Environmental Affairs Council

Why The Business and Environmental Lobby Can’t Just Get Along - Case Study: Senate Bill 1313 (Corbett)

Having worked for both Republicans and Democrats throughout the years I think I have a good understanding of how they think and what motivates them to action.  And with many friends, colleagues and business associates in the environmental community and the business community I think I can fairly sum up each of their points of view.

When you get past the partisan extremes and the name calling – Greenwashing or Job Killers anyone? – two basic points of view remain.  From the business community the mantra is “just give me some level of certainty, time to implement the change and spread the cost over the widest possible base.”  From the environmental community it is “we want to make sure the environment is protected, that people and animals are safe, and that there is an appropriate level of protection to ensure both.”

I think most every rational person can agree, if the concern of both sides as stated above was all that stood between stalemate and a solution to a legitimate problem, most of those legitimate problems could be solved and everyone except maybe the extremes could be satisfied.

Why won’t this happen?  The business lobby and the environmental lobby share several traits.  1) They both have to have a bogeyman to secure funds and maintain the reason for their continued existence. 2) Rationale voices are shouted down or remain mute in a highly contentious debate. And 3) They’re both greedy.

Case in point: California Senate Bill 1313 introduced by Senator Ellen Corbett is costly and duplicative as described by the California Chamber of Commerce, and doesn’t go far enough according to the Environmental Working Group.  The bill died once already in the Assembly Health Committee but was granted reconsideration and will be heard once more this coming Tuesday in that same Committee.  There are probably hundreds of bills each legislative session (introduced by Republicans and Democrats) that fit the same profile: important constituency has a problem, legislator needs publicity and help with his or her campaign, a piece of legislation is introduced, a conflict ensues and both sides fight the good fight.  Yes, there are winners and losers in this scenario but each side wins enough to keep it going until the next go round.

What’s the bill about?  It happens to be about a product that is already acknowledged to have environmental concerns, is already being phased out and already required by law to comply with a strict reporting regime.  So why is Senator Corbett pursuing the bill?  See above paragraph for your answer. 

How do I feel?  Well, no disrespect intended the author but the Governor might as well signal his intent to veto this bill right now and save everyone time and money.  A conclusion upon which most reasonable people would agree.  But then, where would that leave the Chamber and the EWG --- out of work.

Why The Business and Environmental Lobby Can’t Just Get Along - Case Study: Senate Bill 1313 (Corbett)

Having worked for both Republicans and Democrats throughout the years I think I have a good understanding of how they think and what motivates them to action.  And with many friends, colleagues and business associates in the environmental community and the business community I think I can fairly sum up each of their points of view.

When you get past the partisan extremes and the name calling – Greenwashing or Job Killers anyone? – two basic points of view remain.  From the business community the mantra is “just give me some level of certainty, time to implement the change and spread the cost over the widest possible base.”  From the environmental community it is “we want to make sure the environment is protected, that people and animals are safe, and that there is an appropriate level of protection to ensure both.”

I think most every rational person can agree, if the concern of both sides as stated above was all that stood between stalemate and a solution to a legitimate problem, most of those legitimate problems could be solved and everyone except maybe the extremes could be satisfied.

Why won’t this happen?  The business lobby and the environmental lobby share several traits.  1) They both have to have a bogeyman to secure funds and maintain the reason for their continued existence. 2) Rationale voices are shouted down or remain mute in a highly contentious debate. And 3) They’re both greedy.

Case in point: California Senate Bill 1313 introduced by Senator Ellen Corbett is costly and duplicative as described by the California Chamber of Commerce, and doesn’t go far enough according to the Environmental Working Group.  The bill died once already in the Assembly Health Committee but was granted reconsideration and will be heard once more this coming Tuesday in that same Committee.  There are probably hundreds of bills each legislative session (introduced by Republicans and Democrats) that fit the same profile: important constituency has a problem, legislator needs publicity and help with his or her campaign, a piece of legislation is introduced, a conflict ensues and both sides fight the good fight.  Yes, there are winners and losers in this scenario but each side wins enough to keep it going until the next go round.

What’s the bill about?  It happens to be about a product that is already acknowledged to have environmental concerns, is already being phased out and already required by law to comply with a strict reporting regime.  So why is Senator Corbett pursuing the bill?  See above paragraph for your answer. 

