The Semiotics of Greenwashing
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 02.19.08
Sami noted earlier that the sponsor for the presidential debates was Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC), an astroturfer that is using kids to peddle the message that coal is clean and wonderful. But why kids? Why not adults? In fact, what is behind so much of the imagery and symbolism that is used by greenwashers?
As a recent poll noted, kids are far more concerned about the environment than their parents. Maybe the coal company thinks that if the kids are saying it, then it must be green.
The cement industry does it too. Certainly kids playing is cuter than showing a cement plant belching smoke.
Wind Turbines: the 260 horsepower BMW H7 runs on hydrogen, which is stripped from natural gas. A little of it might come from electroysis, but none of that is coming from wind power, more likely coal or nuclear. So does putting the car in front of turbines make it seem more green than it is?
Hippies: Then there is the egregious use of hippie imagery to peddle countertops with 20% pre-consumer content by LG Eden.
And the Shell ad with the flowers coming out of the smokestacks and the trippy lettering, which the advertising standards watchdog made them pull.
Have you seen any other ads that abuse or misuse children, wind turbines or hippies or other green imagery to deliver a greenwashing message? Let us know.
You should look at one of the biggest green washing projects in Central New York. Destiny USA in Syracuse is making their own mall of america. The most clear signs of green washing is that they have painted the entire facility green and yellow, nature inspiring colors. They say all of their practices are green, but is the paint that they are exposing to us? Same with the building materials in the expansion of the mall, are they hurting the workers and then eventually us? The most tragic thing after this mall is done being built is that it will fuel more consumerism having no real dent on society. Unless they change policies that effect all stores, the green washing will continue.
Maybe we should move away from trying to bracket things as eco-friendly. Very little, if any, of the things around us that we use can be seen as eco-friendly. Maybe eco-friendlier. But a vegan will still have an impact - just not as bad as a meatie. I go into more detail on this in my blog How friendly is eco-friendly? Find it at http://angryafrican.wordpress.com/2008/02/17/make-it-better-how-friendly-is-eco-friendly/
There are a lot of things that fall into a category that could be called "loose greenwashing" or "semigreenwashing." This is making things look more homemade or homey, or making them have earthy tones even if they don't claim to be environmentally sound at all - things like that. Imagery or sound that's loosely associated with things that are green, so it makes people feel like some companies are "better" than others.
For example, Starbucks. They are essentially a fast food joint, but their image is that of a cafe that's kind of hip and personal. So many people think that their food is better for you than other fast food places (this is kind of associated with greenness) and that they are more socially responsible than other fast food places (even if this isn't forefront in their minds, a lot of people have trouble accepting that Starbucks is as "bad" as McDonald's or Burger King).
So there is a lot of imagery used that is not directly "green," but it is associated with similar feelings to the green movement.
Check CNN in the mornings. At least 1/3 of all the commercials are for companies trying to greenwash their image.
A lot easier & quicker to change your graphic design than to change all your processes!