how much greenwash are you buying this days

[O5vx]

Greenwashing (a portmanteau of "green" and "whitewash") is a term describing the deceptive use of green PR or green marketing in order to promote a misleading perception that a company's policies or products (such as goods or services) are environmentally friendly. The term green sheen has similarly been used to describe organizations that attempt to show that they are adopting practices beneficial to the environment.
Greenwashing may be described as "spin." One example is presenting cost cuts as reductions in use of resources.

[Vectrova]

Considering I actually look that stuff up before believing it (like anything serious), as much as is actually truthful. This may or may not be a contradiction of terms with "greenwash".

[Lackadaisical2]

Not much?

But then, I'm not usually making those sorts of purchases anyway.

[Brogavia]

I don't buy greenwash anything. I buy things that I know will harm the environment, just to shit on the generation ahead of me.

[Lackadaisical2]

I don't buy greenwash anything. I buy things that I know will harm the environment, just to shit on the generation ahead of me.

Nothing wrong with following in your father's footsteps I say.

[OuroborosCobra]

It is difficult to answer how much "greenwash" I supposedly buy into without knowing what you, the OP, considers to be "greenwash." For example, let's say that I buy a carbon offset for a laptop, planting a few trees somewhere. Is that "greenwash" because you don't think the carbon footprint of the laptop is actually being compensated for by the trees, is it "greenwash" because you do not believe out carbon footprint is having any effect on the planet (i.e. no anthropogenic global climate change), or do you feel it is genuine and not "greenwash"? What if I buy an electronic device made of 90% recycled materials? How about if I buy locally grown produce to cut down on the waste from the transportation chain? Which of these do you think of as "greenwash"?

[Brogavia]

I don't buy greenwash anything. I buy things that I know will harm the environment, just to shit on the generation ahead of me.

Nothing wrong with following in your father's footsteps I say.

I ain't having kids anyway. They'll just turn out like I am or worse, just I like I turned out worse than my dad, and he was more of hell-raiser that his oldman. It has something to do with the more Swedish Blood you have in you, the bigger of screw up you become. My Grandpa on my dad's side, half Norwegian, he made a full blooded Swede. My Mom's half Swedish with a mix of German and czech in there somewhere, so the Czech lineage explains me.

[Jingoist Hippostan]

I ripped the "hybrid" thing off a Prius and glued it to my Hummer. So I guess I didn't "buy" it.

[O5vx]

It is difficult to answer how much "greenwash" I supposedly buy into without knowing what you, the OP, considers to be "greenwash." For example, let's say that I buy a carbon offset for a laptop, planting a few trees somewhere. Is that "greenwash" because you don't think the carbon footprint of the laptop is actually being compensated for by the trees, is it "greenwash" because you do not believe out carbon footprint is having any effect on the planet (i.e. no anthropogenic global climate change), or do you feel it is genuine and not "greenwash"? What if I buy an electronic device made of 90% recycled materials? How about if I buy locally grown produce to cut down on the waste from the transportation chain? Which of these do you think of as "greenwash"?

all of this are greenwashing in my view.

[South Norwega]

It is difficult to answer how much "greenwash" I supposedly buy into without knowing what you, the OP, considers to be "greenwash." For example, let's say that I buy a carbon offset for a laptop, planting a few trees somewhere. Is that "greenwash" because you don't think the carbon footprint of the laptop is actually being compensated for by the trees, is it "greenwash" because you do not believe out carbon footprint is having any effect on the planet (i.e. no anthropogenic global climate change), or do you feel it is genuine and not "greenwash"? What if I buy an electronic device made of 90% recycled materials? How about if I buy locally grown produce to cut down on the waste from the transportation chain? Which of these do you think of as "greenwash"?

all of this are greenwashing in my view.

Then your view of greenwash is quite silly and over the top.

"Organic Water" is greenwashing.

Carbon offset usually isn't.

[Norstal]

No, because they're more expensive and I dont has monies.

