Last month I was attending a luncheon, having a beer and engaging in polite conversation with those around me, when some smart-ass started in on me about how "alternative energy can't compete with coal and oil" and how "organic foods are just a scam."

Now, I can always combat these types of comments with hard evidence and real numbers. But what's the point?

It took me a while to realize it, mostly because I can be a bit hot-headed at times, but no matter what I say, those who are hostile towards anything related to "green" markets aren't looking to be swayed.

They're just looking to cloud the facts.

For energy and food consumers, this can be extremely frustrating. Let's face it: Few have the time to spend their days researching this stuff like we do.

But imagine how this affects investor confidence!

To give you an example of what I'm talking about, I could give you a laundry list of reasons why plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) could not only break our addition to foreign oil, but also enable consumers to spend less on transportation while cutting off funding to anti-western terrorist organizations.

But all it takes is that one asshole to shoot out a press release about how a temporary delay on some lithium-ion batteries is "proving" the weakness of the PHEV industry, and every bully blowhard on television, and every message board analyst jumps on the anti-PHEV bandwagon.

Although I have to say, as frustrating as it is to deal with this kind of blatant hostility and misinformation, it's the covert stuff that really gets my blood boiling.

Washing away the green

Greenwashing, which can best be described as the actions taken by corporations, governments, organizations or individuals to portray themselves as environmentally responsible in an effort to hide their environmental shortcomings, is something that every investor needs to be familiar with.

Why?

For the simple reason that greenwashing, in its attempts to confuse the public, also manipulates the information investors use to make important decisions.

For example, if you're an energy investor, and you're looking to put some of your money into clean energy, you have to first decide what makes energy clean.

The nuclear industry will be very quick to tell you how nuclear energy can help curb carbon emissions. And many even try to include nuclear in the long list of "clean energy" options.

But how clean is it really?

Sure, nuclear won't give you the same carbon emissions problem as coal. But ask the Japanese how they felt back in July when a radioactive leak from a nuclear power plant in Japan was 50 percent bigger than initially reported.

According to Tokyo Electric Power, about 400 barrels of low-level radioactive waste at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant were knocked over, and the lids had come off 40 of them after a 6.8-magnitude earthquake hit the coast on July 16.

Folks, this isn't clean, and it sure as hell ain't safe!

Though the pro-nuclear PR machine will try to convince you otherwise.

In fact, if you go to the World Nuclear Association's website, you'll find a section boasting the title, "A Superb Record of Nuclear Safety" in big, bold letters.

Here's an excerpt from that page . . .

Today, nuclear power plants have a superb safety record--both for plant workers and the public. In the transport of nuclear material, highly engineered containers--capable of withstanding enormous impact--are the industrial norm. More than 20,000 containers of spent fuel and high-level waste have been shipped safely over a total distance exceeding 30 million kilometres.

Wow. It's sure great to know that the transport of nuclear material is done using highly engineered containers that are capable of withstanding enormous impact.

I definitely know that the solar, wind and geothermal industries don't transport their nuclear material in these types of containers.

Of course, with solar, wind and geothermal . . . THERE IS NO NUCLEAR WASTE!

And radiation?

Well, the World Nuclear Association assures its readers that radiation is released naturally from the ground and atmosphere in all places on earth.

Are they really using this as an argument?

Better yet, they also seem to be pretty excited about the fact that "modern civilization produces huge quantities of industrial waste requiring careful treatment and disposal." But " . . . nuclear waste is comparatively tiny in amount and highly manageable." In fact, "The spent fuel produced yearly from all the world's reactors would fit inside a two-storey structure built on a basketball court."

Are you sold?

If you are, go ahead and let them put that mutant factory in your backyard!

Listen, nuclear power can't be considered clean, simply because it produces lethal radioactive waste that, no matter where you contain it, move it or store it, will be extremely dangerous for thousands of years.

And scientists still haven't found a permanent solution to get rid of this stuff safely.

It's just one temporary solution after the next.

And nuclear power can't be considered safe either. Not when all the towns surrounding a reactor need an evacuation plan.

Do we need such an evacuation plan for solar panels?

You know the answer to that one.

The auto industry's quite good at greenwashing too. Especially when it comes to the hybrid market.

Let's face it: green sells, and Toyota continues to make a killing with its Prius.

They're all over this!

In fact, one of the company's latest full-page newspaper ads shows an open road, a blue sky and huge green fields. There's also a line that reads: "Can we make a car that has zero emissions?"

Of course they can!

But they're not!

As I've said in these pages before, PHEVs exist. They work, they're safe, they're practical and they get the job done.

So why is it that Toyota is dragging its feet on getting these PHEVs into production? Or better yet, why do they continue to work against higher CAFE standards and California's law that would require cars to emit less CO₂ ?

Of course, their most recent case of greenwashing, which really does rival the fantastic job Detroit's been doing for years with its faux-hybrids, is the company's Lexus LS 600h L hybrid. This $104,765 machine will give you a whopping 21 mpg.

That's a full two miles per gallon more than the conventional LS 460 L. And that one costs about $33,000 less.

What a joke!

Listen: you know I'm all for keeping it green. But it's got to be on the up and up.

In other words, don't piss on my shoe and tell me it's raining.

Bottom line is: we're here to make money in green markets. And no amount of greenwashing is going to trick us.

At Green Chip Stocks, we question everything. Because when it comes to making money, you simply can't leave it up to unethical PR scumbags to guide you to the green.

To a new way of life, and a new source of wealth . . .

Jeff Siegel