Eco Chamber #11: The Green Consumerism Lie

It seems like everything has “gone green” these days. From retailers to celebrities, airlines to hotels, banks to even runway fashion, the environment is sexy in the marketplace for the first time. But is all the publicity really helping Mother Nature? When consumers are being “greeenwashed” in their attempt to fit into a petite size footprint, there is a serious problem-the status quo.

Greenwashing, like whitewashing, is masks inconvenient truths about the sustainability of products and services. By appearing to be environmentally sensitive, companies are earning billions in “green” revenue. Meanwhile, consumers are misled in their attempts to live green, unknowingly contributing further to planetary destruction.

“It’s greenwashing when a company or organization spends more time and money claiming to be ‘green,’ through advertising and marketing, than actually implementing business practices that minimize environmental impact,” says the Greenwashing Index, a web site that rates the authenticity of companies’ and products’ eco-friendliness.

And the sad reality is most green products out there are bogus. Exactly 98% of products that claim green labels in the market place are greenwashed, says a report by the TerraChoice Environmental Marketing in April. The company says there are seven eco-sins that companies commit, including: misleading consumers about the environmental benefits of a product or the practices of a company; hidden trade offs, for example, energy efficiency versus the production of hazardous chemicals; and vagueness, such as using terms like “green,” “eco-friendly,” and “natural.” Does a naturally-occurring substance like formaldehyde conjure up ideas of eco-consciousness for you?

One example of a greenwashing company is Shell. Shell Canada is currently providing grant money for up to $100,000 towards four major initiatives that improve and preserve the Canadian environment, and $10,000 grants to grassroots, action-oriented projects. And in its ad campaigns, Shell promotes itself as sustainable and eco-friendly. Is this true? Is Shell becoming a business leader in our ecologically pivotal time?

I think not. Shell is spending billions to be the lead company in the business of dirty and unconventional oil with the Alberta Tar Sands. That helps to extend our dependency on fossil fuels and contributes to the most destructive and greenhouse gas-intensive method of oil extraction on earth. The Tar Sands produces 40 million tonnes of CO₂ emissions annually for Canada through this project. Such projects make it impossible for us to meet any significant global climate agreement, like Kyoto, and probably Copenhagen.

However, there is an immune response to all this consumer corruption. Today, there are a number of groups that work as third parties in environmental labelling, such as EcoLogo, Energy Star or Green Seal. There are science-based marketing firms that assist in transforming companies to the ‘green path,’ like TerraChoice. And there are numerous references and indexes for the every-day consumer in verifying the genuine nature of a product, like Greenpeace’s Electronics Report and GreenwashingIndex.com.

But with this surge of green-labelling - including some companies that mimic third-party environmental certifications, such as HP’s Eco Highlights products - it’s no wonder why so many of us are still in the dark about greenwashing. Perhaps, as Treehugger.com argues, we need a universal eco-labelling system to make it easier for consumers to really go green.

Or perhaps we need to get our heads out of our greenwashing asses. Making change involves getting smarter. We cannot keep expecting someone else to do it for us. Being informed as a consumer and human being in our choices is our responsibility. Relying on the other guys is what got us into the mess we are in. Like brainwashing, let’s take back our brains back - and leave the washing for cleaning our hybrid cars with biodegradable products.

Eco-Chamber 10: Peru’s civil war for the Amazon

A war broke out this month. A war not to the east but to the south, that has been little covered by the media. It comes complete with human rights violations, murder, and corruption caused by the exploitation of the Amazon. The blood of this war is on Canada’s hands.

On Friday, June 5, an estimated 600 Peruvian police officers opened fire on thousands of peaceful indigenous protesters blocking the destruction of their Amazon homeland on a road near Bagua in Peru. This joint police-military operation went awry when 30 protesters and 24 police offers were killed in one of the worst clashes in a decade, causing a war between the Peruvian government and Indigenous peoples.

For the past two months, over 30,000 Indigenous Peruvians have mounted fuel and transport blockades to disrupt the exploitation of the Amazon rainforest. They are working to block the advancement of free trade agreements that opens the Amazon and indigenous land for business with foreign investors. The trade agreement, specifically with Canada and America, seeks oil, minerals, timber, and agriculture, which will in effect devastate the greatest carbon sink on the planet, accelerating climate change.

Police attempting to forcefully remove indigenous protesters blocking a road outside Bagua, Peru, June 5, 2009. Photo by Thomas Quirynen.
“If anyone still had doubts about the true nature of these free trade agreements, the actions of the Peruvian government make it clear that they are really about putting foreign investment ahead of everything else, including the livelihoods — and even the lives — of indigenous people,” says Jamie Kneen, Communications and Outreach Coordinator for MiningWatch Canada.

Earlier this month, Peru’s president, Alan Garcia, said the indigenous protesters were standing in the way of progress, modernity, and were part of an international conspiracy to keep Peru impoverished with their blockades.