[OuroborosCobra]

It is difficult to answer how much "greenwash" I supposedly buy into without knowing what you, the OP, considers to be "greenwash." For example, let's say that I buy a carbon offset for a laptop, planting a few trees somewhere. Is that "greenwash" because you don't think the carbon footprint of the laptop is actually being compensated for by the trees, is it "greenwash" because you do not believe out carbon footprint is having any effect on the planet (i.e. no anthropogenic global climate change), or do you feel it is genuine and not "greenwash"? What if I buy an electronic device made of 90% recycled materials? How about if I buy locally grown produce to cut down on the waste from the transportation chain? Which of these do you think of as "greenwash"?

all of this are greenwashing in my view.

So basically you think any and all attempts at doing anything better for the environment is "greenwashing," regardless of any actual positive effects?

In that case why are you asking this? You can basically declare anything you want to be "greenwashing," so there is no possible way for us to give you an answer.

[New Manvir]

I don't buy greenwash anything. I buy things that I know will harm the environment, just to shit on the generation ahead of me.

Hell Yeah! Fuck those unborn fetuses!

[Thevenin]

I buy redwash. It's drenched in communist/socialist rhetoric and usually has a photo of Che Guevara somewhere on it with some clever one word slogan like "Resist" or the occasional foreign language quip like "Viva La Revolution" in fancy stencil lettering. All with that weathered, worn in look.

[O5vx]

I just wanted to see what your views on the matter is. I believe some people are trying to do the right thing, but the way they go about it is completely wrong. I would say companies like WAL-MART that are puting 30 percent more, new and improved, you are faceing manopouse you need ganlimalon.

[Norstal]

I just wanted to see what your views on the matter is. I believe some people are trying to do the right thing, but the way they go about it is completely wrong. I would say companies like WAL-MART that are puting 30 percent more, new and improved, you are faceing manopouse you need ganlimalon.

I am both scared and confused.

[OuroborosCobra]

I just wanted to see what your views on the matter is. I believe some people are trying to do the right thing, but the way they go about it is completely wrong.

Great, except that you think everything is wrong. Any attempt to do something more environmentally conscious you declare to be "greenwashing." What exactly do you think actually going about it the right way is?

I would say companies like WAL-MART that are puting 30 percent more, new and improved, you are faceing manopouse you need ganlimalon.

A) That's not a complete sentence

B) I'm not facing manopouse, which seems to be a word you've made up from "menopause." I can only assume you are suggesting male menopause, or are under the mistaken belief that I am a 55 year old woman

C) You definitely seem to have made up "ganlimalon." The only thing Google can even find on that word is your own post of it.

[Astralsideria]

My general policy is to determine if I need it. If I do, then I see where it's cheapest (taking quality into account, naturally). Only if there are two products of identical quality at an identical price will eco-friendliness play a rôle in my selection. Especially after that fracas with the University of East Anglia making some crap up on their eco data, or something. I dunno. I didn't read all the article. All I know is that it gave me an excuse to ignore econess.

[Nobel Hobos]

I just wanted to see what your views on the matter is. I believe some people are trying to do the right thing, but the way they go about it is completely wrong. I would say companies like WAL-MART that are putting 30 percent more, new and improved,

Wal-Mart don't make the products. They only choose what to stock.

The consumers influence what they stock by choosing one product over another.

you are faceing manopouse you need ganlimalon.

er, what language is that ?

EDIT: Manopouse might be "manopause" ... ie, "male menopause", a horrible neologism but sort-of a word. "Manipulation" would actually make sense but I can't believe anyone's spelling is that bad ... and "ganlimalon" can't possibly be "information" could it ?

[Nobel Hobos]

When products began to be marketed as "organic" the same thing happened. Manufacturers found that consumers would favour the comparably priced product which had "organic" or "natural" on the packaging, without them needing to provide any proof that it was "organic" in any way. I guess they could defend it in court on the basis that the food had organic molecules in it or something.

So certification arose. At first this was done by NGO's which were basically funded by a fee on certification (to carry the certifier's logo, the manufacturer had to submit to inspections which cost the certifier money, and this cost was passed on to the consumer) but with the price premium that existed for organic food there was an obvious incentive for non-organic producers to set up fake certifiers. So it moved into the government realm, and nowdays it is illegal in most developed economies to even use the word "organic" on the packaging without genuine certification.

Some consumers have higher standards of what is "organic". So certification also exists for Biodynamic food, non-GE food etc.

