This is classic greenwash. Vintage greenwash, in fact.

Tesco, the British supermarket giant headed by Sir Terry Leahy (knighted for services to corporate power), has announced that one of their 2,360 stores is to become carbon neutral. I assume, obviously, that this carbon neutrality includes the things they sell in the store, rather than just the operational carbon, otherwise you could be excused for thinking that – heaven forbid – this is a PR stunt.

The story is taken up by Julia Finch in The Guardian, who opens with a cracking statistic…

Supermarket group Tesco, which pumps out some four million tonnes of carbon a year, today opened its first zero carbon store as part of its bid to be a carbon ­neutral company by 2050.

The shop, in Ramsey, Cambridgeshire, is timber-framed rather than steel, and uses skylights and sun pipes to cut lighting costs. It also has a combined heat and power plant powered by renewable bio-fuels, exporting extra electricity back to the national grid. In addition the refrigerators – one of the biggest blackspots for food retailers trumpeting their green credentials – have doors to save energy and harmful HFC refrigerant gases have been replaced.

Tesco chief executive Sir Terry Leahy said: “It shows that you can dramatically alter how much carbon you use and life can go on”.

The new store, he said, “cost 30% more to build, but it uses 50% less energy, and with oil at $70 a barrel it is a business case in itself”.

To coincide with the Ramsey opening, the supermarket chain said it intended to spend more than £100m with green technology companies, although Leahy was unsure of the level of supermarket’s current spend on this.

Tesco has been at the forefront of the grocers’ race to be green. The UK’s biggest supermarket has provided £25m of funding for the University of Manchester to set up a sustainable consumption institute, and has a 10-point community plan, with pledges to increase local sourcing and to consult local communities in an attempt to be viewed as a good neighbour.

Apart from the obvious dissonance between Tesco’s 2,360 stores that rip the heart out of communities wherever they are located – and, believe me, they are not located in order to develop a harmonic relationship with any community – there is the small matter of what Tesco sells.

In 2009, Tesco had a turnover – essentially a measure of how much stuff they sell – of £59.4 billion, an increase of 15.1% on the previous year. Of that vast amount, £41.5 billion is from UK sales, with the remaining £18 billion accounted for by supermarkets in Thailand (614 stores), China (50 “hypermarkets”), Ireland (117), South Korea (280), Japan (137), Turkey (100), Poland (313) and the USA (113).

As the “green” store is in the UK, we should focus on Tesco’s activities there: so we see £28.5 billion coming from food retailing – what is considered the Core Business – and the bulk of the remainder from non-food retail (clothes, electrical goods, homeware etc).

If you live in the UK, I want you to go into a Tesco store and pick ten items at random, both food and non-food, then try and find out where the items were manufactured, grown or otherwise produced. You’re going to have an interesting time with food because, like most food in supermarkets, the items contain a huge variety of different ingredients emanating from all across the globe: simplicity is not in the nature of mass food retailing. Fruit, vegetables and other single-source items will invariable be a mix of local (ish) and from much further away; but you can be assured that even “local” items will have been moved from one end of the country to the other a couple of times for warehousing and distribution before reaching the store.

Non-food items are made, basically, in China.

Tesco’s Carbon Disclosure (via http://www.cdproject.net) is interesting, to say the least, and it’s well worth repeating here:

8.1. Please indicate the category that describes the company, entities, or group for which Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions are reported.

Companies over which operational control is exercised.

8.2. Please state whether any parts of your business or sources of GHG emissions are excluded from your reporting boundary.

Production of goods, supplier transport, international freight, asset sites, waste recycling and disposal, employee commuting, customer transport, consumption and disposal of goods.

So while they are honest about their “direct” emissions, they completely ignore the thing that accounts for the bulk of Tesco’s emissions: the production and transportation of the things they sell.

The aforementioned four million tonnes of carbon dioxide is, large as it seems, only the tip of Terry’s toxic iceberg.

Why should this be a problem, given that the companies that make and transport the stuff should be disclosing and accounting for their emissions? Because Tesco is a huge company, and for the most part, if they did not exist to sell people overprocessed, long-haul, extraneous and unnecessary things that people would not buy were they not marketed by Tesco’s gigantic marketing machine, the emissions simply would not be produced. But, hey! They have a carbon neutral store, so that’s ok, isn’t it?

Tesco: every lie helps.

Impinging upon an uncontacted tribe is, by any stretch of the imagination, culturally the most destructive thing it is possible to do: the tribe not only lose their landbase – the source of everything they need to live – but they become subject to foreign diseases to which they have no immunity, and their cultural identity becomes diluted, almost certain to be swallowed up by industrial civilization’s “growth at any cost” mentality. In short, if civilization impinges upon an uncontacted tribe, the tribe dies.

Survival International never let up in their efforts to prevent this kind of thing happening. Their “Greenwashing Award” may be symbolic, but it is a vital way to publicise the awful things that corporations and governments do in order to make money; just money, as though it is more important than life…

A Brazilian company bulldozing an uncontacted tribe’s land in Paraguay has won Survival’s ‘Greenwashing Award 2010’.

