There are obvious steps that can be taken to avoid accusations of greenwash. Some of the key lessons to come out of the greenwash backlash include, most obviously, not trying to paint yourselves green if you know in your heart of hearts that your business or product simply isn’t. Remember the big picture and don’t hypocritically try and push strong green marketing of one area of operations while attempting to ignore other areas where practices are highly unsustainable. Your customers are not going to thank you for treating them like idiots.

The other lesson most companies have learned by now is to watch their language. Be careful, don’t use hyperbole, or try and hit customers with suspiciously fluffy language or incomprehensible science. Also, don’t go hunting for random green aspects in a product when you’ve never considered its entire lifecycle – chances are for every environmentally friendly point you try to market canny consumers and competitors will find all the toxic and unsustainable practices associated with it too. Take your time, do your background research, and try and get your claims independently verified by a reputable third party.  

But are NGOs and other greenwash watchdogs being too harsh and rigid on companies trying to present themselves as green or ethically responsible? Sure it’s hypocritical but is there too little understanding of the challenges that companies, especially large ones, sometimes face? A company may claim to adhere to international best practice in terms of say, recycling or waste throughout its supply chain, but consistently achieving this through suppliers who may be on the other side of the world in countries with a very different definition of best practice is an immense challenge. The majority of companies accused of greenwash or false advertising are most likely guiltier of naiveté and ignorance than any intentional deceit. At a recent Green Monday roundtable the topic turned to frustrations with NGOs for too often publicly undermining corporate green initiatives, rather than welcoming that companies are indeed attempting to change their behaviour. Are NGO’s shooting themselves in the foot by so aggressively attacking guilty practitioners of greenwash?  Are you wary of promoting your company’s green initiatives for fear of being hammered for any unseen inconsistencies or glitches? NGOs and industry and advertising watchdogs of course serve a useful purpose, and working constructively with them rather than turning inwards can greatly improve your perception in the market and performance on green issues, but when the risk to your reputation lies on just a few pieces of public criticism it’s not hard to see why companies go on the defensive. 

So let’s hear from you: how do you perceive greenwash? Do people make too much of it, or is it genuinely damaging the green revolution? Have you learned the perils of green wash the hard way? Or are you frustrated by continuing examples of green wash in your market?

For more information visit www.ecosecurities.com

On November 18th, in a videotaped address given at Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 2008 Climate Change Solutions Conference, Obama outlined specifics on how new climate change policy would be a centerpiece of his administration. He emphasized a program to spend $150 billion over 10 years to promote private sector development of clean and renewable sources of energy, including the uses of wind, solar and biofuel power.  Additionally, Obama stated that domestic efforts to improve our environment and reduce dependence on foreign energy would result in the creation of 5,000,000 new “green jobs” that could not be outsourced.     

Mr. Obama supports a federal cap-and-trade system with aggressive annual targets culminating in an 80% reduction over 1990-level GHG emissions by 2050.  Obama insists that 100 percent of the credits should be auctioned, and that funds generated by a new carbon market be reinvested in clean energy technology and used to help American companies transition to a low carbon economy.

With regard to the automobile industry, Obama has publicly supported improving vehicular greenhouse gas emission standards by 5 percent in 2015 and 10 percent in 2020. By raising the corporate automobile fuel economy (CAFE) standard to 43 miles per gallon, he also hopes to reduce to zero the importation of Middle Eastern crude oil.

Despite not personally attending the upcoming UNFCCC Conference of Parties, which will be held in Poland this coming December, Obama plans to support the U.N. negotiations on a new climate treaty and has asked attending U.S. Congress members to report back to him on any subsequent developments.   In the closing remarks of his videotaped address at the Schwarzenegger Summit, Obama vowed that, “Once I take office, you can be sure that the United States will once again engage vigorously in these negotiations and help lead the world toward a new era of global cooperation on climate change.”

Typical manure management practices use waste lagoons to collect animal byproducts, a system which allows for the open release of methane gas.  However, the new biogas digesters installed at the Whitesides and Westpoint dairies will instead capture and destroy methane gas produced from the waste of over 12,000 dairy cows.  The biogas captured by these digesters contains about 65% methane which is then processed into pipeline quality gas through a scrubbing process and sold to an industrial user where it is combusted and destroyed.  Additionally, changing the way the dairy farms process animal waste has significantly improved air quality and has reduced the risk of toxic substances leaching into the local ground water supply.

“The Whiteside and Westpoint Dairy digester projects represent important steps in the development of voluntary carbon offsets in the US. The first projects outside of CA to be registered under CCAR, Whitesides and Westpoint are a firm demonstration of the effectiveness of voluntary programs in incentivizing project development across the country,” said Sam Krevor, Project Manager of the projects at EcoSecurities “In the end, the projects will result in a significant reduction in GHGs for use in California, while producing a high quality stream of renewable energy to support local energy needs in Idaho.”

To find out more information about this project visit http://www.ecosecurities.com/Home/Reducing_corporate_emissions/A_selection_of_our_offsetting_projects/Intrepid_Dairy_Farms/default.aspx To find out information on EcoSecurities 40 + international voluntary emission reduction projects visit http://www.ecosecurities.com/Home/Reducing_corporate_emissions/A_selection_of_our_offsetting_projects/default.aspx