Throughout my project, I've run across a number of organizations that contributed to greenwashing in some way. But, which companies are the baddest offenders of them all? I came across two lists, one from Web Ecoist and one from 24/7 Wall St., that each presented their perspectives on the worst offenders. Interestingly enough, the two lists had 5 companies in common. I'll cover these five organizations and talk about why they've gotten such a strong reputation for greenwashing.
BP (British Petroleum)
Why They're An Offender: Let's start with the initials BP, which also stand for "Beyond Petroleum," a slogan created in 2000 to accompany their $200 million rebranding campaign. For more than a decade, BP has tried to convince their customers that they're making an effort to reduce their carbon footprint and become more sustainable. Watch this ad on finding new sources of energy:
But, are they actually doing the work? Yes and no. While they're putting some energy into developing other sources of energy, they're vastly over-representing that work in their ads. Basically, they're claiming to be far greener than they actually are. A study conducted by Greenpeace in 2009 determined that BP spends 93% of its investment fund on the development and extraction of oil, gas, and other fossil fuels. Only 6.8% of their investment is devoted to alternative energies, including solar power, wind, wave, tidal, and biofuels. Another study indicated that they spent the same amount on green advertising in two years that they spent on six years of alternative energy research. BP also recently entered into a settlement with the EPA for violating The Clean Air Act. And, they spent $3 billion to buy into oil from the Alberta Tar Sands, where generating one barrel of oil creates about two-thirds of a ton of CO2. Overall, they paint a pretty picture, but don't have a lot to back up their claims.
General Motors
Why They're An Offender: Check out the ad above. In 2007, GM attempted to rebrand itself as a an environmentally-responsible car company by launching its "gas-friendly to gas-free" campaign with its best-selling line of Chevy models. The campaign highlighted five ways Chevrolet is "greening" its cars: increasing fuel efficiency, producing a vehicle that can run on E85 Ethanol, developing hybrids, developing plug-in hybrids, and fuel cells. In 2008, GM unveiled the Chevy Volt, the first so-called "electric" car. However, GM consistently retains the reputation of greenwasher because they bend the truth. Technically, the Volt does have a gasoline engine, but the company argues that the car isn't a hybrid because the engine powers the electric motor and not the wheels. GM has also begun advertising cars that run on ethanol, biofuel and fuel cells, but that technology is still very immature and likely won't be relevant until 2020. But, GM's biggest greenwashing problem is that while they're making an effort to develop sustainable technology, they're still responsible for putting gas-guzzling vehicles on the road. In 2007, a study was conducted that ranked GM as the second worst polluter out of eight major car companies and the largest manufacturer of cars that have 15 mpg or worse in city driving. Those stats have probably improved a bit in the last few years, but there's no denying that GM isn't as green as they claim.
Exxon Mobil
Why They're An Offender: Like BP, Exxon Mobil has launched an extensive advertising campaign to demonstrate their commitment to alternative energy and becoming more environmentally-friendly. Here's an example of one of those ads:
Exxon Mobil released a report in 2008 stating that they were working on developing technologies that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Some of their efforts included investing $100 million to improve natural gas technology, working with car makers to increase fuel economy by 30%, improving lithium-ion battery technology, and developing a hydrogen system to improve driving efficiency. But, while working on these improvements, Exxon Mobil has been caught with its hand in the cookie jar, so to speak. They've consistently funded the climate change denial industry, including the Heartland Institute and the Heritage Foundation, which collaborated with President Bush to discredit the EPA's efforts to fight climate change. Also, like BP, Exxon Mobil has recently been found to be in violation of The Clean Air Act. They're spending $300 million in the next ten years to research potential energy sources, which, in comparison to the $47 billion they spent from 2003 to 2006 to develop oil and gas, isn't a whole lot.
Aren't you excited to hear about the last two offenders? I'll cover those later this week!
By now, you’re probably a little depressed by the idea of greenwashing. After all, consuming green is a step in the right direction when it comes to saving the planet. And, if you’re at all like me, the more you hear about corruption and oppression, the more you want to do something to change it. Therefore, I offer you two organizations who are taking very different approaches to fighting greenwashing. Here’s to environmental honesty!
If you’ve never heard of Greenpeace, you’ve probably spent some portion of your life under a rock. Or, you’ve lived in a place that doesn’t have consistent access to large-scale media. In case you haven’t heard of it, Greenpeace is a non-governmental organization that deals with all things related to the environment. Specifically, their goal is to “ensure the ability of the Earth to nurture life in all its diversity (http://tinyurl.com/465yrr6).” They do so by fighting environmental problems, such as global warming and commercial whaling, using direction action, lobbying and research (http://tinyurl.com/48ldywt).
