Posts Tagged greenwash
Eco-Lie#5: Eco Nappies? Not When They’re Disposable
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Eco-Lie on November 7, 2011
It’s been while since the Eco-Lie outbreak began, and it appears that humanity still has no cure in sight. The sights of today’s post are set on Sainsbury’s and their Little Ones Eco Nappy range.
For me, to put the word ‘eco’ on a disposable nappy is wrong. Let’s face it, the only true eco nappy would be one that doesn’t exist at all – but we can all imagine the consequences of that! The fact of the matter is that to stop new parents being swamped in a deluge of nasty stuff, we need nappies.
Having had two children myself, I’m a bit of an authority on nappies, but I’m also no eco-angel: I’ve used the lot: reusable nappies, ‘natural’ disposable nappies, huggies (once) pampers (twice) and even a tea towel fastened with a safety pin (a one-off emergency measure). And yes; I’ve also used my fair share of Sainsbury’s Little Ones nappies (hangs head in shame). The huggies and pampers are horrible, plastic, chemical filled things that I only used because a friend lent me them when I was caught short. I used washable cloth nappies for my first child (lift head in pride), but just didn’t have the time or space to do the same with the second (re-hang head in shame).
I’m not going to get into the ‘which nappy is best’ debate. Suffice it to say that plenty of research has been done and the results show that reusable nappies are, by far, the most planet-friendly and wallet-friendly option. Plus, the more children you have, the better value they become. You can read a different article I wrote on the subject here.
Disposable nappies, though, are a menace to the environment: they use up valuable resources to manufacture, can take up to 200 years to decompose and 90% of them end up in landfill. Does this sound eco to you? Now I’m sure these Little Ones nappies are an improvement on the above, but not so much that they merit being called ‘eco’.
Sainsbury’s say their eco nappies use a minimum of 60% plant-based material, but I’m sorry, they shouldn’t be going anywhere near the word ‘eco’ until that’s up to at least 99.7%. I do know of a brand of nappies that come in compostable packaging, but do these ones? Nope. It’s polyethylene all the way on this eco-friendly product.
Are they alone?
Just so Sainsbury’s don’t feel hard done by, I thought I’d have a look at the other supermarkets and see what name they give their own range of eco nappies. Do they try and fool us too?
Asda: Yep, just as I suspected, they’ve pulled a fast one and called them Adsa Eco Nappies. They’ve had to recall them though due to a complaint about the materials used – very eco, well done Asda.
Tesco: They don’t have their own eco brand of nappies. I did notice, though, that next to the description of its Value disposable nappy, Tesco inform us about the nappy’s carbon footprint. Now I hate to sound snobbish here, but I’m going to anyway: do you really think that the people who buy Tesco Value nappies care about the environment? No, I don’t think so…
Morrisons: Not sure, as they don’t have an online shop (how last decade) and I couldn’t be bothered to go in a store to have a look.
So then, it’s not only Sainsbury’s who try and fob off the environmentally conscious (but very busy) parent, with a disposable eco nappy, Asda do it too.
Staying on the subject of Asda for a minute: one other thing that came up during my eco nappy hunt was the Asda Little Angels Eco Nappy Sacks… What?!!! Eco nappy sacks? You have got to be joking! There’s no need for nappy sacks at all: it’s a complete waste of resources to use an individual plastic bag for each nappy that you end up putting into that giant plastic bag… called a bin. Here’s what Asda say, “We have added a special ingredient which helps this product degrade 30 times faster than a normal nappy sack, protecting the planet for your little angel.” Oh, so that’s just 33 years for these eco nappy bags to degrade then, well that’s fine – what a wonderful eco-friendly product.
In summary then…
I’m aware that Sainsbury’s aren’t the only company to stock eco disposables, but they are the ones who I’m picking on today (Asda just happened to get in the firing line). While I do applaud any attempt to make a product less damaging to the environment, this doesn’t detract from the validity of the statement that eco disposables are an oxymoron. Nothing that’s used in such massive numbers as nappies and is also disposable can be at one with the ecosystem. Again, this is a blatant attempt by the marketing men to sell more products on the back of our guilt over killing the planet.
There’s nothing really wrong with using these nappies, as they are a better option than some. But please, please don’t be fooled into thinking they are good for the environment, they are not. You can find much better alternatives out there.
GR
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, then do join the discussion on the facebook page. The more contentious the better please…
Eco-Lie#4: To Help Protect The Environment? Oh Please…
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Eco-Lie on August 29, 2011
Ok then, this is a very simple Eco-Lie, but one which I couldn’t ignore (as it’s stuck on a van parked in my street).
Telecommunications company, BT, are putting these stickers on the back of their vans in an attempt to convince us they’re protecting the environment by limiting their vehicles to 70mph.
Erm, sorry? I may have missed something here, but aren’t all vehicles on UK roads limited to 70mph? You know; by that little-understood phenomenon known as the speed limit? It’s much more likely that BT simply are trying to protect their fuel bills.
