RE: Joel Makower’s blog – “Can General Motors Save the Planet?”
Original blog post: http://makower.typepad.com/joel_makower/
All right, so I know this guy is supposed to be something of a green business guru, but I’m going to have to be more than the devil’s advocate in responding to this post, and even disagree with his congratulating GM on its “bold move”.
Basically, Chevrolet announced recently that it would invest $40M in purchasing 8M tonnes of carbon offsets. Joel himself acknowledges that the action of buying offsets itself pretty much represents the epitome of seizing the “low-hanging fruit” as they say, and furthermore, that this action is a move typically seen somewhat as greenwashing. However he argues that given the circumstances of GM’s delicate financial position, the fact that their first big move after their rescue was an environmentally-minded one says something extremely significant of the motives of the company. He further states that the funds from these offsets are proposed by GM to spur clean energy projects in the US, as referenced from GM’s VP of Marketing, Joel Ewanwick, and some other general feel-good stuff.
Now, you could say to me that, referencing my earlier blog re: Andrew Souvaliotis, the argument could be made that GM is using their heft and reach to do something good for the masses. However, I counter that with two main points, and the overall conclusion that this is likely a case of straight up greenwashing.
1. Though they are using their heft to make a big accomplishment, GM is not using it to change consumer demand or habits.
- GM is not at all affecting the American consumer’s mindset or purchasing habits. And as we’ve seen through the Air Miles example, it is possible for a company to benefit and profit from changing people’s purchasing habits to ones that promote a widespread sustainability awareness en masse. What GM is doing does not attempt to make lasting change using its business as a vehicle (no pun intended – I realize my blog has quite a few of them) – if it was, they would be investing at least in projects specifically relevant to their industry.
2. GM is motivated to take the heat off of its actual environmentally-minded product offerings.
- Namely, the Chevy Volt, has come under criticism as to whether firstly, it can be classified as an electric car or a hybrid (apparently GM gave the impression it was a purely electric engine which created a lot of hype when it actually wasn’t – debatable as to whether that’s really an issue). Secondly, the actual miles per gallon of the Volt are being debated. Though GM apparently released a number of 40 (from the battery separate from when the gas kicks in), there has been speculation pointing to lower numbers (around 32*). In addition, there is further debate as to whether mpg is even a good measure of the performance of a vehicle whose focus is environmental – there are other things to consider, such as carbon footprint, as this article states: http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/autos/chevy-volt-mpg-rating/19574322/). Apparently the third party regulator for cars in the States, the Environmental Protection Agency, is still coming up with the actual rules for these types of vehicles, so currently, there is no standard of minimum mpg for electric or hybrid cars that consumers can compare to. Therefore, it’s in GM’s best interests not to draw any attention to the fact that they have no real third-party verification for whether the Volt’s mileage is legit for an electric vehicle.
Therefore, my overall conclusions about this blog post and GM’s recent decision do include the fact that GM does see environmental action as high on its priority list. However, purchasing a bunch of offsets is definitely the easiest and least authentic way to take on this mandate, and, as Joel Makower suggests, timing of this decision is everything. The fact that they choose now to invest in an-overly obvious green endeavour when their environmental offerings possibly aren’t taking off as well as they ought to is very interesting. Furthermore, there’s the fact that, being GM and bloody huge, they have the opportunity to just do so much more. Going for this “quick win” in my opinion, doesn’t make a statement about a long-term commitment to sustainability as Makower suggests, but in fact makes this action look extremely reactive, and further, makes GM look like it doesn’t even have confidence in its own environmental initiatives.
In summary, then this is greenwashing at its finest.
Not even an electric hybrid will get you a slicker parallel park job.
