Green is lost. It is dazed and confused. Despite the good and noble intentions behind it, the attribution and its related movements generally have fallen short of any depth of meaning for sound environmental practice.
To have a “green” attitude or a “green” position has become misleading and down right false to a very wide spectrum of users. As a result, many of the nobler businesses and efforts are thus affected.
This is a trend that has developed over the years and is picked up even by global media. In a Business Week article published early this year titled, Is the Green Movement a Passing Fancy?, the author, Ursula M. Burns, writes in the lead sentence: “Please tell me that green isn’t a fad.” Well, all things point to the fact that it is not only just an overplayed fad whose time is spent, but it is becoming more of a scarlet letter for true environmental progress and practice being made and will be made in our global society.
The general world population does not see “green” as the end-all for environmental practices and products. I had never really heard of green being the moniker for conservation and sustainability until the late 1980s and early 1990s when green marketing became the current best mechanism for a company to sell its products. This green-washing had a vastly negative effect on many companies — not to mention public trust. Losing public confidence is never good.
Everything Green?
Today, green-washing has come back, albeit in many different forms. According to Scot Case, the executive director of EcoLogo, an environmental certification and standards company, companies are using green to market their goods in response to the recently growing public interest in buying green products. “A lot of people have just started calling everything green,” he says.
History tells us that the Green Revolution started as a renovation of agricultural practices around the late 1940s and early 1950s. The word green has its roots in the Old English verb “growan” which means “to grow.” So the Green Revolution made sense, but today’s use is mostly disjointed from that.
Today’s True Green Power
Unfortunately, the true green power underlying and even undermining the very health of our global society today is money. That power, both sadly and inherently, makes all things happen and determines what products and technologies remain and even thrive in business.
Just take the energy industry for instance. Fossil fuels, a non-renewable energy source, are where the money is and cannot be done without because they supply roughly 86% of global energy consumption, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). Renewable energy sources like wind, solar, geothermal, biofuels, tidal, etc., including nuclear — make up the rest. With today’s total energy demand at about 500 quadrillion BTUs and projected to increase another 44% over the next two decades (International Energy Annual 2009, Energy Information Administration), fossil fuels will remain the major money machine.
Green never can and never will be an industry.
Yet, there is a new green emerging from this pandemonium. People and businesses worldwide know that only sound, practical and compatible environmental practice in business and living is essential to societal health and, believe it or not, the health of our global economy.
The world’s population is growing at increasingly exponential rates, and non-renewable sources for basic human needs – like fossil fuels — are absolutely running out. Provisions of even the most basic human needs — like potable water, power, food production — will fail to enable survival of the human species without smart management and intelligent progress. Naturally, that wisdom means adhering to the basic principles of working with what we have in sustainable and healthy ways.
A new, silent green is evolving today where people just do it and do not misuse it, exploit it or make and claim “the new best thing.” It is not a fad, but a vitally important and permanent fixture of our society. It is the continuum of value systems of life humankind has strived for throughout its existence, but now with a greater knowledge of how things work and how people work together. It is all the spectrum colors of the planet as it clicks in with the rest of the universe. It is, simply, ecology, the term whose literal meaning is the study and consideration of our home, the place where we live.
There is no right or wrong in this new green. At its core is a collaborative effort among all parties to make it work to the health and economic benefit of all. It is ushering in, slowly but surely, a new system of values where human rights, health, pursuit of happiness, productivity, business, politics, civil rights, consumerism, education and all other aspects of life are on the same page with the same objective of sustainability. The one point everyone can understand and agree on today is that sustainability means survivability.
Perhaps the slogan “Think Globally, Act Locally” is the perfect example for all walks of life. Add to that innovation, education, and foresight, and everyone prospers.
Just don’t tell us you’re green.
– Eric McLamb
————————
What do you think?
Do you think that there is a tendency for people and businesses to talk about being “green” without actually following important environmental practices? Is the title of “green” a good choice, or should environmental practice and sustainability be commonplace as to not require a label? Should all businesses’ standings and approvals inherently be judged by their environmental and sustainable practices? Weigh in with your comments!
11 Comments
Subscribe to Comments for this Post via RSS
First of all, I love your Web site!
Certainly the Green movement has been exploited by free enterprise and marketers, so much so that consumers often can’t be sure they’re getting Green products or services that are labeled as such.
When energy from electricity came to the fore, Underwriters Laboratories® was founded in 1894 to test and label electrical energy products that met quality standards. Throughout our lifetimes, the UL-circled seal has told us we were buying safe and tested electrical products.
