Misleading 'Green' Claims Abound

Well, isn't this a comfort? According to the Wall Street Journal:

"According to a study due out [last] Tuesday, more than 95% of consumer products examined committed at least one offense of 'greenwashing,' a term used to describe unproven environmental claims, according TerraChoice, a North American environmental-marketing company that issued the report."

Although the problem of unsubstantiated "green" claims has abated (ever so slightly) in the past few years, "the problem is still widely prevalent as more manufacturers flood the market with items deemed to be better for the environment. Of particular concern: items proclaiming to be free of controversial chemicals BPA and phthalates—especially baby and toy products, according to the report."

Think that's bad? It gets even worse. According to the article:

"The study examined more than 5,000 consumer products in 34 stores in the U.S. and Canada and found 12,061 'green' claims among them. Among the infractions found: fibbing about or having no proof of environmental claims, vague or poorly defined marketing language, such as 'all-natural,' and the use of fake labels designed to imply a product has third-party certification or endorsement of its claims."

Not only that, but check this out:

"Separately, the report found that the most common examples of outright fibbing came from products falsely claiming to be compliant with the federal government's Energy Star program. The government is tightening its monitoring of such claims."

Okay, so the most egregious lies were perpetrated through claims approved by a federal government certification program. My, that is a comfort. Almost as much a comfort as this:

"The findings come as the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, which can take action against unfair or deceptive marketing practices, has proposed tightening its guidelines to help marketers avoid making misleading environmental claims. Among the proposals: cautioning marketers not to use 'unqualified certifications or seals of approval' regarding their claims, and not to make blanket, general assertions that a product is 'environmentally friendly' or 'eco-friendly' because such claims are nearly impossible to substantiate."

Uh, yeah. You may recall I blogged about these proposed guidelines. The ones that didn't bother to define "green" or "sustainable." Get the feeling the FTC is getting some comments on that?

What's All the Noise About the Compostable Sun Chips Bag About?

I don't know about you, but the mere fact that a compostable bag makes noise doesn't seem like much a problem to me. Nonetheless, Frito-Lay has ditched its Sun Chips compostable bag, due to consumer complaints that it's too loud.

Why did this turn into such a kerfuffle? (And who uses the word "kerfuffle," anymore?)

Because, according to blogger Suzanne Shelton, "mainstream American consumers value their personal comfort more than they value the environment."

Shelton goes on to note the following:

"76% of us would choose our comfort or our convenience over the environment any day, and most of us wouldn't give up many of the things we currently own if we thought they were harming the environment.  (35% of us are magnanimous enough to give up our ipods…and 65% of us are not.)

"A loud Sunchips bag flies in the face of our desire for comfort.  We want the cool, compostable packaging, but we want it to sound, look and feel exactly like what we're used to.

"In short, we want it to be easy to be green, and often it's not.  It's loud."

Jeez, people. It's just a bag. How loud could it have been?

This Article is Actually About Tar Sands, Not Toiletries

Despite the headline and mentions of hotel toiletries in the third paragraph, this article in Grist is really about tar sands companies. These companies are apparently in the dirty business of producing usable petroleum from tar sands through a process that "requires three to four times the greenhouse-gas emissions of conventional drilling, plus two to four barrels of water per barrel of oil, the remains of which are fed into tailings ponds."

Jonathan Hiskes writes that, among other things, the "public-relations efforts of tar-sands companies (which get much more attention in Canada than in the U.S.) center on a pledge to 'reclaim' the tracts of boreal forest they've disrupted. But they're not restoring what was previously there. They're replacing the natural muskeg -- a soupy, boggy wetland -- with dry infill planted with seedlings, a very different landscape. No one's figured out how to re-create muskeg."

Not only that, but Hiskes notes, "At the edge of the reclaimed forest, near a buffalo reserve, an unintentionally hilarious sign heralds 'The Future: Lakefront Property.' After the waste ponds have reached a depth of 40 meters (workers build berms of waste sand to contain them), Suncor will top off the toxic water with five meters of clean water. That's enough, the sign says, for a 'diverse and productive ecosystem of plants and animals.'"

Ewww. Clearly, this isn't a good thing at all. In fact, these are good examples of companies pretending to do the eco-friendly thing while despoiling the environment. And while I agree with Hiskes that the tar sands companies need to clean up their act, I have nothing against hotels who buy shampoo in biodegradable bottles. I guess it's supposed to be ironic or something, but it ends up being more of a non sequitur.

The FTC's Proposed Green Marketing Guidelines -- Anything There?

As reported recently, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has issued a set of proposed guidelines for claiming that products are "green" or "eco-friendly."

According to FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz, "The Green Guides were designed to help businesses avoid making misleading environmental claims. ... That, of course, helps consumers."

The article goes on to say: "Leibowitz described an 'explosion' of green claims being made for a variety of goods, ranging from paper towels to textiles, leaving consumers confused about what they're buying. 'We're not always getting what we think we're getting,' he said."

And these proposed guidelines are really going to clear things up, right? Well ...

According to this article by Joel Makower, maybe the guidelines aren't quite as earthshaking as some people make them out to be.

To wit (and quoting Makower): "Like their predecessors, the proposed updated guides represent a low bar, intended to eliminate outright misrepresentation and fabrications. Their updating do not herald a new era of green marketing. Despite some near-hysterical predictions, they aren't likely to 'radically reshape how far marketers can go in painting their products, packaging or even corporate images green,' as Advertising Age recently speculated.

"For green marketers, it is not the end of the world as we know it. They won't likely change the landscape much, and most definitely won't eliminate critics' charges of 'greenwashing.'"

Furthermore, as Makower points out, the guidance contains nothing about reduced packaging (as opposed to the biodegradable or compostable kind). In fact (and most unbelievably), the guidelines don't bother to define the terms "sustainable" or "sustainably." Or "green."

So how does Makower feel about this? He takes it all quite philosophically. He says some people will laud the guidelines and others won't. That's hardly an earthshaking prediction.

In any case, he concludes: "The 'Green Guides' are finally out. Now, let's get on with our lives."

Okay, sure. Why not? (But, seriously, WTF do we pay these people at the FTC for, anyway?)

Myths and Facts About Nuclear Power

This article presents a point-by-point discussion of several purported myths about nuclear energy. (I say "purported" simply because that's what they are. I'm not expressing an opinion either way.)

Rather than try to summarize this semi-treatise of an article (with footnotes and everything!), I'll just let you read it.

I would, however, like to comment on the following assertion:

"Childhood leukemia rates are no higher near nuclear power plants than they are near organic farms. 'Leukemia clusters' are geographic areas where the rates of childhood leukemia appear to be higher than normal, but the definition is controversial because it ignores the fact that leukemia is actually several very different (and unrelated) diseases with different causes (16).

"Men who work on nuclear submarines or in nuclear plants are no more likely to father children with leukemia (or any other disease) than workers in any other industry (18)."

Okay, since I have no access to the footnoted references, I have no idea who did these studies. I GUESS they may have been done by the Leukemia Research Foundation (whoever the heck they are and whatever their agenda is). I haven't seen the studies themselves, so I have no idea of the protocols used. I don't know what they mean by "organic farms." It could be someone else did the studies and the foundation is citing them. I have no idea.

And what the heck happened to footnote 17?

(Do check out the spirited discussion in comments after the article. Some interesting issues get raised. And how do you suppose the people around Yucca Mountain would react to this?)