GREENWASHING GLOBAL WARMING - Washburn University · 2008-07-10 · GREENWASHING GLOBAL WARMING...
Transcript of GREENWASHING GLOBAL WARMING - Washburn University · 2008-07-10 · GREENWASHING GLOBAL WARMING...
GREENWASHING GLOBAL WARMING
Summer 2008
July 10, 2008
Leslie Charles Coover
Coover ii
© 2008
Leslie Charles Coover
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Coover iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The greenhouse effect results when certain gasses trap the energy of the sun as
it radiates upward from the earth’s surface. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere accounts
for about two thirds of the greenhouse effect.
For many years, numerous studies, including those published by the United
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), have concluded that
carbon dioxide emissions are creating climate change. This human-induced climate
change threatens to significantly melt polar ice caps, drastically increase sea levels,
alter patterns of rainfall, unleash more frequent and more powerful storms, augment
extremes in temperature, and worsen the biodiversity crisis.
Failure to take action concerning global warming will probably mean serious
consequences for humankind’s health and economic welfare. Fighting global warming
will require billions of people around the world to make major lifestyle changes, but
many transnational corporations, industry groups, and companies do not want change
because it is not in their strategic profit-making interests.
When organizations conjure up environmentally friendly claims that have no
substance, they are engaging in the practice of “greenwash.” In the US, greenwashing
has a history that goes all the way back to the 1960s. DuPont, Dow, Mansanto, Shell,
and W.R. Grace were the first to use greenwash. They developed a strategy to combat
Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring, an expose on the terrible harm the pesticide DDT
was doing to the planet. Their efforts succeeded in casting considerable doubt on
Carson’s critique.
Coover iv
During the late 1960s and into the 1970s, automobile, oil, and chemical
corporations spent over $1 billion a year on corporate greenwash. In the 1980s, as
environmental disasters became more and more common, greenwashing increased and
became more sophisticated. Corporations and industrial groups learned how to deflect
attention away from even their most blatant environmental catastrophes. By the 1990s
“corporate environmentalism” came into vogue. Corporations spent much more money
on claiming to be green through advertising than they actually spent on trying to fix the
corporate processes that were defiling the planet.
Oil interests are notorious for their use of greenwash, Chevron, Shell, BP
(formerly British Petroleum), and Exxon Mobil, all use greenwash to get consumers to
look the other way. Reduction in the billions (perhaps trillions) of tons of carbon dioxide
that are released into the earth’s atmosphere each day due to the burning of petroleum
products should be a major concern for the oil industry. Although public opinion
supports reduction of carbon dioxide emissions, the oil industry takes little action. The
oil industry claims to be developing renewable energy solutions, yet they allocate only a
fraction of a percent to this development while they spend the majority of their profits on
developing new sources of oil. Some transnational corporations have even donated
money to prestigious academic research foundations. By keeping control of the
research agenda they can wrap themselves in the garment of respectable
environmental research while preventing any research to take place that might threaten
their corporate profitability.
New techniques have been developed to burn coal more efficiently, and to
reduce carbon dioxide emission, but the coal industry resists these new technologies
Coover v
because they are more expensive than traditional techniques. Keeping a low profile,
and using greenwash to portray themselves as environmentalists, they try to get bills
passed that give them the authority to build dinosaur power stations that are so
inefficient that they waste almost half the energy they create.
All the major US automakers have resisted stricter corporate average fuel
economy (CAFÉ) standards. The terrible financial conditions of GM, Ford and Chrysler
attest to a short-sighted industry that lacks the foresight to address the global warming
crisis. Unfortunately, instead of trying to address the problem, the automakers seem to
be content with another round of greenwash that they hope will appease the public.
This, they probably believe, will eventually allow them to get back to selling vehicles that
have soaring levels of carbon dioxide emissions, but provide high-profit margins.
The corn-production industry walks in lockstep with the auto industry. Their
greenwash theater portrays corn-based ethanol as the magic bullet. Many scientists
have shown that the production of corn-based ethanol requires more fossil fuel than if
we just continued to use the fossil fuels. There are ways to produce ethanol that could
make it one component in an alternative energy continuum. This continuum includes
geothermal, tidal-flow, wind, solar, nuclear, and small-scale hydroelectric sources of
energy. Corn-based ethanol is starch-based. Ethanol can also be produced from
cellulose using woody plants. Cellulose-based ethanol shows promise because the
plants it is derived from are less labor intensive to cultivate. For example, Switchgrass
requires little fertilization and needs replanting only once a decade. The technology to
develop cellulose-based ethanol is still in its infancy, and major research funding is
needed, yet government funding goes almost exclusively to the development of corn-
Coover vi
based ethanol. This technology offers no solution, but by using greenwash the corn
industry can realize huge short-term profits.