Clearly, as energy needs change in this century, a Green equivalent of the UL-circled seal is needed to help consumers identify quality Green products. My thought was that someone should model a new regulatory business for Green after the UL model to pull all of these so-called Green products under a big tent and tell consumers which are valid.
But, I just discovered today that UL already is doing it with its new “UL Environment†program!
Of course, UL long has put UL Energy efficiency ratings on such electric appliances as refrigerators, etc., but UL Environment is a more sweeping program. I am delighted that a new SPC (Sustainable Product Certification) seal is being used to tell consumers which products, indeed, meet Green testing standards.
UL is not a government program. It is an independent organization that both tests products and writes standards. UL Environment is its wholly owned subsidiary and functions in the same manner. Moreover, the UL system requires manufactures to follow strict marketing guidelines about promoting the standards they meet and displaying their seals.
UL has the wherewithal to solve this Green marketing mis-labeling problem on its own. In 2008 alone, there were 20 billion products with UL seals. So UL Environment seems more than capable of handling the new Green energy field.
According to UL’s Web site, UL Environment is a new source for independent green claims validation, product certification, training, advisory services and standards development. UL Environment offers truly Green manufacturers the?third-party credibility and global?network they need to compete successfully in the sustainable products marketplace – so consumers actually may find their truly green products!
Perhaps, all of the Green movement needs to raise public awareness of the UL Environment seal program as it grows.
For more information on UL’s UL Environment program, go to http://www.ulenvironment.com/ulenvironment/eng/pages/offerings/services/
Leslie
Some good thoughts and points here!
“Green” and environmental issues have become trendy. While this may seemingly have occurred over night, in truth the first Earth Day was almost 40 years ago. In the United States, the mainstream media finally started covering environmental issues, especially global warming, more consistently about a year and a half ago.
It may indeed be partly the media’s welcoming “green” topics into the mainstream fold that helped to fuel the present “green” frenzy.
A similar thing happened several decades ago when the ideals of the Baby Boomers and the outward accoutrements of the 60s idealists and protesters became co-opted by the widespread culture. A style emerged that often had nothing to do with the core ideals espoused by those who had birthed those styles.
We currently see businesses adopting the “green” moniker. Businesses are motivated by the need to turn a profit. Thus, concepts and ideas which become trendy will become suitable as either products or marketing angles. This is one reason why we’re seeing so much “green” marketing and “green” washing.
This is not necessarily a bad thing. It may be the price of success. It may also be the price of fads.
One response to the current ubiquitous “greening” of our culture — often without the true underpinnings of sustainability — would be to re-imbue the term “green” with meaning.
The call to action may well then be that of education. Why is “green” Important? What are the various factors involved and what would/could happen without “green” sustainability? Through education, we move from a superficial adoption of a style to a re-injection of substance and meaning.
That said, it could well be that a further (and unfortunate) degrading of our climate and environment, with the concomitant erosion of availability of necessities (such as food and water) may serve to remind people of why “green” became a buzzword in the first place and why it’s truly important to be “green” and sustainable.
Mr Lamb,
I have read your August 8 entry twice and have concluded that your grammatical “style†brings a murky problem into specific relief; It’s not easy convincing people to be genuinely “green†without having decent communication skills (I found the second sentence of the second paragraph particularly mystifying). That having been said, your choosing to ignore The Elements of Style is, at least for the moment, of secondary importance.
Anything worth doing is worth doing well, and rest assured, anything worth doing well is worth profiting from. So to suggest that the term “green†is somehow in danger of becoming Hawthornesque to business is to remove human intuition from the equation. Granted, one doesn’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to believe that a large percentage of money making fads are initiated by the companies that hope to make money from them. But after the initiation it’s up to society to determine if the fad is truly a benefit. To be sure, corporate marketing spin machines are often the modern day equivalent of P.T. Barnum, but at what point do we as citizens become culpable in our own deception?
Sadly, we live in a society where far too many people are either too stupid or too lethargic to care about the products we use, how they’re manufactured and how this affects our planet from both a micro and macro perspective. But what is even more shameful is the utter ineffectiveness of those who do know what’s going on to communicate the facts to those who do not. In an age where so much can change and be changed at ever increasing rates, true societal transformation still comes by way of a slow trudge along the path of human destiny. Still, to decry that money (read: greed) is “undermining the very health of our global society†and “inherently makes all things happen†is not only a contradiction (since “all things†would have to include those which aid and abet the very health of our society, assuming you believe that they do, in fact, exist) but more importantly negates the legitimate progress that has been made.
