For the second time in almost as many months I have managed to get myself blindsided by a talk radio host.

As you can imagine I am now feeling suitably sheepish, not least because this is up there with getting outwitted by a tea towel in terms of intellectual embarrassment, but also because the best definition of stupidity we've got is an inability to learn from one's mistakes.

Still, in my defence, it was Monday morning and when the researcher for BBC Three Counties Radio rung up to ask if I'd be available to talk about Tesco's plans to put carbon labels on some of its products I had no reason to be suspicious.

She said the show's host, Jonathan Vernon-Smith, wanted a view on how the scheme could work and whether consumers would see it as a case of the supermarket jumping on the green bandwagon, which all sounded fair enough (although, in retrospect the alarm bells should of sounded when she signed off with the words, "try to enjoy it").

What followed was straight out of the talk radio host handbook: leading questions, incredulous tone, refusal to accept any of the positives to be found in the scheme, all culminating in a rather long-winded rant.

I was asked why anyone really wants to see carbon data on products, why supermarkets are trying to make people feel guilty, and why Tesco wants to do something that is only going to confuse customers, "just like the traffic light fiasco" surrounding food labels (that'll be the fiasco of improved nutrition labelling that most supermarkets report has led to a decline in sales of the most unhealthy foods, then).

My attempts to defend the scheme - which is after all only a pilot and is on balance likely to prove beneficial - only served to prompt a slightly bizarre rant in which Vernon-Smith asked, I can only assume rhetorically, "who has the time to start checking the carbon count of products? Who really has the time? Not me that's for sure."

Well, erm, thanks for that.

Now, I know I've posted on this before - after I found myself trying to debate the case for curbing carbon emissions on LBC Radio with people who think global warming will be a good thing because they'll be able to grow oranges and lemons in their garden - but what are you supposed to do when faced with these types of questions and the environmental scepticism they embody.

Last time, I think I espoused ignoring them, on the grounds that the point of view of the questioner - climate change scepticism, wilful ignorance of the global warming threats, refusal to countenance new green technologies even where they bring huge benefits – is  essentially based on a series of beliefs rather than facts and consequently it is almost impossible to change their mind.

But now I'm not so sure. Of course, it makes sense from a marketing and communications perspective for businesses to target the receptive audience offered by the new breed of green consumers. But at the same time green products will only go mainstream if the entrenched hostility towards green issues embodied by the talk radio hosts is challenged and defeated.

So how do you go about beating them at their own game? Where is the nuclear option that stop's the next "yeah, but" rejoinder dead in its tracks?

I'm pretty sure losing your temper and pointing out to the green cynics that they are just plain wrong is not the answer (although it is a tempting option), just as I would never advocate any sort of censorship to force such opinions from the media spotlight. So what do you do?

So far all I've come up with is to try and ensure you have facts at your disposal that counter the anti-environmental argument, to always focus on the positive benefits green products and services can deliver, and to try to explain that principles of risk mitigation mean that at the very least green measures represent a sensible precaution.

This all makes sense and is equally good advice for any firm putting together a green campaign as it is for individuals stuck talking to climate sceptics. But I'm sure you'll agree it isn't the most impressive rhetorical arsenal when you are faced with an adversary armed with the far more potent weapons of knee-jerk hostility and an only passing acquaintance with the concept of logic.

What all this is leading to is an unashamed plea for help. If you have any ideas on how best to engage with those who are convinced all green business activity is a case of hype, or conspiracy, or both, then please put the answer on the back of a postcard (or at the bottom in the comments box – it's greener).

It's either that or I'm going to have to get used to be outmanoeuvred by tea towels, which, as you can imagine, is a less than attractive prospect.

Posted by James Murray on April 28, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (3)

One of the more intriguing aspects of investigating green companies is trying to work out the extent to which they are different to conventional firms.

There are two schools of thought.

