Consumers urged to scrutinize 'eco-friendly claims'

AS INTEREST IN GREEN ISSUES reaches a white-hot pitch, government and industry are jumping on the sustainability bandwagon -- touting "natural," "biodegradable" and "environmentally friendly" practices and products.

Often the claims are true. But sometimes, more money and energy is expended on trumpeting eco-friendly practices than in actually making those commitments a reality -- a practice known as greenwashing.

Is the color green a cover-up, or is it a transparent window for environmentally friendly activities?

It's no wonder that many are jumping on the bandwagon. Going green can add to the credibility of local governments, reflecting their commitment to stewardship of the environment and citizens' interests.

As far as businesses are concerned, the growing market for purchasing decisions based on the environmental and social impact of products and manufacturers hit $209 billion in the U.S. in 2005, according to the Pennsylvania-based Natural Marketing Institute.

But inflated or false claims have become such a concern that the Federal Trade Commission, which regulates advertising claims, began a series of hearings in January into green marketing, concerned over the "heightened potential for deception," according to Deborah Platt Majoras, its chairwoman.

A greenwashing controversy hit Oakland-based Clorox, maker of its signature bleach and other cleaning products, in late 2007 and early 2008.

Clorox acquired eco-friendly skincare company Burt's Bees in October 2007 and added a series of biodegradable household cleaners, Green Works, to its products in January.

The move set off a firestorm in environmental circles, with some seeing it as greenwashing and some applauding it, noting that the Sierra Club approved the use of its logo on the labels.

Clorox is only one example. Local governments are not exempt from greenwashing concerns.

The City of Lafayette Web site says the Contra Costa town is committed to developing and implementing environmental programs.

But the Web site doesn't mention that Lafayette's new library, currently under construction, doesn't have Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design certification, the national standard for sustainable buildings. LEED buildings use less energy and cut carbon emission by as much as 40 percent, according to the U.S. Green Building Council.

The city council decided not to go for LEED certification because "taxpayers' money was better spent in other places," said Steven Falk, Lafayette's city manager. As to the cost of certification, "I've heard different estimates, but it can go up to $300,000," Falk said.

According to the U.S. Green Building Council, the average LEED certification cost is $2,000.

Falk says the library "will meet all the requirements for LEED certification. That includes photovoltaic electricity generation, onsite stormwater capture and low-emission carpets.

"We decided to self-certify," said Falk.

"That's like submitting your 10K to the Securities Exchange Commission without having it audited," said Emma Stewart, director of environmental research and development for San Francisco's Business for Social Responsibility.

In October 2007, San Ramon-based Chevron launched a promotional campaign, "The power of human energy," on network TV and in national print publications highlighting its commitment to the environment. The cost was pegged at $15 million by Advertising Age.

Some critics interpreted the campaign as talking the talk, but not walking the walk, when looking at the company's track record in places like Galveston, Texas.

"When Chevron announced its investment in Galveston Bay Biodiesel, they did everything they could to get publicity. But when they backed out, they said not a word, and it took a lawsuit by GBB to get even the small public notice it did," said Judy Dugan, research director for the Santa Monica-based

GREENIBusiness 2

INSIDE: Credit markets take an even

greater beating.Business 2Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group funded by personal donations, foundation grants and legal fees.

The lawsuit accuses Chevron of failing to follow through on funding promises. Chevron denies the claims.

"The accusation regarding Galveston Bay Biodiesel is ridiculous given that we have invested millions of dollars into the facility and it is producing biodiesel," said Chevron spokesman Alex Yelland in response.

"We have spent more than $2 billion on renewable and emerging energy and energy projects like the AC Transit hydrogen bus program - - the largest of its kind in North America -- biofuels research with UC Davis, and solar power projects with San Jose Unified School District and Contra Costa Community College District. These are just a few examples of the steps we are taking to develop new energy sources," Yelland said.

Matter of perspective

"We and Chevron as a team built a state-of-the-art hydrogen station," said Jaimie Levin, director of alternative fuels policy for AC Transit.