Excuse the partial reposting of my own article, but because there is a big chunk about Greenwashing, and also that Climate Change Denial is one of the major manifestations of environmental hypocrisy, the article is extremely relevant to The Unsuitablog.

And I also put an awful lot of work into it, so why not?

If someone doesn’t want to believe something then what can you do to change their mind? Trust me, it’s more difficult than you think: it isn’t just the simple case of someone not believing something, the key word is “want” – if they don’t want to believe then there is almost nothing you can do about it. Even if all the evidence is against them.

I see this all the time: on the TV news, in the printed media, on blogs and discussion boards, and in the streets; this constant battle between two entrenched positions – be it over religious idealism, abortion, vaccinations or anything else that invokes emotional involvement – is almost unbearable to witness. For the most part, this battle will grind on and on until the various parties give up trying to convince the other side, through lack of energy, lack of time, illness and even death. People have died for their beliefs, in their millions – but there are always others to take their place.

The battle between the two sides over climate change, or anthropogenic global warming (AGW), won’t be ending any time soon; and there will be blood, mark my words. This is more than a battle for intellectual superiority – it is battle over an idealistic principle, and that principle is…actually, let’s come back to that. First of all, given the title of this essay, I think we need to consider the words “denial” and “denier”.

Put simply, denial is an unwillingness to accept a position: I deny that white people are racially superior to black people, which to most of us is a reasonable position to take. The opposing position is less common, but nonetheless can be couched in similar terms; the denial that black people are racially equal to white people. Go back less than 100 years, though, and the second position would stand you in pretty good stead as a European or American citizen wanting to get ahead in the civilized world.

A denier is someone who adopts a denial position. For instance, I deny that economic growth is a necessary characteristic of human society, which places me very much in the minority of people in the civilized world. I’ve discussed the reason for this elsewhere, needless to say the opposing position – that economic growth is a necessity – is far more cultural than based on an absolute body of factual evidence. That is important, because it helps understand why denial positions are so difficult to deal with: if someone is deeply inculcated with a particular belief, such as economic growth being a necessity, then no matter how much contrary physical evidence is presented to them, they are highly unlikely to change their position. If that physical evidence is overwhelmingly contrary to their belief system then we say they are “in denial of the facts”.

That, of course, often only serves to inflame things.


The Danger Of Denial

I make no bones about my belief in anthropogenic global warming, for various reasons, and not just the scientific evidence; so if you are reading this and thinking about clicking somewhere else because you don’t agree with me, then click away – this essay is aimed at those people who more or less have the same mindset as myself, and are in the all-too-common situation of feeling they have to defend that position. To you, dear reader, I offer the following words: you are in danger of losing your sanity.

As we have seen, and probably realised from experience, arguing with a Climate Change Denier is like wrestling in a deep, muddy pit: it can be filthy, exhausting and, worst of all, there seems to be no way out. Personal issues aside, the wider danger is that the other side might get their way – and that person, or group, or business, or government, will then be able to spread their own beliefs in the knowledge that there is no-one willing to take the opposing position. The many people who are wavering, or even understand that AGW is fact, can then be easily tipped into denial. This is what happens in totalitarian states: the ruler’s position becomes the de facto belief.

In ecological terms, this would be disastrous should it happen against AGW, for there would not even be enough dissenters to restart the process of change, let alone carry it through. It’s strange in a way – all the time it has seemed like an endless game of factual table tennis, it has in fact been a battle for the future of humanity, played out in a million places across the globe.

You can read the rest of this article at The Earth Blog.

It’s not just greenwash that gets me angry, anything that makes unqualified claims that could end up harming people or the wider environment deserves to be targeted: in this case it is a company I have already challenged on The Unsuitablog, Holland and Barrett. Not content with lying through their teeth about the pathetic efforts they are making to green themselves up, they are now claiming to be able to reduce the risk of Swine Flu.