Among its many efforts to save the planet, Greenpeace has established a campaign to fight greenwashing. Their website is entitled stopgreenwash.org and it contains a wealth of information regarding greenwashing, Greenpeace’s criteria for investigation, and numerous articles on greenwashing offenders. According to the site, the goals of this initiative are to confront greenwashing campaigns, engage in debate with corporations, and provide the information consumers and lawmakers need to hold corporations accountable for their green marketing actions. Greenpeace primarily accomplishes these points by investigating cases of greenwashing using four criteria:
Dirty Business: Promoting an environmentally-friendly product or program while the business itself is generally unsustainable.
Ad Bluster: Using targeted advertising or campaigns to exaggerate an environmental achievement in order to divert attention away from environmental problems, or spending more money on advertising an environmental achievement than on the achievement itself.
Political Spin: Speaking about “green” commitments while lobbying against current or pending environmental regulations.
It’s the Law, Stupid!: Advertising a product with environmental achievements that are already required by law.
With these criteria, Greenpeace focuses its investigations in six areas: oil, autos, electricity, coal, nuclear, and forests. Through a blog post format, they expose bits of greenwashing from a number of corporations, including Shell, BP, ExxonMobil, GM, Southern Company, and Kleenex. Are their campaigns successful? Yes and no. As they say on the site, it's been harder to change the US than other countries in the world. But, they do mention a couple of success stories from across the world. For instance, in the UK, the advertising authority asked the Malaysian Palm Oil Council to stop running misleading ads. The ads claimed that palm oil was environmentally friendly, while the industry is actually responsible for heavy CO2 emissions.
When I first came across this site, I was incredulous. The company claims to deliver a "premium package of green image solutions," leaving the infrastructure of a company alone while streamlining a green appearance. I thought I had come across some pretty obvious greenwashing, but this seemed to be pushing the envelope too far. What if consumers found out about it? How would they ever trust green marketing again? But, after my initial reaction, I took a second look at the site, nursing a healthy amount of doubt. This seemed almost too stupid to be real. The remainder of their tabs had advertising points, but little material to work from. The testimonials section was empty. What if this site was merely a clever bit of satire? I searched the web a bit more for information about the site and came across an article written by Osha Gray Davidson for the Phoenix Sun (http://thephoenixsun.com/archives/1299). Like me, Davidson was shocked by Greenwashers Consulting's material and launched into some investigative journalism. Posing as a polluter in need of their services, Davidson writes a sarcasm-laden letter to bait the firm into responding. Soon after, she receives a confirmation email from the CEO of Greenwashers Consulting, Arthur Denton. Does the name sound familiar to you? It might. It's the name of the sadomasochist character played by Bill Murray in Little Shop of Horrors. Davidson confirms that she has stumbled across a piece of satire. Unlike many of the sites I've shown you, which directly attack greenwashers through investigations and expose pieces, Greenwashers Consulting lets the idea of greenwashing destroy itself. As I'm typing this, I'm chuckling at the fact that one of my tabs, which is opened to the "Clients" page of Greenwashers, reads "Greenwashed Clients." Will it have the same effect on greenwashing as Greenpeace? Maybe not. But I think it's important to approach this issue from a number of angles. I also encourage you to visit the site, if only to unwash and wash the picture. Scary icky factory becomes flowery oasis at the click of your mouse!
Coming back from spring break in California (a very enjoyable, but non-sustainable vacation), I initially read Dick's email absentmindedly. Sure, I'd give an update in class on Wednesday regarding the progress of my project. It had made progress, right? Then, I gave it a bit more thought. Up until this point, my scope has been pretty broad. How could I narrow my focus to create the ultimate final project? Based on the direction I've taken thus far, I've decided to spend the rest of my project doing deeper research into greenwashing. This is mainly what I had decided to do before, but now I'm dropping the element of my project where I discuss how consuming less is greener than green consumption. So, the outline for the rest of the semester is as follows: I'd like to spend a couple of posts delving into the history of greenwashing and specific campaigns against it, notably Greenpeace and Greenwashers Consulting. I've come across a list of the top 10 greenwashers, which may be an interesting overview of the worst greenwashing sins. I'll look into specific topics that we've discussed in class, such as the fashion and auto industries, that may have fallen prey to greenwashing. Using the seven sins of greenwashing, I will find "green" products in stores and investigate how truthful their claims are. And, in order to save the semester from being a total downer, I'll end by looking into products and initiatives that mostly avoid the trappings of green marketing and have made a positive impact on the planet. Sound like a plan?