It is “Hubberts Peak†(the tipping point at which global oil production will begin an irreversible decline) that will ultimately determine the widespread growth and acceptance of all things “green.†Kenneth Deffeyes of Princeton University has stated that he believes that this happened in late 2005, but others say it’s still 20-30 years away (no doubt those profiting the most from the current state of things). Either way, your usage of the term “new, silent green†speaks volumes about your ilk’s inability to, well, speak volumes. Simply demanding (from whomever) “Just don’t tell us your green†assumes that I, the consumer, am too ignorant to understand the difference between what something claims to be and what it actually is. If this is indeed your perspective then it is my assertion that the blame for this ignorance lies squarely at the feet of you and yours since it would seem that you are far more in the know than I am (and I’m fairly in the know).
Might I suggest quietly embracing the humility that comes from knowing that you can’t change the system overnight, but that it can be changed. I promise that once you do this, your efforts towards a truly virtuous global metamorphosis will be increasingly rewarded.
Addicted Savant,
As a career journalist with a degree from the best journalism school in the world (University of Missouri-Columbia), I can say your writing is too cut by half. It’s impossible to decipher what on God’s green earth you are writing about. By attempting to show off your self-conscious and exaggerated level of intellect, while insulting the superior author of this piece , the only story you’re telling us is your own!
By the way, your comments began with a typo. The author of the story is Mr. McLamb, not Mr. Lamb.
I just wanted to comment to say this impressive Web site is an excellent tool for those of us who do care about Green, the earth and our role in helping this planet. Thank you very much, Mr. McLamb, for your thought-provoking article.
Actual Savant
Big topic with many facets, so forgive the disjointed response…
A healthy skepticism toward corporate claims is generally a good thing, whether they’re about being “green” or losing ten pounds in ten days by eating chocolate bars. But when a company does make a sound ecological move, or claims can be substantiated, I want to know, and the company has every right — if not a responsibility — to tout its accomplishments.
Just last week, Kimberly-Clark and Greenpeace announced that they’ve jointly developed new, environmentally responsible sourcing standards for the company’s paper products (e.g.,Kleenex, Scott, Cottonelle). Granted, Greenpeace has been hounding the company for years, but if Kimberly-Clark wants to advertise that they’re getting out of ancient and endangered forests, and moving toward 100 percent recycled and FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) certified pulp, it just may encourage — or embarrass — others to take similar steps.
While it would be convenient to have some sort of comprehensible standards or a rating system to facilitate comparing the ecological impact of one brand to another, evaluating cradle-to-grave, life-cycle impact is much more involved and costly than, say, measuring energy consumption or highway mileage.
I can buy a long-lasting, compact florescent light bulb that requires less energy to use than a standard incandescent, but what about the impact of acquiring the raw materials that went into it as opposed to a standard bulb? Was more or less energy required to manufacture it? Does the factory that made it pollute the local environment, or put the health of its workers at risk? Then there’s the impact of improper — or even proper — disposal of products with more exotic content. (Personally, I find the sometimes negative, unintended consequences of trying to do the right thing more disturbing than exaggerated marketing.) Even if someone could compile life-cycle data in a cost-effective, verifiable manner, would it help me make a better purchasing decision? Would I even be able to process it, or would I just give up and buy the brand that’s on sale?
As for the term “green” and its use, I’ve never been a particular fan, but I’ve warmed up to it over time. Early on, it evoked (to me, anyway) hugging trees, saving snail darters, and other expressions that I didn’t find personally compelling. But as its use broadened, so has its meaning and its usefulness — even if it means different things to different people and its meaning changes over time.
When the President talks about green jobs, he’s referring collectively to a host of different activities in the building trades, transportation, existing and new energy sectors, research and manufacturing, among others. What other term could be used to describe jobs in so many disparate industries so quickly and succinctly to a public whose attention span is limited to what fits on a bumper sticker?
Moreover, I don’t see that “green” has been so exploited by marketers or ridiculed by opponents that it has become a liability. Those of us who read a lot about ecology and the environment may tire of it or dislike it for its imprecision, but its continued, widespread use suggests that the public hasn’t reached that point. And it just may be that its imprecision is a feature, not a bug. If every time someone hears “green” they consciously or subconsciously think “healthier planet” that’s a step in the right direction since increasing mindshare is vital to changing personal habits, encouraging innovation and investment and generating political will. The challenges we face are so unimaginably huge that starting simple and somewhat abstract may be the only way to go.