If they’re really concerned about protecting the environment, perhaps they should consider limiting their vehicles to 50mph and adding a rev limiter as well. Agreed, this may not prove too popular with the drivers, but we’re not trying to protect them, are we?
I suppose that – in principle – the idea of limiting vans to 70mph is a good idea. At least it would save us from glancing up at a rearview mirror filled with the business-end of a commercial van as it tries to stake a claim to the fast lane of the motorway. However, for BT to stick this on the back of its vehicles is blatant greenwashing. Please guys, we’re not that naive. It’s fair enough for a company to reduce costs, but claiming it’s for environmental reasons is just taking the mick.
Still; at least their vans are faster than their broadband.
So, as the Eco-Lie wall of shame claims another victim, it’s time to don my ‘Sherlock Holmes’ deerstalker hat and partake in some snooping to uncover more instances of gratuitous greenwashing. In the meantime, will someone please give BT a ring and let them know how silly they look?
Can I also just thank my six-year old daughter for her covert mission to snap this picture for me without the owner of the van noticing. Don’t get me wrong; he’s a lovely guy, but he may have raised an eyebrow had he seen me snapping away at the rear of his vehicle. Well done Sweetie, good job.
GR
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, then do join the discussion on the facebook page. The more contentious the better please…
Photo courtesy of My Little Girl
Eco-Lie#3: The Great Hoteliers’ Contradiction
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Eco-Lie on August 4, 2011
If you’ve stayed in a hotel at any time over the last 20 years or so, you will no doubt have seen a notice in the bathroom that looks something like this:
Although I agree this is a commendable move by the hotels, the cynic in me has always believed that many are simply doing this to lower their laundry bills while scoring some easy ‘green’ points at the same time. My real bugbear however is when, literally a few paces away from a notice such as the one above, you find this:
So what are we looking at here (apart from a hotel coffee maker)? Well, to begin with you may notice that there’s no choice but to use a disposable cup, which is also wrapped in that most despised material: polyethylene. Second, the coffee machine that this (apparently environmentally conscious) hotel has purchased for every room employs a single-use plastic tray to put the coffee in. That’s right folks, each and every individual coffee sachet comes in it own disposable plastic tray. Disgraceful.
So as you can see below, the waste created by just one cup of coffee somewhat makes the whole saving resources thing look like a bit of a scam.
The waste created by one cup of hotel coffee.
Unfortunately, my job requires me to stay in quite a few hotels (not very green I know, but I’m working on that) and this is by no means a one off. This scenario is repeated over and over again; in fact it’s what gave me the original idea for the Great Eco-Lie Outbreak.
In contrast, some hotels do get it right. The picture below, for example, shows reusable china mugs that are not wrapped in plastic, plus the coffee machine uses a plastic tray that can be used repeatedly in the coffee machine. That’s much better, don’t you think?
Professing your care for the planet via the obligatory ‘please reuse your towels and save resources’ notice is fine, but these hotels who then use so many disposable components in their coffee machines are just being hypocritical.
So next time you stay in a hotel and witness an Eco-Lie such as this, do have a word, and let the managers know we are on to them.
GR
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, please join the discussion on our facebook page. The more contentious the better…
Photos courtesy of me.
Eco-Lie#2: Eco cars? I Don’t Flippin’ Think So!
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Eco-Lie on July 29, 2011
Ok, next in line for a telling off in the Great Eco-Lie Outbreak are a number of car manufacturers: namely Vauxhall, Renault, Seat, Ford and KIA (this list grows as I find them).
On a couple of occasions recently, while trundling along minding my own business, I have noticed that written on the back of the (painfully normal) car in front is the word ‘eco’. Well, the profanities issuing forth from my mouth at this point are akin to those normally reserved for middle lane drivers and those who don’t signal at roundabouts (Oh, I can feel my blood boiling right now). Ok, well maybe the word ‘eco’ in connection with a car doesn’t make me that mad; but it does still make be blink twice in incredulity.
What on Earth is ‘eco’ about a car? Yes they are necessary, yes I own one, and yes a little Fiat 500 is better for the planet than a Range Rover. However, all cars pollute the atmosphere, require enormous amounts of raw materials and energy to manufacture and when they reach the end of their relatively short life (around 8 years or 150,000 miles) they require a huge amount of infrastructure to dispose of properly – which, admittedly has improved in recent years.
I agree that it’s a good thing these manufacturers are addressing their products’ impact on the planet, but calling cars green is stretching it at best; calling them ‘eco’ is just way off the mark. And also (yes I know, one shouldn’t start a sentence with ‘and’, but I’m having a rant so leave me alone) … where was I? Oh yes. And also, when they add this word ‘eco’ they follow it up with some marketing spiel like, “because we feel you shouldn’t have to compromise performance just because you want a car that’s kind to the planet, blah, blah, blah”. Ok then, if you’re not sacrificing performance; why not make all of your cars like this’?