As stated previously, fighting global warming will require billions of people around
the world to make major lifestyle changes. Some measures will be less convenient,
such as riding bicycles to work and changing our driving and flying patterns. Other
measures will be more costly, such as developing public transit and highly efficient
railway systems. Instead of allowing greenwash to dissuade people from taking action,
public service messages should target the need to make lifestyle changes and the
methods that society can use to create these changes. Unfortunately, the
transnationals, industry groups, and some companies continue to use greenwash to
dismantle any effort that could bring real change.
Global warming is a very serious problem, and we can’t wait until wealthy,
powerful interests are ready for change. The time for talk is rapidly ending. The time
for change is now! The truth about global warming will be heard only when the massive
greenwash machine is pushed out of the way. Each day billions, perhaps trillions, of
tons of carbon dioxide are sent into the atmosphere. From space, earth’s atmosphere
looks like a tiny veneer that covers our planet. Can we afford to ignore humankind’s
effect on the planet? The choice is ours: live in harmony with earth’s ecosystem or
destroy it and ourselves.
Coover vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. iii
GREENWASHING GLOBAL WARMING ........................................................................ 1
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 1: Forest Devastation ................................................................................... 4
Figure 2: Pine Beetles Kill Trees Throughout the West ........................................... 4
The Greenwash Machine ................................................................................................ 5
The History of Greenwash ........................................................................................... 6
Oil Interests .................................................................................................................. 7
Figure 3: BP’s “Education Campaign” ..................................................................... 10
Coal Interests ............................................................................................................. 11
Table1: Analysis of Some Coals Mined in the US.................................................. 13
Detroit and the US Corn-Production Industry ............................................................. 14
Is There a Future? ..................................................................................................... 16
WORKS CITED ............................................................................................................. 18
Coover 1
GREENWASHING GLOBAL WARMING
Global warming is the slow steady rise of the earth’s average surface
temperature. A number of scientists believe that increased concentrations of
greenhouse gasses are linked to global warming. Global average temperature change
of just a couple of degrees is predicted to produce dramatic and widespread
consequences.
The greenhouse effect results when certain gasses trap the energy produced by
the sun. This energy, in the form of infrared radiation, is absorbed by greenhouse
gasses as the radiation moves upward from the earth’s surface. According to Kraushaar
and Ristinen in their book Energy and Problems of a Technical Society, “carbon dioxide
2CO accounts for about two thirds of the greenhouse effect.” For many years there
has been evidence that “human activities are leading to an increase in the concentration
of” carbon dioxide and other greenhouse “gasses in the atmosphere” (372).
Kenneth Fletcher’s article in the Smithsonian is about “Wallace Broecker of
Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.” Broecker “warned in the
1970s [that] carbon dioxide and other gasses released by burning fossil fuels” would
cause global warming (23).
In 1984, Warren Froelich, writing for The San Diego Union, said, “carbon
dioxide. . . released into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels such as natural
gas, oil and coal, has been considered the principal” cause of global warming (A1).
Neil Campbell et al. suggest that a rise in average global temperature of less
than 2 � Celsius could ”raise sea levels significantly” by melting polar ice (770). Some
believe that dramatic climate change has already begun. In an article for The Nation
Coover 2
Mark Hertsgaard suggests, “the floods in Bangladesh and New Orleans in the United
States, both low-lying places, serve as an example of the suffering endured as the
result of global warming” (22).
Global warming also has a direct impact on the biodiversity crisis. In Biology
Concepts & Connections, Neil Campbell et al. point out that “several researchers
estimate that at the current rate of destruction, over half of all currently living plant and
animal species will be gone by the end of the 21st century” (766).
Introduction
In the following sections we will discuss the propaganda that many companies,
transnational corporations, and industry groups are using to convince the public that
organizations who defile the earth’s ecosystems are actually environmentalists.
Greenpeace coined the name “greenwash” for this practice of environmental whitewash
(Karliner 168–169).
Perhaps one reason advertising and public relation firms succeed in using
greenwash to mislead the public is that people do not always see, first hand, the effects
of global warming. The author’s epiphany came in July 2007.
