Green Spin

“Green is the new black!” announced the fashion section of my local newspaper. Eco-friendly, organic fashions are hip.

One may now buy Stella McCartney vegan, silk dress sandals, featured in Elle magazine, at $495, which would work well on a date in the $100,000 Tesla electric sports car.

“In this epoch of global warming,” declares Green Guide online fashion consultant Anne Wallace, “fall fashion rules are undergoing climate change: It’s OK to wear knee-high faux fur boots with a light cotton skirt and wool sweater.” Vogue magazine advises, “This autumn, prepare for erratic weather by taking a middle ground, putting warmer wraps over something skimpy.” Like your awareness of the issues?

To be fair, for decades, those in the environmental movement have wanted ecology to become popular, so we can hardly complain that it now is. Consumer choices impact the environment, and we might rejoice that the shopping public is aware of this. Nevertheless, since consumption itself remains a root cause of our ecological crisis, we must wonder if we’re going to preserve wilderness and natural options for future generations by buying $500 vegan shoes. The short answer is, “No.” In the race to appear “green” we must ask: Who is really gaining ground and who is blowing promotional smoke?

Greenspeak

When we buy an electric roadster or hybrid SUV, half the energy consumed by this vehicle over its lifetime has already been used in its manufacture. The copper and nickel and tin have been mined and shipped around the world. When we buy a new car or new pair of shoes, we’re heating up the planet and dispersing resources, no matter how “green” the product. To achieve anything remotely close to social and ecological harmony, humanity has to consume less, not more, but this is not a message any politician or ad-selling media giant wants to deliver.

Marketing managers now dominate everything from newsrooms to political candidates. These are the same masterminds who tutored people in slow suicide with tobacco, convinced millions of men that they’ll get laid if they use the correct razor, and persuaded women to toss out their clothes twice a year or face social rejection. Selling something new is the goal of these geniuses, anything new. Green is in. Ka-ching, ka-ching. But if ecological awareness is a fashion trend, what happens when the editors think it isn’t cool anymore?

Since green is now chic, the marketing wizards for society’s worst polluters have switched from denial to greenspeak. Corporate publicity departments are not doing “public relations” anymore; the new insider lingo is “Reputation management.” This means, safeguarding the corporate brand equity, not the earth or future generations.

The modern king of reputation management is Frank Luntz, U.S. right-wing spinmeister for Pfizer “health services” and McDonalds “nutrition experts.” In 2003, Luntz circulated a memorandum to his clients about how to win “the environmental communications battle.” Luntz’s first rule of greenspeak: “Convince them of your sincerity and concern for the environment.”

“Them?” That’s us.

Don’t ever say, “global warming,” Luntz says, as this “connotes catastrophic consequences.” Rather, if you have to address the bloody issue, say “climate change.” Hey, the weather is always changing and Luntz assures us this is “less of an emotional challenge.” Always portray “the scientific community as divided.” And never say “privatization.” That scares people. “The better choice is ‘personalization.’ This sounds like ‘We The People’ have more control.”

Ventriloquists on astroturf

Tricks of the spin trade include “ventriloquism,” exemplified by the “doctors” pushing drugs in television ads, paying people who appear credible to deliver the talking points. Food giants such as Monsanto, polluting Newmont Mines, nuclear power companies, and global retailers such as Wal-Mart now employ “environmentalists” – or better yet, “former environmentalists” – to deliver the company green line.

“Astroturfing,” making your industry think tanks look wholesome and green, remains a favorite tactic. The global spin-doctors at Burston-Marsteller pioneered this tactic in the 1980s with “Share Groups” and “Forest Alliances,” funded and controlled by industry. They have now learned how to post cool-looking websites with “interactive” features.

“Cherry-picking” data makes one sound scientific while promoting a single point of view. The “echo chamber” technique bounces a foregone conclusion through the astroturf organizations like the “Friends of Science” until the ideas gain public “traction.” Corporate spin doctors use other classic techniques to muddy the waters: demonize rival voices, co-opt the opposition’s rhetoric, and conceal arguments in swarms of red herrings from which objective facts never return.

When a corporation screws up beyond repair – as Union Carbide did in Bhopal, Windscale nuclear plant did in the UK, or as Arthur Anderson did, caught with its hand in the Enron cookie jar – the preferred tactic is to dodge responsibility, sell endangered assets to other corporations, or simply change your name. Union Carbide sold Bhopal to Dow Chemical, who shrugged off responsibility to the poisoned citizens. The embarrassed Windscale plant changed its name to ‘Sellafield’, and Arthur Anderson split off its lucrative consulting division and changed the name to ‘Accenture’. The earnings never missed a beat.

“Greenwashing” makes a corporation or political candidate look responsible, achieved with a few media releases announcing a vague intention to recycle something, some day. Bingo, the consuming public thinks, “well, this is better than nothing,” the industry awards a new environmental prize for the visionary entrepreneur, and more stuff is consumed.

When buying “green products,” you need to know who is gaining ground and who is blowing smoke. More on this later.

This was posted on Friday, February 22nd, 2008 at 1:41 pm and is filed under Ecology . Feel free to respond, or trackback.