Filed under: News, Polit-eco, Activism

Is a person like this more likely to cut in front of you at the checkout line? Credit: Kathy Doucett, Flickr

Attention shoppers: The content of your bags may not reflect the content of your character.

While I’d like to say that earth-conscious shoppers are always honest, conscientious and charitable, a new study conducted by University of Toronto researchers Nina Mazar and Chen-Bo Zhong seems to suggest that just because you buy “fair trade,” it doesn’t mean you’re likely to play fair or seek a fair deal.

In fact, the research appears to indicate that those who practice seemingly righteous shopping habits may be hiding a wickedly self-righteous streak. Say it ain’t so!

The study (which has set off a chorus of ‘I told you so’s from those who’ve had their fill of smug Prius bumper stickers) was largely based on a series of online shopping experiments that showed green shoppers to be stingy, selfish and more likely to steal than their conventional counterparts.

According to the journal “Psychological Science,” these experiments centered around two fictitious and extremely similar online stores, one with nine green products and three conventional ones, the other with nine conventional products and three green ones.

In one experiment, subjects were first assigned to shop either the green online store or the conventional one. Then, they were asked to participate in an “unrelated” money-sharing exercise (no real money was exchanged in the experiments, btw) with a random and unidentified individual in another room.

Now, which group was the least likely to anonymously share with an anonymous stranger? The answer: The group of subjects who’d just purchased green products shared significantly less than the ones who’d shopped at the conventional store.

In another even more surprising experiment, subjects were sent to one of the online stores, just like before. Then, they were asked to participate in an exercise where they could earn $2.07 by identifying which side of their computer screen contained more dots. In each exercise, it was plainly obvious which side had more dots (15 vs. 5, 14 vs. 6, etc.).

Though the experiment advised them that accuracy was important for future research, participants quickly learned that they’re earnings would go up whether they chose correctly or not. At the end, they were instructed to take money from an envelope based on their corresponding score, giving them not only the opportunity to make money for incorrect answers, but also to take a little extra on top of that.

Guess what? The subjects who first shopped at the green store were more likely to be inaccurate in the dot game AND steal more money ($0.46) than they were instructed to by the computer. For shame!

Why the difference in behavior? The leading theories have to do with what is called “moral licensing.” In a nutshell, it’s the idea that making pro-social and ethical choices often allows people to feel justified in other self-indulgent and unethical behaviors … because of their “moral credentials.” For example, consider Al Gore’s mega-mansion.

It all kinda reminds me a little of those fake “At Least He Drive a Prius” ads from a few years ago.

Are Green Consumers More Likely to Lie and Cheat? originally appeared on Green Daily on Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:00:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Filed under: Activism, Alternative Energy, Climate Change

Watching the Olympics on Sunday night, I was shocked, amazed and dismayed to see a “clean coal” ad, apparently part of a new campaign to capitalize on recent political gains. Even more outrageous? The star of the ad, a personable young coal worker, made a connection between working in the coal industry and his brother serving overseas.

What does his brother, who is a soldier, have to do with clean coal? Oh, nothing. That was just another dirty emotional blackmail trick to try to make you think it’s patriotic to support strip mining, black lung and air pollution.

It’s bad enough that they are flat-out lying about clean coal. The technology does not exist, and if they can even figure out how to burn coal without the poisonous emissions, there is still the problem of how destructive it is to get it out of the ground. To drag our troops into it too? That’s just disgraceful.
As I have said many times (Gillian Caldwell, the head of 1Sky.org even used my line with President Obama!) clean coal is a Unicorn. A nifty idea but merely a figment of an energy company executive’s imagination.

Besides the dirty facts about burning coal — like greenhouse gases and mercury emissions — and the sad truth that the number of coal mining related jobs declines each year as the process is mechanized and automated, and that it’s still incredibly dangerous for the brave workers who descend into those shafts, there is the environmental devastation that comes from getting it out of the ground.

Mountain top removal is the “cost-effective” method of coal mining where you blow the top off a mountain (literally, with dynamite) to get to the coal seam underneath it. Negative impact includes deforestation, water pollution, and destruction of wildlife habitat. Even coal miners think it’s a bad idea!

I know we can’t just switch to solar, wind and geothermal power, but if we want to create jobs, protect the environment, reduce our global emissions, and create a sustainable energy system for future generations, it’s counter-productive to put any resources into the outdated and flawed coal industry.

And by the way: I have several family members in the service, who have done multiple tours of duty overseas. I support them wholeheartedly. And their service has nothing to do with clean coal! It’s offensive that the coal industry — or some manipulative shill at their ad agency — is trying ride on the coattails of their sacrifice to trick patriotic Americans into agreeing with a bad idea. During the Olympics! I can’t believe anyone was cynical enough to think it was a good idea to include that in the final cut of that ad!

To summarize: Alternative energy: yes. Clean coal: no. Our troops: seriously, don’t bring them into this.

Clean Coal Runs Manipulative Ads During the Olympics originally appeared on Green Daily on Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:05:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Filed under: Movies, TV and Books, Polit-eco, Activism

After 17 years of litigation, the $27 billion environmental law suit brought against Chevron by the people of Ecuador seems near a decision, and not in the energy giant’s favor.

That’s making Chevron panicky enough to say or do almost anything to try to get out of paying the huge fine, including making assertions against the Ecuadorian court system, the judge, and most recently that the court-appointed subject matter expert, is biased. This is despite the fact that Chevron insisted that the case be tried in Ecuador in the first place.

Back in October I reviewed the film “CRUDE“, a documentary about the environmental disaster and lawsuit. I was also lucky enough to sit down for an interview with the director, Joe Berlinger, and hear first hand from him about the Rhode Island-sized swath of Ecuador that was catastrophically polluted by oil exploration and drilling done between 1972 and 1990 by Texaco, which is now owned by Chevron.
The case against Texaco seems crystal clear when you watch “CRUDE“, which believe it or not, is fairly neutral and even-handed. The Chevron executives do an excellent job of digging their own graves, coming across as bad liars with an utter lack of morals.

Even Chevron admits the culpability of Texaco, but in the legal equivalent of throwing sand in the eyes of your opponent, they continue to attack the validity of the process. In this latest salvo, they’ve also declared that they won’t pay any fine levied by the Ecuadorian government, and that they want to bring in an international arbitrator.

That would be just fine with Steven Donziger, the American legal advisor to the Ecuadorians, who has the tenacity of a terrier. He’s quoted in the Huffington Post, saying “They’re losing the case based on the evidence, so they’re trying to fabricate issues to try to taint the image of the trial.” And he’s ready to have it tried in every country where Chevron has a presence.

Environmental activists and energy companies alike will continue to watch the progress of this case, which will certainly be held up as a precedent for all future environment responsibility suits. To learn more, put “CRUDE” on your Netflix!

Chevron Continues to Evade Responsibilities in Equador originally appeared on Green Daily on Fri, 12 Feb 2010 12:00:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments