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.

I just don’t understand it. National Geographic Magazine has some fantastic environmental articles, and its environmental credentials as regards to editorial objectiveness and openness are second to none. It’s just a shame that no one at NG told the advertising department this.

Open any edition of National Geographic and you will find a host of advertisements promoting big cars, big trucks, airlines and long-haul holidays. This is a magazine that pushes carbon consumption harder that any other.

And then you go to their web site and find this:

 ”From saving forest canopies to forging elephant corridors, the [National Geographic] Conservation Trust is dedicated to preservation around the globe.”

Very good. And this is just one of their many initiatives. They have many more initiatives on the advertising side, proudly boasting in their Sales Kit:

“National Geographic magazine enjoys an intensely loyal readership with some of the most influential consumers in the world. As opinion leaders, they are affluent, well educated, and professional - and have discretionary income to purchase quality products and services.” (my emphasis)

So, National Geographic readers, you are loyal, you are powerful and you are rich, and that’s why you will put up with and respond to hoards of adverts for products that are destroying the Earth. Well, here’s one former reader who won’t be buying National Geographic again. Good riddance.

I suppose you can’t accuse the largest shopping mall in London as being hypocritical if they tell you to “Feed Your Addiction“, but it’s either a monumental PR blunder, or absolute proof that shoppers are so stupid that they think having an addiction to shopping is something positive.

“The Brent Cross Sale. Feed your addiction!”

“Hey, Barry, we need to go there; I’m like, so addicted to shopping.”

Whatever the reason, it’s incredibly honest, though very disturbing.