We’re moving house soon, which means discovering untold secrets in the rarely visited corners of our current place of abode. After 16 years in the same place, much of that with an attitude that could possibly be described as “hoarder”, it’s no surprise that our domestic recycling bin is being kept filled up, as is our recently opened Sellers eBay account, the shelves of the local charity shops and the boot fair (I don’t know if these are unique to the UK) at which we will be selling off lots of stuff for little money next weekend.

The corollary to this is that we look back and wonder how on earth we accumulated so much stuff, quickly realising that merely recognising the problem is a step on from the typical “consumer” mindset. When this recognition turns into the understanding that we have a massive social problem, driven by the constant belief that to be a civilian you must contribute to economic growth, then you definitely start to diverge from the consumer highway. When you accept that this is the way civilisation is, and the only way to avoid being a destructive person is to reject the label “consumer” entirely, then you probably start to feel like a social pariah! “What do you mean you aren’t a consumer! What else is there to life?”

No surprise then, that in the early lead up to the UK General Election, the Conservatives made the pledge to encourage the collective citizen’s green blanket that is recycling by (wait for it) giving away shopping vouchers to the best recyclers!

Now don’t get me wrong, in some cases recycling is better than not recycling – but that’s where it ends. In order to be a “good recycler” you first have to have lots of stuff to recycle in the first place, meaning that you have to be a Good Consumer. That’s a lovely title, isn’t it?

Mike Webster of Waste Watch makes the point excellently:

“Although the scheme will encourage people to recycle more, it does not actually encourage them to produce less waste. You could even say that it is encouraging people to produce waste by paying them.”

Spot on, Mike, but that hasn’t stopped an entire industry growing up around the act of rewarding people for being good Recyclers / Consumers. Step up to the plate RecycleBank…

We’re sure that any person can make changes in life to lessen their impact on the planet. That’s why we go to every kind of neighborhood and involve people from all walks of life: recycling is the one thing we can all do.

RecycleBank is here to change behaviors and attitudes – not as enforcers, but encouragers. Whether you are taking baby steps, learning the path to greater awareness, or are a bona fide tree hugger, we respect your shade of green.

We believe we can help by making recycling understandable, easy and rewarding. We’re proud that we have created a level playing field where everyone can feel free to participate; appreciated for what they do and have the opportunity to live more sustainable lives. We enthusiastically support all forms of forward progress.

Now isn’t that just lovely? But look at the last sentence: “We enthusiastically support all forms of forward progress.” What does “progress” mean in the industrial world? It means anything that creates economic growth, and that’s where RecycleBank excels; as demonstrated by their Recycle-Redeem-Reward process:

RecycleBank partners with cities and haulers to reward households for recycling. Households earn RecycleBank Points that can be used to shop at over 1,500 local and national businesses.

RecycleBank records the amount you recycle…

Redeem the points in your account…

Get Rewards at over 2400 retailers.

Among the retailers who clearly have a heart of green are:

Dunkin’ Donuts
Kraft
Kmart
Footlocker
Texas Roadhouse
Sears
Evian

I think you get the picture.

And the company’s efforts are sponsored by Coca Cola, that bastion of all things sustainable and long-term.

Back in the UK, RecycleBank are just starting to make inroads, which is where the Conservative policy comes in, because it was the Marks and Spencer vouchers mentioned in the article that links to the UK page and the potential for hundreds, if not thousands of businesses (and forget the “local business” flannel, this is about global economics) to all stick their finger in the recycling pie and pull out a juicy plum in the form of lots more good and sadly deluded consumers, all thinking they are doing something good for the planet.

It almost makes me want to cry.

No need for comment, straight repost with thanks to Fred.

How do you greenwash a large airforce base? A base that is responsible for bombing nearby countries, and which was built on an island you confiscated from residents who are now living in exile on the other side of the world?

Now, rather than airbrushing out Chagos, the mandarins want to paint it green. Conservation seems to be the last hurrah of the British Empire.

(From http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/18/chagos-nature-reserve-greenwash)

Freshly extruded Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has challenged the Prime Minister to debate him over the Government’s response to next week’s looming asteroid impact, saying that the science isn’t in on whether the planet’s collision with the 90 kilometre-wide clump of frozen iron, nickel and basalt will be nearly as apocalyptic as the Intergovernmental Panel on the Impending Asteroid Apocalypse is predicting.