In the summer of 2007, his wife and he visited the Rocky Mountain National Park
in Colorado. In one area of the park they drove for over 25 miles without seeing a
single live tree! An example of the devastation is shown in Figure 1.
The Moraine Park Museum is located just inside the east entrance to the park.
Park Ranger Don Cope works at the museum. In an interview with the author, Don
Cope talked about several issues, including the massive extinction of pine trees at the
Coover 3
park. The Rocky Mountain National Park, the official park newspaper, published an
article about the cause of the forest devastation:
17 species of native bark beetles are known in Rocky Mountain National
Park and surrounding national forests; all have evolved with local forests.
Burrowing through the outer bark of conifers, these bark beetles lay eggs
which hatch into hungry beetle larvae which consume the living inner bark
of trees. (“Pine Beetles Kill Trees”)
Cope said the problem is not as simple as the eradication of the beetle. He said
there have always been times when large areas of the forest die because of warmer
temperatures—but never before on such a massive scale.
According to Cope, the problem is bad in Rocky Mountain National Park,
but it is also happening all over the West. (See Figure 2.) Increasing
temperatures and droughts allow the beetle to spread. He said it takes about
three weeks of temperatures below 30� Fahrenheit to completely eradicate
beetle eggs. Cope added, “We just don’t get temperatures that cold anymore.”
Coover 4
Figure 1: Forest Devastation
These pictures were taken on July 28, 2007 on Bear Lake Road (east side of Rocky Mountain National Park). There are areas on the west side of the park where the forest is dead for as far as the eye can see. On the east side of the park the pine beetle devastation is still limited to intermittent (although numerous) clumps of trees.
Figure 2: Pine Beetles Kill Trees Throughout the West
“Perhaps due to general climate warming, average winter temperatures in the Rocky Mountains have been higher than normal over the past ten years. These milder temperatures have aided an outbreak of beetles during a time when trees were weakened by drought…. [Dark] grey in map shows extent of bark beetle infestations from Canada to Mexico.” Source: Adapted from “Pine Beetles Kill Trees Throughout the West.” Rocky Mountain National Park [Official Newspaper for the National Park Service] 17 Jun. 2007: 8.
Coover 5
The Greenwash Machine
The United Nations appointed a group of “more than 2,500 of the world’s leading
climate scientists . . . in 1989, in 1990, and again in 1995,” to study climate change. In
The Corporate Planet Joshua Karliner quoted a United Nations report that concluded:
Without a serious reduction in carbon dioxide emissions (created by the
burning of oil, coal and wood). . . human-induced climate change
threatens to unleash more frequent and more powerful storms, melt polar
ice caps and thus cause sea levels to rise, increase the occurrence of
floods and drought, expand desertification, and augment extremes in
temperature. (qtd. in Karliner 15)
Karliner also quoted an article by Jessica Mathews who writes for the
Washington Post. Mathews suggests that “global warming has become another prime
target for those seeking to cast doubt on the scientific underpinnings of the
environmental crisis.” Furthermore, Karliner quoted Gelbspan and William Stevens,
who both reported that anti-environmental “attacks have intensified as scientific proof of
the inevitability of climate change becomes increasingly incontrovertible” (qtd. in
Karliner 14, 229).
Ecological sustainability is the “long-term viability of local, regional and global
ecosystems and the maintenance of the biological and genetic integrity of those
ecosystems” (qtd. in Karliner xiv–xv). According to Jari Karna et al. in a Greener
Management International article, corporations and industry groups often go to great
lengths to conjure up an image of sustainability rather than transform the operations of
Coover 6
their company or industry—this is greenwashing—“environmental advertising without
environmental substance” (60).
The History of Greenwash
Over “50 years ago,” Rachel Carson, a marine biologist “became aware of the
damage Man was doing to” the planet. Carson published Silent Spring in 1962. She
“made a plea for saving the” earth’s ecosystems. Dorothy Turcotte notes in a Niagara
This Week article, “as a result of [Carson’s] book, the USA banned DDT and other
harmful pesticides” (1).
John Stauber in an article for PR Watch describes how “DuPont, Dow, Monsanto,
Shell, and W.R. Grace . . . developed a strategy to combat Carson and the fallout from
her book.” Stauber said these corporate efforts were “a prolonged carpet bombing
campaign” and that “the chemical corporations [succeeded] in casting considerable
doubt on Carson’s critique” (qtd in Karliner 169, 170, 272).
