Articles by Anna Fahey

Not always, but green branding has potential to connect consumers to their ‘inner green’

In an undeniable rush, corporate giants are jumping on the "green" bandwagon: Wal-mart, Ford, Dow, General Electric, British Petroleum, Chevron, DuPont, to name only a few. "There's a tendency to put a green smiley face on everything," says Joel Makower, author of The Green Consumer. And smiley faces are rearing their heads all over the place. "We use our waste CO2 to grow flowers," claims a Shell Oil ad.

Right ...

But the concept isn't new. In 1999, "greenwash" was added to the Oxford English Dictionary, where it is defined as: "Disinformation disseminated by an organization so as to present an environmentally responsible public image." Naturally, green branding breeds even greener skeptics.

There are plenty of arguments for why this is inherently bad, especially if it's just lip service -- or worse, polishing up the public image of big polluters or convincing people that an environmental problem is being solved by industry when it isn't.

On the other hand, if huge corporate ad campaigns help cultivate a green-conscious public that doesn't stop at voting with their dollars but also votes its greenness at the ballot box, we have a better chance of moving sustainable policies forward. Greenwashing, for all the ire it raises among the truly green, might have long term political benefits.

A belated Earth Day quiz

Can you guess?

1. "In 1971, I participated in the second Earth Day and became the coordinator of an interdisciplinary Environmental Studies program at West Georgia College."

Find out here.

2. On the occasion of the first Earth Day: "[there is an] absolute necessity of waging all-out war against the debauching of the environment."

Find out here.

3. "Our nation has both an obligation and self-interest in facing, head-on, the serious environmental, economic and national security threat posed by global warming."

Find out here.

4. "We simply must do everything we can in our power to slow down global warming before it is too late. The science is clear. The global warming debate is over."

Find out here.

Lesson: Stewardship is a value that should always transcend party politics.

Will campaign coverage drown out or draw out competing stories?

Can you believe we're already several galloping laps into horse race reporting on the 2008 presidential campaign? Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi describes this phenomenon more eloquently than I can (and with more profanity than I would probably dare) here. For anyone already snorting in disgust and tuning out the constant stream of chatter about who's raised more money, who's realigning their image this way or that (with what hunting photo-op or change of hairdo), and who's notched up a point and a half in Iowa polls, Taibbi is spot on:

The election, after all, is nearly a full Martian year away, with a Super Bowl and two World Series still to play out in between -- which means that the "urgency" of breaking campaign news is now and will remain for at least a year an almost 100% media concoction.

Political parties may be divided on the issue of climate, but Americans agree on solutions

On the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency has authority to regulate greenhouse gases as a pollutant (some called it a strong rebuke of the Bush administration's policies), George W. Bush saw fit to ramp up his language on the issue of global warming (hint: the new key word is "serious"):

The decision (of) the Supreme Court we take very seriously. It's the new law of the land. I've taken this issue very seriously. I have said that it is a serious problem. I recognize that man is contributing to greenhouse gases.

But, despite this outpouring of concern, the Prez kept to old-school thinking, arguing that "anything that happens cannot hurt economic growth." (Clearly, nobody gave him any of the the reports on the enormous costs that we will likely bear as a result of climate changes, or for that matter, the compelling memos that have been circulating about the economic opportunities the climate challenge presents to those with a touch of "American ingenuity.")

The American public, on the other hand, appears more ready than Bush to embrace new thinking when it comes to solutions. Republicans and Democrats alike broadly embrace actions to curb emissions.

Based on a March telephone survey of 1,009 American adults, ages 18 and older, Gallup reports that an overwhelming majority supports stronger government restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions. And, majorities, regardless of political persuasion, say we should spend more tax money to develop alternative sources of fuel and energy.