I don’t watch a lot of television – well, that’s probably no surprise – but if I am free on Sunday lunchtimes I do like to watch Countryfile on BBC One. There are all sorts of interesting items about all sorts of different things, and this week was no exception: focusing on Somerset, there were items about the use of willow, tree identification in Cheddar Gorge, and prehistoric tracks in peatlands. There was also a good, balanced item in the “John Craven Investigates” strand about generating your own energy – I particularly liked the woman with the ceramic stove who was just the right side of smug, knowing that at any time the power supply could give out!

This item starts at about 10′ 30″ on BBC iPlayer, by following the link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00r3rzv/Countryfile_21_02_2010/ (Note: This will expire on February 27, 2010)

Early on, and you can see this at 11′ 30″, something I hear time and time again from both children and adults is said by a young girl in response to a question about why we should generate our own electricity:

“Because our ozone layer is slowly going, and we will be polluting it more if we don’t start thinking about it a bit more now.”

In all fairness she sounds pretty bright, so the only explanation for this gobbledigook is that she has been given this information by an ill-informed teacher who hasn’t learnt the subject properly. The school in question seems to have shoehorned the wind turbine into everything (“Today, children, we will be learning about ants by watching them climb up the pole of our lovely new wind turbine”), and it’s likely that every teacher, knowledgeable or not, has been told to talk about a number of environmental issues; in the process completely getting it wrong.

Do I have to say this? The ozone layer has nothing, in any meaningful sense, to do with climate change. Damage to the ozone layer is a related, but physically discrete topic from the effects of greenhouse gases on global temperatures. There are some chemicals that feature in both topics (CFCs and some of their global heating replacements), but I very much doubt the person teaching the poor girl – and thousands of teachers like him or her – is aware of this. They simply don’t know enough about the subject to teach it, so should not be doing so!

We will be moving to Scotland shortly, and one thing going for the school system is that you are not allowed to teach a subject in secondary school if you do not have a related degree-level qualification. This will not help primary children, but just a little knowledge in this case would go a long way. Next time, if you hear anyone talk about the ozone layer in relation to climate change or greenhouse gases, please put them right; then perhaps they will pass the information on themselves, and kill off once and for all that really annoying piece of misinformation.

“The peasants, living lives which to us seem indolent and shiftless, are invariably carefree and contented; but, if they are to be citizens of an independent self-governing nation, they must acquire…a new set of wants.”

Greenwash inevitably starts with advertising. The image of desire projected into the mind of a seemingly independent human being makes them so much more open to suggestion; the machine has us where it wants us by virtue of just clever words and clever pictures. We are so easily led…or at least we have become so easily led. So, if a corporation wants to appear green it just uses the same tricks it uses all the time, to suggest whatever it wants us to believe. Invariably, it gets what it wants.

Life would be so much more carefree without advertising. The quote at the top of the page was spoken by Arthur Millspaugh, an advisor to the US government in 1929. This was made with reference to the people of Haiti, the country that the USA was occupying then, and now desires to occupy once more. Whether with guns, the promise of aid or those clever words and clever pictures, the people at the top of the chain will do whatever it takes to occupy our minds, our lives and, of course, our wallets.

And who needs guns or aid when you have billboards, ad breaks, in-store advertising, promotions, junk mail, pop-ups…the power of the global marketing machine?

How would you like to help people get their lives back?

No Risk

For someone who wants to move away from a technological existence, it would seem odd for me to promote a particular technology, but this is well answered by Derrick Jensen who defies those who selectively quote Audre Lorde in saying: “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house”. There is no reason at all why certain, effective technologies should not be used in defence of humanity and the wider world, so long as the doctrine of technology as a universal force for good is resisted. You are almost using a web browser to read this. If you are using Internet Explorer, then stop using it and install Firefox instead.

Now you have done that – and wasn’t it easy? – watch the following video, which will explain how to install AdBlock Plus:

Working with the AdBlocked browser might not seem different, but we are surprisingly poor at noticing things that are not there – maybe news sites feel a bit cleaner; pages load a little quicker; you aren’t getting all sorts of messages asking for permission to open this and that. The critical difference is that you are being exposed to far fewer advertisements; and if you do see and advert, all you have to do is right-click (or the Mac equivalent) and select “Adblock Image…”. Click “Add Filter” and you will never see it again.

Unless you are using someone else’s machine, in which case, ask them to install Firefox and AdBlock Plus, and get them to ask all their friends to do the same, and so on. Very quickly, with virtually no risk at all, you have a lot of people who are being brainwashed that bit less. What’s not to like?

Low and Medium Risk

I am genuinely unsure of whether defacing or damaging an advertisement in a public place is a crime or not. Speaking for English Law, which is the jurisdiction under which I am forced to live, if a billboard is operated by a private company then any “negative” action taken against the advertisement is taken against the private company alone. Any prosecution would have to be taken out by that company (ClearChannel, JCDecaux or whatever) upon the individual, and as far as I know, it never has been. That’s why I consider any non-destructive (speaking from a structural point of view) actions that do not directly harm another person to be Low Risk.

However, the comfort factor is important, so there are a number of variables that determine your personal risk, whether real or perceived. First, where and when the action is taking place: in broad daylight in a busy shopping street is bound to get you at least some attention, although this can be mitigated (perversely) by the wearing of a fluorescent yellow tabard, making methodical actions at least seem official. Under cover of dark, next to a place usually only busy during the rush-hour is perfect for avoiding any trouble.

Second, how much you do: rip off a small part of a poster, which is quick and less obvious than a complete removal, and you probably won’t be noticed; as will just a subtle change to a word or image (which can often be more effective) compared to a complete spray-job. I have found, to my delight, that removing a corner of even the largest billboard is often followed up by local teenagers finishing the job for you; similarly, scribble a bit of hair beneath an Immac-ed armpit, and you are inviting even more creative additions.

