Corpobligation: Misleading ads can hurt not only the brand but distract from the efforts at improving sustainability.

Can civil society hold corporations accountable for greenwashing? If the current complaint against Nestlé Waters North America by Canadian environmental NGOs (Friends of the Earth Canada and Ecojustice along with the Polaris Institute, the Council of Canadians, and Wellington Water Watchers) succeeds, the answer will be yes!

The complaint cites a full-page advertisement that appeared in the Globe and Mail in October, which contained a series of statements, including that:

• “most water bottles avoid landfill sites and are recycled”;
• "bottled water is the most environmentally responsible consumer product in the world”; and,
• “Nestlé Pure Life is a Healthy, Eco-Friendly Choice”. 

The complaint is based on contraventions of the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards and new guidelines that have been set by Canada’s Competition Bureau and the Canadian Standards Association:

Corpobligation: Bottled water ban will reduce consumption and waste of plastic bottles. When your entire business flies in the face of rational resource consumption, what can a company do? Obfuscate, change, remedy damage...

• London, Ontario Council banned plastic bottled water sales at several city owned buildings (18/08/2008), and the list will expand to all city owned properties, except during festivals.

• Nestle seems to have decided to obfuscate about the benefits of drinking fountains and has tried to avoid discussion of the wasted energy inherent in plastic bottle, by instituting recycling plans. If this works, then corporate social responsibility will be damaged.
• Quote of the day: "Councillor Van Meerbergen: predicted Londoners won't let their kids drink from public fountains that are exposed to things as vile as urine. 'Most families are not going to encourage their children to lap up water from public fountains,' he said."

Corpobligation: While the carbon tax initiatives of the Quebec and British Columbia (BC) government are modest, they show the potential of tax shifting to discourage bad things (polluting/destructive) and encourage good things (innovation, sustainability). Carbon taxes (may) promote better CSR and environmental practices.

• Apply to virtually all fossil fuels, including gasoline, diesel, natural gas, coal, propane, and home heating fuel, making it among the broadest and most comprehensive in the world.
• Initial rate based on $10 per tonne of associated carbon, or carbon-equivalent, emissions and will rise by $5 a year for the next four years — reaching $30 per tonne by 2012.
• Carbon tax will be revenue neutral as a result of tax cuts and allowances to aid in adaptation.
• The proposed carbon tax is mostly for show, if we rely on narrow neoliberal economics (read more below).
  

Quebec's carbon tax :

• October 2007 - 200 million dollars a year, 1.2 billion dollars over 6 years, to support projects that will allow us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
• According to the CBC, The tax will amount to 0.8 cents on every litre of gas sold in Quebec, and 0.9 cents on each litre of diesel fuel.
  
• Oil companies will be hardest hit. They will pay about $69 million a year for gasoline, $36 million for diesel fuel, and $43 million for heating oil.

What, you need a bigger flat screen movie/entertainment display? We have a deal for you.

The Globe and Mail's, Grant Robertson highlights the growing presence of bigger TVs in both our homes and landfills. Falling prices on new flat panel, LCD, and plasma televisions illustrate the problems with an economic system that fails to internalize costs of resource use and waste disposal. What do you do with the TV after it's obsolete? Can we afford to recycle all of these TVs?