Now bear in mind that Swine Flu may or may not become a global pandemic of monumental proportions, that an awful lot of people are scared about it (and I believe they should be to a certain extent). Also, bear in mind that H1N1 Swine Flu is the direct result of the hyper-consumer economy and the desire to produce food as cheaply as possible for the most profit. Any backlash should be directed squarely at the commercial world but, of course, not content with creating the conditions for a global catastrophe, the system that created the problem is now seeking to benefit as much as possible from it: such as Tamiflu distribution being the de facto response to any outbreaks; as opposed to the far more logical move of stopping the mass movement of workers, holidaymakers and schoolchildren to and from their respective locations. One of these measures benefits the industrial machine — one of them does not.

Guess which the world’s richest nations have chosen.

On the back of this are the various bloodsucking companies that are trying to make a fast buck from people’s perfectly rational fears of global pandemic. When I see a poster in the window of my local Holland and Barrett saying:

SWINE FLU WATCH!

SPECIAL OFFERS ON SWINE FLU PREVENTION IN STORE

NOW!

I have to wonder whether they are selling anti-viral masks, sensible transmission prevention advice, or perhaps something less than effective from their existing range of “remedies”.

Something like this:

The little I know about Echinacea could be written on the back of my hand, but I do know that it has most definitely not been shown in any objective scientic study whatsoever, to prevent Swine Flu, or any other kind of influenza, for that matter (it may help prevent the common cold, but that’s another thing entirely). But, that’s what the people in my local shop have been told to push as an influenza prevention treatment.

But it’s not just Echinacea, they also appear to be pushing Manuka Honey as a prevention remedy: again, Manuka Honey may well have certain beneficial effects for certain conditions, but as to being a way of preventing Swine Flu…no.

Now, I have no problem with non conventional remedies — I use nettle draught for hayfever and plantain for stings and bites, but when they are pushed for commercial purposes, especially by a company as large and ambitious as Holland and Barrett (owned by, not surprisingly, a giant producer of vitamins and supplements), then I see nothing but bad things on the horizon.

Now, who said the airline industry don’t have a sense of humour? Profits are falling, staff are being asked to take unpaid leave, airlines are being pilloried for their environmental impact, biofuels are being derided by the United Nations as greenwash and authorities, on the orders of airports, are being told to gas birds rather than accepting that maybe flying planes through migratory paths isn’t such a good idea.

Gosh! I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes at the moment. And yet, despite all this, Giovanni Bisignani, the head of the International Air Transport Association managed to make a genuinely hilarious joke that certainly had me in stitches:

“We are giving the environment a very high priority with a very clear plan”

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!

Oh, my sides!

In the ongoing saga of the Baby Show and its organisers, Clarion Events, being the very same company that organises the DSEi arms fair, the campaigners seem to have hit an interesting, but not insurmountable brick wall. There is an ongoing effort to persuade the various sponsors of the Baby Show to pull out, in view of the contradiction between the care of children (although, obviously, the Baby Fair is essentially a marketing spectacle) and the insertion of large pieces of schrapnel in their bodies caused by the “legitimate” weapons that are touted at the DSEi arms fair. The sponsors are pretending to listen, and then responding with pro forma letters that simply restate their social and environmental policies, ignoring the issues at hand; not willing in any way to give up such a lucrative sponsorship position.

Mothercare have a long history as one of the leading lights in the baby and child retail market. They pride themselves on their positive image, and make great efforts to present themselves as an ethical and responsible company. With a market value of nearly £400 million and an annual profit of over £40 million, they are not a small player in the baby and child market: they have a lot to lose, should their reputation suffer.

Mothercare are a major sponsor of the Baby Show, and have been for many years.

With this in mind, I wrote to Mothercare (Justine Allister, Head of PR) asking some pertinent questions, particularly related to the work of Clarion, and Mothercare’s association with the Clarion organised Baby Show:

From: Keith Farnish
To: Allister, Justine
Subject: Baby Show / Clarion Issues

Dear Justine

Thank you for discussing the involvement of Mothercare with the Clarion organised Baby Show (http://www.thebabyshow.co.uk/nec-birmingham/unbeatable-shopping/mothercare/), with me today. As I made clear, a number of people I have been in contact with are deeply unhappy with the pro-forma response of Mothercare to their concerns. As I see it, there are three main issues:

1) That Clarion, as part of their business, operate the DSEi (http://www.dsei.co.uk/) arms fair, selling weapons to governments and private security companies.