So far, I've given an overview of what greenwashing is and how it's done. Don't remember exactly what greenwashing is? I'll tell you! Greenwashing is the use of marketing techniques to mislead a consumer into believing that a company's products or practices are environmentally-friendly or greener than they actually are. Today's consumer is conscious of where their product comes from, how it is made, and how it will affect the world. Therefore, companies will market their products based on the needs of that consumer, even if their product isn't particularly sustainable. I've thought for a while that greenwashing is a relatively recent phenomenon sparked by the increased interest in global warming and environmental sustainability. But, after doing a little bit of background research, I found out that green marketing has existed in some form for almost fifty years. Let's take a look back at how greenwashing has evolved. Thanks to The Green Life (http://tinyurl.com/4qf7pvw) andCorp Watch (http://tinyurl.com/2vxsvr) for their timelines on greenwashing.
Though the term "greenwashing" wasn't coined until the mid 80s, its ideas began in the 1960s with the beginnings of the contemporary environmental movement. Media of all sorts began carrying images of "green" corporations, a phenomenon labeled by advertising executive Jerry Mander as "ecopornography." Growing interest in the environment led to the first annual Earth Day on April 22, 1970.
Environmentalism exploded in the 1980s. In 1985, Chevron launched "People Do", regarded as the longest-running and most infamous greenwashing campaign in history. The ads featured Chevron employees saving animals and engaging in other environmentally-friendly acts. The ads cause a spike in sales and consumers polled several years later stated that they trusted Chevron over other oil companies to help the environment. Here's an example of one of their ads:
One year later, in 1986, the term "greenwashing" was coined by New York environmentalist Jay Westerveld in an essay regarding the hotel industry's practice of placing cards in each room to encourage the reuse of towels to "save the environment". He claimed that the hotels were implementing very few actual efforts to help the environment and were using such cards mainly as a way to increase their profit margin (washing less towels=spending less money). (http://tinyurl.com/4rqtysp)
The U.S. Chemical Manufacturer's Association created a voluntary program called Responsible Care in 1988, which highlighted the environmental performance of the group's members. This began a trend of environmental self-regulation, rather than governmental regulation.
By the 1990s, greenwashing had established itself as a method to convince consumers of a company's environmentally-friendly practices. Consumers were increasingly taking into account a company's environmental reputation when purchasing their products. A study conducted by the Journal of Public Policy and Marketing in 1991 determined that 58% of environment-themed ads had at least one deceptive or misleading claim. In an effort to control greenwashing, the Federal Trade Commission created the "Green Guides" in 1998, which gave guidelines on terms used in environmental marketing. However, they could not enforce any of the guidelines because greenwashing was outside of their jurisdiction. The term "greenwashing" officially became a part of the English language in 1999.
The early 2000s were marked by a significant effort from BP to rebrand itself as a green company. Spending 200 million dollars, BP changed their slogan to "Beyond Petroleum" and created a green and yellow sunburst logo. Other oil companies, such as ExxonMobil, and the US Government were "honored" in 2002 at the Greenwash Academy Awards, a mock award ceremony hosted by the Greenwashing Academy during the World Summit on Sustainable Development.
And today? Well, today's greenwashing efforts are numerous and growing rapidly. We'll see more of them in the future, as well as some efforts to fight misleading marketing.
As we all get set to travel across the country (and the world) for spring break, I thought I'd investigate the idea of ecotourism, which is defined by the The International Ecotourism Society as "responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and improves the well-being of local people." To that end, I've encountered a list compiled by Forbes of the World's Best Green Vacations. (http://tinyurl.com/6jexs7q)
Criteria used to evaluate the sites included tourism providers or locations respecting local wildlife; employing local staff; and focusing on the outdoors with minimal impact to the natural environment. In order to stay within the theme of my blog, I'll bear in mind that the sites may not be as green as they seem. After all, vacationing itself isn't always a green act, considering the amount of fuel it takes to fling oneself to a new place. But, I'll take a look at five options they offer:
Compass Cay, Bahamas
What's Good: According to Forbes, the island supports friendly schools of sharks and does not allow fishing or taking anything. The site also encourages visitors to come prepared with food and sustain a pretty typical lifestyle. Air conditioning is provided, but not usually needed.
