In today's Guardian, Fred Pearce calls out BP's "Beyond Petroleum" greenwash.  

He states:

"BP likes to say that it is investing $1.5bn (£980,000) a year in 'alternative energy'. True, I am sure. But that word 'alternative' is clever. Delve a little further and it turns out that BP's alternative energy division includes not just wind and solar and biofuels but also natural gas-fired power stations. Natural gas may be less polluting than coal and oil, but at the end of the day it's a fossil fuel filling the atmosphere with CO2. Alternative? Not by my definition."

He goes on:

"Also sheltering in the alternative energy division is BP's 'emissions assets business', which makes money out of carbon trading, and a venture capital unit. But even if we lump all this 'alternative' activity together, it still only makes up 7% of the company's planned $21bn (£13.85bn) investment this year. The remaining 93% is oil, spiced up with some coal."

 Read the full article - Greenwash: BP and the myth of a world 'Beyond Petroleum'

 

Posted by Meg Imholt

Usually filled with listserv emails, notes from Mom, and reminders from professors, rarely anything stirring appears in my Inbox. However, Saturday brought the urgent subject heading: "PLEASE REPLY—Fuel Cell Car."

Like any eco-minded undergrad, bringing a fuel cell car to campus is the stuff of my dreams. As a member of American University's environmental club, EcoSense, this could be the eye-catching, consumer-educating event I've always imagined sponsoring.

Then, I read the email.

General Motors was using the campus to run its “gas-friendly to gas-free" greenwashing campaign with “Representatives on hand to give tips on how to achieve better fuel economy, info on GM's alternative fuel offerings, and hybrid technology etc.”

GM was looking for student sponsors, in this case: EcoSense's green stamp of approval.

Hosting a hybrid and fuel cell car show may be the event of a student environmentalist's dreams, but promoting GM is far from eco-friendly.

As I write this, GM is feverishly lobbying Congress for $25B that it was supposed to get in exchange for fuel economy increases. The company wants the money now, but without the efficiency strings attached.  Do a few hybrid and fuel cell cars compensate for such destructive policies?  Do they make up for GM's opposition to stricter CAFE standards? Or the corporation's lawsuits against states for limiting car emissions?

Now, GM is asking students to greenwash?

I didn’t take the bait, and neither did the rest of EcoSense. Citing GM's culture of corporate irresponsibility, we refused to endorse the auto makers latest greenwashing scheme.

For GM, it seems that "green" is not a movement, but a marketing strategy. If GM wants to profit off a green economy, it needs a green business -- one that puts efficient cars in showrooms and endorses, rather than interferes with, greener standards.

Meg Imholt, intern at Greenpeace USA, is a senior at American University and Vice President of the school's environmental club, EcoSense.