A few years ago, before I had hit the “green curve” (as BP like to call it — more of that in another post) I bought a dishwasher. I still have one — not the same one, which eventually broke down irreparably, but an identical model which someone else was throwing out — and because my hot water doesn’t come from renewables yet, but my electricity does, we still use it. It’s a Bosch, an “AA” rated one, which means it doesn’t use much electricity or water. But (big but) we don’t actually produce a lot of washing up compared to the average family; we reduce the need to wash before actually washing. That’s just common sense.

When Bosch — who, quite frankly, exist solely to sell appliances — come out with an advert entitled “Planet savers” (note my annotation in the picture, being rather cross when I read it) I have to be very suspicious indeed. The implication is that their products are actually saving the planet. Forget the fact that you might have no washing up at all to do, or you boiled your washing up water on a wood stove — if you buy a Bosch product then you are SAVING THE PLANET!

Does that seem a little disingenuous on behalf of the planet to you? Like all “techno fixes”, when you imply technology has a critical part to play in the restoration of the Earth’s natural systems and habitats to their previous state, you are effectively saying that nature can’t do things well enough on its own. That is certainly true when bombarded with pollutants and greed-driven destruction; but remember that the pollutants and greed-driven destruction are the result of human (more accurately, Civilized Human) agency. Nature doesn’t need technology — commerce and growth needs technology.

It gets worse, though. You might not be able to read the small print at the bottom of the advert, so here it is, with the original emphasis shown:

“Trust your instincts. Bosch manufacture some of the most energy and water efficient appliances available. Where possible we use materials labelled for environmental recycling and because we believe product performance need not be compromised to embrace the planet we live on, they are designed to give you the best results every time. To discover more and a chance to win a trip to Florida including a live space shuttle launch and other Disney themed prizes, visit WALL.E at www.boschappliances.co.uk/wall.e”

Words fail me. I only have so much tolerance for bullsh*t.

I threatened to do it, and I always carry through with my threats (being a good parent, ecologist and all round pain in the backside) so, with great fanfare I would like to induct John Reed into the EcoSpam Hall Of Fame¹

John Reed is Creative Director of Elevator Communications, a mainstream and not at all different (despite the claims) PR company. He started sending me spam a few weeks ago, and didn’t stop, regardless of my appeals. As a former IT Security bod, I know it’s risky responding to spam, but this guy has his picture on the website, and doesn’t hide any communication details — not your ordinary spam merchant, or so you would think.

He sends out spam pertaining to be ecologically sound. Here is a sample:

INTERVIEW: Lewis Buchner, CEO of EcoTimber, Inc. (San Rafael, California) is available to talk or meet with you.
NEWS: a new, patented, woven bamboo flooring product has just been introduced by EcoTimber. This new flooring product is significantly harder and more stable than most tropical hardwoods and can be used in residential and commercial applications.

California’s Solar Pioneer and his “Green Business”, Berkeley-style Story Notes:
Interview: Gary Gerber, Founder and President of Sun Light and Power is available to talk with you. As 2008 President of CALSEIA - the California Solar Energy Association - he can talk about the growth of the solar energy industry over the past 32 years, pending legislation, potential roadblocks to the growth of solar and the future of this industry in an age of $137 a barrel oil.

Publicly traded Carbon Sciences, Inc (Santa Barbara, CA) the developer of a breakthrough technology to transform harmful carbon
NEWS AND STORY IDEA, SUMMARY:
Publicly traded Carbon Sciences, Inc (Santa Barbara, CA) the developer of a breakthrough technology to transform harmful carbon dioxide (CO2) into high value, earth-friendly products, Monday announced that it has signed a joint research agreement with Abo University, Finland. This new technology converts CO2, a greenhouse gas, into commercially useful products and providing a technological alternative to the unknown consequences of sequestering (burying) CO2 under the land or oceans. Due to the unique geology of Finland, underground sequestration of CO2 is not an economically viable option.

And so on. The usual eco-bollocks of the highest order. When you look into the kinds of people this guy represents, then you realise that his motivation is rather suspect, to say the least:

University of Tennessee Mouse Brain Library : The MBL consists of high-resolution images and databases of brains from many genetically characterized strains of mice.

KrispyKreme! : Junk food purveyors to the working business breakfast.

Shea homes : Largest private house builder in the USA. Lots of big luxurious pads.

TAG Oil : Canadian-based petroleum company with more than 1,000,000 acres of exploration land in New Zealand.

Along with many other companies you really wouldn’t want to rub shoulders with. I’m not alone in feeling the pain of EcoSpam. Here is the slightly twee, but harmless Green Living Tips on the same subject:

Today I received my first piece of “green” spam. The subject line was “Don’t invest in gold, invest in green”. It was touting yet another miracle, totally natural and sustainably produced exotic fruit drink that would do all sorts of things for me; probably including some of the incredible and pretty much impossible physical, umm.. enhancements, that other types of spam offer :).

