Thank you for your article on greenwashing. This is a topic that truly needs to be explored. And thank you EU for challenging the presumption of "green goodwill". Greenwashing happens in so many ways and has so many unintended social and economic effects...
As a previous commenter noted, the actual manufacture of products may indeed cause the majority of environmental impacts, but I suspect the true enviromental and economic costs of distribution, marketing and disposal of products -though little studied- are also significant.
For example, take the hype on the wonders of plastic recycling. The fact is many plastics can't be cost-effectively nor even practically recycled. This limitation is almost never acknowledged.
Greenwashing is rampant with recycling programs. For example, PR folks in both private industry and politicized government programs virtously advertise their actions, but are silent and/or greatly underplay the actual cost of collection, sorting, distribution, processing required. They fail to mention the quantity of waste that still requires traditional disposal. For at least 3 decades, the City of Seattle proudly touted its pioneering plastics recycling program. However, had they truly tracked recycling and disposal of waste plastics from "cradle to grave", they would have learned that much of that painstakingly washed, sorted and collected plastic was simply placed on ocean- going barges then dumped into the sea or shipped to China for burning (causing ghastly air pollution) or burial and long term leakage into the water table. The truth is that actual "final" disposal or reuse practices of plastic were simply not tracked, yet the impacts of these ocean and land dumping practices were really quite egregious. The presence of enormous islands of dumped garbage (dramatically brought to light in the 1960's by Jacques Costeau) has contributed to an inconceivably huge film of plastic micro globules of plastic across the oceans that affect plankton production and thus the absorption of CO2, and also contribute to the ubiquitous spread of some very nasty chemicals throughout the environment. So yes, recycling has it limitations which means decisions about choice of materials need to be considered with an eye toward reuse down the line, but the choice must be cost effective and profitable and consider a much fuller range of environmental, social and economic impacts. Sustainability is an interesting catchword..in old school day it was simply called value engineering.
Another greenwashing example-the marketing campaigns of elite high tech outdoor gear manufacturers go to great lengths to "greenwash" how their very costly, high tech fleece clothing translates to a noble reuse of a certain number of plastic water bottles. Yes, its nice to make some use the pathetically high number of single use disposal water bottles, but again I'd still like to see a full spectrum look at resource and energy demands before we truly sell ourselves that this provides any meaningful offset to our plastic habits.
Also disturbing: I've also heard that subsequent washing fleece garments leaches plastic breakdown products into the wastewater, but have found little to confirm or refute this thesis which seriously would be bad news.
Greenwashing also distorts in matters of scale, often leaving citizens with a very misleading sense of the relative value of their "helpful" sacrifice. For example, in my city, local elected officials virtously announced a new regulation to BAN plastic straws. Yes, this helps keeps them straws out of the noses of haplessmarine critters, BUT contrast the actual volume of straw plastic with the extraordinary quantity of annoying shrink wrap plastic deployed to provide an extra "safety" to the exterior of the countless plastic containers of products presented in giant drug and food store corporations around the world. None of these irritating outer wrappers can be recycled. The practice is understandable and often addresses other serious matters... I get that companies are compelled to provide safety seals to avoid lawsuits should some sicko decide to sabotage their product and try to poison fellow citizens. But not so bright was when local govts. decided to decriminalize theft and defund the police resulting in a national theft epidemic. The first corporate response was to surround products with a yet heavier plastic barrier...but now many corporations are just simply closing huge numbers of money-loosing stores across the US, often to the detriment of the poorest neighborhoods. Contrast our "plastic wrap to protect" model with many 3rd world family-run stores who sell food, health and personal products while providing paying jobs with the gleaming, overly lit, giant multi-national chain mega-stores where hardly a wage-earning human can be found. Socially which is better?
