The Unsuitablog

This month at your local news stand, and in supermarkets up and down the Western world, you will find National Geographic Magazine devoting an entire issue to the realities of climate change. It’s their “Changing Climate” edition. It’s not the first time National Geographic has featured on The Unsuitablog: last time they were filling their regular editions with car adverts, showing that their primary motivation is to make money.

But, a whole edition on climate change, surely they wouldn’t stoop so low as to place unsuitable adverts, would they? I didn’t need to read the text to know that it would contain the usual superficial sycophantic articles about issues that need to be given the acid rather than the warm flannel treatment — we are talking about global catastrophe here, guys! I also didn’t need to read the Solutions section to know that the only solutions presented would be straight out of Ikea and Walmart, and nothing to do with actually changing the way humans live.

I didn’t have to read the text, but I did — and I was right on both counts. But one thing that struck me was the apparent absence of adverts throughout the magazine; a pleasant surprise, I may add, considering the normal consumer rush that readers are subjected to each month.

And then I looked inside the front cover:

ConocoPhillips. A full page advert telling us that they are funding university courses, brainwashing the minds of tomorrow into the ways of the oilman. Yes, ConocoPhillips, major stakeholder in the Syncrude partnership, extracting millions of barrels of thick, carbon-intensive oil from the tar sands of Canada. ConocoPhillips, major supporter of the hopelessly polluting coal to ethanol technology, and all round destroyer of ecosystems across the globe.

As I put the magazine back on the shelf, I glanced at the back cover. There, staring at me, bathed in the verdant, lush glow of a forest canopy, proudly sitting on a rough dirt track, was a Chevy Tahoe Hybrid. “Green Vehicle Of The Year” despite notching up a piss-poor 21 MPG fuel economy. Chevy, makers of a sizable chunk of the most polluting cars in the USA and recent stars of The Unsuitablog.

Thank you for this eye-opener, National Geographic Magazine: three great greenwashers all coming together in a symphony of shit. I bet you are so proud of yourselves!

 

Not everything on The Unsuitablog is greenwashing, sometimes it is about organisations that are just being foolish or aren’t informed enough to realise they are being hypocritical; sometimes it is about stuff that is just plain bad, and is featured because it is bad enough that everyone should know about. But the vast majority of stuff here is Greenwash. If you are a regular reader (for which I am very grateful) then you will already know how to spot greenwash. But just spotting it won’t stop it happening; we need to know more about the various tools companies, authorities, NGOs and other areas of life use to pull the leaves over our eyes.

The first one in this small series is Advertising.

The first time most people, including me, come across greenwashing is in the form of an advertisement. Adverts are, by their nature, commercial tools: they exist to encourage people to spend money. Straight away we can see a problem here, because the act of spending money — in the vast majority of cases — is unsustainable, regardless of the product being purchased. If you buy something new (when was the last time you saw an advert for something pre-owned?) then you are almost certain to be using non-renewable materials; and also non-renewable energy that was used to produce, transport, market and retail the item.

There are many different types of advertisement, ranging from press adverts in your local, small-circulation freesheet, national newspaper and magazine adverts, radio and television adverts (again these could be local or national), cinema adverts, billboards and the various forms of moving and placed adverts in a huge number of different items — bus tickets, schoolbooks, taxicabs etc.

In general, the glossier, bigger and larger circulation the advertisement, the more money that has been spent on it — and, therefore, the more money the advertiser is hoping to recoup from the sale of the item. For instance, a full-page adverts in National Geographic, Time or the Washington Post will cost tens of thousands of Dollars / Euros / Pounds etc. A 30 second spot in the middle of a major sporting event can cost millions.

If you see “green” claims in these, high-cost adverts, then you can be sure that you are looking at a piece of clever, slick greenwash. These people pay advertising agencies a hell of a lot of money to ensure their messages get across – the messages that the advertiser wants the public to see, and nothing else. Compare this to a local radio or newspaper advert, that might make environmental claims: if greenwashing, they are far more likely to be clumsy and opaque; but greenwashing is rare in such adverts. The high-cost advertisement is the home of much of the very worst greenwashing.