Green spam will only increase; so be really careful when receiving unsolicited email about earth friendly products that you research whatever is being hawked thoroughly before reaching for your credit card.

(Actually, the last thing I would do when receiving spam would be to reach for my credit card — the “Delete” key will do just fine.)

A slightly more caustic response (and hooray! for that) from Intemperate Remarks:

G Ananthapadmanabhan, Executive Director of Greenpeace India is sending me spam every few days. The mails come from fake Gmail accounts like greenpeacetree@gmail.com, or from their domain IDs like tree@in.greenpeace.org or sapling@in.greenpeace.org

This a*shole wants me to plant a tree. To save the world. Before it’s too late. I understand the gravity of the situation, with evils like Global Warming, Global Prosperity, Capitalism and all running riot. Considering that such high stakes like the survival of green beetles in sub-Saharan Africa are involved, it is understandable if this jerk has given up basic decency like not spamming unknown people’s private email IDs, and joined the league of snake-oil salesmen offering oriental remedies for towering erections.

You see, this EcoSpam is just another branch in the ever-expanding world of electronic marketing. Just because it says it’s green - as you well know if you read The Unsuitablog regularly - doesn’t mean it is green. Any company wishing to sell a product for a net profit, regardless of its pedigree, is contributing to a net degradation of the global ecosystem: end of story. It may take money away from more damaging products, but it still perpetuates the market economy and takes us ever further away from the things that really matter — like having a real life.

1. Possibly to be repeated

I may have covered this before but excuse me while I spit a few more feathers at watching this 30 second advert again.

“I guess it is easy being green!”

Absolutely — tell corporations you don’t need their global sickness in order to lead a good life.

(And what the hell is that metal monster doing on top of a beautiful mountain?)

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.

One advertisement that infuriated me more than almost any other in the last year (and there are SO many to choose from), was that for the Lexus RX Hybrid. At the time I first saw it, green was not the colour in my mind — more a sort of splashy, angry red — and I decided to write about it.

Now, with the advert having been unceremoniously banned for – quite frankly — lying, Lexus have turned to Saatchi & Saatchi, the ailing but global ad agency, who have decided that a world without “h” is a terrible world. Obviously this needs explaining, so here’s the official guff:

“The TV commercial presents a glimpse into a world without h.  The h is missing from key landmarks, computer keyboards and the alphabet in schools.  The viewer begins to wonder where the h has gone.  Then they see, it has moved to a better place, a world with the Lexus hybrid—a place that looks forward and believes in change.  There is no better place for an h to be than on the rear badging of a Lexus hybrid vehicle.”

Run that past me again. Lexus have stolen all the “h”s, screwing the world’s keyboards and schools because they want to look good. Talk about honesty in advertising!

Perhaps this isn’t quite what they meant to get over, but hey, that’s what you get for trying to be clever.

At the same time Lexus have launched something called Lexus Living which is, quite frankly, hilarious. They have a big list of tips to make you a more hybridized greener person. Some of them just have to be listed (with a comment or two):

- Install a tankless hot water heater, and you’ll never run out of hot water (great, we can burn gas forever)

- Set your sprinklers to water at night. This saves water because there is less evaporation (or maybe, not use sprinklers)

- Keep a canvas bag in your car so you’ll have it handy when you go grocery shopping (making sure you always drive to the shops)

- Dimmer switches use less electricity, and the light is often more flattering (no they don’t. Dimmer switches are transformers, and they prevent the use of low energy lightbulbs)

etc…

What they are really saying is that rich people can carry on their rich lifestyle (they suggest you tell your gardener to use a broom rather than a hose : what, to stick up his arse and do a dance for you?) and still feel good while they are screwing the planet.

Lexus, The Unsuitablog salutes your utter load of b******s!

Before someone decides to prevent me ever writing for any newspaper ever again (and by God, I’ve burnt a few bridges already!) I will say that I actually like The Independent. Of all the national newspapers in the UK it is by far the best for giving environmental issues a high profile, and saying what it thinks.

The paper recently ran an excellent article on the Open Skies Agreement, which will ensure the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by transatlantic aircraft goes well over what the smug naysayers in the air industry are claiming. This was backed up a Leader, which stated:

As this newspaper has long argued, the best way to do this is to start taxing the aviation industry fairly and properly. It is time that the price of air travel corresponded more closely with its environmental costs. The fact that airlines, by international convention, have never been subject to fuel tax or VAT has amounted to a vast hidden subsidy to this method of transport and one that urgently needs to be removed.

