Amplified Green

Companies involved in offsetting their carbon footprint have access to over twenty tools to calculate their emissions, most of which have been launched in the last year. So far, the voluntary carbon offsetting market is dominated by European players. Reviews of their efforts have not been all too positive, so US companies following in their footsteps do best to avoid the pitfalls.

The main criticism centers on what´s left out of the equasion. Companies embarking on greening up their business practices are faced with a daunting task and most go about it the `easy way´ at first. There´s the option to simply offset carbons on the Chicago Climate Exchange, the European Climate Exchange or on the newly established NYMEX venture, the Green Exchange. Businesses have access to these exchanges if they wish to reduce their overall greenhouse gas emissions by as little as 1%.

(more…)

The European Union’s heavy industry carbon dioxide emissions during 2007 reached around 1.914 billion metric tons according to data released Wednesday. The numbers were 93% complete, because some of the 10,500 companies registered on the Europe’s carbon trading platform had failed to meet the March 31 submission deadline. Prices on the secondary carbon market rallied on the news Wednesday. The price of benchmark European Union Allowances (EUAs) futures increased 88 cents, a 3.9% rise.

The numbers are important for traders on the European Climate Exchange, who take guidance from the level of actual carbon emissions to gauge what demand for offsets is likely to be.
(more…)

The British capital markets watchdog, the Financial Services Authority, has released a report warning that many emissions trading companies make false claims about their green credentials.

The FSA says that the integrity of the carbon trading market is under threat. The information that carbon emissions traders relay to clients often has a truth content that’s lower than you’d expect. In many cases there’s also no clarity over the regulations involved, a lack of credible data. Investors are also frequently offered climate change related products that are totally unsuitable for their goals. (more…)

The Green market is growing. That´s good news. The first professional marketing studies of the segment are being published. But as professionalism takes off, bad ideas might become the new standard.

Of the few facts about the Green market that can be determined with a degree of precision are its components. There´s a significant trend underway to allude to these as “Lifestyles Of Health And Sustainability“. LOHAS for short. In a recently released study of the LOHAS market by marketing research giant Nielsen and the Natural Marketing institute, LOHAS´ market size was put at $209 billion. This includes services as well as goods that are purchased by ´consumers who have a meaningful sense of environmental and social responsibility and incorporates those values into their purchase decisions.´

That is marketing speak for plain ole eco friendly shoppers. The data for the study goes all the way back to 2002. The two research houses have integrated various tools that the other made and are now offering in depth advice to companies looking to green up their production, especially consumer packaged goods (CPG) manufacturers and retailers looking for ideas on product development, positioning, pricing, communication and distribution.

LOHAS might seem like a rather clear cut market, but not everybody that shops green is classified in identically the same category as every other (green) shopper. NMI divides the market up into five groups. Apart from LOHAS, they classify naturalites, drifters, conventionals and unconcerneds.

FallingFruit.com features an interview with LOHAS Journal experts who have an interesting conversation which gives you a great idea about this market, whether you are a consumer or marketer. The radio show describes LOHAS as the largest market you´ve never heard about. But that´s either an exaggeration or it´s bound to change fast.

LOHAS is becoming a household item in investment circles and this is where the whole business begins to scare me. For instance, last year, the NMI collaborated with the investment community to launch the LOHAS index. This is a ranking of the top fifty most ethical companies. The list might surprise you; at the top is Microsoft. McDonald´s is in the ranking as well. Who are they kidding you might wonder. When the index was released the creators said that they had included direct consumer input when compiling the list. Consumers had been way less tolerant of companies´ social behavior than the financial analysts. But also way more ignorant, apparently, according to the finance experts. Nevertheless it still is hardly the list I would expect to see.

As the LOHAS market takes shape, it will be incremental to have independent bodies verify that what´s being earmarked as LOHAS actually stands the test.

So you fell for it; a green, eco product was sold you and it’s a total scam. What are your options? You can yell, kick and scream in your kitchen, but it won’t help you. Go online, and yell, kick and scream!

Even though Complaints Environmentalism has convincingly been declared dead by the writers of the controversial book The Breakthrough, Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, greenwashing is taking off big time. Marketing studies underscore that in some cases 99% of all products sold as green are essentially harmful to the environment. So who are we kidding here? It’s high time to gang up on the naivety!

This is a first assessment of what your legal rights are as a green consumer. Greenwashing, which has been defined as “the practice of co-opting the trappings of the green movement without the business practices to back it up” is illegal. But thus far there have been few high profile court cases.

Craig Bachman, an attorney at Lane Powell PC and intellectual property specialist, believes greenwashing is a spill over effect from the regular ad industry. He’s quoted on Bullivant.com outlining one case which set a precedent in legal history was the LePage’s ‘biodegradable’ cellophane tape. The catch was that the tape itself was biodegradable, the product’s packaging wasn’t. The Federal Trade Commission clamped down on the Pittsburg based company and an out of court settlement swept the news under the carpet.

