Pop Culture/Green Culture

Last night, in a fit of some procrastination, I decided I would go online to nbc.com and stream one of my favourite TV shows  Heroes. Now, my pick of entertainment isn’t the subject of this post, rather I’m interested in NBC’s “Green Week of Entertainment”. Or rather, I’m interested in finding out how many people KNEW NBC did a week of Green themed programming and subject matter on their website.

I should mention that I don’t watch much TV. Well I do, but I tend to just watch Bravo (my wonderful room mate and I only get 12 channels and Bravo is the only decent one), so I don’t watch regular NBC. I had no idea that they were doing a week of Green until I went online to stream my show. What I found was a case of brilliantly marketed  Greenwashing.

Thats a term I haven’t seen appear on  the media radar in a while, I think because so many major corporations are becoming so active in the field that maybe the environmentalist pundits have been caught off-guard. Its important to give organizations the chance to prove their purpose but what I saw on NBC website seemed so blatantly a case of Greenwashing I was actually disappointed.

Why do I feel this way? Well, it comes down to one simple question. In marketing a Green week did NBC actually do anything beyond filming a few clips on how to reduce your consumption, use biofuels, recycle? Did they reduce the footprint of the shows they filmed? Did they make permanent changes to how their shows are made to become true environmental leaders? I doubt it. I have no proof beyond the fact that if they had the publicity would have been huge. Thats a tact I don’t usually like to take because it leads to confusion and misinformation, but I’m just going to go with it here.

In all of that I did have an interesting experience watching an episode of Las Vegas (oh okay so I really was procrastinating). Beyond the fact that the show is fantastically vapid and therefore very entertaining, last weeks show was themed “Keep It Green”. I actually found very interestingly made — somehow they realised that their audience aren’t the informed consumer of green products who drives a hybrid or makes an effort to take public transport, but the suburban teen/20something with an ugly large American-made SUV. They brought in a whole debate on sustainability and economic principles; the importance of finding the balance between the realities of consumerism and economic growth and the need to stop wasting as much as we do.

I recommend it. Its a fun way to waste an hour and see how the Green debate can go low culture with an impact.

Is an offset card, good or bad credit?

I got a lot of good responses and links from my last post — clearly nuclear is a heavy issue for people, as it should be. I’ll be responding to a couple of comments in a later post because I want to make sure I get my facts/opinion right. So look back for my take on electric cars, hydrogen as a transport fuel and yes, some more nuclear.

In the meantime, this is my subject of the day:

GE, in partnership with AES, has launched a Carbon Offset Credit Card. Both Treehugger.com and the New York Times have articles about it, but I’ve linked here to the New York Times piece.

“We are not sending a message that you can buy your way out of your environmental responsibility,” said Lorraine Bolsinger, vice president of GE Ecomagination. “We’re offering another tool in the kit for reducing carbon footprints.”

Thats their media bite on the whole idea, but what do I really think about the idea?

1. I think it is VERY important that people understand that you can’t buy your way out of climate change/global warming/driving too much etc… And that goes for both sides of the debate. Environmentalists who oppose offsetting accuse it of doing very much that — allowing people a guilt-free ride in their gas guzzlers. I disagree with that idea but only as long as there is a concerted effort by ‘offsetting’ companies tonot mislead their customers as to the meaning of offsetting. Environmentalists who oppose this concept, in my mind, are actually preventing a constructive and useful dialogue to open up between business and themselves. Offsetting is valid — when done well and done in an ecologically considerate way. Which can be done, is being done, and can only be done better if people really work together.

2. Treehugger.com made a good point in one of their posts a few days ago about how Green products are actually counter-productive in many cases. People who don’t need new things, go out and buy Green things because it makes them feel better or they think they are benefiting a cause. However, all they are doing is accumulating more goods, causing more pollution and using up more resources. Sure, this idea is correct but thats only if we assume people are buying green replacements. I think most green consumers who aim to buy something because they need it (or, yes, think they do) will, instead of choosing the main stream “bad” good, go for the green one. Not particularly harmful or helpful but time will tell. So back to this offsets card — I like the idea because it allows people to impact in an environmentally positive way all the purchases they make, whether they are green or not, by choice or by lack of availability.

3. I wonder if the green credit card fashion — which is just really taking off with this idea — will really work. A lot of causes have gone the way of the credit card and didn’t really get much traction or impact. And i also wonder if there is a scale limit to this idea. That is if every CC holder in this country switched to the GE offset card, I doubt they would be able to buy/fund/create enough offset credits for everyone. And it works the other way, if only a few people sign up will their cumulatitive effect be enough to really impact the offset/emission credit business? Guess we will have to wait and see.

BP’s attempt to clean up their brand

With the recent TERRIBLE press that British Petroleum (BP) has been dealing with, this is their newest attempt at positive advertising.

They stay with the green and yellow of their fortuitous corporate colours, but shift from pure “green” gas image to a less explicit branding using “beeps” — children-like characters who save energy and advocate for BP’s good image.

Whats happened recently with BP is particularly depressing to me. With Lord Browne at the helm BP radically changed big business’ relationship to climate change. They publicized the possibility that inventive, creative and potentially green solutions existed for gas companies to act on their CO2 emission responsibilities.