So much for the Brits, WWF-USA takes the idea of corporate love-ins to a whole new level. Go to the link yourself.

GASP at the polluters who want to look green.

SWOON at the food companies who sweep things under the carpet.

Be in SHOCK AND AWE at the financiers who run the world, and pretend to save it. On the WWF corporate partners web page lies a catalogue of the biggest names in greenwash.

Let’s look…

CARGILL : The largest grain producer and exporter on Earth. Genetically modified crops…check! Deforestation…check! Large scale agribusiness…check!

COCA-COLA : Enemy of poor rural Indians and extractor of millions of gallons of much needed water every day.

ALCOA : Aluminium giant. Producer of millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide every year, and polluter of lakes and rivers throughout the world.

TOYOTA and NISSAN NORTH AMERICA : Purveyor of SUVs and 4×4s to the masses. Get ‘em while they’re belching!

TATE AND LYLE : Destroyer of native habitats worldwide. They “own” around a quarter of Mauritius.

WALT DISNEY COMPANY : Brainwashing masters. Lose your childhood to a corporate myth.

And they were just the easy ones that I didn’t have to research. If WWF are really so outrageously dumb to think that any of these companies deserves to look good and, in effect, wipe out all memory of their terrible activities, then they can go ahead, but DON’T DARE THEY SAY THEY ARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATION!

Walking home from my local town centre the other day, I spotted a large advertisement by the global bank HSBC: they were proudly announcing that for every new account opened or mortgage taken out they will donate a magnificent £2 to the WWF’s rainforest protection project in Brazil. That’ll break the bank then (every pun intended)! I did a bit of hunting around and found that HSBC were committed to decent standards in their investments as regards forestry, but here’s the catch: when I wrote to WWF-UK it turned out they had absolutely no veto over HSBC’s activities.

---

Dear xxxx 

As discussed, and with regards to http://www.wwf.org.uk/business/whoweworkwith/c_0000000018.asp, please could you let me know whether WWF would be prepared to relinquish their partnership with HSBC (which I personally find extremely uncomfortable as it is) should it turn out that as a result of HSBC’s investment activities they were causing a net (direct or indirect) damage to rainforest ecosystems and/or the tribal peoples within.

Keith Farnish

---

In response I received a statement on their principles, which included “WWF  believes  that  the  most effective and long term environmental change comes  about  through  constructive and challenging dialogue and engagement with  business,  industry  and governments…” So, no answer there. I asked again.

---

Dear xxxx

I’m afraid this does not answer my question:

…

Am I correct to assume that WWF would continue to remain a partner regardless of HSBC’s activities?

Kind regards

Keith

———-

Hi Keith

xxxx has passed your email to me. You are asking a hypothetical question. If there was an issue we would obviously deal with it on a case by case basis. We cannot give you a blanket answer based on a hypothetical question.

I hope you can understand our position.

Best wishes

xxxx

———-

Dear xxxx

All questions regarding the future are hypothetical. WWF are combating rainforest destruction partly because you believe that it will cause a increase in atmospheric carbon levels - and quite right, too - but it is only as definite as the science says it is (around 90%). There is a strong chance, based on past behaviour that HSBC will invest in activities that cause a net loss in forest quality or area, so I am very surprised that you do not have this scenario covered. It would make the terms of your agreement far more solid, and also ensure that HSBC are far less likely to make damaging investments or loans.

Given your position I have no option but to assume that you are not protecting against this potential situation, and will have to report this as so.

Kind regards

Keith

———-

Dear Keith

You have asked us to comment on a vague hypothetical situation, which is very unusual. To make assumptions on the basis of our inability to comment on this is irresponsible journalism. As I have already said we would make decisions on a case by case basis, depending upon the scenario or issue. I also think that making assumptions on past behaviour is short sighted to say the least.

If you are making assumptions please make this clear rather than report this as fact.

Kind regards

xxxx

---

Very interesting. So, in short, WWF have made no agreement with HSBC that they would pull out of the partnership should HSBC behave irresponsibly. PLUS, they do not judge a company based on its past behaviour; any investments in destructive activities are swept under the carpet, provided you have the money to invest. For a stipend of around £100,000 and a little bit of box ticking, you can use the WWF logo on your headed notepaper. For an investment of around £1 million, you can plaster the WWF logo all over your adverts and look greener than green.

And if you think the UK is bad, tomorrow I will be going over to the USA…
 

You know when an “environmental” organisation has lost the plot when they start doing something so obviously hypocritical, so rancidly damaging, that there is no way on Earth that they cannot see the harm they are doing. The Sierra Club is a much-loved institution of American life. Sometimes vilified by the far-right, but generally accepted by the public as a symbol of great effort for the common good. And they have done some good, although you would be hard-pressed to identify much that has recently made much difference to the state of the planet.

And despite this light green tinge to their activities, despite their fairly fluffy persona, you really couldn’t imagine them promoting long haul flights, could you? Long haul flights, with extra air transfers thrown in? Long haul flights with extra air transfers and long distance 4×4 road trips?

Oh yes they do. And they promote them big time: not just a few, but hundreds and hundreds of options to fly around the world, spewing out tonnes of planet burning carbon dioxide as they go. Tempted? Take at look at this page.

Some of the trips have to be seen to be believed: you can go to Antarctica, by plane and icebreaker; you can fly to Estonia and go skiing; you can fly to the Galapagos Islands - that one needs four flights in all. Need I go on? I wrote to various tour leaders, expecting a hearty rebuttal of my points - here is one example:

Dear xxxxx 

Just been perusing some of the trips on the Sierra Club’s pages. Cruising The Galapagos Islands : 4 flights. That doesn’t sound very environmentally friendly does it?

Are you sure the Sierra Club are an environmental organisation, or are they just a club for rich people who want to pretend they are doing good. I know what I think, but as Mr Pope doesn’t recognise the latter - he is in some kind of world where flying is ok so long as it’s done by the “right kind of people” - then Sierra Club can carry on pulling the wool over people’s eyes, pretending that they are saving the world, while they are really burning it up.

Please consider what you are helping to happen when you encourage people to fly: however much the traveller may learn from the experience you are helping to heat the same planet that my children are hoping is still habitable when they grow up. The truth is, the vast majority of people on these trips will *never* do enough to make up for that extra 10 tons of carbon dioxide they have produced.

Regards

Keith Farnish

Out of a dozen e-mails I had one response, and he basically told me not to be so rude, going on to defend “eco tourism” as something that is better than other types of holidays. It didn’t strike him that not flying at all might be an option too.

So hats off to the Sierra Club; still in a tailspin over how to protect the planet.