BRANDS | PRODUCTS | ORGANISATIONS | WEBSITES | CODES

Biodegradable plastic bags
Clean Coal
Free Range Eggs
Nuclear Energy as a solution to Climate Change
Recyclable Plastics
Socially Responsible Investment (SRI)

THE GREENWASH
Some Australian supermarkets have started using plastic bags that claim to be environmentally friendly and/or biodegradable. Many stores have decreased the gross weight of each plastic bag and consequently label them "environmentally friendly" because they result in less material than before going to landfill. Other stores have started stamping "degradable plastic bag" on their plastic bags lending the term degradable to mean that the bag will eventually break down into smaller bits of plastic. The truth is that none of these bags are made from biodegradable materials that readily break down into organic matter.

WHAT DOES BIODEGRADABLE MEAN?:
The term biodegradable means that a substance is able to be broken down into simpler substances by the activities of living organisms, and therefore is unlikely to persist in the environment. There are many different standards used to measure biodegradability, with each country having its own. The requirements range from 90 per cent to 60 per cent decomposition of the product within 60 to 180 days of being placed in a standard composting environment.

The reason traditional plastics are not biodegradable is because their long polymer molecules are too large and too tightly bonded together to be broken apart and assimilated by decomposer organisms. However, plastics based on natural plant polymers derived from wheat or corn starch have molecules that are readily attacked and broken down by microbes.

THE REAL THING
The worlds first fully certified 100% biodegradable 100% compostable plastic bag is Biobag made by BioFilm in Australia who are part of the international group Polar Gruppen. You can distinguish it from regular plastic bags by the different feel and appearance, the Biofilm brand, and the certification symbols on the bag:

THE REAL ALTERNATIVE
A government report, The Impact of Degradable Plastic Bags in Australia, found that there is probably little benefit obtained by using biodegradable plastics if you dispose of them to landfill. This is because microorganisms cannot survive the dry, oxygen-deprived conditions normally found in landfills in Australia. While biodegradable plastics are better to use than regular plastics, the real alternative is reducing, re-using and recycling. Don't accept disposable bags, take your own bag shopping.
back to top

THE GREENWASH
Coal is a highly polluting energy source. It emits much more carbon per unit of energy than oil, and natural gas. CO2 represents the major portion of greenhouse gases. It is, therefore, one of the leading contributors to climate change. From mine to sky, from extraction to combustion - coal pollutes every step of the way. The huge environmental and social costs associated with coal usage make it an expensive option for developing countries. From acid drainage from coal mines, polluting rivers and streams, to the release of mercury and other toxins when it is burned, as well as climate-destroying gases and fine particulates that wreak havoc on human health, COAL is unquestionably, a DIRTY BUSINESS.

It is a major contributor to climate change. It is the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel, emitting 29% more than oil, 80% more carbon dioxide (the main driver of climate change) per unit of energy than gas.

Mercury is a particular problem. According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), mercury and its compounds are highly toxic and pose a 'global environmental threat to humans and wildlife.' Coal-fired power and heat production are the largest single source of atmospheric mercury emissions. There are no commercially available technologies to prevent mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants.

'Clean coal' is the industry's attempt to 'clean up' its dirty image - the industry's greenwash buzzword. It is not a new type of coal.'Clean coal' technology (CCT) refers to technologies intended to reduce pollution. But no coal-fired power plants are truly 'clean'. 'Clean coal' methods only move pollutants from one waste stream to another which are then still released into the environment. Any time coal is burnt, contaminants are released and they have to go somewhere. They can be released via the fly ash, the gaseous air emissions, water outflow or the ash left at the bottom after burning. Ultimately, they still end up polluting the environment.

Despite over 10 years of research and $5.2 billion of investment in the US alone, scientists are still unable to make coal clean. The Australian government spends A$0.5 million annually to promote Australia's 'clean coal' to the Asia Pacific region. 'Clean coal' technologies are expensive and do nothing to mitigate the environmental effects of coal mining or the devastating effects of global warming. Furthermore, clean coal research risks diverting investment away from renewable energy, which is available to reduce greenhouse gas emissions now.

The first CCT programs were set up in the late 1980s in response to concerns over acid rain. The programs focused on reducing emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO2) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX), the primary causes of acid rain. Now the elusive promise of 'clean coal' technology is being used to promote coal as an energy source.

