\n\\n\Cost between $1.50 and $4.80/gallon versus tap water’s $.002/gallon\<\/li\>\n\The fuel and energy costs for making the plastic and bottling the water would fill 1/4 of the bottle with petroleum oil\<\/li\>\n\Frequently draws down (or depletes) your municipality’s drinking water supply; they take the water you are already paying for, rebottle it, then resell it to you at 1,000 times the cost (can we say rip-off?). This leaves less water for agriculture, fish, recreation and yes, tap water\<\/li\>\n\Bottling companies are increasingly trying to privatize water rather than leaving it in the hands of local populations\<\/li\>\n\Plastic bottles are a cocktail of toxic chemicals\<\/li\>\n\85% of plastic bottles are ditched as garbage and never recycled\<\/li\>\n\<\/ol\>\n\n\You should visit the \Responsible Purchasing Network\<\/a\> where you can find data to your heart’s desire on bottled water. Just recently the GAO issued a report as well, 09-610, which concludes that EPA standards for drinking water contaminants are stricter than the standards covering bottled water.\<\/p\>\n\n\I don’t know much about soda bottling but do know it also involves significant inputs of local water and has caused much consternation. Do yourself a favor and get a stainless steel bottle and fill it up with yummy Winston-Salem water rather than supporting an inherently corrupt, illogical and non-consumer friendly proposition.\<\/p\>\n", "link": "http://www.publicradio.org/columns/sustainability/greenwash/2009/08/questions_bottled_water.html?refid=0", "pubDate": "Wed, 12 Aug 2009 19:49:57 -0800" },{ "title": "Horizon Organic to consumers: sewage sludge is good for you!", "description": "\Already plagued for falling prices and other woes, the organic food industry is now confronting 800-pound gorilla Dean Food’s decision to \create a new line \<\/a\>of “natural” yogurts and milks through its subsidiary, Horizon Foods. For anyone vaguely familiar with advertising claims, “natural” and “healthy” are big sellers, regardless of the fact that the terms are barely regulated in the food market and are largely meaningless.\<\/p\>\n\n\The threat — which is considerable — is that this move will encourage a shift of organic dollars, the benefits of organic farming and a pretty tight USDA regulatory system toward a Wild West free for all: the ambiguous abyss called “natural.” \<\/p\>\n\n\The feds (aka the USDA and FDA) have respectfully declined to define “natural” except for a very narrow class of products. And so Dean Foods will fill that void with their own: natural Dean products will be those “produced without added hormones, artificial sweeteners, artificial colors, flavors, preservatives or high fructose corn syrup.” Well, that’s reassuring.\<\/p\>\n\n\Claims for natural meat and poultry only are defined and regulated \by the USDA\<\/a\>: for meat and poultry to be labeled “natural” it must be minimally processed (a process which does not fundamentally alter the raw product). The label must explain the use of the term natural (such as ‘no added colorings or artificial ingredients’ or ‘minimally processed’). But this is where clarity disappears.\<\/p\>\n\n\Dean’s new “natural” yogurts and milk can — and will — come from dairy cows that have eaten pesticide laden feed such as corn and soy, antibiotics, pig and chicken byproducts, and sewage sludge. The only bad boy from the list of conventional animal feed that Dean has prohibited is hormones. So what’s a little sewage sludge and pesticide residue going to do to your kid anyhow?\<\/p\>\n\n\Debates rage on whether organic food is more nutritionally complete or “better” for the consumer. Opinions vary considerably but even the \EPA itself admits\<\/a\> that children are particularly susceptible to pesticides for many reasons:\<\/p\>\n\n\\n\children’s internal organs are still developing and maturing \<\/li\>\n\due to their lower body weight, children have increased exposure to anything in substances they eat or drink\<\/li\>\n\pesticides block nutrient absorption\<\/li\>\n\<\/ul\>\n\n\\The Score:\<\/strong\>\<\/p\>\n\n\1) The International Dairy Foods Association and Grocery Manufacturers Association don’t want a definition of natural (just read \their letter\<\/a\> to USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service from March 2, 2007). \<\/p\>\n\n\2) Consumers responding to the \recent Shelton Group Survey\<\/a\> trust natural over organic (note to organic marketers: Get working!). \<\/p\>\n\n\3) The FDA will not engage in rule making on “natural” advertising claims due to “resource limitations and other agency priorities.” \<\/p\>\n\n\4) The new Horizon products are aimed at toddlers and children (who are particularly at risk for pesticide exposure). \<\/p\>\n\n\5) Oh, and the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology concedes that milk is the number 1 cause of food allergies in children. \<\/p\>\n\n\So, all you confused consumers out there, remember this: ATTENTION ALL SHOPPERS: Natural = pesticides.