by frog
It’s good to see the Commerce Commission taking a strong line against greenwash. Yesterday it repremanded Wellington’s biggest taxi firm, Wellington Combined, for making false claims about fuel efficiency and reduced carbon emissions:
Wellington Combined Taxis’ “going green” campaign aims to make it New Zealand’s first fully certified carbon-neutral taxi company. The website claimed its lpg fleet cut carbon pollution by up to 25 per cent.
“However, when asked to provide information to support that claim, they could only provide information suggesting a 20 per cent reduction, but even that figure is not reliable due to the variance in different tests,” Adrian Sparrow, the commission’s director of fair trading, said.
I’ve started to follow greenwash more closely here at Frogblog and have now set up a new Greenwash page to keep an eye on this growing trend. Greenwash by companies is something we can stop by alerting the Commerce Commission and the Advertising Standards Authority. Governmental greenwash might require a different solution though.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by frog on Tue, June 10th, 2008
Tags: commerce commission, Greenwash, taxis, Wellington Combined Taxi
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Loading...
Will you start by highlighting the “Green” Party…..
EFA, smacking, alt medicine, Buy Kiwi Made, food labeling….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenpeace declared, wrongly, that my submission to the ETS Select Committee was that Climate Change was a hoax. The focus of the Centre’s submission was that the risks of greenwash and fraud were extremely high and we needed appropriate checks.
Here are the key paragraphs:
The Australian Government has recognized the potential opportunities for dispute and litigation, and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has released an Issue Paper: The Trade Practices Act and carbon offset claims. (January 16 2008).
This Issues paper lists the following examples of the information gaps and discrepancies in the market relating to carbon offsets as:
• Claims of Carbon-neutrality based on an accurate carbon footprint but inappropriately ‘offset’
• Claims of Carbon-neutrality based on an inaccurate carbon footprint
• Claims of Carbon-neutrality made without substantiation
• Claims of a transition to a position of carbon neutrality (representations about future matters)
• Claims of ‘low carbon’ in particular products and services
This excellent paper identifies the opportunities for fraud and deception; the table of issues and concerns on page 2 deserves all our attention.
While emissions-trading schemes have been successful in certain markets overseas (as for example the sulphur dioxide trades in California and elsewhere) they are fraught with difficulties if the trading is extended beyond single jurisdictions. These problems occur when trading occurs across State boundaries, and these problems are multiplied if trading occurs across international boundaries.
The problem areas identified by the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission are all potential sources of dispute and litigation. This litigation could take place between competing companies, and between individuals and companies and between companies and government agencies. The stakes will be high and the costs of litigation will be high as well.
If an American company brings a case against a New Zealand company for presenting misleading or fraudulent claims to the American market, the New Zealand company will have to defend its case within the US courts.
Other submitters have given examples of the multitude of problems which surround offset trading and I shall not detail them here. The European Union’s problems are well documented and need not be repeated here.
However, members of this Committee should at least be asking such questions as:
• Where is the equivalent of a department of weights and measures?
• Where and what is the equivalent of the standard kilogramme and the standard metre?
• Who sets the rules and who arbitrates disputes about those rules?
• Who sets the penalties for breaking the rules and who collects the fines?
However, we want to argue that there can be no agreement on such matters because nobody knows how to do the sums. We present this argument below.
IF you want to read the whole submission and notes to the verbal submission go to:
http://www.rmastudies.org.nz/index.php/issues/42-climate-change-and-the-kyoto-protocol/135-pdf-centre-submission-to-select-committee
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
food labelling? Come on.
Good stuff though frog.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Taxis Combined got a deserved bit of flak for that, and I’m sure there are many other organisations guilty of the same. I note that they used a partial excuse of “we outsourced the web site and those things” type line – so there may also be another culprit to reprrimand.
Equally, the taxi company could try a bit more creative advertising to appear Green. They could look for stories which support using taxis over people owning cars. For example, when I lived in Sydney, I went for several years without a car relying on public transport and taxis to get around. Probably did a fair bit to reduce smog and petrol consumption by adopting this approach, and spent less than the cost of a car, maintenance, parking and fuel.
BTW: I see you’ve added NZ Labour and the Government to the list.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenwash- this taxi company will be rubbing their hands together with all the free advertising they have received with this. a driver told me that they were told a couple of weeks ago at a meting at the stadium that something was about to happen, that they would be in the headlines & associated with an unorthodox player. the driver laughing said to me ” we will do well out of this lady, you cannot buy this kind of exposure”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Pray tell, BP, as you are such an authority on being green, what is the proper environmentalist response to the issues you mention?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis
The joke is that some organisations like to appear green (green meaning caring about the environment), when, in reality, they are just using environmentalism as a user-friendly marketing front.
Greenwashing could equally apply to political parties, don’t you think?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Most certainly, just look how the two old parties are clamouring to don the colour. But we both know the difference don’t we.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
They’re not crusty, delluded Mar#ists?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Who, the Nats and Labour?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Neither.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenwash is a natural outcome when consumers want green. Companies will try to act green without really meaning it, since they know it is a scam. How else to explain a notebook with ‘I could have been landfill’ printed in bright green on the cover? Pure marketing.
I recall reading about someone who did a study of companies and found that if a company were a person it would be a pathological liar, narcissist, uncaring, etc. etc. (I can’t really remember the details but you get the idea) Companies exist to make profits, not to save the planet.
A classic example is Bunnings with their no bags policy. OK so maybe they have stopped it [not sure as I haven't been back since they refused a bag for my 12 little sprinkler bits, presumably just so they could laugh as I cradled them out to the car.] But really what a load of bollocks! Plastic bags are a tiny part of landfill, have essentially no effect on animals and are made from a total byproduct of oil refining which would otherwise be burnt off or landfilled. They are hugely convenient in terms of weight, strength and rain resistance…
…and Bunnings has banned them! Certainly not the way I want companies to behave. Just paint the silly things green like everyone else and leave us all alone.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
On the animals of Mars perhaps…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Optimist, You’re not much of a fan of the free market by the sounds of it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I thought the “I could have been landfill” books were recycled?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)