Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

How to Tell Greenwashing from Real Corporate Responsibility

By Javier Sierra, Sierra Club. Posted March 7, 2008.


A look at corporations like Exxon, Chevron, Target, Google and others.
Advertisement

It's a little late for Mardi Gras, but let me tell you about another masquerade.

We all know that the environment has become fashionable. The environmental movement -- despite what its detractors might say -- is going through one of its most vibrant periods. Seventy percent of Americans declare themselves environmentalists. Seventy-one percent of Latinos living in the Southwest believe preserving the wilderness is not only a family value but a religious one as well. In California, 91 percent of Latinos believe it's possible to protect the environment at the same time that we build a robust economy.

This national consensus has become a powerful magnet for Corporate America, which in recent years has tried to establish an environmental harmony with consumers by offering products and services that allegedly respect the air we breathe, the water we drink and the land we cultivate.

But all too often, this harmony becomes corrupted by a green veil with which apparent altruistic intentions hide the fact that, after all, both environmentalism and money share the same color. This marketing trick is known as "greenwashing."

ExxonMobil -- the world's richest corporation and the one that interferes the most in the fight against global warming by investing tens of millions of dollars in denying it -- counters its critics by alleging that it funds the Global Warming and Energy Project. This initiative focuses on how to confront global warming emissions once they have been released into the atmosphere. But what ExxonMobil won't tell us is that the applications of that research could take up to a decade to become available. Nor will it tell us whether it has made any commitments to adopt any of those applications.

Chevron, the oil giant, in October launched its flashy "Human Energy" campaign to promote its green credentials. But at the same time it promised bluer skies, Chevron also attacked the viability of solar and wind energies -- the cleanest ones in existence -- by calling them "too futuristic." No wonder a corporation so firmly anchored in a past of fossil fuels is so afraid of the future.

In 2005, General Electric (GE) -- the ninth largest corporation in the world -- launched its "Ecomagination" campaign to announce its environmental commitment to confront challenges such as the need for clean, efficient sources of energy and reducing emissions. Two years later, GE's environmental credentials still need greening, as the corporation continues selling parts to coal-fired power plants -- the largest source of global warming gases -- and investing in oil-and-gas exploration.

Southern Co., the power utility that operates six of the country's dirtiest plants, insists that it invests "billions of dollars" in cleaning its toxic and global warming emissions. Yet according to the Environmental Integrity Project, Southern Co. owns the three plants that emit the most carbon dioxide in the entire U.S. Two of them rate as the second and third that release the most mercury in the country. And five more rate among the ones releasing the most nitrogen-oxide. More than a green veil, what Southern holds is a suffocating rag.

On the other hand, there are countless examples of corporate responsibility that demonstrate a real commitment to protecting the environment and fighting global warming. In fact, according to the latest GreenBiz.com annual report, 2007 was a record year for the increase of green initiatives by the country's corporations.

For instance, Google is building the largest solar-power facility ever built on any corporate campus in the U.S. This huge solar-panel project will generate 1.6 megawatts, enough to power 1,000 homes, and will allow Google to save 30 percent of its current power use.

Nike has committed itself to becoming a climate-neutral company by 2012. Green Mountain Power Co. has reached the point where only 2 percent of its generated power comes from carbon-dioxide producing sources. Target is phasing out products containing polyvinyl chloride, a potentially harmful compound. Frito-Lay announced that by 2010 its chip production would rely on recycled water and renewable energy.

But all these examples of corporate responsibility, as timid as they may seem, run the risk of being overlooked by consumers if other companies continue to hide their greed behind a green veil.

Let's all put an end to this masquerade.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: chevron, exxon, google, target, green business, corporate responsibility, greenwashing

Javier Sierra is a Sierra Club columnist. Visit www.sierraclub.org/ecocentro.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Javier Sierra, you missed so many elements found in coal.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 8, 2008 3:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Coal is mostly carbon, but the complete list of impurities in coal
includes every element in the periodic table. The important
impurities are: URANIUM, ARSENIC, LEAD, MERCURY,
Antimony, Cobalt, Nickel, Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine,
Silver, Beryllium, Iron, Sulfur, Boron, Titanium, Cadmium,
Magnesium, Thorium, Calcium, Manganese, Vanadium, Chlorine,
Aluminum, Chromium, Molybdenum and Zinc. There is so much
of these elements in coal that cinders and coal smoke are actually
valuable ores. We should be able to get all the uranium and
thorium we need to fuel nuclear power plants for centuries by
using cinders and smoke as ore. Remember that, to get a given
amount of energy, you need about 100 MILLION TIMES as much
coal as uranium. That means the coal mine has to be 100 million
times larger than the uranium mine, not counting the recycling of
nuclear fuel. We can keep our mountains and forests and our
health by switching from coal to nuclear power.

Chinese industrial grade coal is sometimes stolen by
peasants for cooking. The result is that the whole family
dies of arsenic poisoning because Chinese industrial grade
coal contains large amounts of arsenic.

