Greenwashing

Editor-
Every week another company jumps on the global warming bandwagon. However, rather than demonstrating commitment to protecting the planet these schemes just divert our attention away from real solutions. Patagonia and Bagir ("Where That Suit Has Been, April 10, 2008) claim that a new "carbon footprint label" will help consumers make better decisions. Bunk! Not only will these labels provide no context (is 15 pounds of carbon per shirt good or bad?), but they ignore all other environmental and social issues associated with the textile industry. Why limit these labels to just carbon? Why not detail all the toxic chemicals that are required to mass-produce clothes? What about the habitat lost, scarce water consumed, and social injustices perpetuated so that new vest could arrive at your local mall? The trans-oceanic shipping industry dumps thousands of invasive species across the planet while carting goods; why don't we have labels for this huge environmental and economic issue? If apparel companies really cared about the environment their new labels would read: "Buy Used. Buy Local. Buy Less."

J.P. Leous

interesting article.

"I've succeeded in doing a lot of sexy projects yet utterly failed in what I set out to do," Schendler says. "How do you really green your company? It's almost f------ impossible."

blogs about sustainable business.