Starbucks: people either love ‘em or loathe ‘em. My husband likes their coffee and admires their business brains. I, on the other hand, can’t stand them for their homogenized, yuppie style. Having grown up in grunge-era Seattle, once a land of artsy coffee shops crammed with kitschy sofas and local color, cookie-cutter Starbucks look to me like a department store: void of soul and chock-full of useless merchandise.

But how bad is Starbucks, really? I decided to find out.

1. Clean water is such a precious commodity in the world these days, but Starbucks didn’t seem to care. Their “leave the tap running all day” policy created an eco-scandal to the tune of 23 million litres wasted every day. Less than a year later, they’re installing water-saving faucets which purport to reduce water wastage by 150 gallons per day, per store. Note, they only changed their wasteful ways after they got caught.

2. Although some people claim that having a Starbucks in the neighborhood is actually good for local mom & pop cafes, the long-running belief is that Starbucks turns the uniquely local neighborhood vibe into cookie-cutter corporate…well, crap. Perhaps it’s really just a matter of taste, but most of your dollars spent at a Starbucks location will end up in the pockets of distant executives – and not circulate in your local economy.

3. Ever keen to new marketing strategies, Starbucks has decided to co-opt the unique neighborhood vibe. What you think is your local indie cafe might actually be a Starbucks in disguise. To try and get the business of economic locavores, Starbucks has sent out scouts to cop the look and feel of various neighborhoods, then create a “unique” coffeeshop under a different name. Some might call this a brilliant business strategy, but I think it’s pretty underhanded.

4. Then there was the Ethiopian coffee debacle. In 2006, the Ethiopian government attempted to trademark regional coffees such as Sidamo and Harar because these specialty brews sell for up to $26 a pound, with only about $1 getting back to the Ethiopian coffee farmers. Starbucks, working through the National Coffee Association, blocked Ethiopia’s trademark bid, helping ensure the continuation of poverty in an already impoverished region.

5. Did you hear about the tip scandal? A former (and clearly disgruntled) Starbucks barista successfully sued the corporation on behalf of all California baristas in a class action law suit. Starbucks was ordered to pay $100 million to baristas to make up for tips that had been given to shift supervisors. It sounds like the ultimate low blow, but there is a grey area here: although California law prohibits managers and supervisors from receiving tips, Starbucks’ shift supervisors do help customers and make coffee. They’re paid much more than the baristas; do they also deserve a cut of the tips?

6. After years of customers haggling them for recycling bins, or at least recyclable cups, Starbucks has finally launched a recycling pilot program. Puh-lease…coffee shops the world over have already had recycling and composting systems in place for years. Starbucks should have been able to do better, and faster – why has it taken them so long to jump on the greenwagon?

7. Starbucks has decided to increase their purchases of Fair Trade coffee – but that’s only after years of pressure from Fair Trade groups. Considering that the worldwide coffee trade is a huge source of oppression and poverty in third world countries, buying Fair Trade goes far to support better wages and working conditions for coffee farmers. So far, only a small percentage of Starbucks coffee will actually be Fair Trade Certified, but they’ve still created a marketing campaign around it. I’d expect better from a large corporation; since Starbucks is large enough for the world to pay attention to its products, they could push some powerful change by using their influence for the greater good.

8. No matter what they do to be a little more green, if Starbucks won’t pour coffee into a reusable mug, they’ll never win my heart. My husband informed me of his own infuriating Starbucks experience where they refused to fill his travel mug, instead handing him his latte in a disposable paper cup and telling him he could fill his travel mug himself. He’s not the only one who’s had eco efforts thwarted like this at Starbucks.

9. And besides, McDonald’s beat Starbucks in a coffee taste test. Ouch!

So what do you think? Personally, I think Starbucks can do better and set a positive example for the coffee business in general, but they won’t do that unless they feel the heat from customers.

Image: D3 San Francisco

As the recession cuts deeper into the profits of big food companies, many brands are downsizing their portions in a bid to cut costs. In some cases, they are also downgrading their ingredients. But as chocolate giant Cadbury is discovering – you mess with your iconic brands at your peril.

Cadbury’s current advertising campaign involves eyebrow gymnastics from two children. Meanwhile, it has made some eyebrow-raising changes to the formulation of its popular Dairy Milk block in Australia and New Zealand. The new chocolate block is smaller, contains fewer cocoa solids (you know, the part that actually makes it chocolate) and it contains environmentally destructive palm oil. It now finds itself at the centre of a PR storm, having incurred the wrath of shoppers, foodies and environmentalists alike. Whittakers, a rival chocolate brand in New Zealand, is taking advantage of the furore with this comparative shopping ad.

The first change is simple – the 250g block now weighs just 200g. The packaging has been redesigned and the squares of chocolate shrunken so the block actually appears to be the same size. Chocolate lovers are furious at the resizing and the fact that the price has not dropped accordingly and have formed a protest site, at choclovers.org, and have been spreading the message via Twitter and a Facebook protest group. Cadbury says in the FAQ on its website (Australia and New Zealand) that it has actually reduced the wholesale price but it’s up to retailers whether to pass it on.

Product resizing is annoying for consumers but nothing new – and given that people eat more when the serving sizes are bigger, it might not be such a bad thing for the public health. It’s the second change that is more concerning from an environmentalist’s point of view.

Cadbury has reduced the amount of cocoa solids from 26% to 21% and added nasty vegetable fats – specifically palm oil – to compensate. The company claims that it’s done this, not to save costs as you might think, but to improve the customer experience.

We have done this for a number of reasons. Primarily it is because our consumers have been telling us that we could improve their enjoyment of our chocolate by making it slightly softer to bite. Vegetable fat helps deliver this softness whilst at the same time maintaining our chocolate’s great taste.

As a chocolate lover myself, I’m not so credulous that I believe that Cadbury has done this for my benefit. I know a bit about food and chocolate and there is no doubt that palm oil is a poor substitute for the real thing. I am pretty sure most chocolate fans would feel the same way – despite what Cadbury’s “independent research” might show. I’m probably not their market, though – I tend to go for more quality brands such as Green & Black’s, the organic brand now owned by Cadbury, and Lindt.

However, there are millions of people who do buy Cadbury chocolate so the formulation of their products is part of a bigger problem. The forests of southeast Asia have been ravaged by deforestation, spelling disaster for wildlife such as orangutans and tigers and for the climate. Palm oil production is one of the leading causes of this – both historically and currently.

The main customers of palm oil are food manufacturers looking for cheap fats – though demand is also rising because of its utility as a biofuel. The rainforest of the Congo could be next, with China set to establish a giant palm oil plantation in the African country. It is ironic that Cadbury’s last big advertising campaign involved a gorilla.

Cadbury claims:

We are Board members of the RSPO [Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil] and purchase Green Palm certificates that independently certify the fact that the palm oil we purchase has come from sustainable sources.

The RSPO has a set of standards, its Principles & Criteria, that define practices for sustainable palm oil production. These include the use of appropriate best practices by growers and millers, the responsible development of new plantings and environmental responsibility and the conservation of natural resources and biodiversity.

All well and good, except that the RSPO is widely regarded as greenwash – members have to do little more than pay a membership fee. Even the bible for big business, the Wall Street Journal reports that it’s a problem. The Green Palm Certificates, meanwhile, allow backers to invest in sustainable production without necessarily using the product. Even if Cadbury could be certain that it is buying palm oil from sustainable sources, which is dubious, it is still creating new demand for palm oil. Replacing existing palm oil for a ’sustainable’ alternative is one thing, but it does not help matters if it is additional consumption.

No one seems convinced – and the backlash is huge. In most recent news, the Auckland Zoo has stopped stocking Cadbury, in the name of the orangutans.

Image via Treehugger

Green-wash – verb: the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service. – TerraChoice

Earth Day seems to have brought out the green in everyone, especially businesses. Wherever we turn, we are being bombarded by advertisements and articles telling us about green services, products and specials. Everyone from Treehugger to Huffington Post and CNN are talking about things you can do today (and this month) – and Grist is even cheeky enough to say Screw It. Green is everywhere, but unfortunately, so is greenwash.

But as we all know, not all companies are completely honest with their green claims. Some, it seems, are quite happy to talk the talk but not walk the walk.

But how do we, as consumers, know whether they are greenwashing or not?

