greening biz operations

Greenwashing is getting more subtle

This article in Slate got me thinking. I'm usually inclined to believe that any greening of business is good, but it seems like "greenwashing" is getting more subtle, with the media playing right into it with their lavish features on new "green" initiatives, regardless of their content and effectiveness. Take-home point: better government policy is much more significant than any voluntary greening by business. Something we've always known, but always worth a reminder.

Starbucks vows to make 100 percent of its milk rBGH-free

If you haven't been ordering that double whipped Frappuccino at your local Starbucks with soy milk, you've likely been gulping down Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH). It makes cows produce more milk, but it's thought to increase the risk of breast, prostate, and colon cancer in humans (if only they could come up with something to make cows squirt machiatto directly from their udders).

But now, after two years of pressure from the organization Food and Water Watch, Starbucks has announced that it's going to go rBGH free by December 31, 2007.

Moo-chas gracias, Starbucks! (photo: Tami Witschger)

Whew! Now you can guzzle that cinnamon dulce de leche latte with abandon (so long as you don't mind that growing coffee generally requires cutting down the rainforest, or that Starbucks busts unions).

Starbucks spokesman Brandon Borrman says the campaign had nothing to do with the decision.

"This decision was purely driven by our customers," Borrman said. "Increasing numbers of our customers were calling and asking us to do it, and the number of customers ordering organic milk was increasing, and we wanted to meet that demand."

Food and Water Watch spokesperson Jennifer Mueller noted that much of that activity (including 33,000 emails) was generated from call-in days conducted by her organization.

If you want to thank Starbucks CEO Jim Donald for not poisoning you with milk (or ask what "doppio" really means), you can reach the company at 1-800-235-2883.

Fascinating talk from people at the company

Via Treehugger, Metropolis magazine has posted a transcript of a talk by Scott Charon and Susan Lyons from furniture company Herman Miller. The talk was given at Metropolis‘s conference Design Entrepreneurs: Rethinking Energy. As the eco-geeks among you likely know, Herman Miller is way out ahead of almost any other company on the planet in […]

Hayden Hamilton, CEO of GreenPrint, answers questions

Hayden Hamilton. What work do you do? I’m the founder and CEO of GreenPrint. How does it relate to the environment? We recently launched GreenPrint software which analyzes each page of every document sent to the printer and looks for typical waste characteristics (like that last page with just a URL, banner ad, logo, or […]

Clothing companies start to come clean on chemicals

A few weeks ago, a good friend of mine invited me to an apparel industry environmental seminar chock full of good industry types. Seminars of this nature are always dreadfully boring, but it's worth it because you get the inside scoop on what the industry is (and unfortunately isn't) talking about. The principle topic was regulated substances and chemicals, how to move toward green chemistry alternatives, and how to manage all the issues associated with regulations. The meeting was the first important step in getting companies like Ann Taylor, Liz Claiborne, L.L. Bean, and others to begin taking the steps needed to beef up their consumer-protection standards.

The buzzword of the day was RSL, or "Restricted Substance List." Most RSL's are either proprietary information or outdated. That is all changing thanks to the American Apparel & Footwear Association's Environmental Task Force, which spearheaded the seminar.

On June 27, AAFA released an RSL to help textile, apparel, and footwear companies take the first step in regulating -- and, in some cases, eliminating -- certain contaminants from their products. I emphasize "first step" because many of the companies sitting in the auditorium were only marginally aware that so many chemicals and substances made up the DNA of their outfits.

Measure, monitor, reduce, offset

Haven't had enough on offsets yet? Good. Romm's zeroth rule of carbon offsets is that you should "do everything reasonably possible to reduce your own emissions" before buying offsets. At first blush, this reads like a memo from Obviousland, a staunch statement in favor of apple pie. Pretty much every marketer of carbon offsets heavily stresses that offset purchases should go hand-in-hand with serious attempts at conservation, and I certainly agree.

So far, so good. But the rest of the post serves as a lesson in what can happen when common sense hardens into ideology. After making a bunch of points about how the worst thing you can do is actually feel good about purchasing offsets, Romm offers up Exhibit A of the wrong way to go about buying offsets: Google.

McDonald’s trucks to use french fry grease as fuel

On July 2, McDonald's announced plans to convert its entire British fleet of 155 delivery trucks, which consume about 6 million liters (a little less than 1.6 million gallons) of diesel per year, to run on cooking oil from Britain's 1,200 McDonald's restaurants. The company pledged to make the switch within the next twelve months. In an apparently unintentionally ironic statement, VP John Howe said the fuel wouldn't smell like french fries -- though, he remarked, the Pavlovian effect that would have been "one of the best marketing campaigns we've ever had." Two steps forward, too many back.

Stewards Jolly

Mega-corporations sign U.N.-sponsored climate compact More than 150 companies, including Ikea, Unilever, and Coca-Cola, have signed a U.N.-sponsored climate declaration that commits them to setting and reporting on emissions-reduction goals, while asking governments to enact a post-Kyoto, market-based plan. OK, it’s a voluntary pact with a touchy-feely name — “Caring for Climate: The Business Leadership […]

Taking ’em to the mat

The first rule of Carbon Offsets is, you do not talk about Carbon Offsets.

Just kidding. This isn't Fight Club, but I do aim to pick a fight with those overhyping offsets.

If a smart company like Google can seriously think it can go green by burning coal and then buying offsets and if a smart company like PG&E is bragging about a new program that allows customers to offset their electricity emissions by planting trees (a dopey program I'll blog about later), then something is very wrong about the general understanding of offsets.

For those who want a basic introduction to offsets, Wikipedia has an excellent entry. I believe the more you know about and think about offsets, the less appealing they are, as these articles make clear.

No rules of the road exist for offsets. Until now. In subsequent posts, I will offer my own rules based on dozens of discussions over the past decade with environmentalists, energy experts, corporations, and would-be offsetters. I'll post the first rule tomorrow, but it can be summed up in two words: No trees!

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.