Palm | Kelapa Sawit

For me the most blatant example is greenwasing is a Hybrid vehicle. It's not the Toyota or Honda vehicles, which may not live up to hype but it's the transformation of the worst polluting vehicles into "hybrid" models. If you look at the 2009 Cadillac Escalade Hybrid 2WD the first thing you will notice is the giant "HYBRID" written across the bottom of the doors. General Motors uses this in an obvious attempt to let the customer know that they will not face the scorn of other SUV owners because their car is “green”. It must be, it says so right on the door.

Now of course no one can argue with the MPG numbers right? It's a hybrid after all it must get amazing mileage. Not really, when compared to the standard 2WD model it only averages 20 MPG or 5 MPG better than the non-hybrid model. What do you pay for this huge HYBRID graphic and 5 MPG fuel economy? According to Edmunds.com the 2009 model is going for $71,915, that's $16,015 more than the non-hybrid model. According to a side-by-side comparison at the USDOE fueleconomy.gov website, that's only an annual savings (based on 15000 miles) of $453 per year. Now for salesmen this gives them the ultimate trump card, why would anyone pay over $16,000 for a savings of 453 per year? What this does for General motors is it allows them to claim that they make "environmental" vehicles that they never have to sell. They use this same treatment for the hybrid models of the Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid and GMC Yukon Hybrid.

Ok, the good news is that if you need a SUV hybrid there are better models. The 2009 Ford Escape Hybrid has a combined MPG rating of 32 MPG. That is an annual fuel cost of $850 per year and has an MSRP under $30,000. According to fueleconomy.gov that's more than seven (42 gallon) barrels of oil per year better than the Cadillac Escalade Hybrid.


http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm

http://www.edmunds.com/ford/escapehybrid/2009/review.html

Visit our website:

http://sites.google.com/site/ecomerge2008/

At the present, we are seeking to squeak as many miles out of our automobiles as possible. The price of oil has reached incredible levels. While the corporate average fuel economy raised standards beginning in the year of 1978. Seeking to build a more economical vehicle, the autos were to meet transportation averages of 27.5 mpg. A light-truck was to meet averages of 20.7 mpg. These averages were to be met by the year of 1985. The current averages of vehicles hovered around 16 to 13 mpg. Although the consumption of oil had decreased between the years of 1978 and 1985, it was inconclusive whether it was due to reduced gas prices or CAFE standards.

Fuel efficiency wasn't enough, when the consequence of these new light-weight trucks and small passenger car policies had resulted in a large increase of traffic fatalities that were attributed to the size and weight of the new vehicles. Due to the unfortunate disregard for human welfare, Congress seized the expenditure of Department of Transportation funds to make further revisions to the CAFE standards.

There are organization such as Resources for the Future who support the higher gas prices instead of increasing CAFE standards. In hopes to motivate new car buyers to demand higher fuel efficient autos, in which automakers would be reluctant to meet those demands. This in turn would force people to drive less, take better care of their vehicles, carpool, or use public transportation. What we didn't know about CAFE standards, and how they were meant to provide a more free flowing fuel efficient world; yet not much was put into the safety of these vehicles at first glance.

A possible site to view is at (www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases, accessed April 28, 2005.

Steven Campbell

Visit our website:

http://sites.google.com/site/ecomerge2008/

I have always considered the Miles Per Gallon estimates a more marketing the actual fact. A look at these estimates through the lens of green washing we can see that they are somewhat misleading. First we should determine what ratings are, the EPA Fuel Economy Ratings are actually provided by the manufactures to the EPA. The ratings are calculated through controlled conditions in a laboratory environment. It is also interesting to note that auto manufactures do not necessarily need to test the car you drive. They often, according to the EPA, only are required to test a represented sample and that is often a production prototype. It is also interesting side note that especially large vehicles (built by the big 3) are exempt from the law that requires testing. Again, according to the EPA any vehicle over 8500 gross vehicle weight fits these categories, which as luck would have it, are the worst polluters.
I have also found some discussion that the very way we look a mileage is made to confuse consumers and hide how much fuel we use. Richard Larrick and Jack Soll of Duke University conducted a study that showed that people have trouble understanding the current MPG ratings. They recommend expressing fuel effency as gallons per mile rather than miles per gallon. There suggustion is that “18 mpg becomes 5.5 gallons per 100 miles, and 28 mpg is 3.6 gallons per 100 miles -- an $8 difference today.” This would put fuel economy in more real terms that average consumers could understand.
You can see their article and a helpful chart here:
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/06/19/gallons.mile.would.help.car.shoppers.make.better.decisions

EPA fuel economy website.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/which_tested.shtml

Visit our site:

http://sites.google.com/site/ecomerge2008/

With the rising cost of gas prices and the effects on the environment that fuel has, its time we all start thinking about alternative fuel options. There are a few options currently available to consumers and one of them is biodiesel. Biodiesel is an alternative to petroleum diesel and consists of both new and used vegetable oils and animal fats. It’s also better for the environment since it reduces emissions of carbon dioxide into the air. According to the US Department of Energy biodiesel also “reduces greenhouse gas emissions because carbon dioxide released from biodiesel combustion is offset by the carbon dioxide sequestered while growing the soybeans or other feedstock” (http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/fuels/biodiesel_benefits.html). Another type of fuel is E85 which is comprised of ethanol and gasoline. Although it uses gasoline is still burns cleaner than unleaded gasoline.

Make sure you do your research when looking in to alternative fuel sources or hybrid cars so you can avoid greenwashing by the company selling the product. Items that need to be checked into include fuel economy, CO2 emissions, and just the general pollution the vehicle is emitting. Also there are new lines of hybrid SUV’s on the market, which are great since they consume less fuel however they are still an SUV and utilize more fuel than a compact car. Another type of greenwashing to watch out for are the car companies that produce a hybrid vehicle but the company themselves don’t practice being “green” in other ways.

~Melanie P.

In my last blog I defined greenwashing and offered some examples of what greenwashing consists of. In all fairness I would like to also mention the fact that there are companies out there that actually are “green”. According to CNNMoney.com some of the top green companies are Honda, PG & E, and S.C. Johnson are among those that made the list.

Honda is interested in fuel economy and alternative fuel. They have produced products that reduce CO2 emissions and other types of hybrid vehicles. The Honda Civic Hybrid is a relatively new vehicle that Honda has produced. One of their goals is to make it somewhat affordable and increase its availability across the globe.

In a press release from 2006, PG&E made the announcement they wanted to “make San Francisco the greenest city in the nation” (http://www.pgecorp.com/corp_responsibility/reports/2006/poenv_partnering.html). Some of the steps they took towards this were investing $5 million for new solar installations and working with other agencies in looking into other renewable energy options.

S.C. Johnson not only has energy turbines powering one of their plants, they also use something called Greenlist. Greenlist is the process of rating raw materials in order to “protect the planet and its people” and at the same time making quality products (http://scjohnson.com/environment/growing_1.asp).

So we have options to live, drive and clean while being green and the above companies are working towards that common goal.

Melanie P.

Visit our site:

http://sites.google.com/site/ecomerge2008/