An astute letter to the editor led me to go back and read a Feb. 9 San Francisco Chronicle article featuring this choice quote from a UC Berkeley spokesman: “We sacrificed clarity and detail for the sake of brevity.”

When I stopped laughing, it occurred to me that the problem is far more widespread than the university’s statements about a controversial personnel matter. Companies making green and sustainability claims—and even advocacy organizations pushing policies—are often guilty of the same communications crime. And consumers and watchdogs are increasingly seeing through it: four out of five scoring criteria for the Greenwashing Index relate to lack of clarity or detail with intent to mislead.

Where there is intent to mislead, the malefactors deserve our derision. The sad thing is, often there is no such intent—just a poor understanding of what makes communications credible. Organizations may mistakenly assume that everyone knows the background, so they can use shorthand. They may be so sold on the excellence of their product or program that they fail to realize that others need proof points. They may lack clarity themselves on the foundation for their claims. They may believe the false notion that slogans are sufficient to persuade. But whatever the real reason behind their communications vagueness, they’ll be perceived as misleaders.

The upshot: never sacrifice clarity or essential details for anything.

I’ve been unable to shake my dumbfounded reaction to this ad headline: “Sustainability is our standard for measuring CO2 reduction.”

Huh?

The half-page, full-color ad in the New York Times gets even better: “One Canon energy-saving technology has reduced CO2 emissions by an estimated 8.4 million tons, enough to melt more than 13 million cubic meters of ice.” (There’s a big photo of a glacier in Patagonia.)

Leaving aside the nonsensical writing (How can sustainability be a standard? How does reducing emissions melt ice, and why would you want to?), this ad points up two key sins of greenwashing.

The first is a lack of relevant information. Emissions reductions (or any measure, for that matter) need context to be meaningful and credible. How do the reductions compare to Canon’s overall emissions? What is the per-unit reduction as a percentage? Also, Canon says their emissions reductions are increasing every year, but that could be because Canon is producing more machines, and so has more emissions to reduce.

The second sin combines obfuscation with drawing a picture of cause-and-effect where none quite exists—Canon implies that its CO2 emissions reductions have (or could have) saved 13 million cubic meters of glacier. Most people are confused enough about the mechanics of climate change and its effects without corporate marketers adding to their puzzlement.

“Recent polls in the United States and Britain show that the public remains substantially divided and confused over what is happening and what to do,” writes Times reporter Andrew Revkin in today’s Dot Earth post. He notes that experts on the media and risk believe this may lead to “public disengagement with the climate issue, just as experts as saying ever more forcefully that sustained attention and action are needed to limit the worst risks.”

Canon’s advertisement isn’t only contributing to “green noise,” it’s also hiding the company’s legitimate claims. And that’s too bad: a visit to their website revealed (with much investigation) that Canon has made progress in a number of areas.