Writers like Michael Eric Dyson and bell hooks have noted that as a response to the gains of the Civil Rights and Black Power movements, the entrenched white power structures made adjustments to hide institutional racism more effectively. Corporate boardrooms began including minorities in a token status and CEOs and their staff began attending multi-cultural sensitivity trainings. These tactics not only give the appearance of diversity, but it also benefits white power structures by limiting the public discussion about the very nature of what these structures do.
The current fad and strategy of power structures is to give the appearance that they care about the environment. Red flags should go up anytime we see of companies or other power structures saying that they have gone “green.” This trend towards labeling corporate or government practices as “green” can certainly be seen in Grand Rapids.
In recent years, the City of Grand Rapids has made some policy decisions that promote what are labeled as “green,” such as purchasing policies and construction of new buildings. The City’s website highlights the following: “Grand Rapids has more LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certified buildings than any city in the United States other than Seattle and the State’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has designated 8 Grand Rapids companies as Clean Corporate Citizens.” The City of Grand Rapids is also planning to produce 20% of its own energy with renewable resources by 2010.
So what’s the problem you ask? Well, there are several problems with the assumption that if something is labeled green that it should be uncritically embraced. First, we need to critically examine what is meant by “green.” On February 26, the Grand Rapids Press ran a story on the front page of the business section entitled “Lumber outlet becomes eco-connection for builders.” The story focuses on local builders and lumber companies that are committed to “green building.” There is that label again. The article says that the wood sold by the area lumber company, called eco-connection products, have been certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). Unfortunately, nowhere in the story does the reporter provide any information on who the FSC is.
According to the World Rainforest Movement, FSC has a history of certifying companies that either take land from indigenous/local communities or grow trees on plantations of mono-crop species. Tree plantations are designed to raise fast growing trees in the same way that agribusiness might grow corn. Mono-crop tree farms are not forests, since a forest by definition is biologically diverse with multiple species of trees, plant and animal life. Just because a company designates their product as “green” doesn’t mean that it is environmentally sustainable…
A second problem with embracing anything that is labeled as a “green” product or policy is that it creates a narrow filter for which to view these products. Let’s imagine that a nuclear weapons manufacturer built a new building that was LEED certified and used 40% less energy to run the factory than its old one. Next, the company decides that it will only use recycled paper for its office use, will not allow Styrofoam cups in the break-room, and even purchases Fair Trade coffee for staff consumption. Sounds pretty wonderful and sustainable. Oh yeah, they make NUCLEAR BOMBS! If one follows this uncritical labeling of things “green” one could technically have “green” concentration camps. Now, I know this is an exaggeration, but I use it to get us to not simply accept the idea that if something is labeled “green” that it is good. This is the point that I was making at the beginning of the article about institutional racism. You can dress it up all you want, but institutional racism is still racism.
Several years ago, I remember a news story where a Texaco executive was reprimanded for calling an African American, who was a fellow executive, a “black jelly bean.” There was a tremendous media uproar about this comment, but no reporter stopped to think that Texaco’s oil extraction practices were not only bad for poor people of color around the globe, it was bad for the environment. The lesson of this story is, your company can engage in racist and environmentally destructive practices around the world all it wants, just don’t use derogatory words.
The problem of labeling practices “green” becomes even more complicated when environmental organizations get behind it. There is a coalition of business and environmental groups in the area known as the West Michigan Sustainable Business Forum. The forum states, “Our goal is to encourage the adoption and implementation of sustainable development business practices aimed at improving corporate profitability while simultaneously enhancing the long-term health of the environment.” Now, I don’t know about you, but it seems to me that that the interest of corporate profitability comes before the idea of environmental health. This is a debate that hasn’t received enough attention…can for-profit driven entities co-exist with a vibrant, health ecology?
The West Michigan Sustainable Business Forum is a program of the West Michigan Environmental Action Council. One of the resources online is a “Concise Self-Assessment Guide to Environmentally Sustainable Commerce.” Some of the participating companies in this document are Amway, Crystal Flash, General Motors of Grand Rapids, Louis Padnos Iron and Metal Company, and Wolverine Worldwide just to name a few. I don’t think I need to point out what is problematic about Amway, so I won’t. Crystal Flash traffics in petroleum and that is just not environmentally friendly. GM in a sense does the same as Crystal Flash, not to mention that the methods used in mining the resources necessary to make cars has a tendency to mess with the planet. Louis Padnos Iron and Metal Company? Visit one of their scrap metal yards off Wealthy Street just west of the Grand River and tell me if what you see seems like sustainable commerce. Lastly, Wolverine Worldwide has huge contracts to make footwear for the US military. Does that mean that since the US military uses “green” products we should designate them an eco-friendly entity?
For the most part, I am just trying to get us all to think critically about this “green” phenomenon. In addition, I think we need to question these practices when we encounter them. We cannot assume that governments, corporations, and even non-profit organizations are acting in the best interests of the people or the planet. Every April 22nd we celebrate what is designated as Earth Day. Let’s use this year’s celebration as an opportunity to be eco-warriors and eco-activists. We have all have an opportunity to not only challenge so-called “green” practices, but an obligation to do so if we want to resist the current ecological destruction that is happening right now, right in front of us…even if that destruction has a “green” label on it.
Jeff Smith is with the Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy. He can be reached at jsmith AT mediamouse.org.