Whenever I’m not sure, I turn to TerraChoice, an environmental marketing company, who, based on research and surveys, created a Seven Sins of Greenwashing guide that helps determine green fact from fiction. (We’ve previously covered greenwashing, if you want to learn more.) It’s a helpful resource to keep in mind at any time of year, not just Earth Day.

Read the full 2009 Seven Sins of Greenwashing Report to learn more about these commonly practiced sins and how to recognize them.

Image: macrophile

The good news is that there are more green-minded consumers than ever before and travel companies are taking note. The bad news in that in the rush to offer eco-tourism, sometimes the eco part gets diluted or even trampled on.

Eco-tourism doesn’t just mean tourism in a wilderness area. If it did, then tourist space flights would qualify – despite the obvious energy cost involved in blasting into orbit.

In my book the number one rule for eco-tourism is to do no harm. Exploring beautiful wilderness areas is fantastic – it restores the soul and raises awareness of our beautiful world – but not if you are actually hurting the places you have come to see.

Many of the big cruises to Antarctica bill themselves as eco-tourism, yet cruise ships are highly polluting and many of the activities – going ashore or taking helicopter flights – can damage an otherwise pristine environment. I’m not saying that Antarctica should be out of bounds altogether but I do think tourism there should be far more restricted than it is.

It’s a similar situation with tourism on the Galapagos Islands off the coast of Ecuador – where 19th British naturalist Charles Darwin developed his theory of evolution. The islands need tourism to survive but it’s decidedly a mixed blessing.

It’s the same in Peru, where the Incan ruins of Macchu Picchu are straining under the weight of too many tourists.

The latest ‘eco-tourism’ claim to get my goat is the fact that the state of New South Wales in Australia is considering weakening the legal protection for national parks to allow private-sector development within the park boundaries.

The proposed changes would facilitate the building of new ‘eco-resorts’, cabins and semi-permanent camps, and changes to wilderness laws that allow for commercial tours, according to the Nature Conservation Council of NSW.

There’s no need for this since the national parks are already extremely popular with visitors – and anyway, their principal purpose is conservation rather than leisure and tourism.

National Park visitor growth will easily exceed the State Plan Target, outperforming all other sectors of the tourist industry. Domestic overnight visitors visiting national parks will increase by 100 per cent by 2016, and the State Plan target is for 20 per cent growth. So why push private development into national parks?

It is inappropriate to remove protection from national parks and to offer sites within them to the tourism industry, in an “˜investor-ready’ condition – these public lands are set aside for nature. And our wilderness areas have been protected from commercial use for over twenty years and there is no need to exploit these wild places for commercial gain. Link

The moral of the story is not to be fooled by greenwash – there are some fantastic green travel initiatives billed as eco-tourism and we should support them, but we should also ask the hard questions and use some common sense.

If you fancy getting involved on the national parks issue, the Nature Conservation Council of NSW does have instructions on whom to email to lobby against the law change.

Image: koala.like.rock

I don’t know if it’s irony or hypocrisy that best describes that fact that Prince Charles is heading to South America next month to focus on environmental sustainability and climate change issues but is getting there on a private jet, leaving a massive 322 ton carbon footprint. I’m going to go with hypocrisy. Perhaps the Prince should consider leaving some of his 14-person entourage behind and just hopping on an ordinary plane like the rest of us.

Apparently the Prince does plan on offsetting his carbon emissions. But still, it irks me that he doesn’t see that having his own jet to transport 14 people is ethically incompatible with his “green” stance.

It turns out that this isn’t the first time that Prince Charles has been in the firing line over his mode of transport when traveling in the name of environmental issues. In 2007, he flew first class to the United States…to pick up an environmental award. Well, I suppose video conferencing wasn’t available.

Of course, the Prince isn’t the only one that seems not to notice the hypocrisy of leaving such a massive carbon footprint with his travelling. Other well known people to be tagged for private jet flying include former Vice President Al Gore and California Governor Arnold Schwarznegger. What do you think about this, readers? Is the occasional “Oops, I pumped out more greenhouse gases than the cattle of Brazil last weekend!” something to be overlooked in the grander scheme of saving the planet…and avoiding the hoi polloi?

Image: versageek

Dear readers: Sara and I stumbled across this and six days later we’re still not sure what to think of it. When you come across a green product as useless as this, it’s easy to be rendered speechless. Fortunately, at least for us, this doesn’t last long. Here, we share our thoughts. Please do share yours.