\<\/p\>\n", "link": "http://www.publicradio.org/columns/sustainability/greenwash/2009/07/horizon_organic_to_consumers_s.html?refid=0", "pubDate": "Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:00:00 -0800" },{ "title": "Is Wal-Mart making my eco-dream come true?", "description": "\\UPDATE 7/15/09 2:53pm — \Sam Eaton previews Wal-Mart’s announcement on Marketplace today\<\/a\>.\<\/em\>\<\/p\>\n\n\Anyone who has followed the Greenwash Brigade knows that my personal eco-dream is a single \Sustainability Index\<\/a\> that is easy for all consumers to understand, and that applies to everything from Acme Iron Bird Seed to a Trident Missile. \<\/p\>\n\n\I think it would enable consumers who care - but who don’t care enough to research products on the \Skin Deep Database\<\/a\> before heading to the mall - to make better decisions on every purchase. And that they would, if it were valid and clearly placed on every product.\<\/p\>\n\n\\Daniel Goleman\<\/a\> agrees with me. It seems \WalMart agrees with me\<\/a\>, too - and they’re making it happen. \<\/p\>\n\n\My job is to write about greenwash, but until the index (and the messy, messy details underlaying it) are public, it’s impossible to say whether it is or it isn’t. The big W has been making significant steps for a while, so maybe they’ll do it right. The further I read, the more hope I have, because they seem to have the right players at the table - including my hometown big box brand Target and a host of life-cycle-analysis experts.\<\/p\>\n\n\On the other hand, I have to agree with Gunther: “Who chose Wal-Mart to be America’s regulator?” I’m not sure I’d even trust \Seventh Generation\<\/a\>, a brand that has played a leading role in the corporate sustainability movement and in providing product information to consumers for two decades, to take this on! And Wal-Mart still has a long way to go to gain my trust. \<\/p\>\n\n\For the moment, I’m glad someone is doing it (even if it is the biggest of the behemoths).\<\/p\>\n\n\It will make a difference. \<\/p\>\n", "link": "http://www.publicradio.org/columns/sustainability/greenwash/2009/07/is_walmart_making_my_eco-dream.html?refid=0", "pubDate": "Wed, 15 Jul 2009 09:00:00 -0800" },{ "title": "Talk about strange bedfellows: Dow Chemical & Greenpeace on cap and trade", "description": "\We’ve had Dow Chemical in the Greenwash Brigade’s crosshairs in the past, so climate change skeptics chew on this: Greenpeace AND Dow Chemical are BOTH calling for action to combat global climate change. Greenpeace activists \scaled Mount Rushmore\<\/a\> on July 8th calling for President Obama to show leadership. That’s hardly surprising. \<\/p\>\n\n\(Here’s a picture of the unfurled banner, via \solveclimate.com\<\/a\>:)\<\/p\>\n\n\\\ $\"Greenpeace10.medium.gif\"$ \<\/span\>\<\/p\>\n\n\But the next day Rich Wells, the VP of Energy at Dow Chemical also \encouraged congress to pass a cap and trade program \<\/a\>to fight climate change, stating, “We believe the cost of inaction will far exceed the cost of comprehensive, far-ranging and expeditious action today.” Wells rightly expects that taking action can be good for the environment AND business.\<\/p\>\n\n\Dow Chemical AND Greenpeace calling for action? It’s time to wake up, climate change skeptics. You’re as relevant as the \Flat Earth Society\<\/a\>.