The company, Yaguarete Porá S.A., has won the award for ‘dressing up the wholesale destruction of a huge area of the Indians’ forest as a noble gesture for conservation’, says Survival’s director Stephen Corry.

Yaguarete owns 78,549 hectares of forest that is part of the Ayoreo-Totobiegosode tribe’s ancestral territory. After satellite photos were published around the world revealing that it has destroyed thousands of hectares of the tribe’s forest, the company issued a press release announcing it intends to create a ‘nature reserve’ on its land.

But plans submitted by Yaguarete to Paraguay’s Environment Ministry reveal that the amount of ‘continuous forest’ in the reserve will be just 16,784 hectares out of the 78,549 hectares total, and the company in fact plans to convert around two thirds of the land to cattle ranching.

Some of the Totobiegosode have already been contacted and vehemently condemned the plans for the ‘reserve’, pointing out that it violates their rights under both Paraguayan and international law. The contacted Totobiegosode have been claiming legal title to this land since 1993, but most of it is still in private hands.

The Totobiegosode are the only uncontacted Indians in the world having their territory destroyed for beef production.

Survival director, Stephen Corry, said today, ‘This is textbook ‘greenwashing’: bulldoze the forest and then ‘preserve’ a bit of it for PR purposes. The public won’t fall for it. Yaguarete should stop playing games and pull out of the Totobiegosode’s territory once and for all.’

Survival’s Greenwashing Award is presented to Yaguarete Porá S.A. for dressing up the wholesale destruction of a huge area of the Ayoreo-Totobiegosode’s forest as a noble gesture for conservation.

The following video shows what is likely to happen to the Totobiegosode people, using the terrible example of the Akuntsu:

Oh, the sheer hubris is making me smile so much! Unite, the union responsible for the welfare of cabin staff at British Airways has moved well ahead with plans for a 12 day all-out strike designed to ground the majority of British Airways craft over the lucrative Christmas and New Year period; and won’t it be a corker if it goes ahead:

Bruce Carr QC, representing the airline at a packed hearing yesterday, said the union was “depriving literally millions of people of a happy Christmas”.

He added: “The apparent recognition of the deliberate timing is highlighted by the fact that Unite needed to make [the strike] 12 days of Christmas, not 10 or 14 … It knew the number has a resonance for the many passengers who are deprived of flying with BA.”

Let’s suppose that the striking workers manage to ground half of BA’s fleet from just Heathrow and Gatwick for this period. Stephen Bowler’s plane spotting website gives a good estimate of 500 flights from the two airports every day, with about 40% being long-haul (more than about 5000 miles). It’s difficult to extrapolate precisely, but assuming each an Airbus A320 emits just over 9kg per kilometre travelled that’s…

…about 45 tonnes of carbon dioxide per flight (with an average of 5000 km per flight)…

…about 22500 tonnes of carbon dioxide per day…

…about 42750 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per day, due to 1.9 multiplier from high altitude flying…

…about 256000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent prevented from being emitted over the strike period, assuming half of planes are grounded.

Wow! That’s the same as the entire Central African Republic emits in a whole year. And that’s just direct emissions. I’ve taken into account the people who would have gone to other airlines in my 50% “grounding” figure, because it could be as much as 90% grounding if the strike is solid, but there are a hell of a lot of people who would think again about flying over the Christmas / New Year period if they were to experience a season at home again. Many, many of these people are habitual fliers who can’t imagine any other way of communicating, and heaven help anyone who wants to stop them exploring the world — but the cabin crew might manage that.

In case you think I am attacking British Airways out of hand, bearing in mind that aviation accounts, at the moment, for a relatively small proportion of global emissions, then you need to see the kind of nefarious tactics that BA have been using to convince us all that flying isn’t really a problem, and they are even one of the good guys when it comes to planetary ecocide.

First, their own web site, containing the following statements about the “efforts” they have been making to cut emissions:

We have actively campaigned for aviation to be included in global carbon trading since 2000.

We were the first airline in the world to gain practical experience through participation in the UK Emissions Trading Scheme, which enabled us to reduced our UK carbon emissions by 23%.

As a direct result of our efforts, the EU carbon trading scheme is going to include the aviation industry from 2012.

Exactly how did BA reduce its emissions by 23%? They didn’t cut the number of flights — oh no — they simply purchased a load of “permits” to pollute (actually, were virtually given them by the pro-flying UK government, but that’s another story) and struck them off their carbon balance sheet. Job done. Or rather, greenwash done. With aviation in the European scheme from 2012 there will be even more opportunity for BA to sweep their emissions under someone else’s carpet.

Second, they are a key member of Future Heathrow, an organisation promoting the (deep breath) “sustainable” expansion of London Heathrow airport. This is classic greenwash from their web site:

It has been suggested that the environmental costs of Heathrow outweigh its economic benefits but if capacity at Heathrow continues to be constrained, foreign hubs such as Frankfurt, Amsterdam and Paris will grow instead. This will not provide any climate change benefits but would severely damage the UK’s global competitiveness and UK jobs.