Unfortunately, according to the Government’s Minister for the End of the World, Senator Penny Wong, with the Coalition filibuster in the Senate likely to string out debate on the asteroid impact until well after the asteroid impacts next week, it is unlikely Mr Abbott will realise his desire to debate those views after all.

This beautiful spoof — in case you hadn’t guessed; after all, it’s close enough to be true — was written by John Birmingham (AKA Blunt Instrument) for the Sydney Morning Herald and deserves to be reposted because Tony Abbott is one of the most dangerous kind of sceptics. Without going into the background of his position too much; to the more radical of us in the environmental / ecological space, he actually comes across as a useful ally: by opposing a measure that toadys up to industry and allows traded emissions to masquerade as emissions cuts, he has done the right thing.

Then you look again and find he is using a scattergun approach to climate science, while also taking utterly discredited writers like Ian Plimer at face value:

If you look at Roman times, grapes grew up against Hadrian’s Wall – medieval times they grew crops in Greenland. In the 1700s they had ice fairs on the Thames. So the world has been significantly hotter, significantly colder than it is now. We’ve coped.

As I said, it is quite concerning but we have to remember that these are computer models and we also have to accept that there is… there are certainly some reputable scientists, Tony, who don’t accept that the most important element in climate change, to the extent that it’s occurring, is man-made carbon dioxide.

Well, look, if man-made CO2 was quite the villain that many of these people say it is, why hasn’t there just been a steady increase starting in 1750, and moving in a linear way up the graph.

These three quotes from the same interview demonstrate, in order, that (a) Tony Abbott is reading from the same song-sheet as the real old-school deniers, like Fred Singer; (b) he is trying to suggest that there is significant disagreement within the climate science community; and (c) he hasn’t a clue how natural climatic systems work at all. In other words, he appears to not have an original thought in his head and is thus extremely manipulatable. In a nation that really needs to take radical action to undermine the power of the fossil fuel and other industrial interests, Tony Abbot is rapidly becoming a potent player — acting the part of “confuser” quite brilliantly.

The industrialists must be grinning all the way to the bank / coal mine / clearcut.

(http://www.time.com/time/video/player/0,32068,52260545001_1947480,00.html)

Alerted to this video by a correspondant, who commented:

In what might be the greatest example of dystopian irony ever imagined, entrepreneurs in Greenland are seeking to use water taken from chunks of melting glaciers and bottling it in plastic for sale. Never mind that single-use plastics are one of the reasons that CO2 levels continue to rise.

To which I would add, that the whole operation stinks of yet another creeping tendril from the industrial machine desperately grabbing whatever “resources” it can take in order to siphon off the last few dollars (or Krone) from a dying empire. This is with the full backing of the Greenlandic government. The quotation from the video that really makes my blood boil is this one:

“Nature’s own knife has sliced this historic product and sent it crashing into the ocean. Creating enormous icebergs that float elegantly into the open sea: a resource possessing fantastic potential.”

The website marketing these monstrous products refer to the water as having been “reborn after 180,000 years.” No matter that with this “rebirth” comes so many deaths. No matter that the Greenland Ice Cap has the potential to raise the world’s oceans by 7m.

No matter. That’s business.

Now stop hoping, and get doing!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Press conference: 1pm CET, Frederiksholms Kanal 4, Copenhagen
Contact: Margaret Matembe, margaret.matembe@enviro-canada.ca, +45-23960186
Coverage: Click here, or click throughout press release for specific links
Videos:
     Canadian announcement (hi-res download)

     Ugandan response (hi-res download)

     Canadian retraction (hi-res download)

     Climate debt agents take responsibility (hi-res download)

More dream announcements coming soon! Come make your own or stay tuned at good-cop15.org.

Copenhagen Spoof Shames Canada; Climate Debt No Joke

African, Danish and Canadian youth join the Yes Men to demand climate justice and skewer Canadian climate policy

COPENHAGEN, Denmark – “Canada is ‘red-faced’!” (Globe and Mail) “Copenhagen spoof shames Canada!” (Guardian) "Hoax slices through Canadian spin on warming!" (The Toronto Star) “A childish prank!” (Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada)

What at first looked like the flip-flop of the century has been revealed as a sophisticated ruse by a coalition of African, North American, and European activists. The purpose: to highlight the most powerful nations’ obstruction of meaningful progress in Copenhagen, to push for just climate debt reparations, and to call out Canada in particular for its terrible climate policy.

The elaborate intercontinental operation was spearheaded by a group of concerned Canadian citizens, the “Climate Debt Agents” from ActionAid, and The Yes Men. It involved the creation of a best-case scenario in which Canadian government representatives unleashed a bold new initiative to curb emissions and spearhead a “Climate Debt Mechanism” for the developing world.