Whatever “green” means to you today, if you act on that as a business or an individual, we’ve made progress. And if it means something different to you next year (as it should), and you act on that, we’ve made even more progress.
If your neighbors see you acting “green” and join in, that doesn’t make it a fad — that’s how social creatures behave and cultural norms are constructed. What makes a movement a fad is an inherent lack of substance or insufficient importance to sustain dedication on the part of participants. Throughout the world, people are increasingly coming to understand — often, through direct, in-your-face contact — that global environmental and resource issues are real, even if we aren’t very far along the path to addressing them.
It seems to me that there are four tracks leading toward sustainability — regulation, cost-effectiveness, individual behavior, and collective public pressure. If we pursue all four at once, as we must, I think we’ll find that they converge somewhere down the road. And I’ll just bet that where they converge, it’s green.
Dear Up Late on the East Coast,
I wrote the first comment about the UL Environment labeling. Certainly, you pointed out a key issue when you wrote …
“I can buy a long-lasting, compact florescent light bulb that requires less energy to use than a standard incandescent, but what about the impact of acquiring the raw materials that went into it as opposed to a standard bulb? Was more or less energy required to manufacture it? Does the factory that made it pollute the local environment, or put the health of its workers at risk?”
From what I read about the evolution of UL standards and their plans for UL Environment, I don’t think them measuring all of that for an overall rating is outside the realm of possibility. I do think UL seems not only interested but capable of evaluating “cradle-to-grave, life-cycle impact” for specific products. Certainly, it’s beyond our ability to fully educate the public on such matters, so much more comprehensive standards and labeling would be the ideal. I guess the next step is finding out more about UL Environments goals and, if they’re not adequate for this, encourage them to broaden their standards and testing. UL, of course, is not the only entity that might do this, but it certainly is a proven entity.
Thanks for your thoughts on UL Environment. Also, thank you Ecology.com for this thought-provoking Green article and this fabulous Web site!
Thanks for this interesting article, especially concerning the marketing – or mis-marketing – aspects of “Green.” This Web site and your writers are outstanding!
I have a story literally about a Green house of cards!
Unfortunately, some marketers exploit “Green†with no concern that their publicity reflects reality. It, indeed, is a problem and something the marketing profession should figure out how to police. There is such a thing as journalistic ethics that serious journalists adhere to, but marketing seems to draw many non-journalists. The almighty dollar, not ethics, sometimes is their compass.
I have a nominee for the deceptive “Green†marketing hall of fame. Perhaps, if you see a similar fabricated “Green community†going up in your city, you will ask questions sooner instead of too late!
A construction company in St. Charles County, Mo., pre-sold a “Green” community and got numerous future homeowners to pre-pay to build homes in this community. Then, the construction company’s St. Charles County marketing firm promoted this and even got an award for the construction company for “BUILDING the first Green Community in Missouri,†although nothing had been built. As the construction company basked in the glory and had collected many millions of dollars for building, the first community STILL was not being built. Under growing presser, the construction company pushed around some dirt and started building a few homes rather poorly and very slowly. Then, the construction and marketing company announced with great fanfare that the construction company would build an amazing SECOND Green community and everyone should rush to buy in and pay in advance, again, for these future homes. At this point, the alarms went off in my head and I protested that the Green marketing and sale for a 2nd community seemed to be far ahead of the reality of the situation. More than a year went by, however, before the “future homeowners†and bankers realized these were imaginary green communities. I just saw a Web site (link below) that seems to cover the final story of and what happened in the “first Green community.†I’d say, this goes in the NOT Green Hall of Fame!
http://riles-files.blogspot.com/2009/02/highland-homes-st-peters-mo.html
The story GreenGreen tells is at once tragic and laughable. Green might have been the bait, but the scam is older than selling swampland in Florida or Mesopotamia.
Criminal behavior is, in the end, just that, whether the hook is helping starving orphans or going green.
Who among us would blame the orphans?
Bigstinker,
Don’t worry. You can rest assured that not one person blamed it on Green!
Thanks,
GreenGreen
Basically I think any green even “faux” green is good. Awareness has to come first and then, one hopes, discrimination. The ability to discriminate what is true and which flavor of green is better than another may come later and not for all.
Identifying egregious misusage of the term is an opportunity for another level of awareness. Conflict builds interest and debate – let’s use it. Sometimes a bad example can provide a teachable moment.
Volant has hit the bullseye. Progress, not perfection is what we should all be striving for. “Silent” green is a sellfish attitude.