Planned obsolence has become even more serious. Major appliances now cost a great deal more due to "energy saving measures" and rarely last longer than 5 years. My mind still boggles how it can truly be energy saving to have the dishwasher running for 3 hours in contrast to my former old model that was admittedly noisy and used a few more gallons of water, but it was done in 30 minutes and produced super clean, santitized, fully dried dishes. Now I end up having to pre-wash the dished (no matter what they say), and must turn on a standing fan to make sure they fully air dry to help kill germs during flu season and to keep the humidity and mold spores down in my kitchen while all the damp warm air spews out. Of course because I now must spend hours waiting for dishes to be done, I end up handwashing dishes that are needed before the wash cycle can be completed. And I am forced to buy yet more new crappier products because companies stop making parts for older models in a desperate attempt to keep up with all the new parts required to service tever-changing new applianace designs.
I can't hardly stomach thinking about all the subsidies, tax breaks and sideline environmental effects that come with what I believe is a myth that electric vehicles will prove to be an overall improvement for the environment.
Tax breaks and subsidies to major corporations for the tiniest good deed just means more tax revenue must come out of my pocket to pay for more environmental regulators, a role I know well having worked in that profession for several decades.
Most of the environmental impact of consumer goods is from their original manufacture. This is completely at odds with the planned obsolescence of those goods.
Take automobiles for example. The environmental impact of manufacturing a car is much higher than the impact of the operation of the car. You go and buy a more "environmentally friendly" car and you are starting out with a deficit that will never be repaid.
If a company like Apple really cared about their environmental impact, they would make their products serviceable and upgradeable instead of disposable . They would have a longer support period for their products so people would keep them longer and not send them to a landfill.
Most (if not all) of the incentives that come along (EV credits, Cash for Clunkers, Renewable energy such as solar panels) are just government subsidized marketing. They are just a little green ribbon to wear on the salesman's lapel to encourage you to spend money.
The regulators are not some guardian angel protecting our interests. They are complicit with these corporations in setting up the scams. They are waiting for their turn to go through the revolving door into these corporation to repay their complicity.
Brilliant -- great comments, @David Kirtley. We concur!! Some of the programs are actually worse than what you suggest, giving regime supporters and insiders early and frequent feeding at the taxpayer trough. Awful!
Thank you for your article on greenwashing. This is a topic that truly needs to be explored. And thank you EU for challenging the presumption of "green goodwill". Greenwashing happens in so many ways and has so many unintended social and economic effects...
As a previous commenter noted, the actual manufacture of products may indeed cause the majority of environmental impacts, but I suspect the true enviromental and economic costs of distribution, marketing and disposal of products -though little studied- are also significant.
For example, take the hype on the wonders of plastic recycling. The fact is many plastics can't be cost-effectively nor even practically recycled. This limitation is almost never acknowledged.
Greenwashing is rampant with recycling programs. For example, PR folks in both private industry and politicized government programs virtously advertise their actions, but are silent and/or greatly underplay the actual cost of collection, sorting, distribution, processing required. They fail to mention the quantity of waste that still requires traditional disposal. For at least 3 decades, the City of Seattle proudly touted its pioneering plastics recycling program. However, had they truly tracked recycling and disposal of waste plastics from "cradle to grave", they would have learned that much of that painstakingly washed, sorted and collected plastic was simply placed on ocean- going barges then dumped into the sea or shipped to China for burning (causing ghastly air pollution) or burial and long term leakage into the water table. The truth is that actual "final" disposal or reuse practices of plastic were simply not tracked, yet the impacts of these ocean and land dumping practices were really quite egregious. The presence of enormous islands of dumped garbage (dramatically brought to light in the 1960's by Jacques Costeau) has contributed to an inconceivably huge film of plastic micro globules of plastic across the oceans that affect plankton production and thus the absorption of CO2, and also contribute to the ubiquitous spread of some very nasty chemicals throughout the environment. So yes, recycling has it limitations which means decisions about choice of materials need to be considered with an eye toward reuse down the line, but the choice must be cost effective and profitable and consider a much fuller range of environmental, social and economic impacts. Sustainability is an interesting catchword..in old school day it was simply called value engineering.
