-------------------------------

Christine: I'm not familiar with that report but I discuss mining in my book and the dilemma it poses to society. Mining can lead to longterm water contamination problems that can harm human health and livelihoods. We rely on mining for so many things - from jewelry to laptops. Since we're not likely to give up those things, there needs to be frank discussion about how do conduct mining in ways that do the least harm. While mining companies have made advances in how to 'dig holes better,' as one mining expert put it, they are only just starting to embrace the notion that local people should have a say in how and if they dig open pit mines and what the community benefits should be.

-------------------------------

Christine: Greenwashing is a twist on the word “whitewashing” only in an environmental context. As consumers have grown increasingly concerned about the health of the planet, corporations are rushing to rebrand themselves as environmentally friendly. Unfortunately much of what we’ve seen so far is greenwashing - token gestures that distract from their much bigger negative impact on environment. The British oil conglomerate BP, for instance, has donated millions of dollars to high-profile environmental groups such as World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and spent hundreds of millions an advertising campaign touting the company’s commitment to wind, solar and other renewable energy sources. BP, however, spent only 4 percent of its total expenditures on all of those Earth friendly investments combined in 2007. Another example is the partnership between the agribusiness company Bunge Ltd. and Conservation International (CI.) The relationship has led to the preservation of about 120,000 hectares of Brazilian savannah lands, known as the cerrado. But according to CI’s own estimates 2.2 million hectares of Brazilian cerrado are cleared every year, much of it to make way for vast soybean plantations that supply Bunge’s soy crushing factories in Brazil.

-------------------------------

Christine: I had the opportunity to work at one of the preeminent environmental groups in the world, Conservation International. And the gross mismanagement and wastefulness I saw there troubled me. I also saw signs of greenwashing that made me uncomfortable. I recall being in an editorial meeting with the entire communications staff shortly after I started. One of my new colleagues was talking at length about plans to roll out a big public relations campaign with BP to publicize the company’s patronage of our organization. A few days earlier, I had read that BP had been named by the Environmental Protection Agency as the owner of the worst polluting refinery in the country. While I debated with myself whether to bring up the news item, someone else spoke up and said exactly what I was thinking. The group reacted as if she had said something unthinkably rude. Not a single other person in the room of 30 or 40 so-called environmentalists had anything to say about CI’s involvement with a company that the EPA – not some radical activist outfit – had designated the biggest scofflaw polluter in the country. After a few minutes of awkward silence, the meeting resumed, as if the issue had never been raised. And, shortly after that, the BP public relations campaign got underway. This is just one of the many little wake up calls that started sounding almost immediately after I arrived at CI. When I was laid off in a division-wide reorganization, my friends and former colleagues were wonderful in their attempts to help me network and find another job in an environmental group. But when I started to research the inner workings of other groups such as World Wildlife Fund and The Nature Conservancy, I realized the same excesses I had witnessed at CI were the norm at these organizations too. I decided I couldn’t go work for one of these other groups. But I didn’t want to stop working for the environment either. I felt I had a responsibility to speak up about what I had seen with my own eyes. That’s when I decided I could make more of a contribution by writing this book and getting these issues out in the open. I hope it helps to start a debate on how to reform these organizations so they can be more effective.

-------------------------------

Christine: We seem to be awash in it, so to speak. Last year, the environmental marketing firm TerraChoice went to several big box retail stores and examined the claims made on 1,018 randomly selected consumer products, concluding that 99 percent of the products were guilty of greenwashing. Another way to greenwash is to partner with environmental groups and use those ties to claim to be a “steward” of the environment. Some of the biggest corporate sponsors of TNC, CI, WWF and other large environmental groups are some of the biggest polluters in the country. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., General Electric, Eastman Kodak, ExxonMobil, Nissan and Dow Chemical – each of these companies are big donors to TNC, CI, WWF and other green group and each made the 2008 “Toxic Ten” list of the country’s worst corporate air polluters, ranked by the University of Massachusetts’ Political Economy Research Institute. Green marketing and its abuses have become so common that the Federal Trade Commission is currently reviewing its environmental marketing guidelines. The review was originally announced to take place in 2009 but was launched a year ahead of schedule.