How do I feel?  Well, no disrespect intended the author but the Governor might as well signal his intent to veto this bill right now and save everyone time and money.  A conclusion upon which most reasonable people would agree.  But then, where would that leave the Chamber and the EWG --- out of work.

EAC Vindicated!

Ahead of the Bell: Whole Foods' wild antitrust ride
By CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER AP Business Writer
© 2008 The Associated Press
WASHINGTON — There is no antitrust express lane for Whole Foods Market Inc., which is again facing a regulatory challenge to its purchase of rival Wild Oats.

The U.S. government, in an unusual move, will ask an appeals court Wednesday to stop Whole Foods' takeover of Wild Oats, even though the deal closed last year.

The Federal Trade Commission tried to block Whole Foods' acquisition of Boulder, Colo.-based Wild Oats after the transaction was announced last February, arguing that it would stifle competition and harm consumers.

But a federal judge rejected the agency's request in August and Whole Foods and Wild Oats closed the deal later that month. Antitrust regulators usually throw in the towel after the courts allow a deal to go forward, because acquisitions can be difficult to unwind.

In this case, however, the FTC is continuing the fight. The agency argues that the companies haven't yet finished combining their operations and Whole Foods hasn't closed all the Wild Oats stores it plans to close. The entire process could take up to two years, the agency said in court papers, which cited recent Whole Foods filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Whole Foods has sold 35 Wild Oats stores and closed 12, leaving 62 stores in operation, according to its first quarter earnings release in February. The company also said it reduced the number of employees at Wild Oats headquarters from 87 to 56.

Austin, Texas-based Whole Foods operated 194 stores before the acquisition.
As a result, the FTC said it still has time to order the combined company to sell stores or other assets to protect competition. The FTC would have to begin additional legal proceedings to take such a step.

"It's highly unusual for the commission" to appeal at this stage, said Joseph Krauss, a former antitrust official at the FTC and antitrust lawyer at Hogan & Hartson.

The agency asked the same appeals court in August to delay the closing of Whole Foods' acquisition pending the outcome of its appeal, but the court refused. Antitrust experts have said that makes it less likely the court will rule in the agency's favor now.

The FTC said in court papers that the district court applied an improper legal standard when it denied the agency's request to bar the acquisition.

The FTC and lawyers representing Whole Foods will argue the case before a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Wednesday at 9:30 a.m. EDT.

Whole Foods' lawyers argued in court filings that the government's appeal is moot because the acquisition is a done deal.

The government's efforts to block the transaction last year spurred Whole Foods' chief executive, John Mackey, to criticize the agency in a long post on the company's blog. E-mails Mackey sent to his board, arguing that the purchase of Wild Oats would avoid "nasty price wars," became part of the agency's case against the deal.

Kate Lowery, a spokeswoman for Whole Foods, said Tuesday that the district court "drew the correct conclusion" in August when it declined to halt the transaction.

"Our customers have enjoyed nothing but benefits since the two operations have joined together," she said.

I've Gotten A Lot Of Interesting Mail & Articles Forwarded, But This Has to Be One of the Most Interesting...

    New York Post

PAPER BAGS: ROACH CITY

By JEFF STIER

April 16, 2008 -- GET your plastic grocery bags while you can. By Earth Day, that is, Tuesday, the national chain Whole Foods Market will no longer offer shoppers plastic bags - leaving consumers who don't want reusable canvas bags one choice: paper.

Unfortunately, paper has its own drawbacks, such as: it's preferred by cockroaches - like those contributing to New York City's asthma epidemic.

Like other Earth Day initiatives, this move by Whole Foods reeks of a phenomenon known as "greenwashing" - when companies make lofty claims in an effort to profit from "environmentally concerned" shoppers.

Whole Foods insists that the decision to take away the plastic option is wildly popular with consumers. When pressed on why consumers would be happy about having fewer choices, Whole Foods spokeswoman Kate Lowery insists that the "emphasis is on reusable canvas bags." Why not let customers have the choice?

The company claims on its Web site that it isn't "trying to settle the 'paper vs. plastic' debate." But by no longer offering plastic, it sure sounds like Whole Foods has chosen paper.

Unfortunately, so have cockroaches.

Entymologists, including Coby Schal of North Carolina State University, have observed that cockroaches prefer paper to plastic. 

