Seen Any Greenwashing Lately? Share All Examples Here!
Do you think that the designer of this tongue-in-check interpretation of greenwashing -- Mr. Lunchbreath -- is exaggerating just a little bit or is his assessment of today's eco-marketing tactics dead on?

Agri-giant Monsanto's latest "Imagine" campaign (via: producemoreconservemore.com) says that they claim to be fully committed to sustainable agriculture. More than a few are saying that it is an example of greenwashing in the highest order, considering the following promises:
By 2030, Monsanto commits to help farmers produce more and conserve more by:
■ Developing improved seeds that help farmers double yields from 2000 levels for corn, soybeans and cotton, with a $10 million grant pledged to improve wheat and rice yields.
■ Conserving resources through developing seeds that use one-third fewer key resources per unit of output to grow crops while working to lessen habitat loss and improve water quality.
■ Helping improve the lives of all farmers who use our products, including an additional five million people in resource-poor farm families by 2020. That’s sustainable agriculture. And that’s what Monsanto seeds are all about.
How can Monsanto accomplish all of those goals with their genetically modified seeds and pesticide saturated crops?
If anyone here has seen the documentary Food, Inc., you will probably have a lot to say about this topic.
So, would anyone like to share their opinion on greenwashing? Please chime in on the conversation below!!





Steve Wagner
said on July 02, 2009
Waterless urinals have been promoted in recent years as being the solution for saving an average of around 40,000 gallons of water per urinal per year. They use almost no water except for a few gallons during cleaning and changing the cartridge. This is true (unless we consider the water used in manufacturing them and the cartridges). But the real question is at what price do they save this water and is it worth the environmental cost?
First, unless it is new construction, a waterless urinal is installed by removing an existing, usually functional urinal. So the waterless urinal has to be manufactured and the old urinal has to either be used somewhere else (perpetuating the water use problem unless they install the Ecoblue Cube, but I will get to that in a moment) or else the urinal ends up in a landfill somewhere.
Next, once the urinal is installed, it needs to be serviced. This often involves chemical cleaners. Importantly, however, almost all waterless urinals have a cartridge which needs to be periodically replaced. This is usually a proprietary part of the waterless urinal which costs around $40 or more each and needs to be changed out when it gets clogged. Some manufacturers claim that they will last for 7,000 uses, but some owners experience that they need to change out the cartridge every couple of thousand uses. So depending upon conditions, the cartridge needs to be replaced every 4 to 10 weeks. This is a very big source of ongoing revenue for the manufacturer of the waterless urinal.
What happens to the cartridge and why does it matter? Here is a link to Falcon Waterless Urinals showing how to change their cartridge:
http://www.falconwaterfree.com/pdf/028-EN.pdf
Look especially at step five in this document and you will see the cartridge and Falcon's instructions to put it into a plastic bag and dispose of it. Where does it get disposed? Ususally it ends up in the trash and goes to a landfill. Please keep in mind that Al Gore Jr. is on the Board of Advisers of this company. I have nothing at all against Al Gore and believe that he has a genuine concern about the environment, but this company is promoting the saving of 40,000 gallons of water by building a new urinal, replacing an existing one if necessary, and throwing away a big old piece of plastic which we have proven can be recycled and reused. I think that former Vice President Al Gore should really seriously reconsider his relationship to this technology.
Now compare this to the Ecoblue Cube. this system uses a very minor, inexpensive modification which basically removes the flush handle or actuator and only allows the urinal to be flushed during the cleaning operation. Apart from a gallon or two of water used during cleaning, no urinal flush water is used. The heart of the system is a natural, non-pathogenic bacteria which is supplied in a cube form which dissolves over time with use and generates a clean, fresh smell. No pucks or deodorizers. No cartridges to landfill. No chemicals. No replacing of urinals or valves and we still save on average 40,000 gallons per urinal per year. No waste.
Waterless urinals are being specified for new construction and even retrofits by people who are not aware of the Ecoblue Cube and have not considered the life cycle implcations of waterless urinals. There is at least one community in North America which requires that waterless urinals must be installed in all new construction. The US Army specifies waterless urinals for new construction.
We are currently installing the Ecoblue Cube into waterless urinals where the owners have gotten tired of the expense and effort of changing cartridges. Our bacteria consume the organic by-products which are formed when urine decomposes and which leads in part to clogging of the cartridge and the need to change it. We are showing these same people how to recycle and reuse a cartridge by soaking it in warm water to remove the scaling. Even if these owners don't convert to the Ecoblue Cube, they should be demanding that the suppliers of the cartridges take them back and figure out how to recycle them instead of throwing them away. It's not that hard, we figured it out. However, the waterless urinal suppliers do not want to recycle cartridges; they want to sell new ones like razor blades. It's an important source of profits to them.
There a few integrated trap waterless urinals offered which don't have the cartridge problem, but they are far from being the majority. However, they still have to be manufactured from scratch which adds to their environmental impact. True, we currently have to bring the Ecoblue Cube system components from Australia at the moment until we have enough demand here in North America which adds to our carbon footprint. Nevertheless, we have minimized manufacturing impacts and packaging and made our shipments as dense as possible in order to reduce unfavorable effects and will make the products here as soon as if can be justified. The Ecoblue Cube system has been proven effective for over 10 years now and, to my knowledge, there is no other system which can do this job as effectively and cost efficiently. The average price for water in the United States is approximately 1 cent per gallon and the Ecoblue Cube operating cost is less than that on a per gallon basis so it can be paid for by the water savings in most cases. In addition, valves and valve components last longer, no chemicals or harsh acid treatments and deodorizers are not needed. Finally, just think about the electricity savings if water is no longer pumped high up in skyscrapers only to be flushed back down below street level again. Therefore, the Ecoblue Cube is reducing consumption and having positive environmental benefits in many other areas than just the direct water saved.
You be the judge: Are Waterless Urinals Greenwashed?
The Ecoblue Cube is not a waterless urinal, but is a virtually water-free urinal technology
For more information about the Ecoblue Cube, visit my Linked In page for a slide show and visit www.ecobluecorp.com
Steve Wagner
630-433-6646
Jim Broline
said on August 10, 2009
You've focused on the economical aspects of waste handling and raise the right questions. The question is, what is the life cycle cost (environmentally speaking) of any eco system? If Ecoblue Cube does all you say, it is hands-down the better solution to sustainable urinal waste handling.
Engineers like us are constantly fighting the miss-information spewing from "astro-turf" green suppliers. Saying it is green does not make it so.
On the other hand, you are raising the value proposition of to total life cycle eco cost for Ecoblue Cube verses other urinal waste handling systems. Your are correct, that is the plain on which discussion should occur.
Bob Kurz
said on July 02, 2009
Mark Butkus
said on July 02, 2009
http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=98392
The gist of this one is that a dairy starts an organic brand, creates a niche, creates a discount brand using the organic brand name - who's going to know the difference?
James Allison
said on July 03, 2009
http://www.design-impact.org/blog/2009/06/green-fail-u-hauls-spurious-greenwash-promotes-increased-co2-emissions/
The Design Impact blog has a category for Green FAIL. Click on that category to see other examples. You can also submit your examples of greenwashing to be featured on Design Impact.