The fact that greenwashing is mostly a marketing issue means that you won’t often get real, tangible damage cases. In the future, we will likely see battles over semantics. There’s notoriously little clarity in Green marketing so hold your breath. Companies will increasingly be held accountable for implicit claims made in their advertising. If you thought the world had moved online, think again; we’re fast dematerializing in more than one way! The lingo guidelines in the US vary from state to state AND at federal level at the moment, says Bulivant.com.

At the moment, the Federal Trade Commission is trying to clear out the wildgrowth of rules and regulations as it copes with unfair trade practices. It is redrafting its environmental guide, known as the Green Guide which helps businesses navigate the terminology of environmental marketing of offering guidelines of what might constitute “unfair or deceptive acts or practices,” prohibited by Section 5 of the FTC Act.

So what are the recourse options for green consumers?

Check out the Organic Consumer Association to complain and for clear rules about what makes a product ‘organic’.

If you feel green ads are misleading you can contact the the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau. These guys refer cases to the FTC and other agencies with oversight of particular product categories, such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Go to Cornucopia. The agricultural products complaints specialists.

Write a story on your blog and submit it on MindBodyGreen. It’s a kind of digg archive for front page green stories and has a wide readership.

Check out RipOffReport. A true sour face platform (old style)! This 10 year old website is jam packed with advice for legal action. Companies accused of wrongdoings have the chance to repair their reputations and many cases get picked up by newspapers. You’ll probably need some time to go through all the options you have as a wronged consumer. But if your complaint is serious, it’s a decent option.

Go to the Yell-O-Pages and complain using a fast and easy to use form. It’s a shoutbox more than anything else. Service is new and when checked earlier today, there were no green or eco complaints.

There’s Ventbox. This site is very similar to Yell-O-Pages.com. Till now there’s a total absence of any Green, Bio, Ethical, Eco complaints.

Last but not least, check out WhoIsWrong. It’s where people go to condemn a public issue. Most of the topics are lighthearted though. No ‘Green’ or ‘Eco’ cases yet! Unless you want to know what people think of wearing a bluetooth headset as a fashion accessory is a green issue.

You can also alert us here by going to the Info/Contact page and writing a quick line.

Greenpeace activists scored a victory recently when electronics manufacturer Hewlett Packard committed to a phase out plan for a range of hazardous chemicals in its products. The company was the first (and only) major IT producer to announce a genuinely green initiative at the recently held CeBIT fair in Hannover.

Greenpeace was present at the CeBIT fair, which is the world´s largest IT event and has been calling for companies to reduce the problem of toxic waste due to dumped non-biodegradable electronics and gadgets (also read my first blogpost about this).

HP’s policy change didn’t happen overnight and should not be seen as a direct result of Greenpeace´s action at the CeBIT fair only. “Back in 2003 we found that one of their computers contained particularly high amounts of a toxic chemical. Subsequently we confronted HP with the reality of their lack of action at their European headquarters, asked awkward questions when the HP boss visited China and finally turned up at their world headquarters in California with a special message for their staff”, Greenpeace reports on its website. The activists engaged the public at large in its “Greenpeace versus HP” showdown in 2005.

The activists say they’re laying down the gauntlet for the remaining companies that still mass produce using toxics. These include Acer, Apple, Dell, Fujitsu-Siemens, IBM, Lenovo, Panasonic, Siemens and Toshiba have so far failed to follow the industry leaders. Greenpeace first produced its ‘Guide to Greener Electronics’ in August 2006 and ranks companies annually. Current best performers are Sony Erickson and Samsun, which both score 7.7 out of 10 points.

First reports back from the Hannover Cebit trade fair, where Green IT is a focus issue this year, indicate that most of the green IT gadgets appear to have one thing in common; energy reduction and massive embeddable features. A main attraction at the fair is Sun systems’ solar powered village. Greenpeace is also present.

Greenpeace experts work under the banner of ‘Mirror Mirror On The Wall, Which Is The Greenest Of Them All?’ to show visitors insights into PR puff on the part of the exhibitors. Issues that the experts address include whether corporations’ claiming to be “green” should mean more than just cutting power use.

“Are companies really addressing short life spans and miniscule recycling rates for their products? Which products contain the least harmful chemicals? Will CeBIT’s Green IT village be showcasing real environmental innovations with wide applications?” All questions that Greenpeace promises to address. Visit the Greenpeace blog reports here.

Visitor numbers are expected to reach 400,000.

Green weddings are all the rage. But have you ever considered how ‘green’ your wedding rings might be? If they’re red they ain’t green, that’s for sure. So what to look out for if you are planning to go and buy a ring?

One company called greenKarat, says it’s simple. Just don’t buy a Canadian diamond ever! It cites two reasons;
1. They are not environmentally clean
2. They are not conflict free

If you don’t believe this, the company says, you likely have fallen victim to a marketing campaign in which tremendous amounts of money and effort have been pumped. And if you’ve seen the film Blood Diamond, you’ll already be slightly alarmed. Canadian diamonds, even though dug up in better humanitarian circumstances, are not beyond reproach either. “Just because there isn’t blood, doesn’t mean there aren’t tears”, say greenKarat. It reprints a recent news article in which experts are outlining the Canada specific downside especially for the Boreal region. “Hundreds of thousands of hectares of mineral claims are being “staked” without consultation - let alone approved by affected communities, many of whom are in land claims negotiations and land use-planning exercises”, according to the Toronto Star.