Jerry Mander describes the corporate response to the environmental movement
in the 1960s in an article for Communication Arts. He points out that “newly greened
corporate images flooded the airwaves, newspapers and magazines.” Mander calls this
“initial wave of greenwash” ecopornography (qtd. in Karliner 170, 272).
By the late 1960s, “oil, chemical, and automobile corporations, along with
industrial associations and utilities, were spending nearly $1 billion a year on
‘ecopornography.’” During the 1980s, as environment disasters became common
place, greenwash became more common and more sophisticated. By the 1990s
“corporate environmentalism” came into vogue. The corporate world went to great
lengths to put on a “shiny new coat of green paint.” ARCO petroleum hid its Los
Coover 7
Angeles refinery “behind a façade of palm trees and artificial waterfalls. . . . DuPont
worked with Madison Avenue” to produce ads with clapping seals, jumping dolphins,
and flying flamingos, “all set to Beethoven’s ‘Ode to Joy’” (qtd. in Karliner 170, 171).
A report called “Whose Summit Is It Anyway?” was published by the ASEED-
International Youth Network. According to this report, “the 1992 [United Nations] Earth
Summit in Rio [de Janeiro]” was funded by transnational corporations, including “ARCO,
ICI and Mitsubishi.” Walden Bello wrote an article for the Institute for Food and
Development Policy. In this article Bello reports that, in the years prior to the Earth
Summit, “Imperial Chemical Industries” (ICI) produced a toxic herbicide that “poisoned
tens of thousands of workers in Malaysia alone.” Nevertheless, ICI’s corporate logo was
prominently displayed at Earth Summit venues (qtd. in Karliner 172, 272, 273).
Oil Interests
In the 1980s Chevron began its “People Do” advertising campaign. The
campaign consisted of a series of ads that supposedly highlighted Chevron’s concern
for ecology and the environment. According to Lewis Winter’s article in the Journal of
Advertising Research, the People Do campaign was a “textbook case of successful
greenwashing” (qtd. in Karliner 173, 273).
One of Chevron’s ads featured a butterfly “’preserve’ at the El Segundo refinery”
in Los Angeles. During the time the People Do campaign ran, El Segundo “was listed
as the seventh-largest toxic polluter in Los Angeles County.” And, “the Los Angeles
Times reported that the largest oil leak in the country had been discovered” at El
Segundo. This oil leak caused “a 250-million-gallon lake of oil [to accumulate] under the
Coover 8
vast refinery.” In “the neighboring community of Manhattan Beach . . . gasoline vapors
[seeped] into people’s homes” (qtd in Karliner 173, 246, 70, 71).
George Monbiot, in his article “Smoke and Mirrors” for the New Scientist,
suggests transnational oil firms “have created the impression that a large and growing
oil industry is compatible with preventing runaway climate change.” He contends that
the giant oil corporations attempt to “distract attention from the environmental impacts of
their activities” (pars 6, 8).
According to John Porreto, during the 2007 Exxon Mobil shareholders’ meeting,
“shareholder activists asked [Exxon] to set quantitative goals for reducing greenhouse
gas emissions and to commit to greater investment in renewable sources of energy.”
Exxon executives refused this request (13).
The Guardian, a reputable British newspaper, alleges “that the Exxon-financed
American Enterprise Institute (AEI) [offers] scientists and economists $10,000 each to
write articles undercutting the report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC). Travel expenses were also being offered” (qtd in “Consumer
Advocates” par 4).
The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights issued a news release about
Exxon’s research activities. The press release reports that Exxon Mobil made a deal
with Stanford University’s “Global Climate and Energy Program, funding that research
program with a grant of $100 million” (qtd in “FTCR” par 4). Exxon has “exclusive rights
to any discoveries from the research” for five years. Stanford has no vote on the
oversight committee. This means the university does not have the authority to set the
Coover 9
research agenda. By cloaking itself in the garments of a “leading research institution,”
Exxon can milk the “image for all its worth” (qtd in “FTCR” pars 11, 9).
Another tool that powerful oil interests and their PR firms use to dismantle efforts
to create “greater public control and accountability” is to infiltrate elementary schools. By
greenwashing children, oil interests can “preempt the emergence of a new generation
of . . . environmental activists” (Karliner 186). The Ecologist quoted a BP (formerly,
British Petroleum) greenwash blurb:
Together we can make a difference—At BP we’re committed to making
positive contributions to a cleaner and safer environment for our children.