Thirdly, the nature of the change, if you are not simply removing the advert. There is one thing I personally would avoid, just because I have children, and that’s swearing as part of the defacement, as well as the use of sexual or overtly violent images. The addition below is great fun, but you can see (where I have smudged, just in case kids see this) the problem if it’s near to a school, for instance. Just keep it appropriate – by all means draw in a person crushed by the car on the advert, but avoid drawing a massive penis on a Coke bottle, as much as you would probably like to, if you want to keep it low risk.

The key to these low and medium risk actions, is the physical removal of the message intended by the advertiser. If you can reverse the message, as often portrayed by groups like Adbusters, then that’s great too; but the main thing is the release of people’s minds from the grasp of the corporate system. Just one advert removed from the eyes of a thousand people is a very good thing indeed. And don’t forget, this includes televisions, as featured last month.

High Risk

I’m putting these things under High Risk because whilst being incredibly important, they are almost certainly illegal, and may even pose some kind of direct risk to yourself in executing them. Because of that, I have to issue the following disclaimer:

The author, nor the host of this web site does not condone any actions which break the law under the jurisdiction where the described activity is taking place.

Which, of course, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do them at your own risk.

An Unsuitablog staffer had a chat with David Lambert of JCDecaux, the largest seller of high-tech billboards in the UK, to discuss their Première range of backlit behemoths, and he was relatively forthcoming on the subject of power sources to their units (listen towards the end):

RECORDING: JCDecaux Premiere Billboard Range (opens in new window)

Obviously if the power were to be removed from these units then the advert would be pretty useless; all those drivers no longer being urged to spend, spend, spend!

For billboards that are rather more inert, particularly the suburban and rural variety, I hand over to the peerless “Ecodefense: A Field Guide To Monkeywrenching” (a mirror of which you will find on the A Matter Of Scale website). In particular, Chapter 8, which deals with the removal of Propaganda:

Propaganda-psychological warfare-has been around ever since the early agricultural cities of the Fertile Crescent began quarreling and pushing each other around. Half of your battle is won when your enemy is afraid of you.

Propaganda is a good way for the monkeywrencher to not only present her message to the public, but also to cause sleepless nights for the black-hearted Freddies, developers, subdividers, gutless politicians, sleazy advertisers, and others. Besides the well-known act of cutting down billboards, other entertain­ing ideas in this chapter can leave the evil ones sweating and sleepless in their beds.

The relevant section includes details on tools, tactics for avoiding detection, and safety (for yourself and others) – you really don’t want one of these things falling on you!

As well as felling, Ecodefense goes into a great amount of detail about the various types of defacement and revision I have only touched on here. All of this is pretty high risk stuff, but certainly not beyond the ability of smart and careful people.

Whether you just install AdBlock Plus on your computer, remove a sheet of advert from a billboard or do something more permanent, you are giving both yourself and many others back their liberty; indeed, their basic right not to have their thoughts polluted by the desires of other, more nefarious, parties. Advertising is not freedom of speech or expression – it curtails this in favour of a corporate-driven message that defines how we should life our lives.

Now go and break those ads!

“Out-of-Home impact plus the power of television to a captive audience. Reach 5.8 million monthly Atlantans, commanding attention during the entire ride.”

You don’t really notice it, but it’s there, filling your subconscious with a thousand different messages; broadcasting its commercial dominance to an entrapped population. Television is the primary method by which civilized humans are manipulated into carrying out the instructions of the industrial machine; this is no Orwellian fantasy, it is now and it is real, and don’t you feel pissed off that you can’t go anywhere without having your eyes and ears assaulted by this garbage?

The Monthly Undermining Task was instigated in order to remove greenwashing from the world, but because television propagates so much more than just the greenwashing messages of the industrial world, taking down the commercial public television network also removes all sorts of other insidious messages: promises of material fulfillment; political spin; embedded journalism; commercially sponsored “education”. By switching off a television you do nothing less than give people back their ability to think for themselves.

So, are you up for it?

From today, throughout 2010, I would like you to switch off televisions and other electrical hoardings whenever you get the chance. As I explained in the opening article, the risk you take is up to you; you can do this in an almost risk-free environment, or you can take a few chances and do something more permanent. Risk is relative, of course, and the first time you do something like this it always feels a bit dangerous – as though someone is about to walk up behind you and say, “Excuse me, what do you think you are doing?” before escorting you away from the premises.

Not that it really matters if you are asked to leave; but in all my time switching sets off I have never once been escorted away or even caught. The point is: no one expects anyone to switch these damn things off!

Low Risk

You see these everywhere now: plasma or LCD screens littering the walls and ceilings of shops, pubs, railway stations, libraries, schools. So insidious yet so fragile. With a wave of the hand you can switch these off. I’m going to recommend a product to do this; if you don’t want to buy it then you will need to take a little more risk (see later).

TV-B-GONE is the product you need; it is available in kit or ready-made form. The link for the ready-made versions is below:

https://www.tvbgone.com/cfe_tvbg_buy.tvbg.php

Check it works, attach it to a keyring or just hold it in your hand, and when you see a television that is in a public or commercial place – keeping the LED pointed at the screen – just press the button. It’ll take a while to get used to the order in which televisions are switched off, but in general the most popular models (like Sony, Toshiba and Samsung) go first.

I had great fun sitting on a bench outside a Sony Store, eating a sandwich, while switching off all the televisions within range; I have walked past shops with huge screens inside and knocked them out much to the incredulity of the staff; and I even walked around a music store, “shooting” the TVs off which were situated above the salepeoples’ heads. Great fun and, as I say, I have never been suspected: who would dream of switching televisions off?

Medium Risk

The next level of risk is essentially doing the same as for the Low Risk, but without the remote. Obviously there are fewer opportunities to do this, you being limited to what you can physically reach, but there are a few reasons why this might be a better option: first, you don’t have a remote control; second, the display is a computer monitor or other custom display that doesn’t respond to remote controls (these are often in small stores or office-type areas); third, you might want to just make a point of switching the screen off, as described by a correspondant:

My dentist recently instituted an *enormous* widescreen telly in their previously very lovely Georgian house conversion waiting room. It had some trashy Hollywood comedy playing on it when my partner and I were there last year. In fact, it had finished so it got stuck in the irritating sound loop that DVDs go into when they are in their menu screen.