The first argues that green firms represent a completely different way of doing business, requiring different priorities, different skill sets, different management techniques, different managers and even a different understanding of what a business is and does.

The alternative view, and the one I generally ascribe to, is that green businesses are not really different to conventional firms at all. They follow the same business principles that have always existed, it is just they are the ones adapting fastest to the changing social, political and economic landscape around them. So old-fashioned business rules governing risk mitigation and cost control explain the focus on cutting energy use, while entrepreneurial nous and the ability to spot a gap in the market explains investment in developing new green products.

However, while the business principles that define green and conventional firms are much the same there are still differences to be detected in their operational approaches, and perhaps the most important of these is found in their differing sales strategy.

I recently met with Simon Francis, vice president for energy solutions at PC management software outfit 1E, who was convincing in his argument that firms selling green products to business customers needed to develop a whole new sales approach if they are to find a receptive audience.

"If you've got any sort of green message you need to get higher up the management chain than your traditional market," he argued. "Green products of any type need to be pitched at the highest level possible."

It is a lesson Francis claims 1E has learnt with its automated PC turn off system Nightwatchman, which it now frequently pitches at CEOs and CSR officers rather than its traditional target customers in the IT department.

It's not that IT managers aren't interested in the technology and the energy savings it promises, he claims, it's just that their priorities are more likely to lie elsewhere or they are reluctant to assign their budget to a product that tends to deliver the bulk of its cost savings to the facilities department.

In contrast, the CEO cares about the overall budget and increasingly cares about the environmental implications of energy saving measures, making him or her a far more receptive target for the sales pitch.

It is a model that can be applied to any number of green products and services: a green car company is better off targeting a CEO than the fleet director who will have to deal with any staff disgruntled at getting a less powerful company car; a salesman for energy efficient air conditioning systems will probably find the COO provides a more receptive audience than a cash-strapped facilities manager balking at the prospect of a sizable upgrade project; while a green energy firm is better off talking to the managing director about risk mitigation and marketing opportunities than a finance director or energy manager who can't see beyond the raw cost implications.

The simple fact is that green products tend to deliver benefits that stretch far beyond the departments that procure them and as such sales staff need to get beyond the operational managers who, through no fault of their own, tend to have more immediate concerns on their mind.

Of course, getting access to those in the upper echelons of the corporate hierarchy will test any sales team's mettle. But then again, when it comes to green products the more senior the exec you pitch to the higher the chances of success.

Posted by James Murray on February 14, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (1)

So polar bears are passé, apparently. Snow scenes are soporific and interest in ice floes is melting as fast as the ice floes themselves.

That is the view of picture agency Getty Images, which this week unveiled a major new report suggesting that the conventional images used in firms' green marketing campaigns are fast becoming "visual clichés" that are resonating less and less with customers.

You have to agree it has a point.

The visual language used to communicate green marketing campaigns in general and climate change initiatives in particular have become staid and repetitive to the point of boredom. To the list of images that should be removed forthwith from the corporate marketing armoury I'd like to add melting glaciers, belching smokestacks and generic tropical rainforests. Any power these images once had has diminished in direct proportion to their ubquitous familiarity.

In many ways it is surprising they have retained an impact for as long as they have. Few people have seen a polar bear, even fewer have seen an ice flow, and as such marrying the climate change message with such exotic imagery was always a high risk strategy that would ultimately alienate much of the audience.

But if it is time to put the polar bear's out to pasture, or wherever it is aged polar bears go, then what should advertisers replace them with?

It is a tricky question and one advertisers and marketers need to answer quickly if they are to avoid further alienating an audience that is already showing some signs of green fatigue.

The answer lies in reconnecting the issue back to the customer. One of the reasons that action on climate change is still so limited is that it is too big and broad a topic for most people to get their head round, a sense only amplified by the use of alien and exotic imagery. If firms want to promote their climate change strategies they have to show what such strategies, or their absence, means for the customer.

