Greenwashing in the Auto Industry Driving our Planet to Extremes by Adam Terko News from the Bottom Up

The environmental movement is running our world today. Despite the best efforts of scientists, political leaders and activists, we are only now seeming to understand what it will take to save our diminishing planet. Not all is well with the green movement, though. Instead of using the new hype to the planet's advantage, many are exploiting the benefits of a green planet for business gains and image values. “Greenwashing” has become a common method for boosting sales. A group will tout its product's eco-friendly traits in hopes of gaining more sales from an environmentally conscious group of buyers, but the truth is many of these products aren't nearly as friendly to Mother Earth as they say they are. Regardless, the greenwashing process has become an industry standard. TerraChoice has come up with “6 Sins of Greenwashing” that corporations use to gain the trust of the eco-conscious consumer. (Some of these “sins” apply directly to corporations in our backyard, such as General Motors, and their effects can be seen even around the Saint Lawrence campus). When it comes to our planet, it's important for the big corporations to tell the consumers whats really going on; it's their responsibility to act in a safe and conscious way. Being on top of greenwashing means we can all make more informed decisions about the products we choose to bring into our everyday lives and their impact on the earth.

The “Six Sins of Greenwashing,” as outlined by TerraChoice, apply to many of the biggest companies we are influenced by everyday. They include: The sin of “the Hidden Trade-Off,” where factors such as the environmental cost of shipping a product may outweigh the proposed ecological benefits. The sin of “No Proof,” where products may claim that their products are not tested on animals, for example, but give no evidence. The sin of “Vagueness”, such as being extremely nondescript about how they are actually helping the environment. The sin of “Irrelevance” means justifying a product's eco-friendliness when all other products in the same category may be just as friendly. The sin of “Fibbing,” or simply not being as green as you say you are, and the sin of “The Lesser of Two Evils,” where there might be an altogether healthier solution the company is not providing. The Six Sins are easy to recognize all over the place once you know where to look. It's often disheartening to see how much they play out in companies and products we often put so much faith into. Hopefully, with more knowledge and action in the area of greenwashing, we can learn to stop it in its tracks and make truly conscious decisions.

The sin of “The Lesser of Two Evils” is clearly evident in the auto market today. With the recent hike in gas prices and tumbling economy, vehicle sales have struggled, and many automakers have looked towards greenwashing as a way to boost sales and, ironically, get in touch with a base of buyers looking to green their own lifestyle with their cars. Things like fuel economy, emissions and the costs of production all became huge influences when it came to a buyers decisions about cars. Suddenly the hybrid market came to be at the forefront, and companies who had before relied on sales of large trucks and SUVs became aware that they would need an image change if they wanted to stay in contention. General Motors, in particular, was hit hard with the fuel/environmental shift in cars. Their lineup of big vehicles like the Yukon, Sierra and Envoy were suddenly seen as giant pigs in the auto industry. GM jumped on the bandwagon and tried to go green. Though automakers like GM may seem as if they're trying to improve their ecological values, the “lesser of two evils” sin easily applies to GM here; while more efficient and eco-friendly cars are a good choice, wouldn't we serve the planet better by not driving cars, or at least finding better alternatives? GM wasn't the only company to shift its ideas, but it was one that underwent some serious changes with the green revolution, and in many cases this was a great thing. The history of GM production though, both all over the world and right here in upstate New York, was tainted with pollution and waste. GM decided to use the eco-conscious craze as a springboard for a more reasonable line of cars; but could they do it with honesty and action instead of just words?

A different sin of greenwashing, the sin of the “Hidden Trade-Off”, can be seen even closer to home. Masenna, New York is a hub of factory production. In the late 20^th century a scandal erupted that involved some very dirty business, both in a literal and physical sense. In the 90's, the plant faced a number of charges from polluting the nearby land with toxins and sludge “containing PCBs and were placed on-site in disposal pits, in the industrial landfill, and in several lagoons.” (Department of Health and Human Services). The GM plant was certainly under some scrutiny, especially from neighboring residents and Native Americans living on a nearby reservation. The Masenna pollution was just one close-to-home example of the effects of big business on the environment. The tables turned in 2008 and 2009, however. The plant faced closure in 2008 from reduced production. Not as many people wanted the high-cost, high-emissions GM vehicles, and therefore the production was cut. As if saved by the environmental situation, the plant suddenly decided to remain open into 2009. The reason? “To help boost its casting capacity, as the automaker shifts its product lineup focus toward cars and crossover vehicles.” (autoincar.com). It turns out the demand for more efficient crossover and smaller vehicles allowed the plant to remain in business. This all seems well and green, but when the plant finally does close in mid-2009, it will shift production to Detroit, Michigan. What this means is that all of those parts will now have to be shipped further to their destinations, and we must consider also what might happen to the current plant itself and its waste. The “Hidden Trade-Off” is clearly evident here; why not just keep the plant where it is and avoid so much moving around if business is suddenly going so well? Unfortunately, greenwashing has still taken hold over GM, and the Masenna plant is no exception to the rule.