Anyway, later on, we were both back in the waiting room while our xrays and so forth were being attended to, and there was one other middle-aged woman there too reading a magazine and sitting where she couldn’t see the screen. So I switched the TV off. A while later someone who worked there stormed in and switched it back on. I explained that we’d switched it off because noone wanted to watch it and was told off.

The reason for the telling off, I suspect, was not because anything had been damaged, but because the employee of the dentist had the idea in her head that THE TV MUST STAY ON! Why? Because it must. That’s it. Talk about brain death!

You might simply just say to the people in the room: “Is it ok if I turn the TV off?” Chances are no one will object, even if they were blankly staring at the screen. While we’re on the subject of reaction, the thing I have noticed most is that when an “ambient” (a.k.a. subconsciously brainwashing) television goes off, people don’t react at all; if anything they simply switch back into communication mode, and get on with their lives.

See, you are freeing people up. Well done!

High Risk

Now we’re getting into voluntary territory: if you want to take the high risk options then you need to follow the basic rules of Sabotage, as explained in this article:

- Carefully weigh up all the pros and cons, and then ask yourself, “Do the benefits far outweigh the costs?” Only act if the answer is “Yes”.

- Plan ahead, and plan well, accounting for every possible eventuality.

- Even if you value the worth of your actions, don’t get caught.

For legal reasons, I have to write that I don’t condone any breaking of the law nor anything that could potentially harm a living being.

Now, in the case of the displays that you can’t switch off remotely or by pressing a button, more drastic action has to be taken. You really have two options that are practical.

In the case of units that are immobile, like in the image above, it’s not generally practical to simply obscure the picture, so you will need to find the power source. I’m not going to go into any details, and it is highly inadvisable to mess around with breakers and wires if you don’t know precisely what you are doing; nevertheless, if there is a plug socket or obvious rocker switch connected to the unit, then you could just disconnect it. Whether you go further is up to you; but if you can disable a very large display, such as those in major railway stations, then you are a bit of a hero in my eyes.

UPDATE: On a little walk around I found that many of these units, at least in the UK, are controlled using keys that you insert into key switches (also known as “Secret Switches” or “Grid Key Switches”). You can buy the keys online, for instance at this UK outlet. It’s a bit more obvious than hitting a switch, but still something that can be done quickly and easily.

For display units on public transport, like the really creepy one in the image above, you will need to be more up-front. Don’t mess around with the power unless there is a switch on the back – you won’t find the source anyway because it has to be hidden well away – I would suggest covering the screen up, perhaps using a professional “Out Of Order” sign or something like this one:

(click for large version)

If you have a high visibility jacket or smart suit then you can probably get away without anyone saying anything. You may raise a smile from some of the people who didn’t even realised their eyes were glued to the set. You might even give someone the motivation to do something similar themselves.

And speaking of which; make sure you pass this article to your own networks, Facebook friends, Twitter feeds and put it on your blogs – here’s the link:

http://thesietch.org/mysietch/keith/2010/01/15/monthly-undermining-task-january-2010-the-great-tv-turn-off/

I have a funny feeling we will be seeing fewer usable televisions in 2010…

ACTION UPDATE:

Just so you know I’m not asking people to do anything I wouldn’t; yesterday I walked the length of Oxford Street in London, and switched off approximately 50 TV screens both in shop windows and in-store, some of which were being watched at the time! No one had a clue what was happening, and most simply walked away. The biggest coups were switching off the 2 metre tall vertical flat-panel in Benetton, and the wonderful silence after switching off a bank of blaring screens in HMV. Go on, you know you can do it!

There’s no time for a review of 2009, it’s happened, we are in deeper shit than we have ever been in, but one of the very few points of light is that the term “Greenwashing” has become common currency. It’s not so easy to greenwash now without being at least identified as a hypocrite; but in all sectors of civilised society, the waves of hypocrisy continue to ensure we still implicitly trust the industrial machine as the litmus test for what is “right”.

Across the UK, as I write, snow is beautifully enveloping the land, producing a swath of picture postcard images that will stay in the minds of so many children for years to come; not to mention the slide rides downhill,the snowball fights and the snow scuptures that feed ordinary people both young and old with excitement and imagination.

For the civilised, adult world, snow is simply a barrier to economic activity: the roads must be gritted, the airports must be kept clear, the shopping malls must remain open, we must all get to work. Our growing, pulsating economy depends upon it, so snowy weather is “bad” weather.

Nothing demonstrates the priorities of this destructive culture better than the twisting of a natural, seasonal phenomenon that can imbue such joy, into a blight upon society that must be dealt with — and now! This is a message that comes directly from the press packs, policy measures and editorial regimes of the corporations, politicians and broadcasters that run Industrial Civilization.

Angry? You bet I am!

2010 was, up to a few hours ago, going to be much of the same for The Unsuitablog, but then I started writing a message to the members of the Anti Greenwashing Action Facebook Group, and realised that there was so much we, and you, could do to undermine the system that tells you how to live your lives; often under a cloak of greenery and false hope. One action a month, by every person who reads The Unsuitablog: that’s a lot of actions that could really drive some terminal nails into the coffin labelled “Hypocrites”, helping to free up the minds of a mislead and brainwashed public.

Here it starts. Very soon, the first Monthly Undermining Task will be posted. I ask, implore you, to carry out this action, and repeat it as often as you feel comfortable doing so. It will not be difficult, and I will provide different levels of risk to account for all sorts of personal situations.

In February there will be another action, and another in March, and so on. Please tell me what you have done (you can remain perfectly anonymous) and if you send me photos, recordings, links to web pages and any other evidence, then I am willing to give them pride of place on The Unsuitablog so that others will be inspired to act themselves. If you have any ideas for MUTs then let me know at news@unsuitablog.org; and also take a look at this article if you want to understand why this is so important.