"They really like to live in the creases found in paper bags," said Schal, the nation's top expert on cockroaches. Many cockroach species chew into paper bags to lay their eggs - something they don't do with plastic.

This is a problem beyond just the yuck factor. Darryl Zeldin, a senior scientist with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, says: "Cockroaches significantly increase asthma symptoms in allergic individuals. And while a third of inner-city residents are cockroach-sensitive, sensitivity to cockroach exposure is widespread in our nation - not just in the inner cities."

If Whole Foods' "green" move starts a trend among food stores, it may contribute to New York's asthma epidemic.

It gets worse. The move flies in the face of the enviro mantra to "reduce, reuse and recycle" - in that order. Almost everyone keeps a stash of plastic bags. We reuse them to line garbage cans, bring lunch to work and clean up after the dog - try doing that with paper. 

Plastic bags are easier to reuse and more efficient to recycle than paper. In fact, starting this summer, New York City will require large stores to offer shoppers recycling bins. (Maybe the city's overbearing emphasis on public health resulted in something positive, this time.)

That makes a lot more environmental sense than San Francisco's governmental greenwash: an outright plastic-bag ban. If you are worried about the environment, reusing plastic bags is a better choice than paper bags, which rarely get reused.

Too many mindlessly follow green initiatives and bask in how good it feels - without recognizing the unintended consequences. Magicians Penn and Teller have a video posted on YouTube in which hundreds of naive greens at a rally happily sign a petition to ban a "chemical found in reservoirs and lakes" and used in pesticides and nuclear energy that is finding its way into grocery stores and baby food.

The chemical the people signing the petition want banned? Dihydrogen monoxide - water.

Blindly following environmental extremists might make you feel good, but there is a dark side. Recall the millions of unnecessary malaria deaths that have resulted from Rachel Carson's "green" effort to ban DDT. Next time you are asked "paper or plastic," do something the water-petition-signers didn't do. Think.

Jeff Stier is an associate director of the American Council on Science and Health.

Whole Foods Reponse to Protestors at The WF Annual Meeting

So many people have responded to the EAC FTC complaint I thought I would post a few of the responses over the next few days.  One of my favorite responses is this video posted on YouTube, click here for a perspective on the "real" Whole Foods.

April 12 Whole Foods Protests A Success! Who's Next?

Taxpayer, consumer, student, and environmental groups in more than twenty five cities around the U.S. today stood up to corporate greenwasher Whole Foods markets.  Joining with the protesters were organizations like Lew Uhler's National Tax Limitation Committee http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/04/prweb853984.htm (see flyer below).

Whole Foods has made a mockery of Earth Day with this transparent greenwashing campaign to eliminate plastic bags -- using it as a marketing platform to advance their environmental "cred".   EAC and others plan to continue to hold them accountable -- as well as any other organization or corporation using the cover of "green" to advance their corporate objectives.

EAC welcomes a Whole Foods reply, and will post it on this site.  While we wait for that reply, EAC and its allies will look for other examples of greenwashing that we can expose either at the FTC, or any other appropriate regulatory agency or legislative body.  I encourage you to forward any other examples of corporate greenwashing.  Contact me at steve@enviroaffairscouncil.org with your tips and ideas.

See more pictures in front of the Austin, TX HQ below...

Corporate Greenwashing: Whole Foods and Plastic Bags

Corporate Greenwashing: Whole Foods and Plastic Bags

As the environmental movement has grown, so has public interest in conservation. As a result, many American businesses have become eco-friendly. Some, however, have only sought to look environmentally conscious, a phenomenon called "greenwashing."

The latest example of environmental correctness involves plastic bags. Originally created as an inexpensive and environmentally friendly tool for shoppers worldwide, plastic bags have been a consumer godsend. But of late they have been attacked for allegedly destroying the environment.

In the name of promoting conservation, governments from China to San Francisco have banned use of the humble plastic bag. This campaign has been supported by environmentalists, who often put recycling before any other consideration. Like it or not, consumers are to be forced to use paper sacks or cloth bags. Even worse, companies have begun to jump on the anti-plastic bag bandwagon.