The ruse started at 2:00 PM Monday, when journalists around the world were surprised to receive a press release from “Environment Canada” (enviro-canada.com, a copy of ec.gc.ca) that claimed Canada was reversing its position on climate change.

[All links open in a new window]

“It isn’t.”

Ok, that was a bit short, but it’s true. The Copenhagen conference is an irrelevance, unless you are one of those kinds of people who like watching thousands of politicians rub shoulders and exchange platitudes, after which they attend a variety of meetings out of which will come precisely nothing that will have the slightest bearing on the future of the planet.

So here’s my promise:

If a watertight deal comes out of the two week conference that promises at least a net reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (including deforestation), based on 1990 levels, by 2015; and a net global reduction, again on 1990 levels, of at least 60% by 2030 — then, and only then, will I shut down The Unsuitablog.

These figures are not just finger-in-the-air stuff; they are derived from the work of some of the finest climate scientists working today — those that care about the quality of their work rather than whatever funding they might receive from Corporation X. Funnily enough, it’s just those figures that will spell the end of the Industrial Machine because, except through some fundamental change in the entire global system of energy production and resource consumption, these cuts require the global economy to contract by the same amount.

No one attending COP15 Copenhagen would ever dare entertain the idea of a shrinking economy: there’s no profit in it, and who the hell would vote for it when we have all been told the most important thing we can have is a healthy fiscal system? More importantly, the corporations that run the industrial world will simply not allow it to happen; so it won’t.

My offer still stands. Who’s going to start the ball rolling?

Cast your minds back to 2006, when the UK Conservative Party (actually, still the Conservative and Unionist Party, for completists) snuffed out their “hand holding torch” logo, and switched to the “Green Tree” logo. It was to be a new dawn for the new green Conservative Party; an age of environmental respect and a new found compassion for the natural world, where all was once soaked in the ooze of corporate loving Tory malfeasance. The ecology was to be given (at least) equal billing with the economy; something that was drummed into the British public’s heads with the party’s press releases, and David Cameron’s rhetoric:

I believe that tackling climate change is a key part of my ambition for the Conservative Party to lead a new green revolution. Above all today, I want to recapture climate change from the pessimists. Of course it presents huge challenges. Of course the issues are complex. Of course it will require us to change. But when I think about climate change and our response to it, I don’t think of doom and gloom, costs and sacrifice.

I think of a cleaner, greener world for our children to enjoy and inherit.

The rhetoric hasn’t changed, at least from Tory Central Office – hell, you can buy a Green Tree Keyring, if you really want – but look more closely at Cameron’s speech even back in 2006 and you will see a few things that throw a dirty grey veil over the shiny green promises. The role of the market, is one such thing…

we understand the power of markets, and how they work. We know that markets will have a crucial part to play – internationally and nationally – in driving down carbon emissions and creating green, sustainable growth.

and then…

We have to liberate ourselves from the myth that we have to choose between protecting the environment and promoting prosperity…There’s a direct connection between environmental protection and wealth creation…We have to make it clear that we want, we need – and crucially, that we have the ability to achieve – economic growth and a sustainable environment; indeed that one supports the other.

Economic growth compatible with with environmental protection and sustainability; now where have we hard that before?

Miliband Poznan BBC Sun 13 December 2008

Ah yes, a prominent member of the party that David Cameron hopes to usurp. All reading from the same hymn sheet and preaching the Holy Gospel of Market Capitalism. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: you cannot have a growing material economy without degrading the natural capital that sustains all life on Earth. Failure to recognise this is why it is so easy for politicians to push the growth agenda, proliferating the view that we can spend our way out of this mess.

Spend our way into oblivion, is more like it.

But all the time the corporations make deals behind the scenes — deals that will decide who benefits most from a Conservative government –The Conservatives continue to wax lyrical about their commitment to environmental care:

A Conservative Government will make Britain greener by tackling climate change and enhancing our environment.

We believe quality of life and environmental issues must be at the heart of politics – which is why we have pledged to improve Britain’s environment by reversing the decline in our biodiversity, improving urban green spaces, providing incentives to recycle and working towards zero waste.

Well, I say “wax lyrical”, but read on and you see that the agenda is dominated by waste and recycling, not reducing consumption or bringing people back into a deep connection with the real world (heaven forbid!). There is also a bit of that traditional Conservative colonialism creeping in, with the ominous phrases “our fish stocks” and “our marine habitats”, as though humans (or rather civilised, political humans) own the oceans.