In 2011 you won’t need to look back and say: “Why didn’t I do something?”

You will be able to say: “Look what I did!”

MONTHLY ACTIONS POSTED:

January 2010 : The Great TV Turn-Off
February 2010 : Time To Break The Ads
March 2010: Throwing Off The Shackles Of Debt

No surprises; no surprises at all. As the world’s “leaders” gear up to converge on the vapourware that is the COP-15 Copenhagen Climate Summit, their objectives seem to be diverging: different governments are being seen as wanting different things, with the less-industrialised nations pointing the finger at (giving the finger to?) the industrial world, essentially saying, “You made the mess, you clean it up!” Among the industrial nations, Canada has no intention of even pretending to do anything, Europe is wading around in a greenwashing miasma of its own making, and the USA doesn’t quite know what to do. The Independent, on Friday 6 November, put the situation like this:

British Government officials believe there is no hope of signing a legally binding climate change treaty in Copenhagen next month.

The positions of major world powers are so far apart that another year or even more may be needed to negotiate a world climate treaty, senior British sources said at talks in Barcelona, which end today.

Writing today for The Independent the Chancellor, Alistair Darling, also admits that a deal in Copenhagen is now unlikely. “The barriers to agreement on climate finance remain substantial,” he writes. “Even if countries agree the levels of finance, few will want to hand over money if they lack confidence in the means of delivering it.”

The development has disconcerted observers at Barcelona, where it has become clear over the course of this week’s talks that countries are still so far apart on how to act on climate change – with the American position the farthest from everyone else – that the most that Copenhagen can now produce is a “political” agreement on climate change, which would not be legally binding like the current climate treaty, the Kyoto protocol.

But yesterday’s frank admission, for the first time, that it might take another year or even longer to produce a proper treaty, after 10,000 officials from 192 countries have already spent two years working to a Copenhagen deadline, showed just how bogged down the negotiating process has become.

Although there are various stumbling blocks, there is no doubt that the continued lack of a serious American offer on cutting its greenhouse gas emissions and providing climate finance for the developing nations – the bill which might provide them is stuck in the US Senate – is the principle obstacle to progress. “Copenhagen is one of the most important meetings in human history. But the politicians seem determined to blow it,” said Joss Garman, climate campaigner for Greenpeace.

Leaving aside the Greenpeace comment for the moment, you would think that even the industrial nations are oceans apart; yet anyone who has an awareness of how Industrial Civilization operates will be looking at this and simply thinking, “Business as usual.” And so we should, because neither Copenhagen, nor its successor Mexico City are the slightest bit relevant in the real battle against climate change. This battle, when it is played out, will be a silent, local, underground battle against the forces that comprise every government engaged in the so-called “negotiation” process. What the governments of the world are negotiating is simply the continuation of the industrial machine in the face of global environmental change, but almost no public opposition.

We are so brainwashed into thinking that the system has it right, that it comes as no surprise to hear people like Joss Garman referring to Copenhagen as, “one of the most important meetings in human history”, as though anything that will have any impact on climate change was ever expected to come out of it. We pin our hopes on summits in this way because we have grown up to accept the false authority of “our leaders”, and to deny that we can do anything significant ourselves. As I wrote in “Time’s Up!“:

The system has legitimized all its efforts to prevent change and suppress opposition because the vast majority of people who are subjected to its activities are fully paid-up members of Industrial Civilization. It is ‘right’ that civilization maintains its stability because without stability, civilization collapses and can no longer impose its will upon the population. Does that sound like a coherent argument to you? In all truth, that really is the best argument civilization has for its continued existence: it has to be maintained because it has to be maintained. Even a heroin addict, shooting up to get the fix that he agonizingly craves, knows that his habit will eventually kill him. Even a lifelong nicotine addict will admit that smoking is bad for her and she should stop. Hands up if you think Industrial Civilization should be stopped.

Every environmental organisation, every lone campaigner, every ordinary member of the public that will be holding their breath as the laughably-titled “negotiations” wrap up, is in denial of the reality that we are doomed so long as Industrial Civilization continues to dominate the globe. Copenhagen is just one more pebble in that river of denial.

I really shouldn’t have to justify my diet — I don’t eat meat, eat a bit of dairy and a few eggs and have a ravenous taste for vegetables of all sorts. In short, I’m a typical healthy adult vegetarian; not a vegan, not a fruitarian, and certainly not a “pescetarian”. The last one is where it starts getting silly, because as far as I, the Vegetarian Society and Viva are concerned, if you eat fish then you aren’t a vegetarian of any sort, regardless of your reasons for eating it.

In terms of ethical hypocrisy, there are few things that sit more solidly in the realm of ethics than the decision over whether to kill something for food. If you buy a processed microwaveable beef lasagna from a supermarket, you are still responsible for the cow’s death — you can’t get away from it. What you eat is your choice, unless it imposes seriously upon others; but if you call yourself a “vegetarian” when you still eat fish, or chicken (yes, people do) then you are are being a hypocrite, and also making life a bit more difficult for real vegetarians.

Here’s an excellent story from the BBC News website, which makes all of this crystal clear.

The conversation usually goes something a bit like this:

“Yeah, I’m a vegetarian.”

“But that looks like fish you’re eating.”

“Oh yeah, I eat fish.”

Confusion, perplexity and occasionally heated debate can follow as the “vegetarian” and their interrogator cover the issue of what is an animal and whether fish feel pain. But the Vegetarian Society, which has acted as the custodian of British vegetarianism since 1847, has a simple definition.

“A vegetarian does not eat any meat, poultry, game, fish, shellfish or crustacean, or slaughter byproducts,” it says. They can make that even more pithy: “We don’t eat dead things.”

The society tackles the issue of fish-eating vegetarians with a page headed in red capitals: “VEGETARIANS DO NOT EAT FISH.”