Green products (non-food) are relatively early in this cycle now, and it's still possible for manufacturers to advertise and label products as "low emissions" and so on without breaking the law. False claims (eg in advertising) are hard to pin down on a product-by-product basis, particularly if you consider the packaging to be advertising which really it is, and that many imported products come already packaged from countries where law enforcement isn't going to be any help to our government regulators.

But here's my point: even if you're paying a premium for a "greenwashed" product which is no more green than the one without that claim on it, you're participating in the process because you're participating in the market. You're sending a market signal which encourages fraud ... and ultimately encourages regulation because the more discerning consumers demand that they not be lied to, and genuinely green producers face unfair competition. By whatever means (NGO or government) these grievances are addressed eventually. Purchase by purchase, you may be wasting your money but overall you're participating in the development of an industry: the certification industry.

I consider that industry to be in its infancy. Modern technology makes it possible to audit every product at every stage of its manufacture, and to give different levels of certification on many criteria. Possibly including some we haven't even considered seriously yet, like what the governments who tax different stages of production do with the tax revenue.

Against my usual big-government grain, I'd actually rather that government NOT lead on this issue by appointing a single certifier for each issue. All they need to do is to regulate the certifiers which arise in a market where people will pay more for a certified product. Prosecute the certifiers for fraud if they make false claims (eg, that a product is 60% recycled material when it is 40%) and fine them, not the manufacturers. There will always be fewer certifiers than manufacturers, so it is cheaper and more effective to regulate the certifiers. What's more, certification is something of a developing industry: it's not clear yet what consumers want* and its not clear what the "market price" mark-up for certification should be. Competetion between standards (competition for credibility, markup, and the different priorities of different consumers) is still necessary ... and that's not provided by single government-mandated certifiers.

*for instance, some consumers consider global warming more important than resource depletion, some consider the poisoning of workers or their environment more important, some consider fair pay for workers more important ... there are a range of priorities among consumers and even for each one consumer it won't necessarily stay the same into the future. Flexibility is required, best served by competition not centralization.

[Lacadaemon]

The airline I usually fly keeps sending me stuff about how they plant trees to offset my flights. I don't believe them to be honest, and I wish they would stop wasting the paper. I really just think it is so the environmentalists in business class flying to their conferences don't feel so guilty. I haven't checked, but I suspect economy-plebs don't get an offset.

[Nobel Hobos]

The airline I usually fly keeps sending me stuff about how they plant trees to offset my flights. I don't believe them to be honest, and I wish they would stop wasting the paper.

Write back to them, explaining that trees don't do much. Say that you'd prefer investment in Phytoplankton, providing they die and sink to the bottom instead of being part of a working marine ecosystem. Point out the crucial role played by marine mammals and big fish in keeping carbon away from deep ocean sequestration.

Then politely request that further correspondence be printed on whale or shark skin instead of paper from trees.

I really just think it is so the environmentalists in business class flying to their conferences don't feel so guilty. I haven't checked, but I suspect economy-plebs don't get an offset.

It might be an optional extra. Bundled in when someone other than the passenger is picking up the tab (ie, most business class travellers).

[Abdju]

I just wanted to see what your views on the matter is. I believe some people are trying to do the right thing, but the way they go about it is completely wrong. I would say companies like WAL-MART that are puting 30 percent more, new and improved, you are faceing manopouse you need ganlimalon.

WTF?

[Urcea]

I try not to buy anything "green", legitimate or otherwise.

[O5vx]

I just wanted to see what your views on the matter is. I believe some people are trying to do the right thing, but the way they go about it is completely wrong. I would say companies like WAL-MART that are puting 30 percent more, new and improved, you are faceing manopouse you need ganlimalon.

WTF?

The reasion Imention Wal-Mart is due to the fact that most of the 'green' product in their shelfs have been said to completly wrong. The companies that manufacture those goods partner with them to promote the product in a false manner.

On the issue of ganliminomore, this is one of the advertisment that some drug companies put out that stated that it is enviromentally friendly.

The other things that I mention such as 30 percent more are also some misleading ads put on products in todays world. 30 percent more than what? As far as am concern it could be anything.