Green Washing

It was the summer of 2006 and talk of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” was all the rage, especially in the heart of Washington D.C. Though environmental activism has existed for decades, this movie added a more serious spin to the problems of Global Warming for those who either voted for Al Gore in 2000 or were apathetic to him in general. For people who could not stand the man, the movie was “fiction.” This refusal to believe in global warming and to change any American behaviors has been characteristic of the problems that followed environmental movements; that is until now.

Driving behind a truck carrying food products, a visible sign claims that their trucks are run on sustainable fuel. Wow, exciting, maybe people are really listening to the cry for help that before only was noticed by people willing to live in trees. Or maybe not. Green washing is becoming tres chic and it is becoming increasingly difficult to make decisions based on whether a product is more environmentally sustainable then another. A phrase such as “our trucks are run on sustainable fuel” could be plastered next to a brand name whether the company has one truck out of 500 running on sustainable fuels or 500 out of 500. When are we, the consumer, going to be able to buy something with a label that reads “eco-friendly” or “organic” or “cage free” and actually be purchasing just that?

Vague statements and unexplained claims run rampant in our culture at the moment. A particular sign that emerges off Rte 95 out of the dense smog that is Newark, NJ states that the company, which will not be named but does fall under the category of a plant, is “environmentally efficient” and “environmentally advanced.” I did not test the air or bring a specialist along to investigate and tell me how environmentally sound this company is; however, all I had to do was look around me at the smog filled sky to recognize that even if these claims are somehow true, the company is not providing cleaner air to the surrounding residents, which is what they really need.

However, there are a few companies that are actually touting the green label and following the philosophy. Companies that make products out of recyclable materials and those that use resources that are renewable (and NO, oil is not a renewable resource) are actually trying to decrease their carbon footprint on the earth and not simply in the minds of consumers. Some of these companies such as Patagonia, TerraCycle, Seventh Generation, and Stoneyfield Farm, Inc. tout the green labels and actually deliver their claims.

It is unfortunate that there are so many companies trying to profit on the label of “environmentally friendly” without actually delivering their promises. However, it is up to us the consumer to try to make sure we consciously choose to purchase products and that we check the background of these companies to make sure they are actually “eco-friendly” and not just using these words in advertisements to boost sales. Stoneyfield Farm, Inc finances one non-profit, Climate Counts, which can be found at climatecounts.org. Its purpose is to try to make it easier for the consumer by providing ratings of many popular companies on their efforts to combat climate change. The rating system consists of a stick figure in a green light for “striding” companies, a stick figure in a yellow light for “starting” companies, and a stick figure in a red light for “stuck” companies. This may be the first of the rating systems that can help the consumer correctly choose which companies are actually doing what their claims say. After all, it would be nice if most of us could buy something and actually receive what we believed we were paying for.