-------------------------------

Christine: It’s difficult for consumers to make these calls, especially given how time-strapped most people are today. That’s why corporations love to buy the endorsements of environmental groups that have the public’s trust. Clorox’s Green Works line, for instance, has become the best-selling brand of green household cleaners in the country since it was introduced with the endorsement of the Sierra Club earlier this year. The Sierra Club received an undisclosed sum in exchange for lending its logo and endorsement but the deal created uproar among club members and has prompted criticism from the Consumers Union and other watchdog groups that say taking money for endorsing the products constitutes a conflict of interest.

-------------------------------

Christine: Greenwashing is getting more attention these days by groups like TerraChoice, the Consumers Union that work to expose deceptive advertising. And, once they are ready, the new Federal Trade Commission rules on environmental marketing will help set limits on the claims corporations can make. So far, however, corporate greenwashing has gone largely unchallenged.

-------------------------------

Christine: According to current guidelines set by the FTC and the International Standards Organization and European regulators, it’s important to look at the big picture – what is overall environmental footprint of a product or company? One of the biggest “sins” of greenwashing found by TerraChoice, for instance, is the hidden tradeoff. Even if a piece of furniture comes from a sustainably harvested forest, how was it milled and transported to the store? Is the company working to reduce those impacts? Or take BP’s “Beyond Petroleum” ad campaign. The ads depict BP as a “green” oil company. But they don’t jibe with the millions of dollars BP has paid to settle felony violations of the Clean Air Act and other environmental laws in the last few years alone or the fact that the company is on probation until 2010 for an Alaska pipeline accident that federal investigators said could have been avoided if BP had no neglected routine maintenance called for by its own internal audits.

-------------------------------

Christine: People used to make the argument that U.S. political candidates had to rely on donations from corporations and lobbyists to run their campaigns, as well. But Barack Obama success raising record amounts in small donations from average citizens seems to have torpedoed the assumption that large corporate donations are the only way to raise money. Why not get back to the grassroots? The environment is an issue a most people are concerned with today. But many of many of our largest environmental organizations are doing a poor job at galvanizing that concern into financial support and, perhaps more importantly, individual action.

-------------------------------

Christine: It’s important to remember that there are about 12,000 environmental groups in the United States alone. Many – particularly local organizations watching out for the public good in their neighborhoods – are doing good work. As for the groups I profile in my book, it all depends on how they respond to the criticism. This is a great opportunity for these organizations acknowledge that they understand the damage their corporate ties are causing to their mission and show that they are capable of change. They must address questions about their operating practices, improve efficiency and become more accountable in their relationships with corporations.

-------------------------------

Christine: There is nothing wrong with corporations acquiring an environmental ethos. The fact that companies increasingly want to be viewed as environmentally friendly is actually an encouraging sign. Banning all corporate donations may be too draconian. But right now too few groups have conflict of interest rules to make sure the companies aren’t getting more out of the deals than the endangered species. Polluters have a tradition of silencing their critics. That’s a real concern. Every time a corporation gives a big donation to an environmental group, we have to guard against the possibility that it’s a bribe; that they’re giving them money to co-opt the group and weaken its mission. If greenwashing is allowed to pass for corporate greening, people are quickly going to become disillusioned. We could lose this historic opportunity to address the enormous environmental problems facing us.

-------------------------------

Christine: Giving money to environmental groups is not the only way to work for a healthier planet. In my book I urge people to call, write and email retailers and get to know the manager at the local supermarket. Ask where the merchandise comes from, how it was made and what environmental sustainability policies the company has in place. I’ve already started doing this. And it’s slow going. Emailing corporate customer relations with environmental queries has netted me vague platitudes about their commitment to environmental protection or no response at all, in some cases. But if enough of us start asking these questions, retailers will feel the need to respond just as corporations have rushed to improve their energy efficiency and roll out “green” products in response to public concern about global warming. These companies do data analysis of the kinds of customer queries they receive. If they see a growing percentage of people demanding concrete proof that they are adopting sustainable business practices, environmental issues are more likely to take on the urgency today’s challenges require.