2) That, regardless of the legitimacy of this trade, there are thousands of “collateral” child deaths and injuries every year caused by the equipment sold at these arms fairs.

3) That Mothercare are legitimising such activity, by exhibiting at a show organised by a company that is indirectly responsible for these “collateral” deaths.

With formidable irony, the Spring 2010 Baby Show will be held in the very same hall that hosts DSEi.

For the purposes of my piece, could you please answer the following questions:

1) What is Mothercare’s policy, if any, regarding its relationships with companies that have morally questionable activities?

2) How are Mothercare able to market themselves as a responsible company, given their indirect approval of the sale of arms that, regardless of legitimacy, will be the cause of child death and injury?

3) Are Mothercare prepared to work with relevant organisations, including CAAT (http://www.caat.org.uk/events/Baby_Show_2009.php), to effect the removal of Clarion in their role as organiser of The Baby Show, and if not, why not?

Yours sincerely

Keith Farnish

The response took a little time: “with regards to your enquiry below, we take your concerns very seriously so I am sure you understand that this will take slightly longer for me to get back to you, in order for me to speak to the relevant members of staff. I will endeavour to get back to you with a response tomorrow morning.”

If I had been the kind of person who hopes, I would have hoped for a positive outcome given the time taken and seriousness with which the response was being dealt. I had a response one day after the promised date — it was not what I would have hoped for.

From: Pirie, Annique
To: Keith Farnish
Cc: mothercare@brunswickgroup.com ; sandra@sandrabull.co.uk ; Allister, Justine
Subject: Mothercare Response

Justine is at an external meeting today and has asked me to forward the following in response to your enquiry on her behalf.

Many thanks

Annique

—–

Dear Mr Farnish,

Thank you for your enquiry in regard to Mothercare’s position on the Baby Show. Taking your 3 questions one by one:

1) What is Mothercare’s policy, if any, regarding its relationships with companies that have morally questionable activities?

a.. Mothercare takes its ethical commitments extremely seriously and both our policy and targets in the area of Corporate Responsibility are published each year in our Annual Report & Accounts and on our web site www.mothercare plc.com. We are members of the Ethical Trading Initiative and have initiated projects with, for example, governments and NGO’s in India to help find ways to improve the lives of workers in our supply chain. This includes the building of a maternity wing in a local hospital in South India. Our Foundation provides substantial support each year to many important charities which support good health and well-being of mums-to-be, new mums and their children; special baby-care needs and premature births; and other parenting initiatives relating to family well-being.

2) How are Mothercare able to market themselves as a responsible company, given their indirect approval of the sale of arms that, regardless of legitimacy, will be the cause of child death and injury?

a.. It is wrong to imply that we give indirect approval for the sale of arms. We do not participate in the DSEi exhibition, so any concerns relating to that event, or any other event in which we do not participate, should be addressed to the organiser, Clarion Events. Mothercare is a responsible company and has participated in the Baby Show for nearly ten years, alongside some 200 or so fellow retailers, brands and manufacturers in the parenting sector. As the UK’s number one specialist retailer for mums to be and parents of young children, tens of thousands of visitors to the Baby Show have high expectations of experiencing our brand at the event.

3) Are Mothercare prepared to work with relevant organisations, including CAAT (http://www.caat.org.uk/events/Baby_Show_2009.php), to effect the removal of Clarion in their role as organiser of The Baby Show, and if not, why not?

a.. Mothercare takes into account the views and concerns of all relevant, law abiding organisations in framing and monitoring its ethical and social responsibility policies.

Regards

Justine

So, essentially, Mothercare are not concerned that they give money to a company that organises arms fairs, and seem to be able to wash their hands of this link entirely. Their hands certainly need washing, given all the blood that is on them.