The public, sadly, have very short memories: this is not the fault of the public; it is the fault of the advertisers who continually pump a stream of digital sewage into our brains — who can blame people for forgetting the slip-ups of the past. And here is another key point: the greenwasher with money can afford to take a chance that they will be exposed, because if they do manage to pull off the perfect greenwash, they will have pulled it off in front of millions of potential consumers, many of whom are looking for products that are that bit greener. If they do get found out; well, there will be another advert, another slogan, another logo along in a short while ready to wipe out the memory of the greenwash.

The key message here, then, is be vigilant, be smart, and never forget.

Oh, and forget the “greensumption”: it’s just a con.

It’s 2008. Chevy have broken the mould and built a big SUV that is also a hybrid! Aren’t they fantastic?

The Hybrid Taken To Its Logical Extreme

The 2008 Chevy Tahoe already has best-in-class fuel economy. So why mess with a good thing? To make it better, of course. Seems the Green Car Journal agrees — they’ve named the 2008 Chevy Tahoe Hybrid the Green Car of the Year.

This is from the Chevy web site. There are a few notes attached to the statement, which you might find interesting. Shall we read it again?

The Hybrid Taken To Its Logical Extreme

The 2008 Chevy Tahoe already has best-in-class fuel economy. (1) So why mess with a good thing? To make it better, of course. Seems the Green Car Journal agrees — they’ve named the 2008 Chevy Tahoe Hybrid (2) the Green Car of the Year.(3)

(1) Based on 2007 GM Large Utility segment and 2008 EPA estimates. Tahoe 2WD with available 5.3L V8 has EPA est. MPG 14 city/20 hwy.

(2) Limited availability starting January 2008.

(3) For more information, visit GreenCar.com.

So, let’s get this right: (1) It is Best In Class compared to GM’s other f*** off SUV monsters — not other manfacturers’ SUVs, just those made by GM. (2) There will be hardly any of them (actually, that’s got to be a good thing). (3) Green Car magazine is run by a guy who loves cars — the “environment” (as they define it) is a selling point.

Just in case you missed it, the 2008 Chevy Tahoe Hybrid does 20MPG on the highway (that’s 25MPG if you are not in North America). Quite frankly, that is s***. It’s a huge lump of metal, tweaked by some engineers to make GM look green, which, even compared to other SUVs is just another gas-guzzler.

Time to learn a lesson: the auto industry want to sell cars. They will say anything to sell cars. They will destroy the planet if it means they can sell more cars. Don’t believe a word they say.

End of lesson.

A golden rule I have on The Unsuitablog is, regardless of the target of an item, I will not shy away from saying what I think — and I will also ensure this is backed up by facts on the ground, in the air, water, wherever.

When a company, authority, charity etc. tries to pull the wool over my eyes, I will make sure I find out the truth, and not pull any punches with my opinions. If a company etc. is honest with me (after 25 years of buying and selling stuff, It’s easy to tell) I will just lay down the facts, and go easy on the opinion.

So, in this case, my only comment is: “Who are they trying to kid?”

---

On Saturday I received an e-mail from Kristin, representing a group of Honda dealers in California:

Hi Keith,
I am interested in speaking with you about the editorial content of your blog. We are the PR/Marketing agency representing the So Cal Honda Dealers Association, who has launched a new initiative for the Honda Helpful campaign, Honda Blue Goes Green. This new initiative goes hand in hand with this month’s environmental theme and would be a great fit with your website!

Please find attached the press release on the initiative. This new eco-friendly initiative is one of the many ways the So Cal Honda Dealers are unexpectedly helping the local residents, whether they’re handing out waters, hand wipes, helping people with their purchases or walking people to their cars with umbrellas on a rainy day. The community has responded really well to the Helpful teams and is always pleasantly surprised by their unexpected helpfulness. Again, we think this initiative is a perfect fit with your website!
I’d love to speak with you further about this great new initiative helping local residents become more eco-friendly! Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information. Feel free to email me or call!
Best,
Kristin Baker

I responded:

Dear Kristen
This is greenwash of the highest order. All of the examples you mention are encouraging people to drive more: exactly how is this ”eco-friendly”?!

I’m sure your Tote Bag hasn’t got a Honda advert on it, has it?
And what about those wonderfully environmentally friendly vehicles you are selling. I picked out the first one on the web site’s list: the Odyssey (http://automobiles.honda.com/odyssey/specifications.aspx?group=epa). 20 miles per gallon: that is a complete pile of excrement. But it’s ok, because you are helping people plant trees — and, of course, telling people not to drive…no?