-------------------------------

Christine: Change is difficult but not impossible. Because of the way these groups are run, change would have to come from the top – from the senior leadership and their boards of directors that often stacked with corporate executives. But if the reputation and funding sources of these groups were endangered, this could prompt reforms. That’s why it’s important for members of these groups to get the ball rolling by letting the leadership know they demand more accountability. Without more accountability these groups risk losing all credibility. Even the corporations that today give them millions of dollars will become less interested if their “brands,” as trusted nonprofit groups, become tarnished. It is certainly going to be a difficult conversation, but one that is long overdue and critical to restoring a strong environmental movement. We need a strong movement more than ever given the daunting challenges of global warming and many other interrelated environmental issues we are facing.

-------------------------------

Christine: The country needs to establish regulations governing industrial greenhouse gas emissions, whether in the form of a carbon tax or the “cap and trade” systems both presidential candidates are talking about. Until we have mandatory carbon caps, it appears most U.S. companies will continue to put off reducing emissions. A new survey of 1,550 of the world’s major companies reported that 74 percent of companies have set emissions reductions targets, but U.S. industry is lagging behind. According to the survey by the Carbon Disclosure Project and released September 21st, only a third of the U.S. companies say they have taken steps to reduce their greenhouse gas footprints though a much higher percentage recognize the risk of climate change. By legislating pollution caps, companies could start moving away from rhetoric toward substantive changes to address global warming. But that is just a first step and in no way a fix-all. In my book, I investigated both corporate cap and trade, and personal carbon offset programs. These schemes don’t actually reduce the amount of greenhouse gases being released into the air. They finance tree planting, wind farms and other Earth-friendly projects that claim to remove carbon from the atmosphere or cut down on our need for fossil fuels. It’s essentially a payoff system. Factories continue polluting. Your car keeps spewing greenhouse gases. In fact, some suggest, that, removing the guilt associated with polluting may lead to an overall increase in carbon emissions. Some people compare them to the indulgences doled out by the Roman Catholic Church in medieval times. Those people and companies with the cash to pay for their carbon fix can buy their way free of their greenhouse gas bill, but it doesn’t mean they’ve kicked the addiction. While cap and trade and personal carbon offsets have some role to play in the challenges ahead of us, it’s going to take a much more serious effort from corporations and individuals to put the brakes on global warming and avoid the worst consequences of climate change. Recycling, driving less and conserving electricity are also good places to start. But, as I talk about in my book, the best thing we can do is get educated about the environmental footprints of our daily purchases – the cars, houses, appliances, clothes and groceries we buy – and start pressuring the manufacturers to clean up their operations.

-------------------------------

Christine: The idea that environmental leaders should be able to support themselves and their families is one thing, making more than 99 percent of US taxpayers is another. Salaries of $350,000 to the mid-$800,000s are excessive. These groups are putting their reputations on the line to fund a lifestyle that is the antithesis of the movement’s values.

-------------------------------

Christine: While international conservation groups like to describe the rainforests where they work as pristine, undiscovered places, the truth is people have lived for millennia in the vast majority of these places. The conservationists often see them as “invaders of the forest” who threaten the plant and animal species they have come to protect. But the natives see the foreign conservationists as the interlopers. In the last few decades, with the urging of international conservation groups and the enticement of foreign aid dollars, millions of people have been evicted from their ancestral homes around the globe according to sociologists who study the trend, and the land turned into national parks and other protected areas. At the same time, conservation groups have come under fire for cutting deals with corporations operating in these same remote places. The groups often trade their acquiescence of large-scale logging operations, open pit mines, oil drilling and pipeline building in exchange for corporate money to do conservation work nearby. The money is often used to strengthen management of protected areas, which usually includes hiring more park rangers to police the parks and keep local people out. There is no denying that indigenous communities and the rural poor put pressure on the local ecosystems through hunting and clearing land for subsistence farming. But their impact can’t be compared to the much larger scars left by open pit mines, plantations and oil rigs say Native peoples and their advocates, who accuse the conservationists of hypocrisy. They see a double standard in which the world’s poorest, most vulnerable residents are bearing the brunt of the conservation burden while the rich and powerful are immune.

-------------------------------