In this context floods, famine, droughts and changes to local wildlife are all more powerful warning symbols than the polar bear. Better still, images of green jobs and green technologies provide a far more positive visual backdrop for any corporate climate change strategy.

Moreover, if climate change is too big and scary a topic for customers to comprehend then firms need to find a way to promote their environmental credentials that ties them in with other issues.

This week's survey of Co-op members found that customers are prioritising ethical trading, animal welfare and smaller scale environmental concerns such as packaging over climate change. What is interesting about the findings is that while consumers bury their heads in the sand over climate change sizeable numbers are concerned over issues that relate to global warming.

As Co-op chief executive Peter Marks pointed out fair trade and climate change are inexorably linked when you consider that climate change will disproportionately impact developing economies. Make this connection and carbon reductions become part of a company’s ethical positioning.

Equally, animal welfare can be protected as much through attempts to protect habitats as through ethical farming policies, while reducing packaging cuts carbon emissions as well as waste.

There are plenty of images out there to replace the poor old polar bear and revitalise green marketing messages. It just requires a bit of imagination and a desire to educate the customer about the real, local impacts of both climate change and greener business models.

Posted by James Murray on February 7, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (1)

It was the US businessman John Wanamaker who is reputed to have first observed that "half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half".

But that was back around the turn of the Twentieth Century and it looks like the old adage may have become a bit outdated for this cynical Millennium.

According to a new survey from BT of 600 UK consumers, just three per cent of customers think businesses are honest about their actions regarding what they are doing to become more environmentally or socially responsible.

That means every time your company releases a green ad or constructs a green marketing message just three out of every 100 customers believe you. The rest think that at best you are exaggerating your green record and at worst you are telling outright lies. Forget half your ad budget being wasted, it looks like it is all being flushed straight down the pan.

Advertisers and marketing professionals will, of course, find ways to downplay the implications of BT's poll. They will argue, with no little justification, that green marketing can prove hugely effective if it is done properly and insist that in an increasingly cynical age customers may not believe every claim they hear but that does not stop ads proving highly effective at raising brand awareness and creating a "feel good" factor around a product.

But deep down they must be worried about the sheer scale of the breakdown in trust between company and customer. There has to be a fear that some hardnosed finance director is going to look at the number of customers scoffing at companies' green marketing claims and ask why they are bothering to waste their breath.

Like a philandering husband or a scandal-rocked politician, the green marketing community needs to urgently restore trust if it is to survive. The problem is how it should go about doing this.

The recommendation from most green communication experts can be summed up in two words: stop fibbing.

It is hard to claim customers are being unreasonably cynical about green marketing claims when within days of the BT survey being released the Advertising Standards Authority slammed the Malaysian Palm Oil Council for having the nerve to claim in an advert that its palm oil was "sustainable" and reprimanded BA for an email to customers that claimed the proposed third runway at Heathrow will make it easier for planes to get a landing slot and cut annual emissions by 330,000 tonnes, but which forgot to mention that the extra flights will result in an overall increase in emissions of 2.6m tonnes.

Eradicating such misleading messaging would of course help restore some customer trust, and it goes without saying that it is critically important for all marketing departments to do their upmost to ensure green claims are verifiable, accurate and placed in their proper context. But it strikes that any company attempting to tackle the problem of "greenwash", as it has become known, has to do far more than simply ensure that the lawyers and advertising watchdogs are happy.

Just as the breakdown in trust between politicians and voters has as much to do with MPs mealy-mouthed tendency to evade questions as it does with the still relatively rare occasions when they are caught telling outright lies, consumers' lack of faith in green ads is caused as much by a sense they are being spun as by glaring factual inaccuracies.

Late last year I met with Antony Young who works as director of security and services at IT distributor Bell Micro. As a distributor of IT kit Bell has an interesting insight into the activities of both the manufacturers pushing new green technologies and the retailers and resellers who actually have to sell the stuff.