I sent the following response, which has yet to garner a reply:

Dear Justine (via Annique)

Thank you for your advertisement for Mothercare (”As the UK’s number one specialist retailer for mums to be and parents of young children”). I will infer from your response that Mothercare takes no responsibility for its commercial links with Clarion and, while continuing to support Clarion financially really doesn’t care what they get up to in their own time. Saying “Mothercare is a responsible company” doesn’t make Mothercare a responsible company (note, that this is a typical Greenwashing response as elucidated by the big oil and coal companies, e.g. “Exxon really care about the planet”), it simply states your belief.

The simple fact is, Mothercare — through its continued links with Clarion Events — condones Clarion’s portfolio of events: if Mothercare did not condone the sale and, by extension, use of weapons that kill children (note this article only today: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8096374.stm), then it would not be involved in the Baby Show whilst it is organised by Clarion. This will be my line of discussion in the article, which is logically substantial.

I will also state that Mothercare is not willing to engage with CAAT.

Regards

Keith

Readers are strongly encouraged to contact Justine Allister (mailto:justine.allister@mothercare.com) at Mothercare, letting them know why it is morally indefensible to ignore where their money is going and what it is being used for — especially if that money is being used to promote the trade in those “legitimate” weapons that happen to kill thousands of children every year.

Hot off the presses from the English Midlands (Leicestershire, to be precise) comes the source of an awful pun that I couldn’t even leave until later in the article. Sorry.

As a regular bus user, I do wonder why my legs always seem to be melting next to the heaters, even though the weather outside may be perfectly clement. It seems as though the denizens of Arriva Bus in Leicestershire, and probably everywhere else, haven’t thought that a thermostat might come in handy.

Here’s the article from the Leicester Mercury:

Passengers are being driven to despair by buses leaving the heating on in hot weather – often because drivers’ cabs are not equipped with on-off switches.

Regular public transport users say that on sunny days it has felt like they are being driven around in mobile cookers.

When route 58 regular Bill Barson, of Netherhall, Leicester, wrote to Arriva to ask why his supermarket shopping was being cooked before he had chance to get it home, he was taken aback by their response.

The heating can only be turned off via a tap under the engine, according to a letter from the firm’s customer service department, which added that: “This is not usually done until the warm weather is more settled.”

The Mercury experienced the heating still on on a 51A Arriva bus into the city last Thursday.

Three years ago Arriva spent £9.5 million on a new fleet of buses for Leicestershire.

Disgruntled passenger Mr Barson said: “Why buy buses with such a stupid set-up?

“They are trying to get more people to leave their cars at home and use buses, but who wants to go on the bus when they are throwing out heat like a mobile Tandoori oven?

“It’s got to the point now where I do not go into town as much because I would rather not be hot and bothered.”

When contacted by the Mercury, an Arriva spokesman gave a slightly different story to the customer service department.

Spokesman Keith Myatt said: “Having spoken to engineers at Thurmaston, the buses used on the 58 service have a mechanism in the cab whereby the driver can adjust the heating.

“He would not have to wait for an engineer to make an adjustment.

“There are some older vehicles in the fleet where an engineer is needed to make the adjustment but these are generally not allocated.”

However, passengers at St Margaret’s Bus Station said that Mr Barson was not the only one feeling hot under the collar.

Pensioner Albert Hargrave uses the Arriva 27 bus to get into Leicester from his home in Ratby.

The 88-year-old said: “You can definitely feel the heating on your legs even when it is a sunny day – it does seem that they are not able to turn it off.”

Melanie Ward, 23, of Kibworth regularly uses Arriva’s X3 service to travel to work in the city. She said the problem was worse on single-decker buses.

She said: “When they send the coach instead of the bus, it’s always baking hot on that.” Bus group First admitted that its vehicles had a similar problem. Its double-decker buses are kept warm by a radiator system that sees hot water from the engine pumped through 150ft of copper piping. It can only be turned off by engineers.

Spokesman Leon Daniels said an instruction had now been sent out to switch off the heating on all of its vehicles for summer.

He said: “Unfortunately it is one of those nuisances of technology, which we look forward to technology one day being able to solve.”

Now, I’m not a genius, but I suspect I solved the problem in my introduction (Hint: Thermostat). But more bizarre is the last quote from the Arriva man: “which we look forward to technology one day being able to solve.”