Juliet Gellatley, director of the vegan and vegetarian group Viva, is also clear on the issue of whether fish eaters can use the term vegetarian.

“They cannot. The definition is very clear. It’s someone who doesn’t eat anything from a killed animal.

“It does cause confusion if someone who calls themselves a vegetarian goes into a restaurant and orders a prawn cocktail.”

Many of the fish-eating vegetarians will be making a dietary exception for health reasons. The government advises the consumption of at least two portions of fish a week, one of which should be oily fish. This intake is thought to help fight heart disease. Vegetarian organisations have to counter by noting that some nutritional benefits of eating oily fish can be gained from elsewhere. They recommend things like flaxseed oil and walnuts.

VARIANTS
Classic vegetarian: Eats no part of any dead animal
Vegan: Eats no animal product
Meat-avoider: Tries not to to eat meat but has occasional lapses
Meat-reducer: Is trying to eat less meat, probably for health reasons
Green eater: Avoids meat because of environmental impact

There may also be a tendency among some fish-eating vegetarians to assign a different ethical equation to the consumption of fish. It is something that is vehemently rejected by vegetarians.

“There is ample evidence in peer-reviewed scientific journals that mammals experience not just pain, but also mental suffering including fear, anticipation, foreboding, anxiety, stress, terror and trauma,” says Revd Prof Andrew Linzey, director of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics and author of Why Animal Suffering Matters.

“The case for fish isn’t so strong, but scientific evidence at least shows that they experience pain and fear. Anyone who wants to avoid causing pain should give up eating fish.”

But there is a wider problem of identification.

“Fish don’t invoke the same compassionate response that a calf, lamb, piglet, or duck does,” says Ms Gellatley. “We are mammals, we relate much better to other mammals. When we see a pig in a factory farm and you can see that animal is in pain that has a very direct effect on people.”

Vegetarian escalator

And then there’s the issue of depleted fish stocks.

Fish-eating vegetarians used to have their own term – “pescetarian” – although it seems not to be in common use today. But, Ms Gellatley says, there is a rise in the use of a new term for the part-vegetarian.

“The name ‘flexitarian’ is coming into use. It’s fairly meaningless really.”

But for vegetarian activists, anybody taking on the vegetarian badge can be a positive, even if they fall short of the strict definition, says Ms Gellately, alluding to a virtual vegetarian escalator.

“People are moving along a pathway – the positive thing is that they see vegetarianism as aspirational.”

While activists might offer anecdotal evidence for trends like fish-eating vegetarianism, concrete numbers are not easy to come by.

There is a view that after a period of healthy growth in the 1990s, classic vegetarianism is now stagnant. It rose from 0.2% of the population during World War II to 1.8% in 1980, according to the consumer research company Mintel.

The firm’s most recent survey suggested 6% concurred with the statement “I am a vegetarian”. But the Food Standards Agency’s recent Public Attitudes to Food Issues survey found just 3% of the population was strictly vegetarian, and 5% partly vegetarian.

Viva cites a survey done on behalf of the Linda McCartney vegetarian food brand which suggested a figure of 10%.

Easy label

She was raised mostly as a vegetarian, but given fish for health reasons. She became an orthodox vegetarian at university but then returned to eating fish later. It’s now the only meat that she eats.

“I was brought up as a vegetarian. We were given the choice when we were young. It was all about animal rights and how animals were factory farmed. [My parents] told us the the reasons and we agreed with them.

“We were fed fish. It’s important for your brain to have oily fish [when young]. When I became a proper vegetarian I started to get quite ill and tired.”

Her objection is mainly to the way meat is produced, not to the idea of eating an animal. She uses the term “vegetarian” almost for the sake of convenience. If she is dining with people for the first time, it makes things simpler.

One of the reasons it’s so hard to assess the level of vegetarianism is because of the multiple definitions of the term.

It is clear, however, that meat-free and meat-substitute meals make up more and more of what we eat. The marketers and the activists are dealing with new groups of people, known as meat-avoiders and meat-reducers. Outside those who have a clear philosophical platform for eschewing meat, there are increasing numbers of these people, either cutting down on meat or trying not to eat it where possible, but without necessarily ever calling themselves “vegetarian”.

Mintel categorises 23% of the population as meat-reducers, people attempting to eat less meat, probably mainly for health reasons. Another factor of climate change – livestock rearing produces methane, which is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. It identifies 10% as meat-avoiders, people who plan to eat little or no meat but sometimes lapse, and who might well accept the ethical basis of vegetarianism.

“More than a quarter of people say they eat less meat than they did five years ago. There is a shifting change in the diet,” says Ms Gellatley. “A third of our membership are meat reducers.”

Many people will start by giving up red meat for health reasons, then give up white meat, and so on. Despite initially doing it for non-ethical reasons, these people can then take on the philosophical mantle, says Ms Gellatley.

But despite the health messages about certain kinds of meat, and the arguments over the amount of energy it takes to produce meat, the vast majority in the UK still eat meat. And one-fifth, according to Mintel, like to have meat every day.

I was going to post something else, and then stumbled upon a film that really seems to show in clear light how utterly abhorrant the practice of tar sands mining is.

ABOUT THE FILM

Ever wonder where American gets most of its oil? If you thought it was Saudi Arabia or Iraq you are wrong. America’s biggest oil supplier has quickly become Canada’s oil sands. Located under Alberta’s pristine boreal forests, the process of oil sands extraction uses up to 4 barrels of fresh water to produce only one barrel of crude oil.

It goes without saying that water — its depletion, exploitation, privatization and contamination — has become the most important issue to face humanity in this century. At the same time, the war for oil is well underway across the globe. A struggle is increasingly being fought between water and oil, not only over them.

Alberta’s oil sands are at the centre of this tension. As the province rushes towards a large-scale extraction, the social, ecological and human impacts are hitting a crisis point. In only a few short years the continent will be a crisscross of pipelines, reaching from the arctic all the way to the southern US, leaving toxic water basins the size of Lake Ontario, and surface-mines as large as Florida.