We present to you the Umbrella Pot by Kyouei Design. It claims to conserve water by reusing the rainwater cast off by your umbrella to nourish the plant growing in a small pot at its base.

Kim: I’ll say it until I’m green in the face. Useless objects manufactured using sustainable materials are still…useless. You can twist and turn it a million eco-friendly ways, but I’ll continue to ask the same question. Why use the resources, waste the energy, create the carbon emissions to create and sell an unnecessary, frivolous product?

Sara: I didn’t realize this was a problem that needed solving but it makes sense if you think about it. Now I’m wondering what else around my place needs help. What if I’m letting stray dust bunnies escape when they could be of service? I think I get them all but there is that space behind the fridge. Perhaps there’s a special implement to help capture these wayward fluffaluffs? Eco-friendly of course.

Kim: The Umbrella Pot is a “low-maintenance way to keep a small plant”, but only if rain is falling and your umbrella is wet. It won’t help you in the least when the weather is dry. Yes, it’s made of eco-friendly and non-toxic ceramic. Spectacular. It also costs almost $800, which is a lot of dollars spent to capture a few drops of water. Has anyone tried putting indoor plants outdoors during a rainstorm and letting them catch the rain all on their very own? Brilliant, no?

Sara: The only challenge I see with an umbrella stand like this is that unless you plan to sport an equally pricey umbrella, you’ll just feel lame. It’s like parking your Porsche on Van Ness and wondering why it keeps getting dinged. (This happens to me all the time. So annoying!) The contents have to fit the container. Which means a Chanel umbrella at least. What’s Gucci doing for spring showers?

Kim: Have we lost all sense in our attempt to go green? Has the ozone layer fried the sector of the brain in charge of discernment? Or maybe we’ve been waterlogged by acid rain?

Sara: You’re so in luck! Could I interest you in a very stylish eco-friendly pot to catch your acid rain?

Kim: Here’s a suggestion. If you can say kitchen pot, you can save rainwater”¦the old fashioned way. Put one of your pots outside with your umbrella draining in it. Already own an umbrella stand? Let your umbrella drain in it, then pick it up and pour the excess water into any of your plants.

Sara: Kim, as an employee we value your contributions. Your idea has been submitted to management and will be reviewed, possibly this year. In the meantime, we recommend purchasing an umbrella stand that is eco friendly, like the Umbrella Pot.

The verdict: Waterlogged. If your current umbrella stand still functions, use it. If your life lacks an umbrella stand, well, TRAGIC is not the first word that comes to mind.

With 55 million pounds of pesticides sprayed on clothes yearly, the EPA considers seven of the top 15 of these pesticides used on cotton in the United States as “possible,” “likely,” “probable,” or “known” to cause cancer in humans.

Thanks to various agencies safeguarding what we wear, “Eco-Friendly” clothing is being subjected to many production standards much like the green building industry from organizations like the Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS), the International Market for Sustainable Apparel (registry required) and the Organic Trade Association.

Which organization do you trust to set the standard for accountability? The jury’s still out.

One thing we know is that as the green movement proves it’s not just a trend, designers, buyers and shoppers will want proof of purchase so they can put their own green towards sustainable lines – and not feel so gullible. Until we have one standard to go by here are a few things you can do:

Do your homework. Many times we just accept that an item is organic without doing some research. A garment can be organic but still have a large carbon footprint.

Learn about different eco-fabrics that are available. Organic cotton and wool, tencel, soy and modal are some of the more popular choices.

Email the designers. Realize there are many ways designers can up the ante on eco-conscious production methods by recycling and using alternative energy at their design houses, implementing fair-trade practices and using natural dyes. Many of these eco-friendly designers are accessible through their websites.

Buy locally-sourced. Support your local designers and artists who use less fuel to get their goods to local stores. Not only will you help to sustain a small business, you’ll feel better knowing exactly where your goods came from.

Now that you have all this helpful information, what do you plan on doing with it?

Editor’s note: Please welcome our new fashion writer, Amy DuFault. You can learn about Amy here.