So why, in all that is sacred, are they running adverts that make them look like hypocrites? The picture above is a perfect example. A decent article about the dangers of air transport expansion nicely juxtaposed with an advert for long-haul flight behemoths, Emirates. And not just any old advert: one with interactive features to allow you to see the luxury inside one of their specially fitted-out Boeing or Airbus aircraft. Way to go, web designers!

In case the editors were wondering how bad Emirates is, according to their annual report for 2006-2007, the average Emirates passenger flew 4,400km, which produces about 0.62 tonnes of carbon dioxide. They carried 17.5 million passengers, which means that, in 2006/7, Emirates Airlines emitted around 10.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide: about the same as the whole of Jamaica emitted in the same year.

Not the best company to give space to in your Climate Change section.

Blimey! Some good news - it’s not a company that have decided to stop greenwashing (that would surely be something significant) but it does seem that people are waking up to the sins of Greenwashing. British Gas (or BG, as they like to be known around the world) tried to convince the British people that they were selling gas that was “carbon neutral”, as well as claiming that their electricity (yes, they sell electricity too, produced mainly with gas) was the greenest around.

Wrong on both counts, really wrong…

“A TV and press ad campaign for British Gas has been banned by the advertising watchdog for making false green claims about an energy tariff. The ad regulator ruled that the TV commercial was misleading and should not be shown again in the same form.”

“A second ad - a national newspaper advertorial, for the same ‘green’ tariff - was criticised by the ASA for making the claim it was the ‘greenest domestic energy tariff’. The company admitted that the [Energywatch] website did not rank tariffs in order of “greenness” and that there was no industry-wide methodology.”

(from The Guardian)

With a history of energy exploration in the Amazon, and interests in drilling for gas in the pristine Arctic wilderness, BG (or Bad Greenwashers) have felt the first slap from the increasing number of people who won’t tolerate hypocrisy. Keep it up readers - don’t let them get away with it.

Sorry about the big image, I did my best reducing it from the broadsheet newspaper advert I stumbled upon last week, but it’s got to be big, hasn’t it? Land Rover are taking out adverts in all the newspapers, they are so concerned about the planet that they’ve decided to jack it all in: yes, it’s true, Land Rover are no longer making or selling cars. No more Freelanders, no more Range Rover Sports, no more Defenders, nothing. It’s all going on the scrap heap because they have finally realised, after years of marketing vehicles that do 18 miles per gallon (that’s just over 14 MPG in North America) or even worse, that the planet is frying and they are partly to blame. So, in deference to our only reason for existing, they are giving up the motor trade.

Great!

If only it were true.

Sadly, that’s just in my dreams. In reality, Land Rover - owned by our old friends, Ford - are just splattering the pages of newspapers and magazines around the world with the same old rubbish about carbon offsetting, sustainable vehicles, new technology and, that old favourite, supporting green projects. Good old Land Rover - masters at pretending they actually care. Good old Land Rover - masters at the greatest mass-mobilisation PR campaign we are ever likely to see in our lifetimes: the motor industry going “green”.

What a load of greenwash.

So where shall I start with Volvo? They are advertising a range of “eco friendly” cars. The last time I had heard of an “eco friendly” car it had no engine, no wheels, no chassis - in fact it wasn’t a car at all because THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN ECO FRIENDLY CAR. Do you get it, Volvo? Do you get it, Ford, owners of Volvo? A car is a polluting machine, it needs fuel, and no vehicle fuel - as far as I have been able to make out - comes with no net impact on the environment.

But they persist because, of course, they want you to feel better about driving, they want you to buy cars, and they want you to drive them so they wear out, need parts, need servicing and need replacing, and so the whole cycle comes round again without anyone having learned a single lesson except that the auto makers are compulsive liars, and the car buying public seem to have bags over their heads if they are really taken in by any of this stuff.

So what of Volvo’s “Life is better lived together” campaign? The one where suitably fit, attractive looking people slide into their vehicle together to go off on some adventure. Are they saying that all these people live together and they never, ever, drive alone? Of course not. They are saying that you can have more fun in a car rather than on a coach or a train or even, God help us, using the power of our own bodies. It’s all part of the marketing machine and the car sellers love making fools out of you.

Here’s their Australian Marketing Manager, telling it like it is:

“Marketing manager Matt Braid explained the global repositioning: ‘The traditional family structure - as we all know - is changing day by day,’ he said this week. ‘We thought targeting modern families could potentially be limiting our segment. So we’ve revised our target group to ‘modern lifers’, which focuses on a consumer’s attitude to life rather than a particular life stage they’ve gone through.’ “

Go and tell Volvo, and all the other car manufacturers where to stick their lies.