You’ve never read my web site, have you? Try this, and see if it fits with your plan: http://earth-blog.bravejournal.com/entry/24053. So, of course I will featuring your campaign with pleasure — on The Unsuitablog:
www.unsuitablog.com

Best wishes
Keith

Maybe I’m getting grumpy and cynical in my old age (well, there’s no “maybe” about it) but she did say it would be, “a perfect fit with your website”. Just not the one she was thinking of. To give her credit, she was polite in return:

Dear Keith,
I’m sorry if you misunderstood the message behind the Hobda [sic.] Helpful campaign. The Helpful teams are out in the field helping the local community in unexpected ways, not asking people to buy Honda vehicles.

The same goes for the Honda Blue Goes Green campaign. The Guys and Girls in Blue hand out reusable grocery totes at recycling centers, grocery stores and farmer’s markets to all customers, not just people with Hondas! And, with each reusable tote So Cal Honda Dealers Association will plant a tree in the recipients name for free, without asking them to buy a car but help replenish acres of forest land destroyed by fires.
I understand if you don’t feel the campaign is  right for your blog, but I’d appreciate the chance to explain the message behind the Helpful campaign a bit further, before you post it as unsuitable.

Thank you for your time.
Best,
Kristin Baker

I didn’t misunderstand the message, but I thought I’d give her a chance:

Ok, just three questions:
1) Do the Tote Bags have “Honda” or a Honda logo on them?

2) Do the people being helped out know that the helpers are employed by Honda dealers?
3) Why did you want me to mention your current campaign on my blog?
Regards
Keith

I even chased her up last night for a response, so I could get the full picture. Here it is:

Hello Keith,
In answer to your question, when the Guys and Girls in Blue approach customers, they initially ask if they would like to receive a reusable grocery bag, and when the recipient says “Yes. Thank you” the teams respond with “You’re welcome; It’s our job to be helpful at Honda!”

I have attached an image of the tote bags for your reference.
And finally, we contacted you to see if you were interested in posting items that let readers know about the different ways businesses are encouraging local communities to become environmentally friendly.

Please let me know if you have any other questions or need anything else!
Best,
Kristin Baker

Thank you Kristin; no more questions.

A few years ago, possibly in 2004, I visited the Eden Project; a mixture of perfectly tended meadows, terraces and exotic planting, topped off by a pair of impressive plastic “biomes” (they were building the third at the time), all in the setting of an abandoned clay pit in Cornwall, England. My family took home some wonderful memories from that day — it was steaming hot, so much so that the Tropical Biome had to be fully vented; my younger daughter had endless fun running around the mazes and gawping at the giant bee; my older daughter discovered what it was like to be soaked in a tropical mist.

Spin forwards four years, and something has gone bad in Eden — they are allowing themselves to be used as a platform for every major car company to do a spot of greenwashing. What better place to pretend you have the interests of the planet at heart than at the Eden Project, that bastion of sustainable tourism and ecological education for all generations? What better place to show that cars are not bad things — they are just misunderstood.

The official blurb makes for deeply uncomfortable reading:

Why a car show at the Eden Project? 
 
Love them or hate them, cars are not going away. But road transport accounts for a fifth of our carbon dioxide emissions in the UK, so it’s time to transform the way we buy and use them.
 
The good news is that we can reduce road transport carbon dioxide emissions by a massive 80% by 2050 if we start buying the right vehicles now and take our old bangers off the roads. The technology is out there and our Sexy Green Car Show brings it to you.

You can read this in one of two ways: first, that there is a general acceptance that car transport is not going away for a long time, so we need to make the best of the situation we have; second, that car transport is a good thing, and it can be made even better if it is made greener. The difference is subtle, but is important.

The first explanation is realistic — it accepts that there will be a need for some car transport, in some places for quite a while until alternatives are found or, more importantly, people stop having the need to travel so much. The second explanation is straight out of the greenwashing guide, written by the automotive giants. Yes, maybe individual vehicle emissions can reduce by 80% in 42 years (not that that is anything like sufficient), but the car companies are exploiting huge markets in Asia and South America, plus pushing to ensure car transport is the only option for travel in the industrial West: net transport emissions are unlikely to go down at all, regardless of how “green” individual vehicles are.