H2Oil follows a voyage of discovery, heartbreak and politicization in the stories of those attempting to defend water in Alberta against tar sands expansion. Unlikely alliances are built and lives are changed as they come up against the largest industrial project in human history.

Ultimately we ask what is more important, oil or water? And what will be our response?

With hope and courage H2Oil tells the story of one of the most significant, and destructive projects of our time.

Whether “hope” is an appropriate response remains to be seen — the industry is getting bigger by the day — but if I can get hold of a copy then I’ll post a full review over on The Sietch, and tell you more.

I was digging around for a recording of something today and found this gem from December 2008 hidden away in the dark recesses of my hard drive. After listening to it and nearly spraying a mouthful of coffee over the keyboard, twice, I felt it had to go on The Unsuitablog as possibly the best example of Un-Joined Up Government ever committed to a sound file.

Click to play file, or right-click to save

[The silence halfway through is not a break in recording, just telephone silence]

Next time you feel like calling a civil servant or a government minister, remember this recording, then get on the train and visit the Department personally. Better still, just accept that governments have no intention of making things better, and do a bit of undermining — it’s far more satisfying, and ultimately a lot more effective.

(They never did phone back, by the way)

I find myself a little confused, not for the first time admittedly. Having just come back from a wonderful direct action and environmental information camp in the English Lake District, replete with thoughts of anarchy (proper anarchy, that is) and a future that we have to make our own, the news is now full of London Climate Camp 2009 which appears to be assembling at the scene of the 14th century Peasant’s Revolt, Blackheath in south-east London. Wat Tyler would have approved of the location, but would he have approved of the motivation?

I spoke to a fair number of people last week who were intending to go to London Climate Camp, most of whom I would consider to be anarchists (“anarchist” simply means “one who has no leaders” : any other definition must be taken with a big pinch of salt) and most of whom were pretty excited about going. This made me feel better about Climate Camp than I had in the past: they had no intention of watering down their ideas. But this must be tempered with the fact that many people who attended the last summer Climate Camp were certainly not radical, and spoke at length about the need to engage politicians and work to help corporations become greener(!)

BBC Radio 5Live featured a few interviews from Climate Camp attendees this morning, one of whom called himself “Oscar” (actually, it’s probably his real name). Oscar found himself in the apparently uncomfortable position of having to defend actions that would potentially affect people’s “legal right to work” (the presenter’s words, not his). Unfortunately, rather than take the magnificent opportunity to decry the entire industrial capitalist machinery that is progressively destroying every aspect of the global ecosystem in the pursuit of profit — and which most of the people who are “legally” working are playing a very active part in — he proceeded to apologise to those people who would be affected, and then stumbled into a description of why climate change is a serious issue.

It would be unfair of me to single out Oscar, after all he was probably one of many people put forward for interview, but his words are deeply resonant of the environmental mainstream, not any radical form of environmental activism. If a camp is to be about taking action to prevent climate change then it needs to take action against the root cause of the problem, not scratch at the surface of our cultural concrete overcoat.

I don’t say this as an unqualified armchair observer: I have taken part in many actions on behalf of groups like Greenpeace, Campaign Against Climate Change and Friends of the Earth, and seen f-all result from them, even the ones that appeared to be fairly radical at the time. The reason for this is because the environmental mainstream are utterly petrified of facing up to the reality of the problem: the ubiquitousness and all-pervasive nature of the industrial economy.

So where does that leave Climate Camp?

At best, it is a place for people to meet, discuss the things that are upsetting and angering them and, for a good few of them, become radicalised against Industrial Civilization, understanding that nothing in the industrial system should be trusted nor accepted as a way forwards. I have no doubt that some of the people attending will already be radicals and anarchists, and they may help guide more mainstream activists towards actions that are more effective in undermining the industrial system. That said, Climate Camp is not, directly at least, a threat to the industrial system.

At worst, Climate Camp will reinforce the mainstream belief that it is possible to create change through existing means — political lobbying and campaigning, symbolic protest (such as banner drops and office invasions), public engagement and so on — and so ensure that those people who might have become radicalised remain deeply entrenched in a “softly softly” mindset. Meanwhile, the (largely symbolic) direct actions continue to emanate from the camps, giving the activists the impression that they are making a real difference.

I don’t know how this one is going to pan out, nor does anyone else; my guess is that it will fall somewhere between the two, but it would be nice to think that something really good could come out of Climate Camp, rather than just a load of placards and pro-consumer platitudes.

I wouldn’t have written this story had I not been asked to, but I was and so I have. Strangest of all, the person who asked me to write it is the subject of the story and is really angry for most of the time. Confused? I still am. Anyway, here’s the back story.

Last week I wrote an article about a company called BioFuel Africa, who took it upon themselves to plant around 38,000 hectares of jatropha in an area of Ghana replete with rich biodiversity and cultural heritage which would be irrevocably damaged in the event of such an industrial monocultural invasion.

The majority of the article quoted third party sources, primary of these being the web site of the company carrying out the plantation project. There was a little bit of opinion from myself, but as with almost all of the posts on The Unsuitablog, the bulk of it was factual information, along with a chunk of logical extrapolation. However, I did refer to the two buyers of the newly reformed company as “arseholes”, which I have now changed to “ecocidal maniacs” (I’m not going to apologise; what would you call people who want to produce vast amounts of agrofuels for profit at the expense of an ecosystem and a cultural milieu?)

A representative of the company — Ove Martin Kolnes — possibly a director, and definitely a relative (brother?) of the owner Steinar Kolnes, attempted to post a couple of rebukes after the article. My view on comments is that if I feel they are adverts, illogical rants or I simply don’t like the tone or content, then I won’t publish them. It’s my blog, it’s not a democracy (for all that is worth); if you want to say something then start your own blog. In fact, I was about to accept Ove’s comments when Mr Kolnes decided to send me an email, and not just any old email: a very offensive, very angry email.