THE REAL THING
'Clean coal' is an attempt by the coal industry to try and make itself relevant in the age of renewables. Existing CCTs do nothing to mitigate the environmental effects of coal mining or the devastating effects of global warming. Coal is the dirtiest fuel there is and belongs in the past. Much higher emission cuts can be made using currently available natural gas, wind and modern biomass that are already in widespread use and are clean and relatively inexpensive. This is where investment should be directed, rather than squandering valuable resources on a dirty dinosaur. Greenpeace

back to top

THE GREENWASH
Despite all the pretty pictures on those egg cartons in the supermarket with happy hens roaming lush green paddocks, Australia's free range is not a happy place. Many of Australia's major producers run properties with mixed systems: hens laying in cages, as well as in barns, and free-range set-ups, however eggs produced in either system can end up labelled "free range". In fact, with the current high demand for free-range, and the over-production of eggs from barns and cages, thousands of eggs produced on purely caged hen farms are being falsely labelled 'free range' and sold for premium prices.

Ivy Inwood is widely regarded as the Queen of Australia's free-range industry, respected even by those who disagree with her. With her husband Roy, she runs Country Range Farming, with 100,000 hens split into flocks across five organic properties in Queensland.She says she's seen it happen with caged eggs, and has sources that say it occurs with barn-laid as well.

Phil Westwood, an independent auditor who does work for the Australian Egg Corporation Limited believes along with Ivy Wood that around half of the eggs labelled "free range" in Australia are in fact not. With no legal definition of what "free range" actually means, even farmers who are knowingly using the label in a misleading way can do so without fear of prosecution. Phil describes the worst case scenario that he has come across himself: "there are some farms that we understand that go around some of the Farmers' Markets in particular, that have virtually no chooks. They might have 20 chooks or so, but they're selling hundreds of dozens of eggs each week, and they're just buying them from the local cage farm, packaging them, and going along to Farmers' Markets and passing them off as free-range eggs and selling them for $6 or $8 a dozen."

THE REAL THING
Only buy eggs that are produced under an accreditation system ensuring regular independent auditing. The Free Range Farmers Association have created a label that members are allowed to use after farms have been inspected by an appointed Independent Inspector to ensure that all management practices are appropriate to the concept of free-range egg production as defined by the organisation (their standards are publicly available and cover rearing of chicks and egg production). An example of a FRFA accredited farm that goes beyond just making sure the hens are happy and uses comprehensive sustainable farming methods is Freeranger Farm. Organic and Biodynamic certification bodies such as NASAA and ACO require hens to be raised "free range" according to the definition if the State in which they are produced (there is no standard in Australia) as well as their own standards of animal welfare which are vigorous and require that animals are not inhibited from living out their natural health conditions and social lives.

THE REAL ALTERNATIVE
If you've got the time and space to rear healthy happy chickens you can have guaranteed free range eggs in your own back yard. If not, get to know a local small scale farm with free range eggs from who you can buy and be sure of the animals treatment by seeing it first hand. Or you can always go Vegan and substitute eggs with non-animal alternatives.
back to top

THE GREENWASH
The Australian federal government is in the midst of an almighty push to convince the public that nuclear power is a "clean" energy source and a the primary solution for reducing Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. As the Australian Conservation Foundation say, if nuclear is the answer, then the question must be pretty stupid.

The major environmental concerns regarding nuclear energy include the lack of storage and disposal options for radioactive waste, the threat to the environment from malfunctions and waste transportation, and the damage wrought by uranium mining. This is not to mention the fact that it is the aboriginal people of this country who bare the brunt of these decisions that often involve sacred sites, traditional and inhabited land. The uranium industry in Australia has a long history of disregarding Indigenous rights, from Jabiluka to the latest waste dump proposals in the Northern Territory.