The second explanation is the true meaning of the Sexy Green Car Show. Take a look at the roster of companies showing at the event:

All the major manufacturers will be flaunting their newest, greenest models including Ford, Peugeot, Citroën, Fiat, Volkswagen, SEAT, Honda, Axon, Lotus, Saab and Morgan. Vectrix’s electric motorcycle will also be on show, and the hydrogen-powered Morgan LIFE car will make its first public appearance in this country.

This is a trade event, designed to make car manufacturers look good, while still continuing their effortless plundering of the planet’s diminishing natural assets. Eden Project, you have well and truly been taken for a ride.

How green is your telecommunications company? Can it match us? AT&T lead the world in compassion and environmental nurturing through four main areas of its business. 

1. Supplying military equipment:

AT&T is an official provider of personal telecommunications services for all five branches of U. S. military at 529 military bases worldwide and on 200 U. S. Navy ships afloat through contracts with AAFES, NEXCOM, MCCS and the Coast Guard Exchange.  (from here)

2. Spying on the public:

Mark Klein, a former technician who worked for AT&T for 22 years, provided three technical documents, totaling 140 pages, to the EFF and to The New York Times, which first reported last December that the Bush administration was eavesdropping on citizens’ phone calls without obtaining warrants.

AT&T built a secret room in its San Francisco switching station that funnels internet traffic data from AT&T Worldnet dialup customers and traffic from AT&T’s massive internet backbone to the NSA, according to a statement from Klein. 

3. Polluting waterways:

AT&T Corp. agreed to a $25 million settlement of a lawsuitalleging that the company risked polluting ground water with toxicchemicals by failing to properly test and repair hundreds of underground storage tanks for gasoline and diesel fuel, California officials said Tuesday. (from here)

4. Recycling cellphones:

When you donate your used cell phones to Cell Phones for Soldiers, your phones are either reconditioned and reused — or they’re disposed of in an environmentally friendly way. Best of all, the proceeds provide free phone cards for U.S. military families.

You can celebrate Earth Day every day. Run a cell phone donation drive in your community — at your office, school, apartment building or place of worship.

Well, that does it for me! Recycling cellphones is such a great thing that I’m just going to forgive AT&T for being a key part of the military-industrial complex, and using their corporate leverage to ensure that their worst secrets go untold (Don Rumsfeld was right when he talked about “unknown unknowns”).

I’m not going to comment on the rights or wrongs of Cell Phones for Soldiers — soldiers are human too (even though their leaders clearly aren’t) so want to talk to their families — but why are AT&T making such a big deal about their recycling drive, touting it as their Earth Day effort? It’s a classic piece of greenwashing designed to make this corporate behemoth look good as they do so much bad stuff.

The Unsuitablog received this from an AT&T employee recently:

AT&T touts its goal to double the number of cellphones recycled  through its stores in 2008, while refusing to provide bins in its offices for employees to recycle non-business paper (i.e. newspapers),  aluminum and plastic. The reason they don’t? They say it is too  expensive. The cellphone recycling press release touts how easy it is  to “go green for earth day”, but the company doesn’t follow through in  other areas. They do provide bins for office paper, but that is only  to protect customer and corporate data; I’ve been yelled at for  putting newspaper in there. My office used to have bins for  recyclables, but they were removed in the interest of “cost cutting”.

When I asked if there were any other examples of environmental hypocrisy, this nugget of information followed:

We are expected to leave our computers on overnight so that “updates can download”. They want us to logout and leave Windows at the login screen, and turn our monitors off (not let them go to sleep; turn them off). As a corporate laptop user, I’m not supposed to leave the laptop on overnight, since I have to lock it up. To me, that pretty much indicates that the necessary updates can download just fine in the background as I’m working on other things.

As for corporate excess, their environmental controls policy really needs work. In the summer, the internal temperature is set to 68. In the winter, it’s 78. It is not uncommon for people to wear coats at their desks during the summer and having to use fans (to no avail) in the winter.

So there’s a company acting both globally (bad) and locally (bad). AT&T, welcome to the Greenwashing Elite!

---

N.B. If you have any examples of corporate greenwashing then The Unsuitablog welcomes them. All sources will be kept anonymous upon request. Just e-mail news@unsuitablog.com.

So, as I suspected all along; according to an article in todays Independent, the public don’t support “green” taxes.

More than seven in 10 voters insist that they would not be willing to pay higher taxes in order to fund projects to combat climate change, according to a new poll.  

