greenwashing
Secret Weapon against Greenwashing: You
FTC steps up its efforts against bogus environmental claims, but it's up to consumers to know what they're buying.
Topics: greenwashing
Understand that no fossil fuels are green; clean with vinegar; check a database before buying shampoo.
With consumers spending more on ecofriendly products, marketers are tempted to paint their products as greener than they are.
RODALE NEWS, EMMAUS, PA—The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has vowed to tackle the problem of greenwashing, the untruthful art of framing a product as more environmentally friendly than it really is. This is no simple task. Companies selling everything from coal, cars, and cleaners to bamboo towels and T-shirts don't mind sinking money into greenwashing marketing campaigns, and with good reason. "There have been many market studies in recent years showing that consumers are willing to pay more for a product if they believe it is better for the environment," explains Claudette Juska, research specialist at Greenpeace, a nonprofit organization that aims to protect the environment. "And there are also studies showing that eco-conscious consumers have bigger baskets, that is, they buy more products per shopping trip, and are more loyal to their favorite brands and stores."
THE DETAILS: The FTC has a good set of guidelines, known as The Green Guides, that were ignored for eight years under the Bush Administration. But under the current administration, the agency plans to update these guidelines for the first time since the late 1990s, and actually start enforcing them.
A taste of possible change to come occurred last year when the FTC filed a lawsuit against four companies that claimed to use bamboo in clothing and other household fabrics. Marketers claimed these products made of "bamboo fiber" were environmentally friendly, naturally bacteria resistant, and biodegradable. But the FTC found that the fiber was actually rayon, a material made from tree pulp and put through harsh chemical treatment. Expect more of these crackdowns to start coming down the pike.
WHAT IT MEANS: While there's a new wave of greenwash in the media these days, it is by no means a new phenomenon. There are some differences, though. "In the 1990s, greenwash mostly centered around specific topics, like 'recyclable' and 'ozone-friendly' products," explains Juska. "Today we are seeing a broader range of green claims that refer to the entire life cycle of a product, such as 'ecofriendly' and 'sustainable.'" These terms are impossible to define or prove, and are much more confusing and difficult to tackle.
As the FTC gears up to crack down on greenwashing, Juska, also a researcher for Greenpeace's Stop Greenwash campaign, says FTC needs to pay special attention to "ecofriendly" and other broad, undefinable terms. "Companies should stick to data when making their claims," she says. "It's fine to say a car gets "30 mpg", but it's not OK to claim that this car is "efficient" or "gas-friendly" because these are relative terms."
Here's how to avoid being greenwashed, which is a disservice to you and the planet:
• Be suspicious of the big pollutors. "Basically, the biggest greenwashers have tended to be the worst polluters," explains Juska. Fossil fuel energy companies are classic greenwashers, and the most notorious greenwashing campaign out there is probablyclean coal. "The coal industry started using this term in its advertising a few years ago to improve its image, spending millions on TV and newspaper ads, billboards, even subway-station ads," explains Juska. "Now, politicians everywhere and even President Obama use the term regularly."
The oil industry, particularly Exxon, also tricks consumers, says Juska, adding that Exxon spends millions of dollars advertising boutique biofuels that really only represent a teeny part of its expansive oil operations. "They tout climate benefits of these fuels, while they spend millions funding climate change skeptics," she says. Another oil company, Shell, talked about "less CO2" and "sustainability" in its most recent ad campaign, while at the same time it made major investments in tar-sands operations that tore down ancient forests and increased air and water pollution. "And BP advertises a range of renewable energy technologies while silently reducing wind and solar investments," says Juska.
Read on to learn how to prevent getting greenwashed.
follow @RodaleNews
Get the latest news and useful tips about your health, food, and the environment!








Delicious
StumbleUpon
Digg
Magnolia
Facebook
Google
Yahoo

Industrial-scale wind projects do NOT offset carbon dioxide
The most recent studies from Denmark and Germany (which have used energy from industrial-scale wind turbines for twenty years) state that 1) additional coal-fired electricity has been needed to cover wind power’s unpredictability; 2) no coal-fired plants have been placed out of service; 3) carbon dioxide emissions have increased; and 4) additional coal-fired and gas-fired plants have been constructed to ensure reliable delivery (http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/04/08/wi...).
Electricity in the U.S. uses 60 hertz (60 cycles per second). Only coal-fired or nuclear power plants can provide reliable steam pressure to keep the massive generators at 3600 rpm. If a single generator should drops to 3599.5 rpm, the generator must be taken off line immediately as it would eliminate the power it created as well as an equal amount from the grid, creating a blackout.
The unpredictability of wind energy creates a situation where the coal and nuclear units are forced to try to keep up with this variability, creating the potential of taking one or more units off-line when they lose their synchronization with the grid. This means the boilers must ramp up and down to integrate the wind power. This ramping up-and-down requires additional fuel, the same way your car or truck uses more fuel when you accelerate and decelerate. Some places with industrial wind are using peaking units in order to ramp up and down. The peaking units are usually ones which use more expensive fuel: gas or petroleum (http://econ-www.mit.edu/files/3563). The peaking units increase our dependency on foreign oil. Currently, the Department of Energy indicates only about 1.0 percent of our energy is from petroleum. The peaking units would not be necessary without the requirements for integrating wind energy, thus increasing demands for petroleum.
Industrial-scale wind turbines cannot provide electricity to homes and businesses unless the energy is first supplied by a coal-fired plant. Additionally, the industrial-scale wind turbines use electricity from the grid in order to operate properly. Also, a spinning reserve of electricity from reliable electrical generators must be available at all times to provide electricity if there is an unexpected problem with any other on-line generator or transmission line. Wind energy cannot supply a spinning reserve.
The only conclusion is that because the electricity provided by industrial-scale wind turbines is unpredictable and unreliable, the demands on coal-fired power plants are consequently greater and require the use of more coal or peaking units (using gas or petroleum) and result in actually increasing carbon dioxide emissions. Industrial-scale wind energy is therefore not green energy and will never be able to supply our electricity needs.