As part of our commitment, we’re educating today’s children so that they
understand more about environmental hazards and how they can
contribute to a greener and safer future. . . . . By educating today’s
children, we are all more likely to have a greener future. Our BP
Educational Service provides schools, nationwide, with literature and
resources. . . In partnerships with teachers, our employees design
classroom and site activities for young people. Today, over 230 schools
are involved in the scheme that continues to breathe a new spirit into the
curriculum. . . All you have to do is call us on 01202 244041. . . and we’ll
help you make a difference. Isn’t it great to see a caring, sharing oil
company doing its bit for the planet? (“BPs Sunny Side”)
Although The Ecologist made many attempts to learn how to make a difference,
there was never a reply from BP. (See Figure 3).
Coover 10
Figure 3: BP’s “Education Campaign”
Source: “BPs Sunny Side. . .” The Ecologist 31.3 (Apr. 2001): 9. Academic OneFile. Gale. Washburn U, Mabee Lib. 10 Jun. 2008 <http://0-find.galegroup.com/ A73040689>.
Recently, Shell launched a new ad campaign in which it claimed it is using 2CO
wastes “to grow flowers” (Lucas 45). Nigel Campbell, press secretary for Greenpeace,
dismissed this claim. Campbell said, “Shell spends a tiny 0.06% of its revenues
investing in renewable energy, but a whopping 70% searching for more oil and gas. To
add insult to climate injury, they divert even more money into propaganda to convince
us that they are all about renewables. Shell and other oil companies should walk their
talk” (qtd. in Lucas 45). Unfortunately, corporate leaders seem to be very motivated to
walk their talk when it comes to corporate profit strategies, but very lethargic concerning
2CO emission reduction strategies. As fossil fuel prices rise, more species become
extinct, and the global climate becomes harsher; it will be interesting to see if the huge
petroleum concerns pay any attention to the public outcry.
Coover 11
Coal Interests
Kathleen Sibelius, the Governor of Kansas, opposes the Sunflower Electric
Power Corporation’s plan to build a 1,400 Mw coal-fired power plant in Holcomb,
Kansas. Sunflower’s application to build the plant “was rejected by Kansas Health and
Environment commissioner Roderick Bremby. This decision was the first instance of a
power plant being cancelled because of carbon dioxide emissions” (Holcomb Expansion
(pars 3, 4). This was a watershed event for the many who believe that carbon dioxide is
contributing to global warming, and want to reduce 2CO emissions.
According to Tom Thompson, Legislative Coordinator for the Kansas Sierra Club,
Sunflower’s new plant would produce “11 million tons of 2CO ” annually. In an article in
Planet Kansas entitled “The Lid on Coal’s Coffin Stays On,” Thompson notes that during
the “2008 legislative session,” lobbyists who support Sunflower’s plan tried to refute
Bremby’s authority and pass bills that would give Sunflower permission to proceed with
the Holcomb project. Each of three attempts was vetoed by Governor Sibelius, and on
each occasion the Kansas Legislature was “unable to muster the . . . votes needed to”
override the veto. So far the powerful coal interests have been defeated, but it is likely
they will try again in 2009 (1, 7).
Jeff Goodell, in an article for Rolling Stone, compares the coal boom that is
currently sweeping the United States to a “swan dive off a very tall building.” At the
same “moment that scientists have reached a consensus that we need to drastically cut
climate-warming pollution, the electric-power industry is racing to build more than 150
new [coal-powerd] plants across the United States” (par 1).
Coover 12
Texas electric-power company lobbyists, including those who lobby for “TXU, an
electric-power company based in Dallas,” make Kansas coal interests look like playful
kittens. Laura “Miller, a mother of three,” is the “mayor of Dallas.” She spends most of
her spare time “traveling to small towns in rural Texas near the sites of proposed plants,
urging residents to join the Texas Clean Air Cities Coalition” to help improve the state’s
“miserable air quality” (Goodell pars 2, 13).
The Texas power industry “already dumps more carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere than any other state in the nation. . . .TXU. . . announced plans to build
eleven new [coal-powered] plants” that would release an additional “78 million tons” of
2CO , each year, into the atmosphere. The new plants would affect the state’s already
terrible air quality. Most Texas power companies burn “low-grade Texas coal.” (See
Table 1.) All coal produces carbon dioxide when it is burned. Low-grade coals also
produce more waste matter, which lowers air quality. The city of “Dallas is currently the
eighth-most polluted city in the nation, and Houston is fourth.” Texas also “ranks first in
the nation in mercury emission from power plants.” This byproduct of coal-fueled power
plants “can damage the brains and nervous systems of fetuses and small children”
(Goodell pars 2, 13).