Image: ontwerpplus

Discover is on a mission to help green that ubiquitous sliver of plastic we all have taking up real estate in our pockets: our credit cards. Discover’s grand gesture of ecological friendliness? They’re introducing biodegradable credit cards. I certainly hope the company doesn’t think that’s the best they can do. The most dangerous thing about having credit cards is not the fact that they are leaching BPA’s into your pocket.

I suppose the biodegradability makes the cards technically eco-friendly, but what about all the “stuff” you buy with it? What do you think, everyone: is this green or greenwash?

For those who are curious, the cards won’t biodegrade in your wallet. They’re made to break down in the compost or landfill over the course of many years. Just make sure you remember to slice those cards up well when discarding, or we may see a new rash of compost pile identity thieves!

Green is the platinum, after all.

As the eco-friendly movement matures and embeds into mainstream culture, the power of green iconography diminishes ““ and the greenwashers will move on. It’s already happening. The Law of Diminishing Returns tells us that the more companies try to Green up their act, the less unique it becomes as a sales pitch. Increasingly, being environmentally friendly isn’t a luxury ““ it’s a requirement.

That’s bad news for advertisers dealing in promoting the uniqueness of their products, notes Rebecca Swift for the BBC’s Green Room. And the imagery is becoming tired too: Swift’s team undertook a year’s research into Green advertising and found the two most popular colors ““ Kelly (or Kermit!) Green and Forest Green ““ being used to epidemic proportions. With the novelty worn off and, in Swift’s words, “out of the propaganda phase”, what happens?

First, green products get a lot more interesting. When the novelty value simply won’t carry it, the emphasis shifts to quality (aesthetic and utilitarian). Products become better than their competitors by being better. It’s the right climate for truly deluxe, truly eco-friendly consumerism, and good news all round. Second – and this is just my take – those companies who’ve authentically been green from the start will have earned something to show for it. Trust.
And third? Greenwashing slumps in favor of the Next Big Color”¦.

>“Environmentalism 2.0 is all about the planet and water. Those are blue images. We’re not saying green is going away “” it’s just going to be a subset of blue.” ““ Ann Mack, in Penelope Green’s Flash In The Can, New York Times.

Beware the bluewashers?

A designer named Chris Lindland has just sent me a press pitch for his clothing line. Chris would like you to know that it is Pants Awareness Month. O rly?

“Every autumn, millions of American men tragically go pantless while their fellow citizens turn a blind eye. This is the terrible affliction known as Pantlessteria — more commonly referred to as Sansapant Syndrome, Trousernot, or Nay Slacks disease. With temperatures dropping and the holidays approaching, it’s comforting to know that there is a cure — and it’s only clicks away at Cordarounds.com.”

I was not aware.

The faux news release is funny, and the clothing is clever. The only thing missing: nothing in the line is green. I asked Chris about this  and he explained that while the various pants in the line are not cut from eco cloth, their bike pants are kinda-sorta green. Since they are for cyclists. And cycling is eco-friendly. Get it?

To be clear, this isn’t about Chris or his pants. That kinda-sorta reasoning isn’t some stretch of the corduroy on his part; he readily noted that the bike pants are about safety, not the environment. Nope, the greenwash is all owing to the green blogosphere, namely the House that Hill built. Treehugger was evidently so enamored with how much “fun” the company is having they didn’t bother to find out if the materials and manufacturing are green. Or perhaps they decided the act of bicycling absolves the responsibility for wearing sustainable clothing while doing it. They have given the bike pants a glowing review and encourage us to “Drop their online store $95 and you can be ensuring drivers see you’re on the street in no uncertain terms.”

Helpfully, other green sites have joined in, too. Green Daily generously describes these pants as “green-friendly”, at least pointing out that they’re not actually green (but gosh darn if that wouldn’t be grand). Hey, if all it takes these days for a thumbs-up from the green crowd is being friendly to it, companies can fire their addled marketers. The green blogosphere now offers greenwashing services free of charge for your convenience.

A better green blogosphere might have collectively admired the concept but firmly insisted the company go green – and not come back until it had (perhaps even offering some pointers). For there’s the real power of green social media: reminding us all that, by definition, good design doesn’t just like green, doesn’t just add green, but is green.

(Meanwhile, you can find green biking clothes at Ibex. They’re also happy to tell you all about their staff garden, recycling program, team fitness efforts, sustainable initiatives and green projects on their blog.)

Image: Editor B