“Garcia seemed to imply the Natives were a band of terrorists as he stood in front of hundreds of military officers in a nationally televised speech,” says Ben Powless, a reporter from the frontlines with Rabble.ca. “He continued to decry the Indian barbarity and savagery, and called for all police and military to stand against savagery.”

There are conflicting stories on the accounts of what took place on the June 5 bloodbath. Police dispatches claim that when they arrived to physically remove protesters, many officers were disarmed, killed, or taken prisoner by the protesters.

But indigenous people and families of missing protesters say that the police came looking for a fight. Police and military acted in a violent sweep, searching local towns and houses for protesters, shooting to kill.

A human rights lawyer in the region told the BBC that while 30 protesters have been officially proclaimed dead, hundreds still remain unaccounted for. Locals are accusing police of burning bodies, throwing them in the river from helicopters, and removing the wounded from hospitals to hide the real number of casualties.

Powless reports that a curfew has been imposed on the local towns near the area of Bagua and these Amazonian towns have become militarized. The government has begun persecuting and threatening jail for local indigenous leaders. And fear is growing that the government is trying to build support in further repressing the protesters.

“This is not a path to peace and reconciliation,” says Powless.

One Canadian company that will benefit directly from this rollback of indigenous rights is the Alberta-based petrochemical firm Petrolifera. The Peruvian government recently signed an agreement with Petrolifera to explore land inhabited by one of the world’s last uncontacted tribes, a blatant human rights violation for the purposes of enriching the tar sands development.

“Canada is the largest investor in Peru’s mining sector. If people are being killed on behalf of Canadian investors, to promote and protect investment projects on Indigenous land, then their blood is on our hands,” says MiningWatch Canada’s Kneen.

Eco Chamber 9: The Problem with 2 Degrees

[Editor's note: Every month, Eco-Chamber profiles an environmental activist from Canada or abroad, called "Eco-Warriors." These profiles are a collection of stories Emily is working on for a book called The Next Eco-Warriors.]

In a matter of 10 months, she went from eco-nobody to climate justice crusader. Attempting to put island nations back on the map of our climate future. She shows that it’s not just the scientists, politicians and eco-celebs like Al Gore who are making waves.

As a new activist in the ‘eco-warrior’ world, Lauryn Drainie, a 21-year-old Japanese-Canadian, fell into climate justice work unexpectedly. Though she had no in-depth knowledge or background in the climate cause, she was chosen to be a Canadian youth delegate at the Poznan, Poland climate conference last December . What happened there changed her life.

“At the negotiations, I was shocked at the extent to which Small Island Developing States (SIDS) were marginalized,” says Drainie.

It was in Poznan that she realized the problem with the 2°C-degree global temperature rise target that is deemed “acceptable” by many climate experts. That target, while it would help save many inland ecologies, would leave many of the SIDS uninhabitable as the sea level rises. These already marginalized groups are on the brink of literally losing their homelands, their livelihoods, their cultures and languages as climate refugees.

This is what economists call an “opportunity cost.” The opportunity: for us in the well-to-do West to leave some margin of error and gradually reduce our emissions over the next few decades. The cost: up to 130 million people becoming climate refuges in the next 50 years. The scientific consensus, numerous environmental groups and wealthy governments around the world have all decided this is a cost worth paying – but most of those people won’t be affected nearly as quickly as SIDS.

Drainie says this 2°C degree target is mostly deemed acceptable because the SIDS and other developing countries have little clout at these climate talks. In her accounts of Poznan, she discovered that SIDS leaders were provided cheap accommodations with no telephones, TVs or even e-mail access, while the higher-ups were given penthouses with all the amenities. The SIDS were almost literally in the dark, unable to communicate the threat they face.

Lauryn Drainie and other Youth Delegates offers a placard to the Environment Minister of Nepal, while blocking the entrance to the negotiations room. Photo Credit: Robert van Waarden
To make the voiceless heard at the conference, the Youth Coalition, which included Drainie, blocked the doors of the conference house on day five, forcing country representatives to talk with them. In that moment, they negotiated with these representatives to sign on to a Survival Principle in the Post-2012 climate treaty, a principle that safeguards the survival of all countries and all peoples.

Ninety countries signed on and the Youth Coalition received supporters from such prominent individuals as Nobel Peace Prize winner Wangari Maathai. The next morning, they found that the newly released Ministerial Summary Document on Shared Vision had the Survival Principle included. They had single-handedly put the marginalized back at the discussion table.

Today, Drainie is coordinating a climate justice speaking tour across Canada with SIDS community leaders, giving countless speeches herself on the plight of SIDS and is helping put together a book celebrating these vibrant cultures that may be forever lost due to climate change. The fight is still far from being won for SIDS and other marginalized groups, but this newbie eco-warrior is helping climate leaders hear those who need it most urgently.