What's Bad: Getting there. The island's pretty isolated, so you usually need to take a small plane to get there. Also, while you're there, you access everything via boats, which are provided to each party. The website indicates that there are restaurants available five miles south of the island by boat. Also, I was a little confused by the fact that Forbes said they didn't allow fishing, but the site says they do. It seems as though getting back to nature is still pretty inefficient.
Alsek River, Alaska
What's Good: Getting in touch with nature! The trip Forbes discusses (Mountain Travel Sobek), emphasizes the amount of diverse wildlife and glacial formations you'll encounter. And it's leaving a relatively small environmental footprint. Rafting is powered by man, as is hiking, another frequent activity on the trip. It also appears that the majority of the lodging is camping, which doesn't require a lot of resources either.
What's Bad: Not a whole lot. Again, getting there is hard. Most people will have to fly to Alaska and then drive to the start of the trip. There's the potential of humans having a negative impact on the nature they're supposed to be admiring, whether they pollute or tamper with a specie in some way. The trip's not accessible to everyone looking for a green vacation. It's a moderate to difficult rafting trip, which requires a great deal of experience. Not for the faint of heart.
Santa Cruz Island, California
What's Good: Owned by the Nature Conservancy and the National Park Service, Santa Cruz Island offers a great deal to explore, from mountain peaks to deep canyons to 77 miles of coast. The island was brought back from a state of ecological collapse and now offers a variety of unique plants and animals, including the bald eagle, which was reintroduced to the island. The island allows limited visitors and does not appear to accommodate lodging, so people can include a day-trip visit as part of a larger vacation.
What's Bad: Looking at a location like this, which offers so few negatives, forces me to pick on little problematic details. As it's not a destination, Santa Cruz Island doesn't do much to encourage green vacations, as a whole. Rather, it's a chance to visit nature's bounty as a part of another vacation/lifestyle. There's a number of chances for visitors to pollute the island. Nevertheless, it's a little oasis off the coast of LA, a notoriously smog-filled city.
Campi Ya Kanzi, Kenya
What's Good: Offering a safari experience unlike any other, Campi ya Kanzi is owned and operated by the Maasai people, making the business part of a local economy. The number of sustainable options the camp provides are endless. Water collected in PVC bladders. Renewable energy sources. Conservation of the land and culture. The creation of the Maasai Wilderness Conservation Trust, which enables the development of the Maasai community through consistent investment and education.
What's Bad: Despite all of their efforts to create and sustain a close community, which is encouraged by Deep Economy, I can't help but feel awkward about this place. By offering a 5-star experience, they're inviting a very select group of individuals with a great deal of money to spend. I'm wondering whether people choose Campi ya Kanzi because they truly support its values or because they're looking for a trip that's hip and trendy. It seems to invite cultural imperialism. But, perhaps I'm being judgmental. Maybe it was the first image I found on the site, which was a group of tourists enjoying champagne while sitting on the plain. Also, traveling halfway across the world to find sustainable communities seems sort of silly. True, you will have a unique experience, but efforts to create sustainable communities are happening in your backyard.
Hotel Paraiso Cano Hondo, Dominican Republic
What's Good: Claiming eco-friendly lodging, this hotel (whose name is too long for me to type over and over) offers a variety of options to get in touch with nature, including bird-watching, hiking, touring caves, swimming, camping, and horseback riding. The location of the hotel, smack-dab in the middle of the forest, provides a unique experience of returning to a simpler way of life. The hotel also incorporates elements of the native people of the area, such as local food.
What's Bad: Perhaps it was because the website was in Spanish and I lazily used Google Translate (though I do speak Spanish). But I couldn't figure out exactly how this hotel is eco-friendly. Other than its location and the fact that it supports local traditions, the hotel seemed to be just as potentially harmful as any other. Accommodations include hot water, electricity and room service, which could garner a lot of waste.
The way Forbes compiled this list meant that sometimes their definition of green and my definition got a little twisted. Neither is better than the other. But some of these sites were intriguing to me, and I encourage anyone who's looking to learn about a different aspect of the green movement to check out eco-tourism.
Sponsored by EnviroMedia Social Marketing and the University of Oregon, Greenwashing Index allows consumers of green marketing to view and post ads that claim the environmental friendliness of a company, as well as rate the ads on the relevance of their claims. On a scale of 1-5, if your ad gets a 1, you're seen as "authentic", but if you receive a 5, your claims are deemed "bogus".