Not to let personal agendas get in the way of doing work for the people is Shadow Environment and Rural Affairs Minister, Nick Herbert, a former director of the British BloodField Sports Society, and founder member of the Countryside Alliance, who suggested that “Lord Stern’s call for people to give up eating meat [to reduce greenhouse gas emissions] was totally irresponsible and damaging to our livestock industry”. Although, to give him his due, it seems that he is not in a political minority, as shown by Labour MP Jane Kennedy, who said: “In British sausage week we celebrate a varied diet. If it is a proposal that vegetarianism should save the world then I’m not sure it’s a world I want to live in.”

Well, stick a skewer up my arse and call me a kebab! I guess I’m in a living hell, then.

Further truths about Conservative Greenwashing have recently emerged, with the unsurprising revelation that prominent Tory members and writers are climate change sceptics

David Cameron is facing a growing challenge to his authority from senior members of his own party who say they have doubts about the Conservatives’ stance on global warming.

Leading figures including Peter Lilley, the former cabinet minister, Andrew Tyrie and Ann Widdecombe are openly questioning the political consensus on climate change.

And today David Davis, the former shadow Home Secretary, warns in The Independent that the policy of tough targets to cut carbon emissions, supported by Mr Cameron, is “destined to collapse”. He criticises “the fixation of the green movement with setting ever tougher targets, in the face of failure to meet earlier promises”. He adds: “The ferocious determination to impose hair-shirt policies on the public – taxes on holiday flights, or covering our beautiful countryside with wind turbines that look like props from War of the Worlds – is bound to cause a reaction in any democratic country.”

Some Tory frontbenchers are also said to have private doubts about climate change. John Maples, the deputy Tory chairman, told the Commons last year that he no longer accepted the consensus on the issue. “I do not believe that the science is anything like as settled as the proponents of the [Climate Change] Bill are making out,” he said. He declined to comment yesterday.

Backbenchers were happy to speak out. Philip Davies, Tory MP for Shipley, admitted he did not share Mr Cameron’s views on the subject, and warned that a Tory government would harm the economy if it took unilateral action to cut emissions.

Well, at least Philip Davies got one thing right: dealing with climate change will hurt the economy. Oh yes!

And it’s pretty obvious what the Conservatives will support if they have to make a choice between the Economy and the Ecology…

_____

N.B. The author does not vote any more

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.

Crazy days as the unreal world approaches Copenhagen: corporations and a fair few governments are balking at the potential deals on the table — even though, if we’re being truthful here, they are hopelessly, awfully, ruthlessly inadequate. You will see a HUGE amount of greenwashing going on over the next few weeks, and the astroturfs are going to be piling on the pressure to ensure that everyone, not just politicians, sees a 2 degree temperature rise as something easily avoidable while industry keeps being industrial.

Basically, no one is going to be happy, and the planet will burn because no one in the civilized world will face reality…except one, maybe:

In a sign that some of the oil majors, which are preparing to announce 60pc-70pc drop in net profits this week, are becoming bolder in their opposition to international efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 80pc over the next four decades, a senior executive who spoke to The Sunday Telegraph said there was currently a large degree of wishful political thinking about the changes targeted by the global summit.

“If you look at the Copenhagen targets they are basically completely illusory,” he said. “There’s no way to hit those targets and it would be very silly to think that we can.”

At first glance, I reacted with anger; and then realised that, maybe without realising it, he had hit on that very deep truth that needs saying out loud again and again: Industrial Civilization cannot co-exist with a healthy planet.

It doesn’t need an awful lot of analysis to see this; basically, if you are an oil company, the existence of which depends upon people using oil (or a coal company, agribusiness, clothing manufacturer and so on, the existence of which depends on people using whatever you produce) then supporting anything that may hit that business model will be economic suicide. Even if an aspirational 80% reduction in carbon emissions (60% globally) by 2050 has absolutely no chance of stopping runaway climate change, it’s still enough to make the profits crumble, which is one pillar of Industrial Civilization gone, there and then. Make changes that are actually sufficient to rein back climate change — and no one really knows what they are, but let’s say 90% reductions by 2020 — then not only will the entire global economy collapse, but the entire way of life that much of humanity has grown up thinking is its birthright will have to go.

Climate Change Stopped = Industrial Civilization Ended

So, well done, whoever that anonymous source was: you’ve really put the cat amongst the pigeons now.