It seems like everything has “gone green” these days. From retailers to celebrities, airlines to hotels, banks to even runway fashion, the environment is sexy in the marketplace for the first time. But is all the publicity really helping Mother Nature? When consumers are being “greeenwashed” in their attempt to fit into a petite size footprint, there is a serious problem-the status quo.

Greenwashing, like whitewashing, masks inconvenient truths about the sustainability of products and services. By appearing to be environmentally sensitive, companies are earning billions in “green” revenue. Meanwhile, consumers are misled in their attempts to live green, unknowingly contributing further to planetary destruction.

“It’s greenwashing when a company or organization spends more time and money claiming to be ‘green,’ through advertising and marketing, than actually implementing business practices that minimize environmental impact,” says theGreenwashing Index, a web site that rates the authenticity of companies’ and products’ eco-friendliness.

And the sad reality is most green products out there are bogus. Exactly 98% of products that claim green labels in the market place are greenwashed, says a report by the TerraChoice Environmental Marketing in April. The company says there are seven eco-sins that companies commit, including: misleading consumers about the environmental benefits of a product or the practices of a company; hidden trade offs, for example, energy efficiency versus the production of hazardous chemicals; and vagueness, such as using terms like “green,” “eco-friendly,” and “natural.” Does a naturally-occurring substance like formaldehyde conjure up ideas of eco-consciousness for you?

One example of a greenwashing company is Shell. Shell Canada is currently providing grant money for up to $100,000 towards four major initiatives that improve and preserve the Canadian environment, and $10,000 grants to grassroots, action-oriented projects. And in its ad campaigns, Shell promotes itself as sustainable and eco-friendly. Is this true? Is Shell becoming a business leader in our ecologically pivotal time?

I think not. Shell is spending billions to be the lead company in the business of dirty and unconventional oil with the Alberta Tar Sands. That helps to extend our dependency on fossil fuels and contributes to the most destructive and greenhouse gas-intensive method of oil extraction on earth. The Tar Sands produces 40 million tonnes of CO₂ emissions annually for Canada through this project. Such projects make it impossible for us to meet any significant global climate agreement, like Kyoto, and probably Copenhagen.

However, there is an immune response to all this consumer corruption. Today, there are a number of groups that work as third parties in environmental labelling, such as EcoLogo, Energy Star or Green Seal. There are science-based marketing firms that assist in transforming companies to the ‘green path,’ like TerraChoice. And there are numerous references and indexes for the every-day consumer in verifying the genuine nature of a product, like Greenpeace’s Electronics Report andGreenwashingIndex.com.

But with this surge of green-labelling – including some companies that mimic third-party environmental certifications, such as HP’s Eco Highlights products – it’s no wonder why so many of us are still in the dark about greenwashing. Perhaps, as Treehugger.com argues, we need a universal eco-labelling system to make it easier for consumers to really go green.

Or perhaps we need to get our heads out of our greenwashing asses. Making change involves getting smarter. We cannot keep expecting someone else to do it for us. Being informed as a consumer and human being in our choices is our responsibility. Relying on the other guys is what got us into the mess we are in. Like brainwashing, let’s take back our brains back – and leave the washing for cleaning our hybrid cars with biodegradable products.

On Friday, June 5, an estimated 600 Peruvian police officers opened fire on thousands of peaceful indigenous protesters blocking the destruction of their Amazon homeland on a road near Bagua in Peru. This joint police-military operation went awry when 30 protesters and 24 police offers were killed in one of the worst clashes in a decade, causing a war between the Peruvian government and Indigenous peoples.

For the past two months, over 30,000 Indigenous Peruvians have mounted fuel and transport blockades to disrupt the exploitation of the Amazon rainforest. They are working to block the advancement of free trade agreements that opens the Amazon and indigenous land for business with foreign investors. The trade agreement, specifically with Canada and America, seeks oil, minerals, timber, and agriculture, which will in effect devastate the greatest carbon sink on the planet, accelerating climate change.

“If anyone still had doubts about the true nature of these free trade agreements, the actions of the Peruvian government make it clear that they are really about putting foreign investment ahead of everything else, including the livelihoods — and even the lives — of indigenous people,” says Jamie Kneen, Communications and Outreach Coordinator forMiningWatch Canada.

Earlier this month, Peru’s president, Alan Garcia, said the indigenous protesters were standing in the way of progress, modernity, and were part of an international conspiracy to keep Peru impoverished with their blockades.

“Garcia seemed to imply the Natives were a band of terrorists as he stood in front of hundreds of military officers in a nationally televised speech,” says Ben Powless, a reporter from the frontlines with Rabble.ca.  “He continued to decry the Indian barbarity and savagery, and called for all police and military to stand against savagery.”

There are conflicting stories on the accounts of what took place on the June 5 bloodbath. Police dispatches claim that when they arrived to physically remove protesters, many officers were disarmed, killed, or taken prisoner by the protesters.

But indigenous people and families of missing protesters say that the police came looking for a fight. Police and military acted in a violent sweep, searching local towns and houses for protesters, shooting to kill.

A human rights lawyer in the region told the BBC that while 30 protesters have been officially proclaimed dead, hundreds still remain unaccounted for. Locals are accusing police of burning bodies, throwing them in the river from helicopters, and removing the wounded from hospitals to hide the real number of casualties.

Powless reports that a curfew has been imposed on the local towns near the area of Bagua and these Amazonian towns have become militarized. The government has begun persecuting and threatening jail for local indigenous leaders. And fear is growing that the government is trying to build support in further repressing the protesters.

“This is not a path to peace and reconciliation,” says Powless.

One Canadian company that will benefit directly from this rollback of indigenous rights is the Alberta-based petrochemical firm Petrolifera. The Peruvian government recently signed an agreement with Petrolifera to explore land inhabited by one of the world’s last uncontacted tribes, a blatant human rights violation for the purposes of enriching the tar sands development.

“Canada is the largest investor in Peru’s mining sector. If people are being killed on behalf of Canadian investors, to promote and protect investment projects on Indigenous land, then their blood is on our hands,” says MiningWatch Canada’s Kneen.

Last Wednesday, the Canadian Senate passed Bill C-24, which furthered the Canada-Peru free trade agreement by implementing legislation protecting it. Despite this bloody civil war for the Amazon and indigenous rights, the first bilateral agreement Canada has signed for the Americas since 2001 was approved, by the Conservatives and the Liberals. Prompting the question once again: whose interests are being looked after?