Whenever someone evaluates an ad, the site generates a score based on responses to the following five statements:
1. The ad misleads with words. The company misleads the consumer on the true nature of their environmental impact.
2. The ad misleads with visuals and/or graphics. The image that comes to my mind is that of a hybrid SUV in a forest. The images lead you to believe that the car is green, when SUVs are pretty detrimental to the environment.
3. The ad makes a green claim that is vague or seemingly unprovable. A company's claims to being green either lack substance or don't have anything to back them up. If something claims to be made from 100% recycled materials, it's difficult to determine such an exact percentage.
4. The ad overstates or exaggerates how green the product/company/service actually is. For instance, a water bottle company can claim they're green because they used recycled plastic, but the process of making and refurbishing plastic isn't terribly environmentally-friendly.
5. The ad leaves out or masks information, making the green claim sound better than it is. This can often happen in the green clothing industry. Technically, using materials such as bamboo, which waste less water and renew more quickly, is an environmentally-friendly move, but companies don't often mention the chemicals needed to soften bamboo fibers, which contribute to pollution.
Let's look at some ads that received low scores (authentic environmental claims) and those that scored higher (bogus claims).
The Best
Black Cloud
Average Rating: 1.0 (5 ratings)
In response to the massive growth of cars and exhaust emissions in China, WWF took a step to educate others. To kick off their "20 Tips for Sustainable Development" campaign and bring people to their site, WWF attached a giant black balloon to a car for a day with a slogan indicating how much carbon monoxide you could keep out of the atmosphere if you drove one less day. The goals of WWF are straightforward and their mission to reduce pollution is genuine.
Sun Chips Green Energy Credits
Average Rating: 1.7 (4 ratings)
Sun Chips asserts that baby steps can change the world. 18 grams of whole grains per serving can lead to a healthier lifestyle. And their attempts to become more sustainable will contribute to a better planet. Where does this ad go right? They acknowledge that what they're doing isn't going to save anything; rather, it'll help out. Honestly like that helps the viewer believe in their mission. Where does it go wrong? Their claims of "green energy" aren't substantiated with evidence. It's likely that you can find out more on their website, but stating they're green without providing anything to back themselves up within the ad makes the viewer question whether they're really environmentally conscious.
The Worst
Fiji Water
Average Rating: 4.7 (11 ratings)
Oh, Fiji. Where do I even begin? First of all, they mislead the consumer with words and images. There's very little about the water bottling process that's environmentally-friendly, yet they've attempted to convince the viewer that their product is "green". Secondly, they make a vague claim that's difficult to prove. It's unlikely that "every" drop is green, and even if it is, by what standard are they evaluating "green"? Fiji is clearly over-exaggerating their environmental impact. They've likely taken steps to become more sustainable, but their industry is anything but and ads such as these distract from their non-green practices.
Wal Mart: Reducing Prices and More...
Average Rating: 4.5 (2 ratings)
I'll admit that after reading Nickel and Dimed, I tend to pick on Wal-Mart a fair amount, so this selection is a bit motivated by my personal views, but I will say that this ad serves as an excellent example of misleading consumers and overstating environmental impact. By placing their ad on a background of an open field with a tree, Wal-Mart visually misleads its consumers into believing their green efforts are bigger than they are. This isn't to say that Wal-Mart hasn't attempted to become greener in the last several years. But, in a number of ways, Wal-Mart is inherently unfriendly to the environment. Their stores take up acres of land and require an enormous amount of energy to run. And, in order to maintain the lowest prices, they manufacture many of their products in factories overseas that both lack certain environmental standards and have been known to mistreat their workers. Wal-Mart has a lot to prove to the sustainable consumer, and it's likely that ads such as these will ring untrue.
Want to rate an ad? Or maybe post one yourself? Visit the Greenwashing Index! And keep an eye out for "green" ads. You now have some tools to determine whether a product is really as green as it claims to be.
As I explained in a previous post, Terra Choice supports the growth of sustainable companies while serving as a watchdog against greenwashing, or misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company and/or its products. Over the last several years, they have conducted research entitled "Sins of Greenwashing" that determines the prevalence of green products on the market and investigates "green" claims, determining whether a product is in violation of one of the seven sins of greenwashing.