Duro Bag Manufacturing Co., a leading maker of paper sacks, naturally is promoting its product as an alternative to plastic. And earlier this year the Whole Foods supermarket chain launched a well-publicized program to phase out plastic bags, to be replaced by Duro-supplied paper products. In fact, the image of "paper good, plastic bad" does not fit reality. After all, plastic bags also can be recycled, and today are turned into such products as decks and fences. Plastic recycling is not yet as widespread as paper programs, but ever more companies and communities are participating. Moreover, the ultimate form of recycling is reuse, and is there an American who does not reuse plastic bags? They are perfect as trash bags, informal lunch boxes, and low-tech pet pooper scoopers.

Plastic bags hold trinkets and nails with equal success. Plastic bags are superior to paper sacks in another way. They are less wasteful to make and dispose of. Plastic bags win on almost every measure. With energy prices on the rise conservation is a must, and the production of plastic bags consumes roughly 40 percent less energy. They are primarily made of natural gas rather than petroleum.

Paper bags flunk at the other end of the process as well: making them yields five times as much solid waste and 50 times as much water pollution. Moreover, plastic bags generate far less greenhouse gas emissions--60 less than uncomposted paper bags and 80 percent less than composted paper bags.

Then there’s the disposal of any bags that don’t get recycled. Plastic bags are better for landfills because they take up much less room. Of course, paper sack makers argue that their goods decompose over time. That’s true in theory, but often not in practice.

Today’s landfills are constructed to be stable and dry. As a result, paper deteriorates only very slowly, if at all. Indeed, researchers digging into four-decade-old dumps were able to read the newspapers they found. But the greatest irony is that we would still have to chop down a lot of trees even if everyone switched to recycled paper bags.

Duro and Whole Foods want consumers to believe that new paper sacks use only old materials: the latter talks about its bags being made of "100% recycled paper." But this isn’t really true. The Duro bags, like most other "recycled" paper sacks, include only about 40 percent "post consumer" paper. The rest comes from industrial scrap, which normally is used elsewhere in the manufacturing process.

Recycling or not, virgin paper will continue to be an important part of the production of paper goods. This obviously isn’t the first time that image has trumped reality, with a company stretching the truth to make a buck. But the federal government prohibits false and misleading advertising. What could be more false and misleading than telling the public that your product is more eco-friendly than it really is?

Indeed, today my organization filed a false advertising complaint against Whole Foods before the Federal Trade Commission. It is bad enough to mislead environmentally conscious consumers. But in doing so Whole Foods is promoting a product, paper sacks, which actually is worse for the environment. Moreover, in advancing its own financial interest, the company is harming plastic bag manufacturers, falsely denigrating their product.

Consumers obviously have the right to use paper rather than plastic bags. But they should not be misled into doing so by companies in full greenwashing mode. Bags should be used by customers to carry their purchases, not used by companies to pull over consumers’ eyes.

I am anxious to hear your opinion. Email me at steve@enviroaffairscouncil.org

EAC Calls for FTC Investigation Into Whole Foods

Download eac_letter_complaint_exhibits.pdf

Environmental Affairs Council
3053 Freeport Blvd., Box 216 Sacramento, CA 95818-4346
Phone (916) 601-2805 ▪ Steve@enviroaffairscouncil.org ▪ http://www.enviroaffairscouncil.org  

---

April 10, 2008 - For Immediate Release

Environmental Affairs Council
http://www.enviroaffairscouncil.org 

Doreen Muzzi: Media Contact
Phone: (916) 601-2805

 

ENVIROS to FTC: Stop Whole Foods’ Greenwashing

As Earth Day Nears, Enviro Group Holds Corporation Accountable

for Deceptive Marketing Practices

 

Sacramento, CA - The Environmental Affairs Council, acting on behalf of the public interest, filed an action today with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) urging the Commission to investigate Whole Foods’ environmental marketing claims surrounding its paper grocery bags.

 

“Whole Foods Market, Inc. is up to its old tricks again,” said Steve Hamilton, president of the Environmental Affairs Council. “The company is engaged in a comprehensive marketing scheme involving false, misleading, and unsubstantiated claims about the environmental benefits of the paper grocery bags it distributes to consumers. It is “greenwash” at its worst. The complaint filed with the FTC speaks for itself, and I encourage others to look into these practices,” 

 

Whole Foods directly and by implication claims, without appropriate scientific support, that shopping at Whole Foods—as opposed to other supermarkets—is better for the environment, because Whole Foods provides only “100% recycled” paper grocery bags and has phased out plastic bags. This paper vs. plastic debate is a serious, complicated, and unsettled scientific issue undeserving of such simple and deceptive treatment. Whole Foods further compounds and supports this scheme by falsely identifying the recycled content of its paper shopping bags. 

