By Steve Thomas, Manager, Global Energy and Sustainability Communications, Johnson Controls
Everyone knows that journalists tend to be skeptical, especially about marketing claims from corporations. This year, though, the pessimism seemed to over-ride the skepticism at the annual gathering of the Society of Environmental Journalists (www.sej.org). There was a sense that environmental journalists take pride in some of the battles won, but feel that the environmental movement may be losing the war — even after all these years of awareness and concern. And we are losing both in spite of and because of all the Green Products being offered across America.
The setting in Western Virginia, with visits to the mountaintop mining coal fields of West Virginia, may have set the tone for pessimism. Seeing hundreds of acres of former mountains, valleys and streams turned to flat, grey pits full of mining equipment might appeal to some. But not to environmental journalists. The fact that the environment has taken a back seat in the presidential campaign did not help.
Add the accelerating impacts of global warming and the predictions that we are at the beginning of the end for hundreds if not thousands of species through extinction because of loss of habitat and rising temperatures — and it is hard not to be pessimistic.
And then there’s the Greenwashing. As hybrid SUVs and carbon-neutral air travel flood the marketplace, it’s not clear to anyone that we are getting enough environmental good from all the "greenness" that we are buying. One session I attended on this topic was moderated by Beth Daley from The Boston Globe. All the panelists at this session seemed to agree that the current American way of life is inherently in conflict with our goals to save the planet. There was some difference of opinion about whether any green claims by marketers can be trusted.
Scot Case, Vice President of Terra Choice Environmental Marketing, defended the idea of "green marketing" but agreed that there is a "Green Overload" at the moment, making it very difficult for most consumers to differentiate between the "good guys" and the "bad guys." He is most concerned about the corporations that are inventing their own "Green Marks" and "Green Labels," which he called "fake" environmental logos. He suggested that www.ecolabels.org is a good place to check out the various green claims and green labels.
Brian Czech, President of the Center for the Advancement of a Steady State Economy, claimed that our way of life is like "Shoveling Coal for a Runaway Train," which is also the name of a book that he wrote on the topic. "The greenest approach is to consume less of everything," he said.
Most journalists in the room seemed familiar with a web site at www.myfootprint.org, which is run by an organization called "Redefining Progress." The site allows you to calculate how many "earths" would be needed to allow everyone on this planet to enjoy the same lifestyle that you currently enjoy. The smallest number of earths I heard referenced was two, with most people coming in at three or four — or more. According to James Barrett, the Executive Director of Redefining Progress, if you consider the needs of the current global population on an average basis, we already need 1-1/2 earths to maintain everyone’s current lifestyles.
So the world’s environmental account is overdrawn. Just like the world’s financial account.
I guess it’s not hard to see why environmental journalists are pessimistic. We need efficiency now. It’s never been more important.
