Pathetic greenwashing

I see TV commercials for the new Sony Ericsson phone. The slogan is "Save the Planet in Style".

The only thing the ad offers in that regard is that the phone is made with recycled plastic. That is just pathetic!

I agree that many small steps and changes in our daily behaviour are important to save the planet, but the use of recycled plastic in a mobile phone deals with a very, very minor part of the environmental impact of the use of cell phones. The mobile phone network uses an awful lot of energy, the mobile phones are made of a number of nasty materials and uses rare minerals, the control of which are subject to wars (Congo), they are soaked in flame retardants, the batteries are an environmental problem, the radio waves are possibly dangerous etc. The constant shift to new models drives a crazy consumption and then we are supposed to have a good consciousness beacuse the thing is using recycled plastic. And even worse the slogan Save the Planet is used to sell the stuff. I have always had Ericsson and later Sony Ericsson phones (because my grandfather worked for them) but this kind of absurd greenwashing is hypocritical so I might consider buying another one.

To be fair to Sony Ericsson they are not alone. My daily newspaper Svenska Dagbladet features an article that tells me how I can fly to Thailand with a good consciousness, by offsetting carbon emissions. Corporate Responsibility and other sustainability schemes are popular in the most dirty segments of our businesses, not to speak about in the bank sector which is more to blame than any other sector for facilitating irresponsible consumption.

It is of course better to offset carbon emissions when flying and to use recycled plastic for the mobile phone than not to do it. But the truth of the matter that this kind of "greenwashing" just keep us on consumption patterns that are not sustainable. Consume less is still the best recipe for "saving the planet" (an expression which in itself is stupid - we are not threatening the planet, our behaviour is rather threatening the survival of the human being). No Corporate Responsibility programs or Global Compacts or voluntary Carbon trading will change that. And companies that wants to be relevant in the future world surely have to do a lot more than that.

Warning messages on consumer goods.

Positive labeling, such as organic labeling and eco-labeling have had a good impact. It also has a certain appeal within the capitalism paradigm. It is about giving the consumer accurate information. So far so good. However, we also know that the impact of these kinds of labeling schemes is limited. In addition, they have the perverse mechanism that those that are doing a good thing, such as organic farmers, are penalized with costs and scrutiny for an labeling, inspection and certification system. Those costs are passed on to the consumers who then are also penalized for making a benign choice. For those who see these schemes solely as marketing gimmicks this is perhaps considered as being fair. But if you see them as delivering public goods it is hard to defend – and this is also the reason that some governments take on the costs.

However, negative labeling could also fulfill the same role, or even more forceful role. We have seen the labeling on tobacco with unsympathetic warning messages – in some countries such as Thailand also with very repulsive pictures. In Sweden there is also warning messages on alcohol advertisements – but not on the product. This kind of negative labeling should be considerably expanded in my opinion. The first step would be to have a competition on what kind of messages there should be for selected damaging products.

Cars:
-1.2 million people die per year in car accidents, many more are maimed for life.
-Cars emit 200 dangerous chemical compounds to nature every time you drive it.
-The car infrastructure (roads, garages etc.) destroys ??? m2 of land per car sold. In total cars have occupied an area corresponding to two France.
-regardless of which fuel you use for this device it will always take away resources that could be better used by poor people.
-Driving a car make you lazy and fat.

A conventional chicken:
- This chicken is fed with antibiotics and the consumption of chicken may increase risks for antibiotic resistance in bacteria
- This chicken is fed with hormones, which may cause reproductive disturbance, development of breasts in males, increased deformities in infants
- These chicken have never seen the light of day and have not been given the possibility to exercise their natural behaviors

A CD player
- this item is not likely to make you a happier person.
- this CD player contains 162 different dangerous chemicals. Most of them will end up in nature, some of them in your body when this item is used and disposed of.
-use this device only in aerated room for the first five months to ensure that most of the flame retardants and other substances emitted from by this item will not cause you damage.

Personally I find that this kind of labeling is a lot more interesting than labeling of origin, or carbon labeling or other labeling ideas that flourish.