Introducing . . . The Eco-Friendly Cigarette?
What would you say if I introduced you to an environmentally friendly cigarette - one made of organically grown tobacco, with organic cotton filters, rolled in eco-friendly paper, all manufactured with renewable energy, with a portion of proceeds going to environmental charities? Read More
What would you say if I
introduced you to an environmentally friendly cigarette – one made of
organically grown tobacco, with organic cotton filters, rolled in
eco-friendly paper, all manufactured with renewable energy, with a
portion of proceeds going to environmental charities?
I’m guessing you would call it
greenwash. And you’d be right. After all, a cigarette is a cigarette,
in terms of the health effects on its users. No green manufacturing
techniques would render it “good.” At best, it would be “less bad,” but
not by much.
Given that, I’m bemused and
bewildered by the recent efforts by bottled water companies to
aggressively market a less-bad product. Two examples:
At a recent conference at
which I spoke, attendees were given bottles of Ice Mountain Natural
Spring Water, with signs promoting its “New Eco-Shape Bottle.” Among
its green characteristics: it is made with 30 percent less plastic than
the “average” bottle of its size. And it features a label that is 30
percent smaller.
That’s not all. It is “100 percent recyclable” . . . “Easy to carry” . . . and “flexible so it’s easier to crush for recycling.”
It doesn’t take a PhD in
marketing to see that these claims are pretty thin. A label that’s 30
percent smaller?!? If that’s the pinnacle of environmental
achievements, we should all give up now.
And then there’s the latest
blast from Fiji Water, which is trumpeting that in 2008 it will
introduce “the first ‘carbon negative’ consumer product.” According to
the announcement:
As one of the
fastest growing, leading premium bottled water brands in the world,
Fiji Water’s new aggressive environmental program – Fiji Green – aims
to “green” every step in the life cycle of its products, from packaging
and shipping to the use of renewable energies and land preservation
efforts. As a result, Fiji’s will lessen its environmental impact by
actually reducing carbon in the atmosphere with every bottle of Fiji
Water produced and sold. No other major beverage brand has ever made a
similar commitment to help mitigate the effects of climate change.
And there you have it: the
eco-friendly cigarette – two bottled-water brands that are attempting
to “green up” their products, and their images, by doing less bad.
Bottled water isn’t a
cigarette, of course. It doesn’t cause cancer, emphysema, birth
defects, and the like. So, my analogy is, admittedly, a bit dramatic.
But bottled water causes
plenty of problems. Its production taxes the water tables of the
communities where bottling plants are located, according to the Earth Policy Institute.
Farmers, fishers, and others who depend on water for their livelihoods
suffer from the concentrated water extraction when water tables drop
quickly.
And then there’s the energy use. EPI notes that:
In contrast to
tap water, which is distributed through an energy-efficient
infrastructure, transporting bottled water long distances involves
burning massive quantities of fossil fuels. Nearly a quarter of all
bottled water crosses national borders to reach consumers, transported
by boat, train, and truck.
Or consider the fact sheet
I received recently from the Pacific Institute, one of the most
authoritative sources on water issues, and author of the biennial
reference work, The World’s Water. It cites data from the Beverage Marketing Corporation, which reports that
Americans
bought a total of 31.2 billion liters of water in 2006, sold in bottles
ranging from the 8-ounce aquapods popular in school lunches to the
multi-gallon bottles found in family refrigerators and office water
coolers. Most of this water was sold in polyethylene terephthalate
(PET) bottles, requiring nearly 900,000 tons of the plastic. PET is
produced from fossil fuels – typically natural gas and petroleum.
Based on this, the Institute estimates that in 2006:
- Producing the bottles
for American consumption required the equivalent of more than 17
million barrels of oil, not including the energy for transportation - Bottling water produced more than 2.5 million tons of carbon dioxide
- It took three gallon of water to produce one gallon of bottled water
Given all this, should we be
touting an eco-friendly plastic water bottle, or a carbon negative
product shipped roughly 7,000 miles to market? Is this a valid
environmental claim? Is that the best we can do?
It all brings to mind that age-old question: If a cannibal eats with a fork, is that progress?
I think not.