Young's view was that despite all the hype from the global IT giants about greener, more energy efficient systems demand for the technology had largely disappointed thus far. He attributed this to "snow-blindness" amongst customers who had become jaded by the sheer number of green marketing messages emanating from IT companies.

It's an analysis that will sound worryingly familiar to countless other sectors. It's not that you could accuse any of the IT companies' individual green marketing campaigns of being inaccurate or untrustworthy or misleading, it's just that there were so many of them that customers assumed vendors were just jumping on the bandwagon. Sadly, good green adverts and campaigns that could never be described as greenwash were still regarded as such by cynical customers.

The only answer to this problem is for marketing professionals to display a characteristic that hardly comes naturally to them: restraint.

As the green marketing sector matures, businesses will have to learn that inundating customers with messaging every time they launch a new product or service that is fractionally greener than the previous version will only prove counter productive in the long run.

As Young observes, companies would be advised to "keep their powder dry" for the green products and services that really outperform the rest of the market, rather than waste precious marketing capital on yet another offset scheme or fractionally more energy efficient system that offers nothing new to jaded customers.

It is extremely difficult to display such restraint, particularly when businesses are increasingly excited about their environmental initiatives and keen to show them off to a growing band of environmentally conscious customers. But resisting the temptation to trumpet every green initiative from the rooftop may ultimately help restore trust in environmental claims and ensure that customers greet the really big and meaningful green announcements with more than just a weary shrug of the shoulders.

Posted by James Murray on January 9, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Yesterday, I posted on the importance of ensuring your company's green message is delivered through a green medium.

A point ably demonstrated by the good folk in the Mercedes-Benz press department and their woefully daft decision to snail mail a press release and a photo to journalists to promote its new wind turbine.

Well, perhaps they could learn a thing or two from their counterparts at US energy giant Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), who last month decided to promote the company's green energy investments using, wait for it, a solar powered billboard.

In a word: genius.

Posted by James Murray on December 6, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0)

I know a journalist moaning about the world of public relations hardly constitutes news, but sometimes you just can't help it.

This morning an envelope appeared on my desk containing a two page press release (two sheets of one-sided printing) telling me that Mercedes-Benz has just installed a wind turbine at its site in Milton Keynes. It was accompanied by a colour photo of said turbine.

Now, I'd like to be the first to congratulate Mercedes-Benz on this excellent green initiative, but am I the only person that finds their means of communicating it a trifle strange?

Have they not heard of email? What is wrong with double sided printing? What exactly am I supposed to do with the photo? Frame it and put it on my desk.

I feel a bit mean pointing this out - after all the company is investing heavily in an indisputably green technology and it is a bit unfair to focus on two sheets of paper when the turbine will generate enough green energy to power a 20 person office.

But it is still hard to imagine what possessed the PR team behind the press release to send out a green announcement using the most carbon intensive and wasteful means they could find.

The world of green business has opened up a whole new line of attack for marketing and PR departments everywhere, but it comes with risks and the need to marry green content with the appropriate communication medium has never been more important. You wouldn't promote a green initiative by hiring a plane to write about it in the sky, so why put it on a paper press release?

The paperless office may still be decades away and I am as guilty as the next man when it comes to occassionally wasteful behaviour, but if you are going to tell people that your company is going green then cutting down on paper use and using electronic documents wherever possible is one of the simplest things you can do to create the impression that you are walking the green walk.

Posted by James Murray on December 5, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Firms investing in green initiatives are likely to attain competitive advantage through improved customer and employee retention, according to a major new global survey of almost 17,000 people.

The survey from polling organisation Ipsos MORI questioned members of the public across 15 major markets found that over half said they prefer to buy products and services from companies with good environmental reputations, while almost eight out of 10 claim they want to work for "environmentally ethical" organisations.

Rick Snyder, Americas president at video conferencing technology specialist Tandberg, which commissioned the survey, said the results proved that firms that invest in greener business models can gain a competitive advantage.