In fact, don’t take my word for it, here’s some sales pitch from Vauxhall, written verbatim – but watch for the twist at the end: “We all love cars and we all love to drive. We still want performance, practicality and a pleasurable experience behind the wheel. The big question is – can you have both?” Erm, both? Don’t you mean all three? Blimey, who writes this stuff? More to the point, who checks it? Idiots.
Ford also make me laugh with their sales pitch: “So while you’re helping the environment, you’ll be helping your bank balance too.” Since when did buying a brand new car help either the environment or one’s balance? Fools.
Now I’m sure that most of the owners of these cars feel they are doing their bit by buying an ‘eco’ model, and perhaps they are. I must also praise some manufacturers for really making an effort to improve their impact on the planet. However, I just can’t agree that a word essentially meaning ‘in harmony with nature’ is used to describe a car. Hyundai, for instance, call their lower emissions range Blue Drive. Nice.
So, that being said, am I simply getting hung up on a single word, when the concept is the same? You betcha I am! My problem is what that word conveys, and when it’s used so out of context, then I believe it to be misleading. Yes, I do have a problem with that.
One last thing on the subject of cars: Is it me, or is the BMW X6 by far the most pretentious car on the road, mostly driven by guys with a massive ego and a tiny… conscience?
So there. Another one to add to the great Eco-Lie outbreak. Next time, I shall look at an Eco-Lie that anyone who has stayed in a hotel cannot have missed. Can you guess what it is?
GR
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, then do join the discussion on our facebook page. The more contentious the better please…
Photos courtesy of Jean Schweitzer and Taylor Jackson
Eco-Lie #1: Renewable Jet Fuel?
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Eco-Lie on July 11, 2011
Humanity is currently at the mercy of a new and fearful outbreak of Eco-Lie.
No, I am not referring to the nasty, disease-inducing bacteria, but to companies that put a very dubious green spin on their products and processes by adding the word ‘eco’.
For me ‘eco’ means that something is ecological, that it is in tune with the sensitive ecosystem we call Earth. Altering a product to make it a little bit greener is commendable, but that does not make it ‘ecological’. I also want to expose other wrongful uses of the words: environmentally-friendly, green, renewable, etc. So, below are the main perpetrators of this latest Eco-Lie outbreak.
I will add to this category as I come across fresh offenders, but please, feel free to drop any Eco-Lies you come across in the comments box or via the facebook page. I will be more than happy to expose them for the scams that they are.
So then, Eco-Lie #1:
Boing says this about its new jumbo jet, “ The new 747-8 Freightliner flies to its international air show debut in historic fashion, crossing the Atlantic Ocean to the Paris Air Show using a renewable aviation jet fuel. This is the world’s first transatlantic crossing of a commercial jetliner using biologically derived fuel. Each of the airplane’s four-GE GEnx-2B engines is powered by a blend of 15 percent camelina-based biofuel mixed with 85 percent traditional kerosene fuel (Jet-A)”.
Ok Boing, you’re obviously trying to put a green spin on things, but don’t take us for fools: Renewable jet fuel? A biologically derived fuel? Erm, didn’t you say something about this being 85 percent kerosene? Please. Most of us are aware that biofuels are not really green. We also fear that should the aviation industry turn to this ‘clean’ form of energy, the problem will get a lot worse.
So Boing, you have made the Eco-Lie wall. Well done. An aeroplane fuel made of 85 percent kerosene is anything but ‘renewable’. When you manage to fly a plane on nothing but the massive amount of waste created by the airlines; then we’ll talk.
GR
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, please join the discussion on our facebook page. The more contentious the better…
Photo courtesy of iknowmeinuk
No More Hunting For Parking Spaces
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Greenwashing on May 23, 2011
I’ve just seen on CNN that San Francisco is the beneficiary of the world’s first app that will actually find you a parking space. Well, that’s not quite true; what the app does is take information from sensors in parking spaces and sends it to your phone, which then tells you where the empty parking spaces are.
Now, this seems to be a pretty good idea and should put an end to driving around aimlessly while getting your kids to shout out when they see a space, which so often turns out to be either restricted, disabled, just that little bit too small or – the worst of all – hiding a smart car. You know; where you don’t the see little car until you actually start to drive into the space. How frustrating is that?
A problem I see with this app is that it encourages the use of your phone while driving. I mean how many old grannies crossing the road are going to have to be run over by drivers looking for spaces on their phones, before people see this may not be such a good idea?
However, my main bugbear with this technology is that San Francisco City officials are saying it will help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as cars will no longer have to drive around for hours on end hunting for spaces. Agreed, this is probably true. But if lowering greenhouse gas emissions is the goal, shouldn’t they instead be trying to persuade people to leave their cars at home?
I know that one reason I avoid driving into my home city is because parking is a nightmare (and because I’m an angel with a green halo around my head, obviously). If parking in San Francisco becomes easier and you can pretty much drive direct to the spaces, will this not encourage more people to take their cars into town instead of walking, cycling or getting on the bus?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not so stuck up that I oppose this technology outright; I actually think it’s a pretty good idea; but please don’t try and sell it to us as being green.
GR
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, please join the discussion on our facebook page. The more contentious the better…
