Home

Once upon a time, whitewash was the paint that Aunt Polly made Tom Sawyer use to cover a worn-looking fence. Today, we know there is a parallel meaning: to make something that is objectionable or damaging seem acceptable, usually by spinning the results of an investigation or covering up a scandal. You know: whitewashing.

But what if the objectionable or damaging behavior involves a company involved in environmental or health issues like dumping tons of toxic waste into a river or pumping megatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere or blowing tops off mountains to get at the minerals beneath and leaving the rubble behind to clog up rivers?

For public relations purposes, the guilty company might want to be considered environmentally friendly, or green, as we say, without actually changing anything or spending any money. The word "whitewashing" won't cut it. The appropriate and current term for making deceptive or unsupported claims about the environmental friendliness of a product is "greenwashing."

Scene: Company president's office, staff meeting.

President: "OK, people, sales are hurting. We're considered environmentally unfriendly because of our smokestacks, and the press is on our back. Also the EPA. The investors are complaining. We've got to do something."

Young man in group: How about stopping the nasty stuff we've been doing?

Pres: Who is that kid?

Staff: He's from the mailroom.

Pres: Get him out of here!

Staff: Couldn't we just deny we pollute, sir?

Pres: You can't deny 11 belching smokestacks, Simmons.

Staff: Maybe we could do something to the smoke to make it green.

Pres: You mean install scrubbers to clean it up? That's way too expensive.

Staff: No, sir, I read about adding a chemical to the smoke to color it green.

Pres: Green smoke? You're a genius!

Staff: One problem -- the green chemical is toxic.

Pres: Let's not complicate this. Order the stuff.

Young man in group: That's just plain cheating!

Pres: I said get that kid out of here!

Consumers -- us -- have more subtle greenwashing to contend with. Apparently, most people aren't sure what makes a product green, or, to use another topical cliche, eco-friendly. To convince us that their product is just plain sociable, manufacturers may use deceptive techniques: Walk down the cleaning product aisle of any supermarket and you can practically hear the voices from the marketing meetings. "They want green? We'll give them green. We won't change anything in the product -- we'll just print our labels with lots of green ink. Green background, green lettering, green bottle caps, whatever works." I imagine these are good times for purveyors of green ink.

The labels also feature symbols of nature -- sunbeams and wheat fields and cute animals cavorting among the flowers. These labels carry the message of organic, or "natural." There are approved definitions of organic -- no synthetic pesticides or synthetic fertilizers, etc., but defining natural can be misleading. Arsenic is a natural substance, but you wouldn't want Arsenic-O Flakes on your breakfast table tomorrow morning.

The claim of "green" can be deceptive as well, because there is no simple, universal standard of greenness. Companies may make up their own seals of certification as to the eco-friendliness of their products. A window-cleaning product I know has a seal on its (green colored) label that says they try to keep things natural. The ingredients sound natural -- "plant-based" is a popular adjective, but even if some improvement has been made in a product, is it truly "green?" A cynic might say the improvement just means that it is not as harmful as it used to be.

This is a welcome step forward, but keep in mind what Norway's consumer ombudsman said about autos -- an eco-friendly car can't do anything good for the environment -- just less damage.

A case in point here is a producer of bottled water that claims their product is greener because of the shape of their plastic bottle. Yes, the shape. The basis for the claim is that their bottles contain 35 percent less plastic than other water bottles. This saves them money in the production of bottles, of course, but it doesn't cut down on the millions of bottles resting comfortably in landfills.

In the interest of carrying this through, even if the bottles are recycled, there will be 35 percent less plastic recovered to make more bottles. The math is getting sticky here -- let X be the number of bottles you can make with the regular plastic content, and .65X the number... how much plastic will you use in 10 years if you make... Oh, heck. Why don't we just buy a permanent container and fill it with good tap water.

Bernard Jacks is a freelance humor writer who lives in Marlboro. His columns have appeared in the New York Times, Smithsonian Magazine, and other publications.