I have zero financial interest in nuclear power, and I never have
had a financial interest in nuclear power. My sole motivation in
writing this is to avoid death by H2S gas.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As Javier Sierra said, Google to save 30 percent of its current power.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 8, 2008 3:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why not 100%? Could solar and wind indeed be "Too
futuristic"? See:
http://science-community.sciam.com/
blog-entry/Dan-Ms-Blog/
Cost-Solar-Power/300005422

The Cost of Solar Power   From Dan M.'s Blog  
by Dan M.
"One source that seems good is solarbuzz.com(1)(2). From the
name, it sounds like a pro solar energy source, but the data seem
to be realistic.
From the first referenced page at this site, we see that residential
costs have dropped 6% to 37.59 cents/kwH, while
commercial/wholesale costs have dropped 0.6% between July
2000 and November 2007 to 21.37 cents/kwH. "
"For comparison purposes, the wholesale price of electricity was
0.06 cents/kwH. "

Dividing the solar cost by the wholesale grid price, we see that
solar power costs 356.2 to 626.5 times as much as electricity from
the wholesale grid.

Notice that Google said nothing about night time use of solar
power. Google only said that 30% of its power would be solar.
Of course that is daytime power, when the most workers are on
the job. Google is not saving money on electricity by going solar.
Google is greenwashing just as much as the other companies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Javier Sierra, "fashionable" is the wrong word.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 8, 2008 3:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great damage has been done, but we still have 8 years before natural positive
feedbacks lead to the fall of civilization or our extinction. Sea level will continue
to rise even if we disappear right now, but that is "minor" compared to poison gas
bubbling out of the ocean and killing almost everything including all of the
people.
See the chart on page 274 of "Six Degrees" by Mark Lynas. We have until 2015
to BEGIN REDUCING our total CO2 output and we have until 2050 to actually
reduce our CO2 output by 90%. The curve has to start down by 2015, not we
have to think about it by then. The peak of our CO2 production has to happen in
the next 8 years.

If we don't follow the schedule in Six Degrees, we will encounter positive
feedbacks which will take the control of the climate out of our hands.
Preventing the fall of civilization is a daunting task, but not yet impossible. We
have to hold the CO2 level to 400 parts per million to have a 75% chance of
avoiding the positive feedbacks. The natural positive feedbacks are explained in
Six Degrees. We have to deal with enormous changes in where agriculture works
because of climate changes that are already happening. Don't give up.

Nuclear power can save us from the collapse of civilization and extinction.
Nuclear is the one source of energy that is actually proven to work for BASE
LOAD power that produces 14.7 million tons LESS of CO2 than coal per 1000
megawatts per year. Burning coal to make electricity is the #1 source of CO2.
I have no financial stake in nuclear power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tired of It
Posted by: Bill Cook on Mar 8, 2008 10:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Asteroid Miner: You paste the same comments regardless of the article. I don't think your participation is substantive. I'm going to try out the 'Ignore this User' link; hopefully that will give me some relief. I wish the forum moderators would address what I consider to be trolling on your part.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bill Cook, more to the point, have you learned anything yet?
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 8, 2008 11:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Repetition and redundancy are a necessary part of education. The
readers are not the same ones each time. The features of a school
are missing. There is no constant enrollment. There is no
designated teacher. There is no way to assign homework. There
is no laboratory. "Environmentalists for Nuclear Power" by B.
Comby would be a useful textbook, but I cannot assign reading in
it. What is needed is for all high schools in the US or world to
require 4 years of physics, 4 years of chemistry, 4 years of biology
and 8 years of math for all students. That is what you need to be
a good common citizen of a technological society. All colleges
should require all majors, even English, drama and painting,
design and sculpture students, to take the "Engineering and
Science Core Cirriculum." Why? Haven't you read the nonsense
that gets into the articles written by the innumerate
humanitologists? They need some contact with reality. Contact
with reality means laboratory courses. They need to learn the
language of science, especially journalism students. An
innumerate journalist interviewing a scientist is like a blind person
"watching" a movie. Neither one gets the message. We are
living in a technological society. In a technological society,
scientific literacy [numeracy] is a requirement of citizenship.
Anything less will lead to disaster. Disasters loom ahead. Bill
Cook, what else could I do? The evidence indicates that Alternet
does not learn the lesson easily. Articles still contain foolish
ideas. Many comments indicate great ignorance. Bill Cook,
how would you teach Alternet? Most people are intellectually
lazy. They don't want to do the hard work, the math. They want
to live in a dream world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nike has committed itself to becoming a climate-neutral company by 2012!?
Posted by: undrgrndgirl on Mar 9, 2008 5:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and i suppose they'll do that by moving ALL their operations to "3rd world" countries that don't have environmental laws (let alone protections for the human beings that will work there!). Nike should NOT be praised.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]