\<\/p\>\n", "link": "http://www.publicradio.org/columns/sustainability/greenwash/2009/07/talk_about_strange_bedfellows.html?refid=0", "pubDate": "Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:40:58 -0800" },{ "title": "The \"G\" in GM is for green?", "description": "\The \AP reports \<\/a\>that General Motors has emerged from bankrupcy ready to “go green.” \\\ $\"gm_green_logo.jpg\"$ \<\/a\>\<\/span\>Literally. GM is apparently contemplating \changing their logo background from blue to green\<\/a\> (image via \autoobserver.com\<\/a\>). The cynical “greenwash brigader” in me wants to scream, “Greenwash!” Come on, this is the company who brought us such behemoths as the Hummer, the Escalade, and the Suburban. \<\/p\>\n\n\The problem is, I have a dog in this hunt. I grew up in Michigan and have seen how the state has been ravaged by the American automobile industry’s loss of dominance. They should have seen peak oil coming, and either didn’t or chose to ignore it. But I WANT them to lead again. I hope that this bankruptcy provides the opportunity for them to truly reinvent themselves. \<\/p\>\n\n\Larry Burns, GM’s VP for R&D, says that he sees a unique opportunity to “reinvent the automobile” and sees the future as a highly-efficient, electrically-driven automobile. Hopefully greenwash is a gateway drug, and GM will go beyond a green logo to become a green company. I wish them luck, and will be watching closely… cynicism held for the moment.\<\/p\>\n", "link": "http://www.publicradio.org/columns/sustainability/greenwash/2009/07/the_g_is_for_green.html?refid=0", "pubDate": "Mon, 13 Jul 2009 07:18:39 -0800" },{ "title": "CFL faux pas from an ecological intelligence expert", "description": "\I just enjoyed the first 45 minutes of a \Minnesota Public Radio call-in show\<\/a\>. Daniel Goleman is touting his book, “Ecological Intelligence: How Knowing the Hidden Impacts of What We Buy Can Change Everything,” and I was fantastically excited that he was talking about transparent, holistic ecological labeling for products. (In essence, he was touting the single-sustainability-label concept I suggested \here\<\/a\>.) He recommended a great-sounding tool, \Good Guide\<\/a\>. (I’m testing it now.) \<\/p\>\n\n\About eight minutes before the end of the hour, it fell apart. A caller commented on all the mercury and transportation miles he was generating disposing of CFL bulbs — and Mr. Goleman congratulated him on his systems thinking, going on to note that we all need to think like that, and that the creators and promoters of CFLs neglected to do so. \<\/p\>\n\n\I was flabbergasted. He’s promoting one of the most-debunked urban legends of anti-environmentalists — on “my” reliable radio station. Huff. \<\/p\>\n\n\A quick web search on “mercury cfl” turns up a load of corrections - mostly about two years old. The \Energy Star fact sheet (PDF)\<\/a\> is clear, the \EPA fact sheet (PDF)\<\/a\> talks about other mercury sources in homes, too, The \NPR story\<\/a\> is the most nuanced. Then, there are a \number\<\/a\> of smart \blog posts\<\/a\>. Plus, there are new, lower-mercury bulbs now available. \<\/p\>\n\n\Mr. Goleman, after the clear and nuanced understanding you presented during the show, I’m astounded that you didn’t immediately connect mercury from electricity production to total mercury emissions and correct the misinformation. \<\/p\>\n", "link": "http://www.publicradio.org/columns/sustainability/greenwash/2009/07/cfl_faux_pas.html?refid=0", "pubDate": "Tue, 07 Jul 2009 08:58:58 -0800" },{ "title": "Monsanto pulls public radio into its greenwash", "description": "\American Public Media has been getting flogged recently by some of its listeners, \the environmental website Grist\<\/a\>, and others online for accepting underwriting from Monsanto, and for publicizing the agribusiness giant’s \\Produce More, Conserve More\<\/em\>\<\/a\> campaign in underwriting announcements. Count me among the critics who believe that those announcements, broadcast on stations that carry Marketplace, lend public radio’s credibility to a marketing campaign that is misleading, inaccurate and a prime form of greenwashing.\<\/p\>\n\n\\Here’s the language:\<\/strong\>\<\/p\>\n\n\\n \“Marketplace is supported by Monsanto, committed to sustainable agriculture, creating hybrid and biotech seeds designed to increase crop yield and conserve natural resources. Learn more at ProduceMoreConserveMore.com.”\<\/p\>\n\<\/blockquote\>\n\n\On the details of Monsanto’s message, I’ll let the food-policy experts parse the nuances of genetically modified (GM) crop issues, starvation, billion-dollar profits, handcuffing and spying on Canadian farmers, and so on.\<\/p\>\n\n\What I want to address is public radio underwriting itself. There happen to be these niggling \FCC rules \<\/a\> that govern how underwriters are represented in sponsorship ads and acknowledgments. \<\/p\>\n\n\The rules prohibit commercial advertising, but they do allow an “underwriter announcement.” Such an announcement is not supposed to promote the company, products or services of a donor. Noncommercial broadcasters are allowed and expected to use “good faith judgment” in discerning whether their underwriters are providing funding solely for the purpose of promoting a product or company. There is no guidance on whether misleading or deceptive underwriting announcements that qualify as greenwash are prohibited.