Wow! What a revelation: people don’t want to pay money to save the planet. For some bizarre reason the mainstream environmental movement still think that money and the planet mix, and that if they can only persuade governemnts to impose taxes to change behaviour then everything will get better. For instance:

It’s tax time - time to fight global warming and save yourself some green at the same time.

Federal, state, and local governments offer a range of tax incentives, grants, and loans that will help you save energy, fight global warming, reduce your energy bills, and let you keep more green in your wallet after Tax Day comes around.

That’s our old friends The Sierra Club, talking up the “green dollar”.

Increasing taxes on fossil fuels is an essential weapon in the Government’s armoury for tackling climate change. And if Alistair Darling used these extra taxes to cut those on people and jobs, it would be extremely popular too. It’s time the Treasury played its full part in delivering a low-carbon economy.

Friends of the Earth this time.

It’s a funny subject, because governments are loathe to impose punative taxation on environmentally damaging activities — well, that would mean taxing everything, really — which would seem to suggest that “green” taxes are actually a good thing for the environment. Sure, a 100% increase in fuel duty might make people think twice about buying fuel, but it would also be a guaranteed vote loser. In an age of apparent environmental awareness, why should that be?

The simple fact is that the whole of civilization is geared towards making money.

Who wouldn’t complain if someone tried to take it away from you — for environmental reasons or not. The environmental mainstream are terminally stuck in a mindset that says it is possible to make things better by working within the system — imposing “green” taxes, making business “greener”, buying “green” products — the very system that is nothing without economic growth.

Fools!

Back to the Independent article:

The results of the poll by Opinium, a leading research company, indicate that maintaining popular support for green policies may be a difficult act to pull off, and attempts in the future to curb car use and publicly fund investment in renewable resources will prove deeply unpopular.

That’s not news — that’s just the way things are in this consumption culture.

There are few things more entertaining than when two different businesses, both loaded with money, battle it out for supremacy , with the only losers being one or other industry. This particular battle is taking place between the multi-millionaire (billionaire) stable owners of Newmarket, in the English Midlands, and the air industry, led by National Air Traffic Services, a recently privatised air infrastructure business. It has become a turf war…literally.

From the point of view of the avid greenwash spotter, anything that promises to dent the imperialism of the air industry has got to be good news; yet the racing industry is run by people who spend their lives dashing from one international stable to another — by plane, of course — only interspersed by journeys in their leather and burnished walnut lined Range Rovers to and from large lunches where they discuss how much more money they can make.

Surprisingly, I don’t have any sympathy for either side. Here is the Observer newspaper taking up the hilarious story:

Plans that would see up to 33 planes an hour, circling over a major horse breeding area, threaten to drive away the world’s top stud owners, including the ruler of oil-rich Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum, and Kirsten Rausing, the Tetra Pak heiress.

Owners and trainers have hired aviation and planning law expert John Steel, QC, to force the National Air Traffic Services (Nats), the UK’s leading air-traffic management company, to rethink its proposals, which they say could result in the death of Newmarket as headquarters of the racing industry.

‘The proposed stacking is right over the top of the horse-breeding area,’ said Alastair Watson, chairman of the Newmarket Stud Farmers Association and manager of Rausing’s Lanwades stud. ‘Breeders have chosen the area for its quiet environs. There is obviously the possibility of them moving away.’

An urgent meeting to discuss the proposals was attended by representatives from Sheikh Mohammed’s stud, as well as from the Newmarket Stud Farmers’ Association, the National Stud, the Thoroughbred Breeders’ Association and Tattersalls, the UK’s leading bloodstock auctioneers. ‘Brood mares come from around the world to be covered here. It could really knock confidence,’ said Louise Kemble, chief executive of the breeders’ association.

Oh, how I laughed!

Ever get the feeling you’ve been had? It’s an iconic quote from a punk legend, but as with all great sayings, it can be applied in many different places. This is one example: the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, an industry talking shop if ever there was one and, like the ineffectual light-green environmental groups who “fight” for changes to government policy and send out gleeful press releases whenever a corporation promises to behave itself, the RSPO are actually making things far worse than if the public were left to their own devices. Sustainable palm oil is simply snake oil in a clever diguise: it doesn’t exist and it never will do.

Here’s how it works.

1) As a group of big businesses whose primary interest is to ensure the expansion of the lucrative palm oil industry – retailers, traders, processors, growers, investors; that sort of thing — set up a shell organisation that claims it is going to make the industry “sustainable”.