"It is clear that a company’s green credentials impact employee and customer retention," he said. "And in the long term that can help determine competitive advantage."

The survey also found limited variation in attitudes towards green brands across different economic groups, countries and age groups.

"We expected attitudes to vary a lot, but while there were some differences across different countries, overall support for greener business models was fairly constant across all groups," said Snyder. "It means that customers for green products are everywhere and anywhere."

The report did not assess the extent to which a preference for green suppliers and employers is translating directly into improved retention rates, but Snyder maintained that there was little doubt people's positive attitude towards green brands was informing their purchasing and employment decisions.

"Because the idea of green brands is still relatively new we don’t have quantitive evidence that shows how much financial value you get from green initiatives," he explained. "However, those companies that are running green campaigns are seeing huge engagement from employees and in the coming years they will begin to more clearly see competitive advantage in the form of improved staff and customer retention rates."

Posted by James Murray on October 8, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (1)

Museums and tourist attractions have a key role to play in educating the public about climate change, but according to Christine Ervin many are failing to take up the challenge

On September 9, the Oregonian headlined its Sunday edition with a story about the Greenland ice sheet melting much faster than scientists had predicted. The well-crafted story found the news "...particularly unsettling because elaborate climate models that scientists use to estimate the effects of global warming did not foresee it."

While many scientists had been warning that such acceleration could be underway and that we were entering unchartered waters, it's true that recent observations on different kinds of ice loss have not yet worked their way into global peer-reviewed models. Such is the nature of peer-reviewed science and the hazards in communicating such complexities.

The good news about stories like this -- if there's good to be had in such dismal news -- is that many media are not only giving more ink to climate change but they've also dropped the obligatory quotes that, for too long, fed the illusion of a raging debate in the scientific community. The bad news is that such stories risk creating a sense of futility -- either with the science itself or in agreeing on solutions that match the scale of the challenge.

That's deadly serious because, despite encouraging polls and myriad climate initiatives, there remains a yawning chasm between general awareness and sustained actions. Moreover, too many still perceive climate change as smacking of advocacy or political ideology, or at the least, distant from their own sphere of influence.

That reality became crystal clear in recent trips to Maui and Alaska this year.

More than 2 million people visit Maui each year. Most are drawn to activities enabled by the island's gorgeous marine ecosystem, with whale watching, snorkeling and various beach activities dominating "must do" lists of attractions. That ecosystem is hardly immune from the effects of a changing climate-from bleaching coral reefs to unstable krill populations in Alaskan waters needed to fatten the humpback whales before they seek shelter in Maui waters to mate and calve.

But two popular and respected attractions, often featured on eco-tourism tours, typify all-too-common obstacles in venues that would be particularly effective in translating abstract notions of climate change to the very attractions drawing visitors.

The Pacific Whale Foundation is a highly-respected nonprofit founded in 1980 to educate the public about whales, dolphins, coral reefs and the marine environment. Most tourists know the Foundation for its popular Eco-Adventures cruises out of Lahaina, featuring trained naturalists on board their catamarans. It's a fantastic way to enjoy the humpbacks while supporting an organisation dedicated to their protection. In its own operations, they were an early adopter of biodiesel for their vessels and vans and now offer cash incentives to staff for low-carbon transportation. The challenge is connecting climate change to their tourism curriculum. On my second tour with them in April, for example, I asked the naturalist about the effect of climate change on the marine environment. While concerned about possible linkages, she regretted not being knowledgeable enough to offer insights; and that of her 70 or so tours, this was the first time anyone had asked.

Thirty minutes from the Lahaina harbor, 400,000 visitors tour the Maui Ocean Center each year. This state-of-the-art facility, encompassing a slew of interactive displays, outdoor pools and an impressive 750,000-gallon open ocean exhibit holding more than 2,000 fish, takes seriously its role of being the only facility in the world dedicated to fostering "understanding, wonder and respect for Hawaii's marine life." It also helps sponsor some of the Whale Foundation's research programs.