Coover 13
Table1: Analysis of Some Coals Mined in the US
Source: Adapted from Kraushaar, Jack J. and Robert A. Ristinen. Energy and Problems of a Technical Society. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1993, p. 47.
In an article called “Coal Is Over” for The Ecologist, Joss Garman contends that
“despite pleas from scientists,” the coal industry in Britain wants to build many more
“unabated coal-powered stations.” These dinosaur power stations are so inefficient that
they will waste “almost half the energy” they create. “Climate-friendly solutions” do
exist. Denmark has built power plants that run at a much greater efficiency using state-
of-the-art technology. In Germany, “250,000 green-collar jobs” have been created, with
“300 times more solar and 10 times more wind” power production than the UK produces
(15).
Britain could have pursued a more strategic energy policy, but it chose to let
others in the European league take the lead on solutions that could ultimately influence
the future of the planet (Garman 15). Unfortunately, the US also seems to have
“missed the boat.”
Coover 14
Detroit and the US Corn-Production Industry
According to Charlie Cray in an article for Multinational Monitor, “Ford, GM and
Chrysler” have consistently blocked stricter “corporate average fuel economy (CAFE)
standards. . . .The Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) [is] a
taxpayer-funded program intended to triple gas mileage.” PNGV was “formed in
1993. . . . Seven years and a billion tax dollars [later], the average gas mileage of” US
vehicles had fallen to the “lowest point since 1980.” Carbon dioxide emission on “1999
passenger vehicles” increased 5.5% from 1993 levels (6).
In March of 2000 the “Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)” released data
showing that Ford light trucks had the worst 2CO emissions in the industry.
Nevertheless, Ford began a massive PR campaign to portray itself as a corporate
environmentalist. Ford became the exclusive sponsor of “Time Magazine’s special
Earth Day 2000 edition.” To kickoff its role in Earth Day, Ford sponsored a “heroes for
the Planet” special concert in San Francisco (Cray 6).
While the American auto industry cripples efforts to increase fuel efficiency,
ethanol is presented as the magic cure. Consumers are told that this corn-based
product will let everyone drive SUVs “merrily into the future.” Elizabeth Palmberg, in an
article for Sojourners Magazine called “Do The Math,” suggests that “in theory,
agrofuels seem like a great idea. Plants are a renewable resource, and, while burning
agrofuels creates the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, the feedstock plants absorb an
equivalent amount of 2CO as they grow” (8).
Then Palmberg points out that “the rosy picture collapses completely when you
do the math.” When the fossil-fuel costs of producing ethanol are factored in, Palmberg
Coover 15
asserts, “this is not a fuel source—it’s a massive exercise in greenwashing theatre, a
cycle that burns extra oil and adds to global warming. The force behind it is not
environmentalism, but the political power of” the US corn-production industry (8).
The US government currently offers “a 51-cent credit” to companies “for every
gallon of ethanol they blend with gasoline.” This seems like a great opportunity to save
the planet. Unfortunately, the ethanol-production process doesn’t reduce carbon
dioxide emissions. The fossil fuel needed to grow crops, distill biofuel, transport inputs
and outputs long distances, and manufacture farm machinery is about the same as the
ethanol that is produced. Some have estimated there is a net loss! Additionally,
production of ethanol takes a lot of food out of production. One SUV ethanol tank fill is
worth about “450 pounds of corn.” That is “enough to feed a person for” an entire year.
The demand for corn to produce ethanol has also increased world corn prices—this
spells “malnutrition and [starvation] for many of the world’s poor” (Palmberg 8).
But the biofuel picture is not completely bleak. Ethanol distillation “from cellulose
(using woody plants)” instead of “starch (using corn or other food crops)” shows
promise. This type of technology can produce fuels from alternative crops. Switchgrass
is one example of an alternative crop; it requires little fertilization and “needs replanting
only once a decade” (Palmberg 8).
