Genuine or Greenwashing: Carbon-Neutral Domino Sugar

Was in Harris Teeter last night looking for sugar & noticed Domino has gone carbon-neutral with CarbonFund.org:

Going carbon-neutral definitely gets filed under genuinely green - other than switching to 100% renewable energy, I can't think of much that'd be higher on the green list.

And this seems like a great example of an opportunity to use a legit environmental effort to differentiate your product in a category where brand loyalty probably isn't very high. I mean, if Skippy peanut butter goes carbon-neutral & you're a Jif man, you might not want to give up the taste that reminds you of mom's kitchen. But I can't imagine anyone being like, "Screw you, Domino! I'll never leave Dixie Sugar! Do you hear me, Domino? Never!"

Genuine or Greenwashing: Fortune's Green Stars

My friend Every Day Father asked for my quick take on Fortune magazine's 8 green stars at Most Admired companies.

My problem with articles like this is that there's no yardstick for measuring results. Is it nice that McDonald's has turned three of its locations into LEED-certified green buildings? Sure, but what about the other 13,000 U.S. locations? Is Coke switching its bottles from a petroleum base towards a sugar base a net positive? Probably, but sugar has its own problems and the article makes no effort to quantify the difference. (To be clear, I'm questioning the quality of the reporting, not the quality of Coke's efforts.)

I'm more impressed with Fortune's write-up of the efforts at FedEx and Amazon, using new technology to do the same work using fewer resources and at lower costs - an obvious win-win. In Amazon's case, smaller packaging might actually improve their customer service ratings - the article mentions that The Green Miles isn't alone in his concern about Amazon's excessive packages.

Toyota Washing Off Its Green?

You hear about plenty of greenwashing -- companies trying to look green with token environmental efforts. But rarely do you see a company actively trying to look less green.

That's apparently what Toyota has decided to do, aligning itself with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's climate denial and clean energy obstruction:

Officials from the US Chamber of Commerce told Politico today that in private conversations the car company had been supportive of its campaign against a proposed law to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.The comments look set to further anger hundreds of disgruntled Prius owners who have joined an online campaign demanding Toyota quit the chamber in protest at its opposition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The chamber has called the bill a "jobs killer", and its executives have questioned the science behind global warming.

Toyota had already lost some of its green cred when Ford put out a superior hybrid, the Fusion. Now the company risks destroying its environmental reputation entirely by casting its lot with the U.S. Chamber. Will the Prius go from a symbol of planetary protection to a symbol of ignorance and inaction?

Genuine or Greenwashing: Nats Organic Cotton Cap Day

The Chesapeake Climate Action Network just launched a new campaign highlighting ExxonMobil's extensive sponsorship of the Washington Nationals and their new ballpark.

The Green Miles wasn't sure how to react at first. After all, the Nationals have one of the greenest ballparks in the majors. Should being a green business mean you can't make as much money as you can off ads?

Fortunately, the Nationals and ExxonMobil decided to make my decision for me. They're partnering on one of the most blatant examples of greenwashing I've ever seen:

Nats Conversion Day
June 29 vs. Baltimore - 1:35 PM
Bring in any MLB team merchandise and trade it in for a Nationals hat made from organically-grown cotton. One hat per person, while supplies last.
Presented by ExxonMobil

It's recycling old merchandise! And the hats are made with organic cotton! What could be more green than that? Pay no attention to the fact that it's sponsored by one of the least moral corporations in the history of the planet!

And when I say least moral, I'm not just talking about ExxonMobil's ongoing leadership role in denying global warming and blocking climate action. Just check out ExxonMobil's Wikipedia entry. Environmental abuses galore, sure. But also shady foreign business practices. Supporting human rights abuses. A zero score on gay issues from the Human Rights Campaign.

Learn more at StrikeOutExxon.org.

Genuine or Greenwashing? The New Republic's Environment Issue

It's April, home of Earth Day, which means every magazine known to man is putting out a "green" issue.

Many are genuine efforts to educate their audience, which might not necessarily be plugged in to environmental concerns. Other magazines simply greenwash, slapping a pretty nature picture on the cover because they know it'll sell more copies at newsstands.

The New Republic's environment issue arrived in my mailbox last week and it's hard to fit it into either the "genuine" or "greenwashing" category. The content is solid, particularly Chris Mooney's Hard Science: Labratory geeks need to toughen up. But environmental content only fills about 11 of the magazine's 56 pages. By page count alone, it could just as easily be the Russia issue - articles about or related to Russia fill up about the same number of pages.