From: “Ove Martin Kolnes” ovmko@online.no
To: keith@theearthblog.org
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 17:40:37 +0100

I find your article about Bifuel Africa Ltd very disturbing. You are in public calling the founders by names and naming them “assholes” and want people to spam their E mail and fax- machine. I dont know what kind of Idiot U are, but I have left an answer that I asume U are not going to allow to your blog. I see you dont know nothing about what is going on down here you fucking wealthy piece of shit. I am really surprised by your lack of knowledge and politness, but I can not expect more from a man from the UK. I live down here, work down her, employed with Biofuel Africa. We employed over 400 poor people before assholes like you and others started putting out shit about us. Now there is a lot of people suffering, and we “white” on the ground here is trying to heal some of the damages that has been done to our employees. I dont have numbers of how many I had to pay hospital bills for from my own money to save their lifes because of the shit you have published. Well… U can sit in your middleclasshouse in UK and fuck your nice wife and tell your nice little kids about powerty in Africa and think that you actually do something with the powerty in the world, while we “bad guys” in Biofuel Africa actually do something about it, creating working places for the poor people. Anyway.. I expect you to remove names and charactheristics like “assholes” in your stated lies about us… or else we maybe go to some legal steps to remove them.

Ove Mk
Biofuel Africa
Ghana

Well, obviously I couldn’t stay silent about that, so published it as a comment below the post (now moved to here). I responded:

Cool! I’ll be sure to print this.

Then after reading it again, followed up with:

Oh, and if you ever threaten any member of my family again, no legal steps will be enough to stop me.

You have sealed the fate of your company.

The first statement was based on the phrase “fuck your nice wife and tell your kids about powerty (sic) in Africa”, which can be taken a number of ways, including as a threat. The second statement reflected the fact that I would be posting his email on the blog, which would be appalling publicity.

Now it gets interesting. It seems that Ove thought he had a right of confidentiality, sending me emails. Incorrect: anyone who posts a comment has to enter an email address, and their IP address is also shown for moderation (this is standard practice to prevent spamming), neither of which I ever reveal. The same does not apply to emails sent directly to my personal mailbox, unless the sender requests, politely, confidentiality.

This was his response (verbatim):

so.. this is how you work? Im not surprised. How you can “find” a threat in my email against your familily is fantastic.. Get your ass, if your feets can carry you, down at the local police- station and do something about it. I will come to the UK defending myself in the court. We are not a big multi- national company. We are a family- company spending munch of our own money. I get provoked when somebody is mentioning names, calling them for assholes and want people to spam their email, telephone and fax- lines. We too have familiy..you are not the only one knowing how to make children.. and you never know what kind of (left- winger) nut- cases out there wanting to hurt us. You are the first one charactherising people in the company like this with names and want other to do illegal actions against us… thats why I react to your statement…

So dont try getting any sympathy by acting like a poor victim here.. you started this. You have a choise to remove names, charactheristics and wanting people to do illegal actions against us.

“you hav sealed the fate of the company”… he he.. you know nothing. We have assets in the comapany, we could just pack everything down, sell it off, and do something else that is not so taboo in your eyes. I have a good job in Norway waiting for me were I make better money, but we are burning for this, our workers, the community and the project itself so we will try getting this up and going. The people around us depend on us.. and we will try not to let them down. As I told you, we have increased farming land for the farmers in “our” community with almost 10 times. Dont let the lies you read blind you.. internet is full of shit. I invite you to come down one day, maybe time will heal our little dispute.

Omk

My response:

Heal? Ok, I have changed “arseholes” to “ecocidal maniacs”, and posted your previous email in the comments. My readers can decide for themselves what you meant.

As can any solicitor you employ.

At this point, I’m not going to comment about the nature of BioFuel Africa’s business model, nor their philanthropic claims; I’ve already made my opinion (and others’) clear.

The next email from Ove was interesting, to say the least:

Keith Farnish, I demand one thing from you. You should remove the “paste and copy” answer you have put up on your blog. You dont act like a responsible person enough to admin a blog. You signed a contract with me, not revealing my E-mail answering your so- called article. You have violited that contract. You are in right not to make the answer public, but NOT faking it. If you want you can publish my E- mail to you in a new article and put up lies as much as you want, but not fake an answer! I have never seen anything like this “paste and copy” practise in my life…and that is coming from the UK?!? Well.. I know this “paste and copy”- game myself… there is much damage to be done to your name if you know somebodys name and E- mail adress and there is a personal agenda. My name is not important enough, so the damage is not big at all, just to my family, but your name is more in public so the damage to your name will propably be bigger. Call this a threat.. or what you want.. but I know this game very well You started this fraud.. I hope you will end it, and you will never hear from me again. There is a family on both sides here.. and making things public like you have done from the first moment is not ethical like you suppose to honor. Well.. let the game begin… or?

So, I have done as he asked: I published his email in a new article. I wasn’t tempted to put up any lies, nor “fake” any answers — there was too much real stuff to need to fake anything.

As it happens there were lots of emails from Ove, some of which overlapped, so here is this one to fill in the gaps:

hehehe.. I am not surprised your way of working… and you are trying to be taken serious? I see now that you are a totally jerk. You did not put public my response to you, but my email to you. Well.. this is the kind of idiots we are facing every- day… people that can not answer when we are telling our story.. I thought people from UK were honest ones, but you are acting more corrupt than anything UK created down here in Africa. Well.. I am not a director.. I am just a simple farmer.. but I see I have really stepped on you.. You dont have any power in your pen, since you are laying down for me … a simple farmer drom Norway.. I must laugh You.. afraid for my pen???

put out my telephone- number too so people can call me down here +233249649737

This was sent at about the same time as the email that began: “so.. this is how you work? Im not surprised.” Yes, it’s getting a bit confusing, but it’s important to give the whole story, as Ove is so keen on. By the way, I’m not sure how a relative of the owner, and the person listed as the primary Ghana contact on the web site could be a “simple farmer”; but what would a “fucking wealthy piece of shit” know?