2) Call in some gullible (yes, I said “gullible”) NGOs and environmentalists and say that they can have a seat on this august, influential body if they allow business to continue as before — but they will be allowed to suggest changes to the industry providing it doesn’t affect the business model.

3) Repeatedly announce to the world, through member companies such as Sainsburys and Unilever, that agreements are being reached and work is moving on swiftly to make plantations sustainable, but that we have to give them time because this is a tough job, and there are so many products that contain this oil it is just “impossible” to do this any other way.

 4) Do almost nothing for years while counting the massive profit that has been made from cheap oil being grown on recently deforested land using cheap labour.

5) After a few years say that the there are so many plantations that no more deforestation has to take place. Meanwhile the South East Asian rainforest has ceased to exist, carbon levels through wood and peat burning have boosted the greenhouse effect, and people have still not realised they have been well and truly greenwashed.

Alternatively, you could, like Meridian Foods, just take palm oil out of your products until it is sustainably produced. I’m not in the habit of promoting companies, but you have to give them credit as they didn’t even publicise the change.

The RSPO have an impressive roster of members, but it’s the board that matters, so here is their board membership, in full:

President:
Unilever : Jan Kees Vis (massive food multinational)

Vice-President I:
WWF Malaysia : Darrel Arthur Webber (NGO — history of corporate partnerships)
 
Vice-President II:
Indonesian Palm Oil Producers Association (GAPKI) : Derom Bangun (growers and producers trade body)
 
Vice-President III:
Malaysian Palm Oil Association : Mamat Salleh (growers and producers trade body)
 
Vice-President IV:
New Britain Palm Oil Limited : Simon Lord (Papua New Guinea’s largest oil palm plantation and milling operator)
 
Treasurer:
Aarhus Karlshamn UK : Ian McIntosh (Palm Oil trade “solutions” company)
 
Members:
 
Federation of Migros Cooperatives : Robert Keller
IOI Group (Malaysia/Netherlands) : Don Grubba
Cadbury Schweppes plc : Tony Lass
WWF-Indonesia : Fitrian Ardiansyah
Oxfam International : Johan Verburg
Sawit Watch : Rudy Lumuru
HSBC Bank Malaysia Berhad : Paul Norton
FELDA : Mohd Nor Kailany
Co-operative Insurance Society : Samantha Lacey

You will notice that there is only one organisation represented on the board management that has any interest in ensuring the palm oil becomes sustainable, and that organisation is one of the most business-friendly NGOs in the world. Overall, NGOs and small growers are outnumbered three to one on the board. They will always lose in voting.

Add to this their pathetic “aspirations” as a body:

RSPO is an association created by organisations carrying out their activities in and around the entire supply chain for palm oil to promote the growth and use of sustainable palm oil through co-operation within the supply chain and open dialogue with its stakeholders.

In other words, the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil is an industry body that has absolutely no intention of producing or using sustainable palm oil all the time there is more profit to be made from the type that comprises 100% of all palm oil currently being produced. Clearly they also have no intention of scrapping the use of palm oil all the time it is unsustainable.

The results of a fascinating survey have just been released by the PR company Chatsworth Communications, which show clearly that Britain’s journalists, bloggers and other “opinion formers” are not being fooled by the tide of greenwash slopping over the nation’s shores. The press release states:

The results reveal an increasing cynicism as to whether UK business will ever aim for anything more than ‘greenwash’ without clear leadership and legislation from the government on environmental issues.

Nick Murray-Leslie, Chatsworth, comments: “The general public is much more aware of both the issue and the role big business has to play. As a result they are increasingly scrutinising businesses’ sustainability programmes. It should be every company’s priority to make sure they communicate honestly and effectively.

“Supermarkets continue to come under particular scrutiny because of their prominence in our day to day life. Our findings shown that the brands with the most well-publicised sustainability campaigns are also thought of as green washers, so the correlation between investment in publicity and a positive perception by the public does not necessarily always apply.”

This is really enlightening news — the message of The Unsuitablog and the many other sources of information that are helping expose greenwash is most certainly getting through. It also shows that perhaps the public aren’t so taken in by faux-green messages because the stark environmental warnings of the last few years are also getting through.

Some of the comments made with reference to certain companies most certainly echo this site’s sentiments; three of those below have already been featured here:

Let’s keep the ball rolling, and keep greenwashing out of society.