That's just the tip of the ice burg. If you really want to consider the pros and cons of a nuclear Australia, there is the issue of economic viability, availability of uranium deposits, and the impact nuclear power would in fact have on reducing the impact of climate change. Makes you wonder why they don't just use cheaper, readily available renewable energies such as wind and solar energy. Hmmm. So here are some facts from Energy Science, an independent non-governmental organisation established as a collaboration of concerned scientists, engineers and policy experts to present information to people on the issue of sustainable energy:

•nuclear power is at best a very partial, problematic and unnecessary response to climate change
•a doubling of nuclear power would reduce global greenhouse emissions by about 5%, a much larger nuclear expansion program would pose enormous proliferation and security risks, and it would run up against the problem of limited known conventional uranium reserves.
• the nuclear industry comes with the serious hazards of civil nuclear programs - the repeatedly demonstrated contribution of civil nuclear programs to weapons proliferation, intractable waste management problems, and the risk of serious accidents.
• there is an availability of a plethora of clean energy options - renewable energy sources plus energy efficiency - which, combined, can meet energy demand and sharply reduce greenhouse emissions.
• compared to most renewable energy sources and to energy efficiency measures, nuclear power produces more greenhouse emissions per unit energy produced or saved, in addition to its legacy of nuclear waste and the weapons proliferation risks.

THE GREENWASH
Just because a plastic bottle or other packaging type has a the little triangle recycling code on it does not mean that it's going to be recycled. Most plastics can be recycled, but due to the difficulty in collecting, sorting, cleaning and reprocessing, at present it is only economically viable to recycle three types of plastic from domestic sources in Victoria.

Code 1, PET (e.g., soft drink bottles)
Code 2, HDPE (e.g., milk and juice bottles)
Code 3, vinyl (V) (e.g., juice and cordial bottles)

THE REAL THING
Local councils send out a brochure letting you know what can be placed in recycling bins to be recycled. Ask your local council if you don't have one on hand. Look for code 1, 2 or 3 plastics when buying things in plastic packaging such as drinks.

THE REAL ALTERNATIVE
Avoid buying things in plastic packaging. Go for natural materials that can be recycled or re-used such as glass, wood or (recycled) cardboard. Even better, shop at bulk stores and markets where you can buy things without any packaging at all. Even the recycling processes uses energy to make old materials into new packaging. No packaging is the most sustainable option.
back to top

THE GREENWASH
Ethical or socially responsible investment (SRI) is the practice of consciously selecting investments in activities which will serve the common good. It allows people to ensure their savings and superannuation aren't being used to support companies whose activities harm society and the environment.

But while more people are turning towards investing their super and savings with an ethical fund manager, note that not all ethical fund managers are the same. SRI fund managers differ in the ways that they screen potential investments. Most SRI fund managers will apply a negative screen, which means they aim to avoid investment in certain industries. They could have a broad range of industries which they exclude or it could be just one or two. So while your SRI investment may exclude arms manufacture, it may still include uranium mining. Furthermore, Ethical investments often include banks in their portfolio that have no policy on where they invest your money.

The point is, just because a fund manager claims to have an ethical investment option it doesn't mean their investment process will align with your own ethical and environmental attitudes. Have a look at some of the corporations included in some funds marketed as socially responsible and ethical in 2007!:

AMP:
BHP Billiton (Uranium Mining)
Aust Mining Investments
Dyno Nobel
Iluka Resources
Roc Oil Company
Woodside Petroleum
Coles-Myer
NewsCorp
Great Southern Plantations (Logging of Old Growth Forests)
Alchemia

Ausbil Dexia:
Petro Canada
Ford
Deere
General Motors
Asahi Breweries
Anhauser Busch
Transalta
Colgate-Palmolive
Adidas

BIAM:
Petro Canada
Harley Davidson
BMW
Honda
Nestle
Pepsi
Walmart

Fat Prophets:
BHP Billiton
Rio Tinto
Lihir Gold
Perseverance
Newcrest Mining
Meteoric Resources
Aust Worldwide Exploration
Oil Search
Woolworths
Telstra
The big 4 banks

THE REAL THING
Instead of negative screening, SRI fund managers may use positive screening. This actively seeks to identify and support beneficial ventures. Australian Ethical Investment uses both negative and positive screening and is generally considered to have a highly rigorous approach to ethical investment. It avoids the broadest range of areas and is one of the few fund managers to actively seek beneficial investments. As such Australian Ethical's portfolio is dominated by companies in areas such as renewable energy, recycling, water conservation, organic food, alternative transport, education and healthcare.
back to top