Then the threats began:

by the way.. I must see in any way how I can stop you now. You are running this blog, stating that you will not publish any e-mail when anyone is replying. You are editing my answers, you are a cheater and a lier..but worser, you are putting out my e-mail in public when you are doing a “contract” with your readers not to do so…. so now just put out my telephonenumber too..

Very confusing: he asked me to publish his phone number, then keeps on about the email address…

So, bringing these together, I responded:

What contract?

You sent the email, I published it. That is not libel.

If you want to make issue, make it with the people who published the original article about your activities, or The Independent who also published (see the link on the article) information about your activities.

I will happily publish your email to me. Again, you sent it, so can hardly claim it was fraud.

By all means send a solicitor’s letter, but make this personal — and by the way *I* didn’t reveal the names of the people in the company in the original article, you did, by publishing them on your web site and sending me emails that any sensible person would publish.

Keith

P.S. It’s my blog, I reserve the right to delete comments or shorten them. I don’t have to publish anything if I don’t want to.

The last main bit of my response was a bit garbled, I meant to add “– and I will not be happy.” Anyhow, he responded, and I was starting to become impressed with his typing speed and the sheer volume of information in the emails. At no point in my original article did I mention financial corruption, so why is he making such a big deal of this. It seems — and this is not just idle speculation but based on exchanges I have had with companies in the past — that the ecological and cultural damage of the BioFuel Africa project is less important in his eyes, than the financial situation; such is the nature of capitalism…

when I answered the article.. there is a writing that my E-mail is required, but will not be published. Its like a contract, I accepted to make a comment, but only if my Email was not published. I trusted this so much that I even gave a correct E-mail… but I see that I was too naive trusting you. You can publish my Emails as much as you want, but not as it is an answer to the article with copy and paste. You are in fact an editor, you are responsible what you are putting out in public.. you are inviting people to comment.. its a fraud when you false this answers. It was a general E-mail to you as an editor were I was angry at you mentioning single persons as assholes, it was not an answer to your article. If you want to publish it, make a new article instead., just an advice…. Well, its your blog, do whatever you want, keep up the work insulting people in public.

When it comes to the source of this lies its a consultant that did not get a assignement with us.. he tried to blackmail us.. and got money to publish the story in the biggest newspaper in Ghana and on internet. Media in West- Africa is some different than in our world. You have to pay to get any story in the newspaper. I have journalists every week to my house wanting to write a story, but its all about money. When a lie has come to internet its impossible to stop it.. then Der Spiegel picked it up, Norwegian television, ..you name it…now 2 years after Independent wake up from their sleep and publish it. There is much more to say about this issue, and we are not people that does not do mistakes.

The bankrupcy were not because of this lies from this consultant. The bancrupsy were because Statoil(Norwegian oilcompany), not with the best story when it comes to corruption, should invest first 10million dollars in our project. We had worked over 2 years with them finalizing the investment. The day before the formal signing they come up with some story about us..I have it here, a story with AA, BB, in the country Y, doing some moneytransaction to officials. We were shocked, because the story did not suit the country we were in, we did not get any information were they get this from. They had outsourced! the investigation to a UK, London based, investigation company.. and by contract with them not allowed to reveal their name. It was therefor impossible to clear our name..and therefor it was impossible to get replacement in investment. We had to lay off all of our workers the same day and declare bancrupt. Now we are on scratch, trying to get it all up again. By the way, our own investigasions here in Ghana show that the investigation- company is named “Kroll”. I know that this company dont have clean hands tehmselves…

Anyway.. do what you want. Its your blog. I dont have time trying to spoil your name.. but I get pissed off.. and lose some more of my naivity about decent people.

Good night.

So that, would appear to be that. I was going to respond, then didn’t, then finally did, because I had finally understood what he was getting at with regards to the email privacy issue:

This will also be my last response. I never publish email addresses when people post comments; there is, however, no such agreement when you decide to send me a personal email, which you did, especially one that is so offensive.

Regards

Keith

I didn’t expect this response:

ok Keith.. I find your charactheristic of persons also so offensive that I have to take som steps further… Calling people for assholes and even worser IN PUBLIC like you did, inviting people to spam their emails and fax is very offensive. You can not just delete it and believe that everything is ok. Remember, you have brought everything to public. You have edited everything… you are the editor.. you are responsible bringing this to the public. I propably find some time anyway to bring things public about you to then. By the way, calling me a director..hehe.. Well as you said, its your blog.. Im just sitting in a slum in Africa wondering how I will attack all this You really provoked me with this last E-mail

Why would clarifying a point be so provocative? Anyhow, I have no intention of deleting my blog, and I’m quite tempted to reinstate the word “arseholes” except neither of the people alluded to in the article have chosen to write to me in such a way.

Finally, late last night he sent the following:

Maybe you should take a look at this one. http://blogethics2004.blogspot.com/2005/03/cobe-revised-form-based-duties-in-blog.html#comments Its about blog- ethics. You are a radical (raddis) fundamentalist that does not want any reflection or new knowledge. No discussion is allowed, all should be in the hands of you. The meaning of life should be to learn something new every day. Well.. I have learnt something from you yesterday, thats for sure
Well… read this list. I think the one about promoting free expression and the one about deceiving others should be read carefully.

Anyway.. you have gotten me into this blog- thing. I will propably create my own, inviting you, since you will be my first subject, to a comment I will handle my blog in an ethical way, free expression. I even think I will make it more popular than your own.. I dont think you have so many visitors.. propably because you dont let them speak… Well, I will contact you when I am up an going

He went on to list the COBE, which you can read via the link above. Well, I have my own form of ethics, and it’s rooted in Natural and Common Law, along with basic social politeness: in short “Be nice, unless you have a very good reason not to be nice.”

This may be continued…