Eco-labels can save lives

Our carbon footprint is far too high, and this does not only damage the environment, but also harms our health and even causes human death. Especially children, who are still very vulnerable, are hit by the climate change and it isn’t exceptional for children in poor countries to die as a result of global warming. In developing countries, malnutrition and malaria are the most common causes of death. And as flooding and drought, both a consequence of the effect of climate change, destroy food crops, malnutrition will occur even more often if we don’t reduce our carbon footprint. The number of people with malaria is also increasing, because mosquitoes now can survive in countries which were too cold before the climate changed.

The fact that people can actually die from pollution, highlight the need for a drastic change in as well production methods as costumer’s behaviour. Maybe eco-labels could help us realise this change by showing the ecological impact of every product.

(source)

Famke De Ro

Decoding Ecolabels

Because there are so many ecolabels it's really difficult to know what every ecolabel stands for. Basically there are 3 types of ecolabels.

Type 1: This is a label which is awarded by a third party who checks your product on multiple criteria.

Type 2: This label is self-awarded, and is often just a lie, as we have discussed in previous posts.

Type 3: This label is awarded by a qualified third party based on life cycle assessments, wich is also verified by another qualified third party.

Its easy to see that Type 3 labels are the most trustworthy because the product is checked by an independent third party and is later double checked by another third party.

For example: FSC is a type 3 label who sets standards for wood and timber products, it only recognizes sustainable and well managed forestry products.

http://www.justmeans.com/Decoding-ecolabels/37220.html

Bert De Rycke

Environmentally friendly Hotels

Sustainability and green labels are mainstream with business and consumers involved. However, their incentives are quite different. While people purchase eco-friendly stuff in order to save the environment, the world's businesses attach the green label because it promotes their sales. As a matter of fact, the lodging industry doesn't meet both incentives. Which makes the ecolabels program a tricky business.

Big resorts in the middle of a very vulnerable nowhere, swimming pools, wine and dine, Spa & Casino … the hotel industry is a major polluter. People don't realize the negative impact of tourism. Or better: they don't care. Tourists prefer luxury before eco-awareness. They simply do what they are told to: "Relax because you are on holiday".

Therefore, the greater part of hotels participating a green label program, ironically don't advertise their green actions. And even when they do, it doesn't match reality. There are "green hotels" promoting reuse programs, ignoring the guests request not to change their towels and sheets. Other hotels are Green Seal certified using the Styrofoam anyway.

source

Julie Demasure

The Global Ecolabel Monitor tackles greenwash

Green is the new black, which explains the increasing supply of ecolabeled products. But the eco-communication gets corrupted by lies and misunderstanding which causes a perfect Babel of tongues. One needs to develop a sound framework in order to assess the products eco-quality. As I mentioned before a categorization of the ecolabels based on their ecological effect is one way to deal with the problem. The Global Ecolabel Monitor offers another way.  

Trevor Bowden is an authority in eco-labeling. An enhancement of the transpiration and accountability of ecolabels is the target he fights for. He claims the local criteria differ too much from each other. Only one global set of standardized criteria makes the ecolabels comparable all over the world. The World Resources Institute (WRI) and Big Room Inc. released the 2010 Global Ecolabel Monitor, a searchable online database helping you to explore the real meaning of an ecolabel.

In my opnion, by using the site 2010 Global Ecolabel Monitor, customers will be able to discover the meaning of ecolabels. Because of this, they will be able to select the sustainable products.

Julie Demasure

source

Greenwashing in commercials

During the discussion about eco-labels, the term ‘greenwashing’ appeared time and time again. This is also the case in commercials. An increasingly widespread phenomenon is that more and more companies want to demonstrate clearly that they are concerned about the environment. And how better to show this than by spreading it through the use of commercials?

In this video, Kermit the frog sings that being green is difficult. Then he discovers the New Ford Escape Hybrid and all of a sudden it seems very easy to be green. This shows that Ford is trying to reflect their image of having an outstanding economic, environmental and social performance. But apparently none of that is true. According to some statistics the car they are advertising gets 31 miles per gallon on the highway and 36 mpg in the city. Compared to other cars on the market of hybrid automobiles, Ford does not even belong to the better category. According to some analysts, this is a desperate attempt to try and keep up with the more efficient cars created by other brands.

This greenwashing method, which was applied by Ford, makes customers believe that they operate environmentally friendly. In my opinion this is a big risk for their credibility. Considering the irrefutable data about the different hybrid cars, everyone can conclude that Ford’s cars are not green at all. So Ford is obviously trying to mislead their customers and that won’t be appreciated by everyone.
We can conclude that greenwashing can build or break your image.

Source 1 , Source 2

Ellen De Medts

Eco-Labels are often just lies

Like we’ve said before in other posts we must be very critical and careful when dealing with ecolabels. According to this article most labels have huge loopholes, for example, when tuna is ‘Dolphin safe’, it might be caught with bait mad of sea turtles or other endangered species. When chickens are the label ‘Free range’ it only means they had 'access' to the outdoors most of their lives, not that it really was outdoors most of their lives. It's clear that some standards of ecolabels are weak and easy adept for your own benefits. Another famous example is of course the practices of carbon offsets, where companies with a lot of greenhouse gas emissions pay to others to take over some of their not used emission rights. They buy “fresh air”. This doesn’t leads to a reduction of the greenhouse gas emissions. But companies can claim they make ‘cabonfree’ products.

http://www.naturalnews.com/028706_eco_products_marketing_fraud.html

Bert De Rycke

The Sumatran rainforest victim of labeling system

In previous blogs it is obviously clear that a lot of products acquired an ecolabel, even though when they do not satisfy the conditions. But how was it possible that these products obtained an ecolabel?

I found an example of two famous brands of copying paper, Lucky Boss and Golden Plus that are labeled with the eco-flower even though their paper is made out of timber obtained from one of the largest but fastest disappearing tropical rainforests on the Indonesian Island of Sumatra.
Because of the destruction of the Sumatran rainforest, tigers, elephants and even the tribe called Orang Rimba lost their residence.

How was it possible that these brands acquired an ecolabel?

European laws allow national governments to institute authorities to award the eco-label. The EU defends their authorities by announcing that only the most environmentally friendly products are permitted to carry the EU Ecolabel. They also declare that choosing eco-labeled paper stands for paper coming from recycled fibers or sustainably managed forests. This statement is misleading though. According to the law only 10% of the fibers used for producing paper has to come from forests that are certified with ‘a sustainable forest management’, which means that 90% does not meet such criteria.

The EU has to admit that there is a problem with its labeling system. (The Guardian)

Ellen De Medts