Like the Foundation, it hasn't yet made the connection between climate change and its educational mission with the public. In fact, when I asked a volunteer, not a staff member, about the climate connection, he picked up the microphone and cracked a joke to 100 or more visitors milling about the 360 degree acrylic tunnel about not seeing any icebergs in Hawaiian waters these days. Back on the mainland, I spoke with the Center's general manager who was disappointed with the volunteer's response but went on to explain the Center's dilemma in not having experts on a topic that still seemed saddled with mixed reports. Their response, for the time being, was to view the Center as an inappropriate place to discuss climate change.

Jump 2,800 miles north to Alaska. Here, too, stunning ecosystems are the prime calling card for tourists each year with glaciers heading most "to do" lists. One popular destination is just 30 miles out of Anchorage, the Begich, Boggs Visitor Center run by the US Forest Service at Portage Glacier. We often had family picnics there in my childhood, and I well recall the small icebergs dotting the waters with ice cream-cone shaped mountains beyond.

Today, the Visitor Center sits on a moraine, while the glacier itself has receded out of sight from the observation decks. Tour boats charge $25 to ferry tourists out to its shrinking foot.

Inside, well-designed interactive displays and theatres lead visitors through a changing landscape and talk of "catastrophic" glacial retreats. Surely here, of all places, there would be explicit information on global warming. But, no.

These are far from isolated examples. In May, the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History was criticised for toning down their exhibit "Arctic: A Friend Acting Strangely" for political reasons. Spokesmen for the museum demurred, explaining that their role was "to present the facts but not advocate a particular point of view," and that atmospheric science was outside their expertise so they chose to avoid the issue of what is causing Arctic changes. Hence, amidst the powerful chronicles of Arctic residents explaining how their lives are changing, visitors are left with deafening silences on the obvious questions of causes and potential solutions being considered.

Still, there are encouraging signs. The Pacific Whale Foundation plans new climate curricula for its naturalists; the Maui Ocean Center is exploring how to best address climate issues in its outreach programs and lecture series. The Portage Glacier forest ranger I talked to was, at that very moment we talked, reading a book on the effect of climate change on Alaska's glaciers provided by the National Park Service. The Australian Museum Audience Research Centre in Sydney found in two on-line polls climate change to be the public's top priority for new exhibits and is now fostering dialogue about museums serving as trusted sources of knowledge for the public on such complex and timely issues. Indeed, the famed Science Museum in London, drawing millions of visitors each year, has tackled the whole gamut of issues in its "Climate Change: the Burning Issue" exhibit-ranging from scientific models to major "culprits" and Do-It-Yourself guides for individuals.

These are exactly the kind of steps needed to bring dialogue beyond the critical but "usual suspects" of political and advocacy forums to a wide array of venues that touch Americans in their working and leisurely pursuits. Just as we ask restaurants where they're getting their salmon to build demand for certified sustainable fish, we can start asking questions about climate change in any venue that has a natural stake in the issue to help bring climate change "home." Quickly.

This article first appeared at Greenbiz.com

Posted by James Murray on September 27, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0)

In a move that will send shivers down the spine of advertising execs the world over the Norwegian advertising watchdog has announced it is to ban the use of the words "green", "clean" and "environmentally-friendly" to describe cars on the grounds that "cars cannot do anything good for the environment except less damage than others".

The new rules will come into effect from October 15th with the threat of fines for those firms that continue to make excessive environmental claims for their cars.

The guidelines will also make it harder for manufacturers to compare the environmental performance of their cars, according to Reuters' reports.

Speaking to the news agency, Bente Oeverli of the Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman, said, "If someone says their car is more 'green' or 'environmentally friendly' than others then they would have to be able to document it in every aspect from production, to emissions, to energy use, to recycling".