A much more promising development from The New Republic is their new Environment & Energy blog. Despite a brief controversy about sponsorship, the content has been solid and it's been a daily must-read for The Green Miles since discovering it last week (ironically enough, due to that very controversy).

Genuine or Greenwashing: Water-Saving Hotels

A quick post from Rhode Island's TF Green Airport ...

The Green Girlfriend and I stayed in the Providence Biltmore Hotel this weekend. Cards in the bathroom trumpet the hotel's "Green Program," detailing efforts to change sheets and wash towels only when necessary.

But like every hotel The Green Miles has ever stayed in, there was no recycling available in the hotel. Not in the room. Not anywhere else on the floor. Not even in the lobby.

And all over the room? Incandescent light bulbs. Considering hotels nickel and dime you for internet service, movies and room service, why is the Biltmore passing up the chance to save $3 per bulb per year on light bulbs?

I first saw the sheet/towel card nearly a decade ago. At this point, it's not eco-friendly, it's standard operating procedure. If a hotel can't bring anything more to the table than that by 2007 yet is still trying to get credit for being "green" ... sorry, Biltmore. The Green Miles' verdict? Greenwashing.

I wish I could link you to a site to help you find green hotels, but it doesn't look like there's a great one. Grist's Ask Umbra can give you a good rundown of what to look for in a truly eco-conscious hotel.

Genuine or Greenwashing: Warner's Climate Bill

After Sen. John Warner's announcement last week that he won't seek another term, National Wildlife Federation President Larry Schweiger released this statement:

Senator Warner is poised to end his nearly 30-year Senate career tackling the biggest challenge of our time: global warming. This year, Senator Warner has taken a leadership role to advance legislation to address global warming as a national security priority. He has recently outlined a bi-partisan proposal with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) that would reduce the pollution causing global warming and provide resources to help protect the Chesapeake Bay and other fish and wildlife habitat from climate change. The two senators lead a Senate subcommittee that can advance action on this critical issue this Congress.

No topic splits environmentalists right now like the Warner-Lieberman bill being drafted in the Senate. Some groups are hopeful Warner-Lieberman will be tough enough that it's worth supporting, while others think Warner-Lieberman will be so soft it deserves to die in committee. They want the bill sponsored by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) -- the toughest bill in the Senate -- or nothing.

Marc Guenther at Huffington Post recently called Warner a lynchpin on climate change legislation:

Warner could be the key to getting a bill out of the Senate Environment Committee, where Democrats hold only a one-vote edge. He comes from state where, it's safe assume, there are strong, conflicting opinions about climate change; the commonwealth includes both coal mines and the coastline along the Chesapeake Bay. But he's also a national security geek, and he has said that he's worried that global warming could lead to environmental refugees and political instability.

Meanwhile, to deal with fears that carbon caps will damage the economy, four Senators -- Republicans Warner and Lindsey Graham of South Caroline and Democrats Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana (the land of oil & gas & Katrina) -- introduced legislation that would aim to protect consumers and business from the potential costs of carbon regulation.

The four senators want to create something called a Carbon Market Efficiency Board, modeled on the Fed, to build some flexibility into the regulatory scheme. This board could ease up on an emissions cap if the economy is suffering, but only by lowering the cap in the future. In effect, it would give industry the freedom to pollute more now so long as it pollutes less later, once economy rebounds. (emphasis added)

Open Left's Matt Stoller has offered the most stinging criticism of Warner-Lieberman (thanks to Lowell for the tip). However, I'm not sure how Matt can say "it's a terrible legislative package coming to the floor in the fall" when we don't know all the details yet.

Some environmentalists counter that it doesn't matter which bill comes up for a vote -- President Bush will surely veto any serious global warming legislation and the Senate doesn't have enough votes to override -- it's the roll call itself that matters. Force all one hundred senators to go on the record on a serious bill. No more equivocating. Do you recognize the settled science or are you an unrepentant denier? Then the voters can be clear about their choices in 2008.

But Matt is right when he says, "We get one bite at this apple." If soft legislation passes and we try to firm it up later, Republican climate change deniers will say, "See? We told you so. They won't be satisfied until the economy is crippled."

Cross-posted from RaisingKaine.com

Genuine or Greenwashing: The Arlington County Fair

For this installment of Genuine or Greenwashing, we'll take a look at the Arlington County Fair, going on through Sunday at the Thomas Jefferson Community Center. Growing up in Boston I didn't get to many fairs, so I still get a kick out of rides and pig races and such. And I'm shocked at how many people have not yet discovered the culinary delight that is fried Oreos.