This is actually a pretty serious mental condition; when you think that the only way of solving a problem is the further application of technology. Greenwashing is full of techno-fixes — so much so that there is an entire category dedicated to it on this blog — and it is not surprising, considering that the industrial system will never accept that nature has most, if not all of the answers, and our obsession with “progress” will ultimately lead to our demise.

If you can convince people that climate change, ecological devastation, food shortages, peak oil, social inequality, disease and dispair can all be solved with a quick application of technology, then you (as a corporation, usually) can keep on selling utopia to the world’s population in the form of the “miracle of technology”. Are we so dumb and brainwashed that we can’t see the lie?

I had a very exciting delivery yesterday: I had a new mobile phone (cellphone) through the post. It’s one of those Nokia ones that flip out so you can use the mini keyboard to type messages, which is perfect for me because I have very small fingers to go with the very small keys. Actually, I say ‘new’ but actually you can’t buy these any more, it was second hand from eBay (and I know it’s second hand because it has a small scuff mark at the top) and works fine - it makes phone calls and sends text messages; should it do anything else?

When I used to be an IT manager, I was continually offered upgrades, but turned them all down — the phone I started with was basically the phone I finished with, and the one that I ended up using for another 2 years until the screen became too scratched to see through (from rubbing on keys in my pocket) and the green “call” button stopped working, which is obviously quite an important thing for a phone. I would say it was 7 years old when it finally broke. I have replaced it with exactly the same model.

What a rubbish consumer that makes me.

Now we see Sony Ericsson touting a “green” phone.

Mobile phone company Sony Ericsson will unveil two ‘green’ handsets tomorrow with a carbon footprint 15% lower than current models. By cutting packaging, using recycled plastics and reducing the use of solvents in the paints, the electronics company claims to have made the handsets more environmentally friendly.

The new phones, the C901 GreenHeart and the Naite, part of what Sony Ericsson says will be a revised portfolio of environmentally friendly phones to be rolled out in the next two years. It is also part of the company’s wider mission to cut 20% of its total carbon emissions by 2015.

Of course, if you want a ‘green’ phone you will have to get rid of any phone you already have (Hey! You can recycle it, so that’s alright then! [sigh]) and buy this new replacement, which obviously — like everything in the consumer electronics industry — has some nifty new features, like telling you how many calories your dinner contains, or allowing you to see through brick walls, or something like that. If new goods didn’t have new features then (disaster!) people wouldn’t feel they had to replace their old* equipment; they would just be content with using it until it broke down, which is terrible for the economy.

Sadly, Greenpeace didn’t feel the need to mention this when asked about the ‘green’ phone (why does no one ever ask me?):

Iza Kruszewska, toxics campaigner at Greenpeace UK welcomed the new phones from Sony Ericsson and said that the company had a good record in reducing its use of harmful chemicals. But she said the company should increase the number of its recycling points around the world. “They do mention their ambition to increase the number of collection points and take-back schemes they have globally but they are well behind Nokia on this.”

Yay! “Increase the number of its recycling points” — not “stop making us buy more crap all the time”, but “Increase the number of…recycling points.” I think that says all we need to know about the ‘radical’ nature of Greenpeace. According to Greenpiss (the new name for “Greenpeace-Lite”), you can keep buying loads of crap, and if it’s got ‘green’ credentials then you don’t even have to feel guilty about it…

(* I say “old”, but the fashion obsolescence treadmill keeps redefining old so that you feel obliged to buy new stuff even when your existing stuff is still new!)

I came across a page on the Suncor web site today. Suncor produce oil from tar sands and oil shales in Canada.

Here is what they say about the environment:

Today, Canadians are asking the oil sands industry to do more – take decisive action on global and regional environmental issues. Suncor plans to be around for a long time and we know success over the long term depends on addressing a wide range of stakeholder concerns.

Environmental stewardship and responding to the needs of our communities is just as important to the economic well-being of our society as upgraders, pipelines or refineries. We are working hard to reduce the amount of water and natural gas we use, limit the level of greenhouse gas emissions and air contaminants, and reduce the length of time it takes to reclaim disturbed lands.