Technically it is hard to argue with Norway's analysis - no car is truly green and even new electric cars have a carbon footprint. Moreover, the automotive industry has undoubtedly been guilty of considerable greenwash in the past and stringent advertising guidelines and tough policing are needed to stop manufacturers making excessive claims over the environmental credentials of their vehicles.

However, there is a danger that in developing such strict rules the authorities could inadvertently hamper development of more sustainable cars.

The primary driver behind the automotive industry's belated attempts to develop greener vehicles is not a concern over the welfare of the planet, but the fact that there is a growing demand for these vehicles.

Take away the opportunity to advertise this new generation of more fuel efficient vehicles as kinder to the environment and you potentially undermine that demand. Take away the demand and the biggest incentive for manufacturers to develop these types of vehicles also disappears. Why should manufacturers invest in developing a greener car than its rivals when it can't advertise that fact to its customers?

Norway's authorities may argue that proposed EU laws on improved fuel efficiency will force manufacturers to improve their environmental impact, but with their ability to advertise their green credentials curtailed where is the incentive for them to develop designs that go over and above the required EU standards?

That is not to say that you don't need rules to keep the greenwashers in check and it remains essential that all environmental claims made in adverts are independently verified. But effectively banning some of the most powerful words in the advertiser's lexicon seems a step to far. 

The one silver lining is that the decision by the Norwegian authorities could represent a timely warning shot to advertisers and marketing execs. The strict new rules have only been drawn up as a response to what the Consumer Ombudsman clearly regarded as excessive environmental claims from car manufacturers that it felt would mislead customers.

Firms advertising green products need to be fully aware that advertising watchdogs in all regions are keeping a very close eye on their claims. It may be tempting to overstate a product's environmental credentials but when doing so is only going to encourage yet more stringent regulations it is simply not worth the risk.

Posted by James Murray on September 14, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Rugby World Cup kicks off tonight amidst promises that it will be not just one of the biggest but also one of the greenest sporting events in history.

France's minister for the environment, Jean-Louis Borloo, has insisted the tournament will be as "ecolo" or as environmentally-sound as possible and has promised that "after the Sydney [Olympic] games, it will be the biggest ecologically responsible event of the planet".

To achieve this goal the organisers commissioned a carbon audit of the event from environmental energy agency ADEME, have launched a publicity campaign related to the event designed to encourage environmental awareness and have invested in a number of innovative green technologies and strategies that they hope will become the standard for large sporting events the world over.

Drainage systems designed to capture and recycle water used on the pitches have been installed, a major recycling programme has been put in place to cope with all the trash, and fair trade half-time snacks will be available for the more environmentally-conscious rugby fan.

Meanwhile, those tuning in to Scotland's showdown with Italy in Saint Etienne will surely be informed by one of those commentators with an penchant for bizarre statistics that there are 2,600 square metres of solar panels on the roof of the stadium.

The French government will also be keen to showcase its world-class high-speed railway network as the primary means of ferrying spectators around the country. Although it has to be said that EuroStar rather missed a trick when in the same week that it opened the new St Pancras terminal that will knock twenty minutes off of journey times to Paris the England rugby team flew out to defend their trophy from Heathrow.

The growing importance of green strategies for sporting events become obvious when you consider that despite the French organisers' best efforts the World Cup is expected to have a carbon footprint of around 570,000 tons, the same as the annual footprint of the whole of Western Samoa.

According to Reuters the matches should to "generate around 778 tons of stadium trash and soak up some 4.7 million kWh of electricity, the equivalent of leaving 73,000 60-watt light bulbs burning throughout the whole six-week tournament".

France's attempts to green the tournament may be lost on a committed fan more concerned about Jonny Wilkinson's ankle or the question of whether anyone can beat the All Blacks, but with sporting events arguably the biggest form of mass participation in a modern society it is encouraging to see organisers doing their bit to promote environmental best practices.

Posted by James Murray on September 7, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0)