The term “greenwashing” is similar to whitewashing or brainwashing; organizations and corporations intentionally disseminate misinformation so as to present a more responsible environmental public image. The term was originally coined by Jay Westerveld in a 1986 essay regarding the hotel industry’s practice of placing cards in rooms to promote environmental consciousness while, in most cases, doing nothing to reduce their impact on the environment or to conserve water or energy.
In recent years, consumers have become much more aware of corporations green propaganda and many organizations have started to grant awards to the most heinous examples. Below are three of the most heinous winners of greenwashing awards:
Clear cutting indigenous tribe’s homeland for beef: The Brazilian company Yaguarete Porá S.A won Survival International’s 2010 award for greenwashing the wholesale destruction and clear cutting of thousands of hectares of the Ayoreo-Totobiegosode Indians ancestral forest homeland in Paraguay.
Once satellite photographs showed the expanse of the forest destruction, the company released a press release stating it intends to create a ‘nature reserve’ on its land. However, the company only truly intents to make about 20% of its lands into a nature reserve. The Ayoreo-Totobiegosode Indians are the only uncontacted tribal people in the world having their territory destroyed for beef production.
Coca-Cola’s green campaign: In 2009, the Coca-Cola Company won the First Corporate Greenwashing Award from the Polaris Institute for announcing a 4% conservation of its annual water usage in order to “reduce the footprint” of the company. However, the Polaris Institute counters that there is no objective method to verify the company’s claims and that the company continues to lobby against progressive recycling policies in the United States and their practice of polluting water resources in India.
Prince Charles environmental hypocrisy: Starting in 2009, the United Kingdom’s Prince Charles initiated a personal crusade against global warming which included trip around the world. However, he was highly criticized the way he went about it: using a private luxury jet outfit with plush leather seats and raking up at least 322 tons of carbon emissions in the process.
In more recent years Prince Charles has advocated against global warming and encouraged people to live with less, including urging people to take very short showers rather than baths but in his own life seems to practice very little of what he encourages in others.
This is highlighted in the film “Prince Charles, hypocrite” which was released by filmmaker Phelim McAleeron on YouTube in May 2011. The film does not attack the Prince and his family for their wealth but for their arrogance in thinking those who cannot afford to go green should be using expensive energy to save the planet while those who can afford to go green continue their life of luxury and excess. As the filmmaker points out, is owning four luxury homes with expansive non-food producing gardens really a sustainable lifestyle?