As a media lit guy I think the one thing I can contribute to Earth Day is a warning that as companies “go green,” to be watchful of the kinds of images they use to hide or mask other activities. In particular an ad from a newspaper Website by Areva (a French nuclear power company) caught my attention. I clicked through and was intrigued by its fun hybrid of video game animation, info graphics and funky music. Immediately I thought of one of my favorite music videos by the band Royksopp (which I also posted above). Turns out they are done by the same animators, H5. Frankly it makes me nervous when nuclear power companies market their products as pop culture.
When you click around Areva’s Website, one things stands out: rather than forgrounding the product (nuclear power), instead they call themselves a clean energy company. This lines are their mission statement:
Innovate to contribute to CO2-free power generation and electricity transport that are cleaner, safer and more economic.
Sounds great. But is the above graphic, which shows the company’s energy distribution cycle, really the new paradigm that will change our lives? It still comes across as a centralized energy network with the consumer as the end user. I believe anti-television crusader Jerry Mander is correct when we assess the true implications of choosing nuclear power. It means a devil’s pact with a highly centralized, bureaucratized, military-industrial-complex. A renewable energy system is decentralized and is not dependent on a massive security apparatus or infrastructure delivery system predicated on scarcity. Areva uses graphics that put renewable energy on an equal footing with nuclear power, but do the size of graphic representations mean the same as actual input into the system?
As an alternative visual representation, consider the following graphic (click to make it bigger):
This is a systems representation from Permatopia derived from the concept of permaculture, which depicts a more interdependent relationship with all the factors of life.
When looking at the green claims of energy companies, you may want to consider the “Six Sins of Greenwashing“:
* Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off: e.g. “Energy-efficient” electronics that contain hazardous materials. 998 products and 57% of all environmental claims committed this Sin.
* Sin of No Proof: e.g. Shampoos claiming to be “certified organic,” but with no verifiable certification. 454 products and 26% of environmental claims committed this Sin.
* Sin of Vagueness: e.g. Products claiming to be 100% natural when many naturally-occurring substances are hazardous, like arsenic and formaldehyde (see appeal to nature). Seen in 196 products or 11% of environmental claims.
* Sin of Irrelevance: e.g. Products claiming to be CFC-free, even though CFCs were banned 20 years ago. This Sin was seen in 78 products and 4% of environmental claims.
* Sin of Fibbing: e.g. Products falsely claiming to be certified by an internationally recognized environmental standard like EcoLogo, Energy Star or Green Seal. Found in 10 products or less than 1% of environmental claims.
* Sin of Lesser of Two Evils: e.g. Organic cigarettes or “environmentally friendly” pesticides. This occurred in 17 products or 1% of environmental claims.
BTW, I have free media literacy materials that you can use to deconstruct industry messages. They are available here.
Finally, if you want to keep current on greenwashing, then visit PRWatch for its weekly spin report. Here is their video from the latest on PB.
PS Why is only one day a year dedicated to Earth? Just wondering.
I’ve really enjoyed your site over the last several months. I copied the image of the wheel to my desktop and now I wondered whether you knew where this image originated because I’d love to use it on my future Healing Tree website. Any help is very much appreciated! Be well.