 

By embarking on its false and unsubstantiated anti-plastic publicity stunt, Whole Foods is seeking to boost its profit margin and enhance its manufactured image as an environmentally friendly corporation. Whole Foods’ publicity stunt is yet another example of a purportedly environmentally friendly corporation “Greenwashing” the general public by deceiving consumers about the environmental benefits of its products. Whole Foods’ self-serving marketing scheme is being advanced at the expense of consumers, the environment, and truthful scientific debate.

 

Whole Foods’ faux-enviro initiative is being supported (by paper bag manufacturers such as Duro Bag Manufacturing Co., Whole Foods’ paper bag manufacturing partner and the largest paper grocery bag manufacturer in the U.S. Paper bag manufacturers such as Duro have a significant financial stake in ensuring that paper bags are promoted at the expense of plastic bags, regardless of whether that result is achieved by deceiving consumers and harming the environment.

 

A copy of the FTC complaint and supporting documentation is posted on the Environmental Affairs Council website at:

 

www.enviroaffairscouncil.org.

 

###

Congratulations to Karen Bass ... Make That "Speaker Karen Bass"

I am proud to say that the California State Assembly has elected an outstanding new Speaker. 

Her name is Karen Bass, she is from the 47^th Assembly District in Los Angeles and I believe she is a very strong choice. There is always a lot of competition and tough maneuvering in fights like this, and it is a tribute to Karen that she is the winner. 

She is tough and smart and I think ready to lead. I also think she will also have a good chance to bring all sides to the table. She will also work with Assembly Republicans and Gov. Schwarzenegger and now that the state is facing a major budget crisis, this is important as well.

Please wish Karen well!

The Candidates and the Environment

The environment is already a big issue in this year’s presidential election, and I think it’s going to be even more prominent as we get close to election day. I am not going to endorse or favor any candidate. I used to do a lot of professional politics, but now I am dedicated to a different world, and I could not be happier to do it.

Here are some links to where the major candidates stand on the issues. A link to Sen. Clinton’s record from her Senate website, the same for Sen. Obama and then a page from Sen. McCain.

I encourage readers to click on the links and draw their own conclusions. We will be making these issues more in the forefront than ever, and I believe it’s going to be an important conversation.

I do not know what will happen in the elections in November, and my thoughts are on the issues. If there’s one thing I have come to learn it is this very important fact … the very important issues and the very big ideas outlast any candidate and any campaign. Decades from now, we will still be dealing with environmental issues and quality of life discussions. Decades from now, the political careers of McCain, Clinton and Obama will be over or coming to an end. Think about that.

Message to the Stockton City Council

Last night, I spoke before the Stockton City Council's regular Tuesday night meeting.  My remarks -- which I've posted below -- should serve as a loud and clear statement that the issue of eminent domain abuse is not going away.

The controversy surrounding Caltrans' proposed widening of Highway 99 right through a vulnerable Stockton neighborhood is also not going away.  This plan is wrong, and I do not believe the people are going to stand for it.

Here's what I said last night to the City Council.  Stay tuned for more about this vital issue.

Remarks By Steve Hamilton -- Stockton City Council -- August 7, 2007

My name is Steve Hamilton, and I’m the President of the Environmental Affairs Council based in Sacramento.

The Council’s mission is to ensure the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin or income with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental rules, regulations and policies.

Throughout the San Joaquin Valley there are many injustices that must be addressed with regard to land use policy.

I am here this evening to make sure you are aware of one such instance of the environmental injustice being perpetrated on some of your constituents by Caltrans’ abuse of the eminent domain process.

Caltrans intends to widen Hwy 99, and from what I could gather from publicly available information, has proposed three options.

I personally visited this area, and spoke to concerned residents. They are hardworking people who play by the rules and live their lives with quiet dignity.

People shouldn’t lose their homes in the name of Martin Luther King, and Option #2 is for those opposed to his legacy.

I understand the Stockton City Council will play a role in the environmental review process, and I strongly encourage you to oppose Caltrans Option #2; Martin Luther King would never have wanted it this way.

I encourage you to visit my website for more information: www.enviroaffairscouncil.org.

 

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.