\<\/p\>\n\n\So pile up your lawyers on either side to argue the finer points of commercial advertisement versus “underwriter announcement.”\<\/p\>\n\n\Minnesota Public Radio (American Public Media’s regional subsidiary) describes its listeners, in its \sponsorship link\<\/a\>, as a “highly educated, affluent, well-traveled and culturally discriminating audience.” This could be seen as a \come-hither\<\/em\> for commercial advertising.\<\/p\>\n\n\I would posit it’s difficult to find an underwriter announcement that hasn’t been touched by the typing fingers of corporate marketers. They are champing at the bit to promote their products or companies while still complying with the FCC rules.\<\/p\>\n\n\Did Monsanto succeed? Judge for yourself. But I look forward to the day when innovative, sustainable companies make enough money that they, too, can underwrite APM and its affiliates using FCC-permissible underwriting announcements. \<\/p\>\n\n\To be clear: I don’t think APM is greenwashing. In a cash-strapped world, organizations are forced to accept money from companies with questionable ethics. And if the underwriting guidelines don’t have an ethics or sustainability focus incorporated into them, then the only constraining factor is the commercial-promotion angle. \<\/p\>\n\n\People feel very affectionate toward public radio because it’s one of the last places where you sense there is any balance, integrity or intelligence in investigative reporting. It’s possible that Monsanto is foolish enough to think that its underwriting status vis-a-vis APM/MPR can actually buff up its image. But it seems ludicrous to me.\<\/p\>\n", "link": "http://www.publicradio.org/columns/sustainability/greenwash/2009/06/monsanto_pulls_public_radio_into_greenwash.html?refid=0", "pubDate": "Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:14:41 -0800" },{ "title": "The \'fighting bull\' goes green", "description": "\Fuel economy and low emissions aren’t what Lamborghini, or “Lambo,” owners are typically after. They want (and apparently get) titillating, gut-twisting speed and sinuous turns from the “fighting bull” that make them feel alive — despite a laughable 10 mpg.\<\/p\>\n\n\\\ $\"blog_lambo_77938914.jpg\"$ \<\/span\> \<\/p\>\n\n\Still, Lamborghini \has announced\<\/a\> it is implementing some new environmental initiatives. The company says it plans to develop hybrid drivetrains and reduce its cars’ carbon dioxide emissions 35 percent by 2015. It also plans to reduce the CO2 emissions of its lone factory in Sant’Agata, Italy, 30 percent by 2010.\<\/p\>\n\n\Some detractors think an electric engine would deliver better results than hybrid technology. Maybe Lamborghini just doesn’t want to look too much like the $100,000 electric Tesla which has been touted for its speed and acceleration — zero to 60 mph in four seconds.\<\/p\>\n\n\It’s difficult for me to poke fun at Lamborghini’s plans to install a 56,000-square-foot solar array and other building envelope efficiencies. That’s because the company only has the one factory, it sells only about 2,500 cars a year (compared to the U.S. market of 9 million), and its customers put only an average of 3,100 miles a year on their cars (which probably spend more time getting long, waxy massages or being cloaked in velvet in heavily forested estates). My reticence to criticize may also be based on my love for all things Italian.\<\/p\>\n\n\Compare the environmental impact of a Lamborghini — despite its horrendous gas mileage — to a typical American-made car. For example, a Ford (take your pick: Excursion, Explorer, F350) will be driven 13,000 miles a year on average, and will be involved in more accidents (we are not particularly skilled in driving big, cumbersome trucks and get too bold as we feel exceptionally powerful in these behemoths). \<\/p\>\n\n\I’m not letting Lamborghini’s CEO Stephen Winkelmann completely off the hook. Last year he said the company would never, and could never, meet the European Union’s fuel efficiency standards. The funny thing, however, is that the E.U. directive has an exception for manufacturers of “specialty vehicles” (less than 10,000 manufactured a year). European Parliamentarian Guido Sacconi, president of the E.U. Commission on Climate Change, \stated the exception \<\/a\>was designed “to safeguard the DNA, history and technology of niche car manufacturers on a European level.”