Another greenwashing example-the marketing campaigns of elite high tech outdoor gear manufacturers go to great lengths to "greenwash" how their very costly, high tech fleece clothing translates to a noble reuse of a certain number of plastic water bottles. Yes, its nice to make some use the pathetically high number of single use disposal water bottles, but again I'd still like to see a full spectrum look at resource and energy demands before we truly sell ourselves that this provides any meaningful offset to our plastic habits.
Also disturbing: I've also heard that subsequent washing fleece garments leaches plastic breakdown products into the wastewater, but have found little to confirm or refute this thesis which seriously would be bad news.
Greenwashing also distorts in matters of scale, often leaving citizens with a very misleading sense of the relative value of their "helpful" sacrifice. For example, in my city, local elected officials virtously announced a new regulation to BAN plastic straws. Yes, this helps keeps them straws out of the noses of haplessmarine critters, BUT contrast the actual volume of straw plastic with the extraordinary quantity of annoying shrink wrap plastic deployed to provide an extra "safety" to the exterior of the countless plastic containers of products presented in giant drug and food store corporations around the world. None of these irritating outer wrappers can be recycled. The practice is understandable and often addresses other serious matters... I get that companies are compelled to provide safety seals to avoid lawsuits should some sicko decide to sabotage their product and try to poison fellow citizens. But not so bright was when local govts. decided to decriminalize theft and defund the police resulting in a national theft epidemic. The first corporate response was to surround products with a yet heavier plastic barrier...but now many corporations are just simply closing huge numbers of money-loosing stores across the US, often to the detriment of the poorest neighborhoods. Contrast our "plastic wrap to protect" model with many 3rd world family-run stores who sell food, health and personal products while providing paying jobs with the gleaming, overly lit, giant multi-national chain mega-stores where hardly a wage-earning human can be found. Socially which is better?
Planned obsolence has become even more serious. Major appliances now cost a great deal more due to "energy saving measures" and rarely last longer than 5 years. My mind still boggles how it can truly be energy saving to have the dishwasher running for 3 hours in contrast to my former old model that was admittedly noisy and used a few more gallons of water, but it was done in 30 minutes and produced super clean, santitized, fully dried dishes. Now I end up having to pre-wash the dished (no matter what they say), and must turn on a standing fan to make sure they fully air dry to help kill germs during flu season and to keep the humidity and mold spores down in my kitchen while all the damp warm air spews out. Of course because I now must spend hours waiting for dishes to be done, I end up handwashing dishes that are needed before the wash cycle can be completed. And I am forced to buy yet more new crappier products because companies stop making parts for older models in a desperate attempt to keep up with all the new parts required to service tever-changing new applianace designs.
I can't hardly stomach thinking about all the subsidies, tax breaks and sideline environmental effects that come with what I believe is a myth that electric vehicles will prove to be an overall improvement for the environment.
Tax breaks and subsidies to major corporations for the tiniest good deed just means more tax revenue must come out of my pocket to pay for more environmental regulators, a role I know well having worked in that profession for several decades.
Most of the environmental impact of consumer goods is from their original manufacture. This is completely at odds with the planned obsolescence of those goods.
Take automobiles for example. The environmental impact of manufacturing a car is much higher than the impact of the operation of the car. You go and buy a more "environmentally friendly" car and you are starting out with a deficit that will never be repaid.
If a company like Apple really cared about their environmental impact, they would make their products serviceable and upgradeable instead of disposable . They would have a longer support period for their products so people would keep them longer and not send them to a landfill.
Most (if not all) of the incentives that come along (EV credits, Cash for Clunkers, Renewable energy such as solar panels) are just government subsidized marketing. They are just a little green ribbon to wear on the salesman's lapel to encourage you to spend money.
The regulators are not some guardian angel protecting our interests. They are complicit with these corporations in setting up the scams. They are waiting for their turn to go through the revolving door into these corporation to repay their complicity.
Brilliant -- great comments, @David Kirtley. We concur!! Some of the programs are actually worse than what you suggest, giving regime supporters and insiders early and frequent feeding at the taxpayer trough. Awful!