Aside from that, the drilling, road building and, eventually, mining with its legacy of open pits, tailings ponds and the web of industrial infrastructure that comes with these billion-dollar enterprises is also a severe ecological threat.

For the best information to find out what’s ecologically and blood diamond free and what not, visit MiningWatch Canada and Boreal Canada.

In a bid to conclude talks before the G8 summit in Japan, the US has said that it is accepting binding international obligations on reducing greenhouse gas emissions so long as other nations do the same.

It’s a continuation of the line President Bush set out around a year ago and which hasn’t inspired much confidence. The fact that this news has reached the press is hopeful. Two environmental advisors to President Bush, James Connaughton and Daniel Price told a press conference in Paris that the US is hoping that the biggest developing countries China, India and Brazil are committing to reducing greenhouse gases.

“The US is prepared to enter into binding international obligations to reduce greenhouse gases as part of a global agreement in which all major economies similarly undertake binding international obligations,” the BBC quoted Price as saying.

Price is the President’s deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs. The White House plans aim to eliminate world tarriffs with the aim of increasing global trade in clean energy technologies and services. Price said that a jump of 14% per year is a measure that will yield results soon.

“Europe and the US could turn out the lights today, and come 2030 or 2050 we would not have addressed the problem of climate change,” he added. This line of thinking was initiated by President Bush who envisages negotiations between 17 countries to reduce greenhouse gas output. These countries account for about 80% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.
The suggestion seems to be that some countries commit to firm emissions targets while others will display energy efficiency gains. Experts think this is not an option because it’s a slap dash solution for results in a 40 years time frame.

“The White House knows that taking a binding target of comparable size [to that taken by the US or EU] is neither a negotiating option nor a physical possibility for the Chinese government,” a Pew environmentalist told BBC News. Recently, a study presented at the summit of world leaders at Davos showed that the US ranks below India and just above China, measured in terms of environmental and social factors.

It’s studies like these that are causing an outcry internationally. The US has hitherto focused its environmental effort on clean air mostly and is an immense underperformer at greenhouse gas combating. The US policy makers weren’t really impervious to the international criticism, it seems. Price lashed out at the EU, saying it should stop “berating the US to do more”. Instead, people should work with developing countries to get their act together, Price said. OK then, let’s take a deep breath together then, shall we?

Did you know that Green economics is hardly an established concept academically? That is because economists have difficulties believing that anything other than the input in their models reflects reality. But the numbers they so diligently belabor are only valid because everyone else in the game plays by the same rules.

Standard economist models account for the earth’s resources as if they were free and infinite, but the realisation is growing that this is an untenable position. Economics is traditionally highly empirical and the uptake of a new logic will take time. It took us until the 1700s to produce an Adam Smith who had the presence of mind to adopt a systemic approach to the mishmash of Mercantile partying. It’s ironic that now that business practices are once again beginning to resemble Mercantile characteristics, it is taking us time again to reconcile it into the Capitalist system, even though the case for it is strong.

Mercantilism is a great concept, even though the term might not be fashionable right now because it has such a bitter taste to it in a macro economic context. But then again, consumer driven pressures for sustainable production might just outpace the initial distaste. What’s more, the mixture of demand for green, ecological production processes and mercantilist trading is bound to result in new textbook material in a few years. Professors who train young economists might soon see that it’s time to talk a different game.

Watch this video of an alternative proposition on accounting for the earth’s natural resources. A reaction to the movie reads: “You obviously do not understand free markets. Who is making green technology buddy? Its not the government. Its businesses in the ECONOMY that are creating green technology because it is PROFITABLE to do so.” But it seems to me that the tipping point for has moved forward. Various trends show that profitability as a focal point is being replaced by probability.

The mercantilist based economy is already soaring, even if we don’t recognise it as such. Take any crowdsource platform and what you witness happening is essentially mercantilist trading. We simply don’t use the word but, in true mercantilist fashion we’ve come up with individual labels as the replacement generic term.

Recently, Business Week dedicated an article to the virtual untraceability of millions and millions of small businesses. This is evidence that language wise there’s a gap. But it doesn’t mean that organizations of small traders don’t exist. In a subsequent article, they featured MerchantCircle.com which is an example of a company that fills the niche of grouping the individual businesses together. MerchantCircle is a kind of interactive Yellow Pages that exploits local to the max.

Small business owners (from around the globe) can register, claim SEO optimized listings for their business and what’s the best part; have their customers write referral reviews of their services. The company is very young, under one year, but already it’s thriving. Part of its success is due to MerchantCircle’s own brilliant use of word of mouth.

For instance, it is getting bloggers like myself to write about them via the equally ingenious platform creamaid.com. This is another example of a mercantile miracle. Via CreamAid, you can kickstart writing for dollars without being mediated by a reviews brokerage. You pick a topic you were already thinking to blog about and join a conversation by submitting your blog post. The party you review pays you plus you receive traffic from a widget that publicises the conversation in which you’ve participated. One of my next posts will deal with paid blogging in the green sector.