\<\/p\>\n\n\It’s like the sinfulness of eating a runny, mellifluous cheese in France. You just have to enjoy it regardless of its impact.\<\/p\>\n", "link": "http://www.publicradio.org/columns/sustainability/greenwash/2009/06/the_fighting_bull_goes_green.html?refid=0", "pubDate": "Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:13:23 -0800" },{ "title": "Unsafe at any sip: Washington babies lose", "description": "\And for today’s jeopardy: Who is the U.S Trade Representative to China and \why did he meddle\<\/a\> with Maryland’s proposed healthy toy bill? What percentage of Wal-Mart products are made in China? (hint: 70%) Why do we still believe that a little bit of toxins are ok for babies? Who would jettison baby health for a $700,000/hour market for a chemical? \What does it mean \<\/a\>to be “free” of something ? (in this case to be BPA free)?\<\/p\>\n\n\In Washington State, \we just botched\<\/a\> a prime opportunity to ban Bisphenol A (BPA) in baby bottles. BPA, an endocrine disruptor— the regulator for your entire body— is bad juju for pregnant women, babies in utero and infants… at teensy weensy levels measured in parts per billion. \The bad juju \<\/a\>is heart disease, diabetes, cancer and metabolic disorders. Both Wal-Mart and the American Chemistry Council (ACC) arrived in our mossy spring to just add a few “touch ups” to Washington’s now buried Safe Baby Bottle Bill.\<\/p\>\n\n\Enter (tada….) doubt and uncertainty, the playing card which routinely kills good public health policy, and the black labyrinth called risk assessment where industry and independent scientists duke it out in a dizzying mosh pit.\<\/p\>\n", "link": "http://www.publicradio.org/columns/sustainability/greenwash/2009/05/unsafe_at_any_sip_washington_b.html?refid=0", "pubDate": "Thu, 07 May 2009 09:00:00 -0800" },{ "title": "\"Natural\" strikes again - and someone calls it out", "description": "\Amy Tennery at Slate’s “The Big Money” highlights “\Green claims that make us see red\<\/a\>.”\<\/p\>\n\n\She must be reading Heidi’s posts, because she talks the same talk about Clorox “Green Works” products and sends people to Environmental Working Group’s \Cosmetics Database\<\/a\> as she rails about Sephora’s “Natural Standards.” They both make good use of the wonderful word “natural.” \sigh.\<\/em\>\<\/p\>\n\n\I especially liked her explanation of the (environmental) harm of hand sanitizers, a new explanation to me. \<\/p\>\n", "link": "http://www.publicradio.org/columns/sustainability/greenwash/2009/04/natural_strikes_again_-_and_so.html?refid=0", "pubDate": "Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:45:17 -0800" }, { "title": "New report: Greenwash grows in a bad economy", "description": "\\\\ $\"_tmp-hero.jpg\"$ \<\/a\>\<\/span\>\(\Images via Terrachoice\<\/em\>)\<\/center\>\<\/p\>\n\n\Greenwashing is up an average of 79% since 2007 (a rare expanding economic sector these days). Apparently, companies have discovered that one way to increase market share is to come up with new ways to greenwash.\<\/p\>\n\n\Today, TerraChoice updated my favorite greenwash identification tool, The Six Sins of Greenwashing. Besides expanding their report to include the UK and Australia, they identified a new sin - so the update requires a new title, \The Seven Sins of Greenwashing\<\/a\>.\<\/p\>\n\n\The new sin? \The Sin of Worshiping False Labels\<\/strong\>\<\/p\>\n\n\TerraChoice found that companies have responded to consumer demand for clear, green marketing by making up false certifications. As Scot Case of TerraChoice put it, “A lot of companies have gotten into the business of creating their own green ‘spots,’ and when a company does that… a lot of their products tend to meet it.” \<\/p\>\n\n\\\\ $\"new$ \<\/a\>\<\/span\>As the report notes, this is a victory of sorts. The calls of the Greenwash Brigade and our allies for third-party certification have been heard by manufacturers and marketing companies - fully 23% of products commit the Sin of Worshiping False Labels. However, consumers are confused enough by the plethora of existing labels (which the Brigade discussed \here on this blog\<\/a\>). Adding fake labels only makes it worse.\<\/p\>\n", "link": "http://www.publicradio.org/columns/sustainability/greenwash/2009/04/greenwash_grows_in_bad_economy.html?refid=0", "pubDate": "Wed, 15 Apr 2009 07:00:00 -0800" }] } }