But my favorite part of the fair is definitely the booths inside TJ. Row after row of government agencies and community groups with information about programs you didn't even know existed. If you're new to Arlington or just want to learn more about what's going on in your neighborhood, it's a must-see. The Green Miles will be working the Arlingtonians for a Clean Environment booth on Friday night, so if you're at the fair, stop by and say hello!

On to the question at hand: Is the County Fair genuine or greenwashing? The county's press release hits one of my pet peeves right away, starting off by declaring, "The Arlington County Fair is going 'green'." As I said recently in relation to the new Harry Potter book, giving away compact fluorescent light bulbs does not make you The Lorax. And it was a bit annoying to see them hyping giveaway items as being made from recycled materials. That's a step forward and the reusable bags are great, but as I said about Live Earth, recycled worthless junk is still worthless junk.

But Arlington County should get its due for the many environmental features it's incorporating into the fair, far more than you'll see at most fairs nationwide:

- A game to give away (among other things) bicycles, energy saving devices, and a Toyota Prius.
- Giving away reusable AIRE tote bags made from recycled cotton and plastic bottles.
- Free valet parking for bikes will be available, thanks to a partnership with the Washington Area Bicyclists Association.
- Mobile Commuter Store will be at the County Fair this year with information about Metro, buses, carpools, and many transportation alternatives.
- Arlington Transit (ART) is displaying one of its new buses, fueled by CNG.
- Recycling for cans and bottles available; recycling information and tips will also be available.
- Every department will showcase how it is supporting the Fresh AIRE campaign.
- Fresh AIRE team will be demonstrating and giving away compact fluorescent light bulbs.
- Demonstration of the fire hazards -- and high energy consumption -- of halogen lamps.

I'd love to see more, though. Rather than just recycling bottles and cans, why not use Greenware and have bins for composting? Why not make a renewable energy purchase equal to the Fair's energy usage? And I won't even get into the generators that power the carnival rides.

The bottom line? The effort to make the Arlington County Fair green is genuine, but there's more that could be done at future fairs.

In the meantime, get out and enjoy it! The weather should be near-perfect. TJ is at 3501 S. Second St. with shuttles running from Ballston Metro. The fair is only about a 30 minute walk from Ballston area, but considering it's going to be in the high 80s/low 90s this week, the shuttle may be a better option. And an incentive to ride your bicycle -- there will also be valet bike parking.

Genuine or Greenwashing: Green.Yahoo.com

I was first introduced to the term "greenwashing" at the 2007 Step It Up Rally in Arlington while talking to Wendy Rieger of The Green Room blog about Vanity Fair's Green Issue.

"Do you think they really care about the environment," Wendy asked, "or is it just another example of greenwashing -- companies pretending to be green to move product?"

It's a terribly hard question to answer. Are companies just doing the best they can? If so, can you blame them?

I faced that dilemma last month when Yahoo launched Green.Yahoo.com. I got emails from several friends and even Yahoo itself asking me to help spread the word.

But the greenwashing question nagged at me.

Maybe it was the Ford ads displayed prominently on the page. Not one. Two. In fact, every page on the site has a Ford ad on it.

Granted, the ads were touting the Ford Escape Hybrid SUV. But the Ford Escape averages around 33 miles per gallon -- the same as my 1999 Saturn SL2 sedan, which isn't even a hybrid. (The failure of U.S. automakers to develop fuel-efficient vehicles deserves its own post another day, but we'll stick to greenwashing here.) The site also launched with a contest to give away Ford Escape Hybrid SUV taxis.

The Yahoo Green site links to the Yahoo Autos Top 100 Green Cars page. The rankings somehow have the 2007 Volkswagen New Beetle, which gets an appalling 23 miles per gallon city, as the #25 most green car with no additional explanation.

The more I looked at the site, touting compact fluorescent light bulbs, composting, and other very nice things, I started to wonder ... where was talk about carbon emissions?

Nowhere on the site can I find any mention of the need to cut carbon emissions 80% by 2050 to limit the effects of global warming.

There's no mention of the Yahoo Green page anywhere on Yahoo's front page.

The more I looked at the site, the more I wondered. Was it designed to promote environmentalism? Or to sell Ford Hybrid SUVs?

The bottom line -- buying green involves the same principles as any other kind of smart shopping. Don't take claims at face value. Ask tough questions. Do your research.

Got a suggestion for Genuine or Greenwashing? Let me know!