Responsible development makes good business sense. By investing a significant portion of today’s production revenues into tomorrow’s technologies, we expect to deliver a big environmental payoff. Technology will help us find ways to develop existing and new energy resources more efficiently and with far less impact on the environment.

So, we must accept that the extraction of oil from sand and shale will be around “for a long time”, must we?

I would like to write more, but I don’t really need to — it is all here for you to read…

Thanks to Simon for alerting me to this blatant piece of brainwashing, in the middle of the Chelsea Flower Show. Yes, it’s the Quilted Velvet Garden; loaded with such sychophantically lovely credentials that I could barely spend enough time looking at the page in order to copy and paste this nugget:

“The Quilted Velvet Garden, created by garden designer Tony Smith, brings to life Quilted Velvet’s message of a little bit of luxury every day.”

“The garden is based on a dream, taking the form of a long, arduous journey through the everyday world of work and domestic chores, eventually arriving at a place of comfort and luxury.”

So, basically, after a hard day then nothing is better than wiping your arse on soft toilet paper! What about spending some time with your family, or enjoying a bit of nature rather than supporting a company that clear fells its “own” forests, and others across Scandinavia, leaving a pitiful 5% “set aside” for nature.

Simon takes up the story:

I’ve come to expect a dizzying assault of corporate greenwashing from Chelsea but the prize this year must surely go to the Quilted Velvet garden. If manufacturers SCA had their way you’d be wetting yourself over their green credentials. In fact nothing could be further from the truth. Making toilet paper from virgin wood uses massive amounts of energy; the pulping process uses tons of chlorine and other toxic chemicals. Quilted paper is especially damaging to the environment but bizarrely this is one area of the market which is growing. Which is no doubt why SCA are sponsoring no less than three gardens at RHS shows this summer, so be prepared for even more of this crap.

So this weeks corporate slut award goes to designer Tony Smith. You’re on the list sunshine.

The garden was pretty naff too.

Cheers, Simon, couldn’t agree more.

I have been following a brilliant campaign being orchestrated by a group of mothers (and a few fathers) concerned about the support that one of the world’s biggest parenting forums is giving to a company that organise arms fairs.

The text below is copied out verbatim from the journal entry of one of the ordinary people who found they could not leave this be. It speaks for itself…

This is a blog about how i found out that Baby centre were indirectly funding the arms trade - And perhaps importantly, What i did about it.

I was browsing BC, when i came across a thread on DC lite. I like DC lite, because it is full of all different types of thread, some funny, some challenging, generally though, it makes you think!!

BlueHouser had written a thread on Babycentres Involvement with The Baby Show - Well that’s quite normal, i thought, a baby website, involved with a baby show, for parents and expectants, sounds good! I was going! Bought my tickets already, and was looking forward to spending my hard earned dosh on lovely things for my little sproggy! Things for him, things for me, Wahey!!

The Baby show was run by Clarion Events. Hmm. No worries there.

Clarion Events ALSO run Arms fairs. If your anything like me, you thought, what the scooby doo is a bloody arms fair? Introducing Google, My good friend! I found the CAAT website ( campaign against the arms trade) and wow….

I got it - Clarion run baby shows. Clarion also run arms fairs- where weapons are sold. Weapons that maim and kill familys and children and mothers and expectants. Right. Well, surely, they are regulated and policed and are really strict?

I continued to read the DC lite thread, where i came across a link to Mark Thomas’s website: http://www.markthomasinfo.com/section_writing/default.asp?id=16

He actually *attended* the DSEI arms fair ( run by Clarion). He met THREE companies, who were prepared to sell him equipment which is banned in the UK because it is considered an implement of torture - Stun Guns, Stun Batons and Leg Irons.

I dont want to fund this! I dont want to be linked, because i bought a nursing pillow at a baby show, to someone being tortured with a stun baton.