In Brazil ethanol has been produced successfully from starch. Mae-Wan Ho, in
an Institute of Science in Society press release, notes that the biofuel industry in Brazil
is often “held up as a model of sustainable biofuel production.” However, some
scientists believe that Brazil’s “rapidly expanding biofuel industry” (and corresponding
Coover 16
deforestation) could produce extreme ecological, human, and economic havoc (pars 10,
1).
Many researchers are increasingly concerned that the deforestation of the
Amazon rainforest will greatly increase carbon dioxide emissions: “Much of the rainfall
that sustains the forest is recycled; water is absorbed by trees and returned to the
atmosphere by evapo-transpiration.” Long-term drought in the Amazon basin could
“seriously reduce the already diminishing global food supply.” This would “send ever
larger amounts of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere,” and create a
“catastrophic, upward spiral of global warming” (Ho par 24).
If cellulosic fermentation technologies are to become commercially feasible and
environmentally sustainable, the corn production industry’s greenwash machine will
have to be pushed out of the way. That means ending irresponsible government funding
using taxpayer money. Financial support needs to be redirected to technologies “that
will work.” If the corn industry’s propaganda machine can be stopped, “locally produced
cellulosic ethanol [could] take its place among a combination of renewable energy
sources, including” geothermal, tidal-flow, wind, solar, and small-scale hydroelectric
(Palmberg 8)
Is There a Future?
Elizabeth Palmberg points out the connection between globalization, the
American lifestyle, and global warming:
There’s a lot of waste we can cut. We don’t need to ship practically
everything we buy thousands of miles across the ocean. (Don’t put that
New Zealand apple in your mouth—it’s soaked with low-grade maritime
Coover 17
fuel!) We don’t need to drive sport-utility behemoths, live in McMansions,
or avoid mass transit. It’s not going to be easy, but in return we will get
better-tasting food (in season), a coastline that’s not under water, and a
planet for our grandchildren to live on. (9)
Clarke, in his article for U.S. Catholic, stresses that “as ice caps melt and polar
bears paddle furiously for [any] icy safe haven” that is left, some people are awakening
to their role in climate change (46). But the greenwash machine is not going to just
quietly go away. Many powerful interests are much more concerned about profits than
they are about reducing carbon emissions. These interests feel that “drastic change is
too costly for apparently insignificant results” (qtd. in Beauchamp 131).
Clarke asserts that global warming will probably “reverse the decades of social
and economic progress in Asia, where 60 percent of the world’s people live.” The
Millennium Development Goal was to “halve global hunger and poverty by 2015”—
global warming will make this goal essentially unattainable (46).
We “can’t wait on the wealthy” and powerful transnational interests. “The time for
talk is rapidly ending; the time for real change is now” (Clarke 46). Only by confronting
the massive greenwash machine can the truth about global warming be heard. We
must know the truth if we are to create a new renewable energy technology to replace
the old fossil fuel technology. The need for this change becomes increasingly critical as
each new millennium day passes. The choice is ours: live in harmony with our planet or
destroy it and ourselves.
Coover 18
WORKS CITED
Beauchamp, Tom L. Case Studies In Business, Society, And Ethics. 5th ed. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004.
“BPs Sunny Side. . .” The Ecologist 31.3 (Apr. 2001): 9. Academic OneFile. Gale.
Washburn U, Mabee Lib. 10 Jun. 2008 <http://0-find.galegroup.com/
A73040689>.
Campbell, Neil A. et al. Biology Concepts & Connections, 5th ed. San Francisco:
Benjamin Cummings, 2006.
Clarke, Kevin. “Hot Enough For You?” U.S. Catholic 73.2 (Feb. 2008): 46. Research
Library. ProQuest. Washburn U, Mabee Lib. 10 Jun. 2008
<http://0-proquest.com/1417211091>.
“Consumer Advocates Call On Congress To Subpoena Exxon’s Funding Records As Oil
Giant Underwrites Efforts To Deny Reality Of Global Warming.” US Fed News
Service, Including US State News (2 Feb. 2007). Research Library. ProQuest.
Washburn U, Mabee Lib. 23 Jun. 2008
<http://0-proquest.umi.com/1210660771>.
Cope, Don. Personal Interview. 28 Jul. 2007.
Cray, Charlie. “Ford’s Smokescreen.” Multinational Monitor 21.5 ( May 2008): 6.
Academic OneFile. Gale. Washburn U, Mabee Lib. 10 Jun. 2008
<http://0-find.galegroup.com/A65306590>.
Fletcher, Kenneth R. “Interview: Wallace Broecker.” Smithsonian 39.3 (1 Jun. 2008): 23.