Most of GM's green actions outside of production involve joining groups and organizations that discuss trying to be more environmentally friendly. The “United States Climate Action Partnership” is a perfect example of this. The organization is comprised of companies who “have come together to call on the federal government to quickly enact strong national legislation to require significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions” according to their mission statement (www.us-cap.org). What this really entails is that the group does little more than suggest that someone do something. Mostly made up of huge corporations such as Pepsi, John Deere, Johnson and Johnson, as well as GM, the goals sound suspicious. The group has accomplished little since their 2007 document “A Call to Action” and their 2008 document “A Blueprint for Legislative Action.” Both of these works don't directly address the problems of climate change. They each contain “principles and recommendations that urged 'prompt enactment of national legislation in the United States to slow, stop and reverse the growth of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions'.” Strange words for a company like GM, who releases so much emissions, to support. The document also takes no action of its own; it instead simply calls on others to do the real work. Maybe GM could do some work of its own by donating money to environmental organizations, or develop programs that would take chunks out of it's own environmental hazards such as reducing material usage or factory waste. The solution for the planets future and the reduction of greenhouse gases relies on much more than a document backed by huge companies. The solution has to start from numerous sources around the world, but without a deeper understanding of these “sins of greenwashing” and a way to get to the true problem, we will be stuck in the same loop.

Right here at Saint Lawrence, we face some of the same greenwashing issues as anywhere else. The sin of “Vagueness” can be seen in the University's quarterly Alumni Magazine. The Saint Lawrence sustainability page discusses how the thick print magazine is now available online, being shown on the net “coincidental to the publication of the print versions.” (www.stlawu.edu/magazine) This is all well and good, but the page does not mention anything about ending a subscription to the print version itself. Will the magazine continue to circulate in print as well? The description is vague, and if the magazine is still sent out through the mail, it means a hefty amount of unnecessary paper use. Other environmental issues abound on the St. Lawrence campus. The “Greening of the Scarlet and Brown”, as the alumni magazine discusses, is full of information on ways the campus is becoming more in touch with the environment. For example, the booklet describes our “fleet” of hybrid vehicles for school use. In fact, there are a total of three Toyota Prius sedans on campus. While this is all well and good, the rest of the university fleet is comprised of large, white Chevrolet and Ford econoline vans. These vans are certainly of a different scope from the fleet of Prius' the booklet praises so heavily. The gas mileage standards that are so heavily discussed in the mainstream system also plays into more major environmental and government issues.

President Obama recently took some action in the White House regarding emission standards and vehicle performance. In making direct changes from the previous auto standards and regulations, Obama has avoided greenwashing and gone straight to the root of the problem when it comes to the auto industry.

The president...directed the Transportation Department to draw up rules to implement a 2007 law requiring a 40 percent improvement in gas mileage for autos and light trucks by 2020...Once the agencies act, automobile manufacturers will quickly have to retool to begin producing and selling cars and trucks that are cleaner and get better gas mileage on an accelerated schedule. (New York Times, January 27 2008)

This upfront approach will be a stark contrast to the lenient proposals of the Bush era. If companies like General Motors are so intently focused on emissions and environmental safety, why would they now have to “quickly retool” their production? The struggling economy has affected car sales, but our dependence on foreign fuels is highly influenced by these large cars themselves. Maybe the greenwashing is finally coming into light for the big auto companies; they really aren't as green as they say they are and now it's finally catching up to them. The article goes on to state that President Obama “also ordered federal departments and agencies to find new ways to save energy and be more environmentally friendly. And he highlighted the elements in his $825 billion economic stimulus plan intended to create new jobs around renewable energy.”

When it came down to the Masenna, NY plant closing, many were nervous about a lack of work. The strategy President Obama proposes here would allow for more jobs nationwide while also focusing on a greener planet. Instead of factories and car production being a central hub for employment, environmental ideas can be put into action through the work of ordinary Americans. Greenwashing could be eliminated simply by the fact that we will all be working for a common goal.

The planet is a constantly evolving place, and big corporations such as automakers aren't much different. In each world there is a constant struggle for resources, but when it comes to vehicles and pollution, the Earth is losing out. Factors like greenwashing only serve to cover up the true evil that these huge companies are spreading across the globe, and it's first and foremost the responsibility of these companies to change their acts. We can all benefit from knowing how to spot greenwashing and make smart choices, but the real effort will have to come from above. In some ways this may mean more communication between corporations and consumers. Sometimes it may mean schools like SLU communicating with students. It is these companies and schools that we look to in the first place for guidance. We expect them to uphold the same values as we the consumers, and that means a legitimate effort towards a sustainable future. If the corporations themselves can't come together and give us the facts, the entire planet is in more danger than we thought. It's time to take a stand not only against greenwashing, but those who implement it and use it against us for their own benefit. We should all realize that the Earth is not a huge market, and the resources we all compete for could be lost in the blink of an eye if something isn't done.

Sources
Cania, Lisa M. "Saint Lawrence Alumni Magazine." Saint Lawrence University Online. SLU.
"GM TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL TRANSITION ASSISTANCE IN NORTH COUNTRY." NY State Depatment of Health. June & july 2007.

"The Six Sins of Greenwashing." TerraChoice.