Do Babycentre KNOW about this link? Yes, it appears they did. It was brought to their attention in November 2008. So why didnt they pull out, i thought? Did they not consider that it was wrong? You buy a coffee at the baby show, a portion of the money from your coffee inevitably ends up with Clarion, who then use that money to host an arms fair, where a weapon is bought, and used on a village in africa (for instance) - On a child? On a mother? On a father?

So… What to do. A few of us thought we could make a difference. And even if we dont make a difference, We have to TRY.

Emails were sent - To BC, to sponsors, to Myleene Klass’ PR company. We were hoping she would pull out when she became aware of the link.

Baby centres upper management gave a crappy response, Posted late at night ( i assume, so they didnt get all our outrage at once!)

We thought long and hard as to whether a partnership with the Baby Show would be a conflict of interest, and ultimately decided that it’s not. (For full response, see page 10 of dc lite thread)

Needless to say, That was a pretty corporate response, with no justification. Just, they had thought about it, and decided to go ahead anyway.

Lots of people got angry. There was a vote and thread that got posted in many birth boards, mine included. I felt it important, that people be aware of the link. I felt appalled that BC were not even prepared to pull out. They didnt even consider it a ”conflict of interest.” Bounty [Ed. See comment below about Bounty’s activities] and UNICEF did. Unicef wanted NO donations from ticket sales. As a charity, thats a pretty big thing to say, That even though money helps your charity, you’d rather not have it from what your fighting against.

I decided that, after speaking to DC Liters, i would still go to the show. I would go - But i would speak to the stall holders about the issue. I felt that i had a responsibility - Because the UK police/government/stallholders cant hit me with a stun baton, that sprays and stuns, so if you get covered in the liquid you still feel the stun.

Friday Arrived, and I was quite nervous. I was hoping that i would do DC Liters proud. I was hoping that i could make a difference.

I arrived, and was really *shocked* at the amount of companies marketing themselves as ETHICAL.

A gentleman approached me. He asked me if i recycled. I asked him if he was aware of the Clarion Link. He asked if i cared about the enviroment. I said i was slightly more concerned with child soldiers, cluster bombs going off and blowing kids legs off, implements of torture being sold in the uk. I asked him why his company felt it appropriate that they had a stall here. He walked off.

I saw Myleene give her talk at 11am on the prima baby stand. I was actually really disapointed - Firstly, she still felt it appropriate that she attended, and secondly, that her talk was so damn boring!! She was basically selling her summer range of baby K clothing. I attempted to approach Myleene at the mother care stand - It was a bit of a wrestling ring though, loads of people, and i was worried about my bump. I decided to give that one a miss, although i felt a bit wimpy!

I was approached by a persil representative - I asked them if they considered the Clarion link appropriate. She walked off too.

I got a few good responses - Pregnacare said they have been given an answer to tell people by their manangement - Which was they decided they could do more good by staying with Clarion, then they have financial backing with which to use as a bargaining chip in getting them to pull out.

I asked fisher price, was told to wait for a manager. 45 minutes later, I gave up waiting, but filled in the ‘cards’ with my opinion on it.

I found the smaller stalls were not really aware - They got a stall because they needed the money. I got 4 stalls to say they were going to investigate the link and would make donations to UNICEF to ”offset”. Wether they actually will or not, is up to them, but i felt great. I was concerned, and i was making a difference!

I tried my best. I raised the issue. I feel proud, of DC liters, of myself. I found out, was against it, and tried my hardest to recitfy the situation.

Ignorance is not bliss. Im glad i knew. I know that had i not been made aware of the link, I would have gone, spent loads of dosh, not given it a second thought - If i dont know about it, how can i change it?

Im glad i was given this opportunity to at least try and make a difference.

What would you have done…and what will you do when faced with something similar?

NOTES:
DC Lite = Debate Club Lite, a debating group on BabyCentre UK
Myleene Klass = Pop star and TV presenter, former member of band Hear’Say

It’s common knowledge that given a choice of two tasks, of varying impact, most people in the civilized world will choose to do the easiest, even if the outcome is of little or no importance. Given the choice of walking a mile to your destination, or getting in the car and driving a mile - regardless of the environmental and social impact of cars - most people will choose to drive. Or rather, “choose” to drive.