The 2010 study visited 34 stores in the US and Canada and examined 5,296 products making some sort of "green" claims. When I first read a summary of the 2010 report, I was pessimistic. The study found that 95% of "green" products were in violation of one or more of the 7 sins of greenwashing. That being said, green consumerism is improving from year to year. Since 2009, the number of "green" products offered for sale has increased by 73%, and the proportion of sin-free products has doubled in the last year. Greenwashing is still a significant issue, but it's declining and changing. Less often are products committing the Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off (claiming a product is green based on a narrow set of attributes, ignoring other non-green attributes). The Sin of No Proof (claiming green without evidence) is on the rise, thanks mainly to BPA-free claims, as well as the Sin of Worshipping False Labels ("certified green"). It appears that companies with more experience in "greening" become better with time, reducing their greenwashing, obtaining more reliable "green" certification, and continuing "green" growth. Whether a product has good eco-labeling had a significant impact on whether it committed a sin: more than 30% of products with legitimate labels had no sins, while only 4.4% of the products across the study were sin-free. And it may be interesting for Robert to know that BPA-free claims have increased by 577%. Hooray for non-toxic water bottles!
The study then broke down their investigation by categories of products, including Toys and Baby Products; Household Cleaning Products; DIY Building and Construction Products; and Consumer Electronics.
Toys/Baby Products: Claims of BPA and Phthalate-Free are skyrocketing, and 2/3 of "free" claims come on these products. More "green" products are offered in this area in comparison to last year, but less than 1% of them are free of greenwashing sins. The Sin of No Proof is most common in this category.
Household Cleaning Products: Different products within the category had varying rates of growth (for instance, green chemicals increased by more than 100%, but tissue products maintained a typical growth of 77%). Greenwashing varies significantly by category. The Sin of Vagueness is most common in this category and includes claims such as "Eco-Friendly," "Environmentally-Friendly," "Earth-Friendly," "Environment-Safe," "Harnessing Nature," and "Eco-Chemistry." This category makes good use of legitimate certification, likely because of the importance of eco-labeling in the chemical industry.
DIY-Building/Construction Products: This category is being "greened" more quickly than the other categories of the study and has less greenwashing than the study average (6% vs. 4.4%). The Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off is very common in this category and includes single-benefit claims such as "air quality," "energy," and "recycled content." More than 30% of the products surveyed had legitimate eco-labels, including ENERGY STAR and GREENGUARD.
Consumer Electronics: This category is growing relatively slowly in the "green" sector in comparison with the study average (13% vs. 73% average). Not a single "green" electronics product was found to be sin-free. More than half of the products committed the Sin of Worshiping False Labels. Many of the products carried self-generated labels that created the appearance of 3rd-party endorsement.
This is a lot of information. What does it all mean? On a basic level, consumers should be aware that just because something has a "green" label or makes a claim to be "green" doesn't mean it's actually environmentally-friendly. There are any number of reasons why a company releases a product that isn't as green as they claim it is. Perhaps they're trying to capitalize on the green trend, or perhaps they don't have a clear concept of what green means for their company. It's impossible to know for sure.
That being said, if you want to buy "green," by no means should you be completely discouraged by this study. Greenwashing is very prevalent, but it's getting better. The proportion of sinless products is rising every year and more green products are being offered overall. Basically, it seems that the more time that passes, the more various industries will develop products that are truly environmentally-conscious. Like anything, creating "green" products comes with a learning curve. One point the study made was that the majority of products are sort of green, but not completely so. So, by investing in green consumerism, you're making a step in the right direction by purchasing something that is more environmentally-friendly than the original product and indicating to a company that you want them to continue making green products. Whether green consumerism is truly an answer to climate change is yet to be determined, but so long as it's around, it's encouraging to know that companies are making a concerted effort to offer truly environmentally-conscious products.
I'm curious to take a look at green products and try to determine for myself what sins they could be committing. For instance, apparently Robert's shower head doesn't save as much water as it claims it should...
If you'd like to look at the study summary, here's the link:
So I thought I'd add a few pictures from my Eastern Market experience this summer!
Grown in Detroit brings together the crops of several urban farming initiatives in Detroit and sells them at different farmers' markets around the city. This sign was from a Saturday in June; the majority of the crops are greens, which are in season earlier in the summer.
It's worth mentioning that at it's current size, Detroit can't sustain a recycling program because it isn't cost-effective. So, drop-off programs like this one provide a place for people to bring recyclable materials.
From field to table!
Believe it or not, that's garlic! It's not always the dried bulbs you buy at the grocery store. These were sold by Grown in Detroit and can be used from the bulb part up to the part where the leaves start splitting off.
A family enjoys a two-man band.
A sign from Eastern Market's very successful bridge card program.
This suits our class so well :)
Eastern Market Corporation's raised bed garden. A system like this reduces the amount of invasive plants/pests and allows for rotating plants throughout the growing season.
And finally, an example of the hustle and bustle of a typical Saturday in Shed 3.