Research Library. ProQuest. Washburn U, Mabee Lib. 10 Jun. 2008
<http://0-proquest.com/1490384891>.
Coover 19
Froelich, Warren. “’Old’ air yields clues on possible global warming.” The San Diego
Union (21 Nov. 1984): A1. ProQuest Central. ProQuest. Washburn U, Mabee
Lib. 19 Jun. 2008 <http://0-proquest.umi.com/1232890451>.
“FTCR: UC Berkeley Must Avoid Stanford Mistake That Allowed Big Oil
‘Greenwashing’—Stanford Should Make Its Research Public Immediately.” US
Fed News Service, Including US State News (12 Mar. 2007). Research Library.
ProQuest. Washburn U, Mabee Lib. 23 Jun. 2008
<http://0-proquest.umi.com/1231450661>.
Garman, Joss. “Coal Is Over.” The Ecologist 38.2 (1 Mar. 2008): 15. Research Library.
ProQuest. Washburn U, Mabee Lib. 14 Jun. 2008
<http://0-proquest.umi.com/1443206101>.
Goodell, Jeff. “Big Coal’s Dirty Move.” Rolling Stone (25 Jan. 2007): 36–38, 39.
Research Library. ProQuest. Washburn U, Mabee Lib. 14 Jun. 2008
<http://0-proquest.umi.com/1235614181>.
Hertsgaard, Mark. “Adapt or Die: Bangladesh and New Orleans Face a Stark Choice.”
The Nation 284.18 (7 May 2007): 22–23. General OneFile. Gale. Washburn U,
Mabee Lib. 8 Jun. 2008 <http://0-find.galegroup.com/A166025815>.
Ho, Mae-Wan. “Biofuels Republic Brazil.” ISIS Press Release 18 Dec. 2006. Institute of
Science in Society. 14 Jun. 2008
<http://www.i-sis.org.uk/BiofuelRepublicBrazil.php>.
“Holcomb Expansion.” Center for Media and Democracy (May 2008). 21 Jun. 2008
<http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Holcomb_Expansion>.
Karliner, Joshua. The Corporate Planet. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1997.
Coover 20
Karna, Jari, et al. “Green Advertising: Greenwash or a True Reflection of Marketing
Strategies?” Greener Management International (Spring 2001): 59–70. Academic
OneFile. Gale. Washburn U, Mabee Lib. 10 Jun. 2008 <http://0-
find.galegroup.com/A81596639>.
Kraushaar, Jack J. and Robert A. Ristinen. Energy and Problems of a Technical
Society. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1993.
Lucas, Gavin. “Promising the Earth.” Creative Review (1 Apr. 2007): 45–46.
ABI/INFORM Trade & Industry. ProQuest. Washburn U, Mabee Lib. 14 Jun. 2008
<http://0-proquest.umi.com/1248105771>.
Monbiot, George. “Smoke and Mirrors.” New Scientist 192 (23 Dec. 2006): 25.
Research Library. ProQuest. Washburn U, Mabee Lib. 23 Jun. 2008
<http://0-proquest.umi.com/1201924611>.
Palmberg, Elizabeth. “Do the Math: Don’t Buy the Corporate Agrofuel Greenwash.”
Sojourners Magazine 37.1 (Jan. 2008): 8–9. General OneFile. Gale. Washburn
U, Mabee Lib. 10 June 2008 <http://0-find.galegroup.com/A1172801224>.
Porretto, John. “Exxon Mobil Maintains It Is Too Soon To Create Broad Policies on
Emission.” Transport Topics (2 Jul. 2007): 13. Research Library. ProQuest.
Washburn U, Mabee Lib. 23 Jun. 2008
<http://0-proquest.umi.com/1316742781>.
“Pine Beetles Kill Trees Throughout the West.” Rocky Mountain National Park [Official
Newspaper for the National Park Service] 17 Jun. 2007: 8.
Thompson, Tom. “The Lid on Coal’s Coffin Stays On.” Planet Kansas [Voice of the
Kansas Sierra Club] Jun.–Jul. 2008: 1, 7.
Coover 21
Turcotte, Dorothy. “Greener Canada Has Been a Long Time Coming.” Niagara This
Week (18 Jun. 2008): 1. ProQuest Central. ProQuest. Washburn U, Mabee Lib.
20 June 2008 <http://0-0-proquest.umi.com/1497772441>.