I put the word “choose” in quotes because it’s not really a choice at all; civilized society conspires to make the option that is of most benefit to the capital economy the most favourable “choice”, even if it means that the “choice” runs counter to what most people would do given a genuine freedom and an absence of persuasive factors (e.g. advertising, social engineering, lack of alternatives) that steer the individual in the direction of the best choice for the economy. Recycling is a serious offender, not because there is anything intrinsically bad about recycling most materials, but because it is presented by society as an environmental “choice”: you can choose to recycle and be “green” or you can choose not to recycle and not be green.

What other choice is there? What about choosing to do any number of things that are substantially more important than recycling; like reducing your primary consumption of goods, repairing what you already have, reusing what others have no need of, bartering or exchanging goods and services, or just giving stuff away because it means the recipients will buy less of that stuff new. And then there is not filling the skies with toxic gases; not pouring millions of gallons of effluent into seas and rivers; not garnishing the biosphere with a cocktail of persistent chemicals then leaving others to sort out the mess later.

The last three are the hallmark of one of the largest industrial sectors in the world: a sector that provides civilized humans with everything from computer screens to astroturf; plastic packaging to car interiors; printing ink to artificial sweetners; mercury to formaldehyde; titanium oxide to napalm; chlorine to glyphosate. The chemical industry provides the raw materials for the products of Industrial Civilization. It is a monster that needs a phenomenal amount of public relations to look good.

In general, the governments of the world’s industrial nations provide that PR, and for those nasty bits left behind, the private PR companies provide the nice words to smooth over the leaking cracks:

Over eleven billion dollars are spent each year by the business of chemistry to reduce emissions and protect the environment. Federal and State regulations for virtually every piece of our plant operations are in place and more rules are in the pipeline. End-of-pipe control programs have been implemented throughout the industry and the focus of environmental protection is now shifting to addressing any remaining risks that are deemed unacceptable. Continued improvement in environmental performance should focus on spending resources only on those policy decisions that will deliver the most improvement to reducing human health and environmental risks.

Allow me to translate:

“Over eleven billion dollars are spent each year by the chemical industry to ensure it does not kill too many people or destroy so much of the natural world that it becomes impossible to cover it up. Federal and State regulations, which we have fought against in the past and continue to fight against now are being implemented because we have no choice, although we have done our best to drag the process out for as long as possible. Systems that bring the amount of toxic crap being poured into the environment down to the legal maximum (and anything else we can get away with) have had to be put in place; but because our industry produces more waste than we can deal with, and the public are (literally) sick of it, we’ve had to pretend we’re doing something about all the other bad stuff we do. If we’re going to have to spend any more money, then were going to make sure it’s as visible as possible, even if it doesn’t make a damn bit of difference.”

Does that sound more realistic? You can read more of this sanitised bullshit over at the American Chemistry Council’s web site. Bear in mind that the ACC represents just about every chemical company you can name, and lots more you have never heard of (and which I would strongly recommend you look into), and it is pretty obvious that they are not doing any of this out of the goodness of their hearts. Anything they can do to look good, they will: and what better thing than our old friend Recycling:

Beginning on April 21st, 2009, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) will host a blog summit to explore recycling efforts and trends in the United States – focusing on barriers to recycling and innovative programs to increase recycling, particularly of plastic. The blog summit is intended to be a dynamic online conversation; it is open to the public. Among those participating will be independent thought leaders with plastics or recycling expertise, industry executives and established bloggers all of whom will be volunteering their time and knowledge.

Why are we doing this?

Across the country and around the world, significant efforts are underway to decrease litter in all environments specifically near our oceans, rivers and streams. Many of the materials that end up on roadways and waterways are readily recyclable. Yet, recycling rates, particularly in the U.S., remain low. The American Chemistry Council and its member companies continue to work with state and city governments, non-profits and other stakeholders to improve the recycling infrastructure, increase access to recycling and create a culture of recycling for future generations.

Excellent. I hope you’re all feeling the warmth from the last 4 weeks of recycling goodness that the ACC have blessed you with.

No?

You’re a cynical bunch, aren’t you?