Of course, everyone in the UK will suddenly move to Germany, Holland or France so they can fly from there. Alternatively, without the expansion there will be fewer options for the airlines to seduce people into flying, so they might just stay at home And, of course, as part of Future Heathrow’s climate change mitigation, they will also be turning to emissions trading in a big way to “offset” the increase in Heathrow’s emissions (hang on, didn’t they say that the emissions wouldn’t increase overall?)

More about Future Heathrow can be found in this Unsuitablog article.

Third, British Airways are also a key member of the pro-flying lobby group Flying Matters. Ironically, for this article, the trade union that BA are fighting against, Unite, is also a member. Among their charming comments from their Press section is this one, essentially saying that the Archbishop of Canterbury is going to hell for suggesting people should grow their food locally:

The Archbishop of Canterbury has called air-freighted food “unsustainable” and wants it to be replaced by homegrown produce from thousands of new allotments.

Dr. Williams made his comments in an interview with the Times, in which he also said that he tried to have a “flight-free year” in 2008, but didn’t manage to.

Although Dr. Williams said he wanted to avoid creating an “instant crisis” in developing countries whose economies rely on the ability to export fresh food to market, FlyingMatters Director Michelle Di Leo told The Times that “the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”

Alternatively, we could listen to Rowan Williams and not fall into the trap of thinking globalisation is what the financially poor nations of the world need – hey! Maybe they should be allowed to grow food for themselves rather than forcing them into market-led trade subservience.

British Airways, The World’s Most Hypocritical Airline.
__________

STOP PRESS: The strike has just been ruled “Illegal” by the High Court of England. That’s 256000 tonnes of carbon dioxide likely to be pouring into the atmosphere over Christmas once more…

Thanks to Bindarri, an Australian creative arts hub, which has exposed the lies of Australian Pulp in promoting their ENVI “sustainable” paper which, unsurprisingly, still requires primary forest to be logged for its production…

Q – how do you sell woodchipped Australian native forest to an Australian market who is becoming more environmentally aware?

A – buy some offset credits and launch Australia’s first carbon neutral paper.

Go Greenwash with ENVI

Australian Paper (AP), the manufacturer of ENVI has had a long history of sourcing fibre from native forests and has been subject to consumer boycotts.

AP’s Maryvale Mill in Gippsland Victoria will consume 350,000m3 of native forest pulp in 2009 [pdf pg 29] as well as producing pollutant emissions. This mill produces its famous Reflex paper and some of the ENVI range.

“ENVI grades are exactly the same paper that AP already produces. The only difference is that they have had the associated greenouse gas emmissions calculated and offset with carbon credits” (quote from Dalton). Some of ENVI’s range includes part recycled content such as “ENVI Recycled 50/50″ while some of their papers such as “ENVI DM MATT” and “REFLEX CARBON NEUTRAL” contain no recycled content.

Currently, AP is linked to logging in the Central Highland, Strzelecki Rainforest Reserve and the Baw Baw National Park, which has been recognised by several key scientific studies as one of Victoria’s most biologically significant sites and one of its most important water catchments.

The Central Highlands of Victoria are the world’s most carbon-dense forest according to researchers from the Australian National University. Professor Mackey said “It identifies a gap in climate change policy that Australia needs to address. There has been a lot of talk about the need to address tropical deforestation in developing countries, but these results show we must start by recognising the carbon benefits to be gained from protecting our native forests”.

Accrediting a paper which is sourcing part of their pulp from the worlds most carbon dense forests raises questions about the integrity of the “Greenhouse Friendly” program and what “Carbon Neutral” really means.

While Melbourne is facing strict water restrictions this summer, Melbourne’s main water catchment is losing 20,000 megalitres a year due to logging. Logging reduces waterflow in to our dams by 50% and causes erosion and pollution which impact on water quality.

You can read about the whole clearfelled mess at the Bindarri website, which also contains stacks more information about the corporate links of Australian Paper and other corporate greenwashing they are indulging themselves with.

Something has been niggling me for a while: every time I open my Inbox, an old email goes flashing past, annoying but not quite annoying enough to blog about; but I kept it for when the niggle eventually became a pain. Back in April, for that joyous event that some companies like to call Earth Day (Week, Month, etc.), a company called Nature Air sent me a message all about their product.

Nature Air. It sounds like the merest zephyr that brings the tang of the wild into your nostrils and a cooling breeze across your skin.

Wrong. Nature Air is an airline – a small one, yes, with turboprop planes, but nevertheless an airline. “Airline” doesn’t mean life-saving doctors on call, emergency in the wilds of Australia, it means “Commercial enterprise that encourages flying in order to make money.”

So what did this email say?

Hello:

As you are planning your Earth Day coverage I thought you would be interested in this recent news from NatureAir. While many companies are cutting costs today, NatureAir continues to spend money in an effort to save the planet and create a better future for Costa Rica children.

Just recently NatureAir expanded its sustainable projects and began using bio-diesel. The alternative fuel, formulated with recycled vegetable oils, is used to fuel all NatureAir ground equipment and vehicles. The use of bio-diesel has an enormous impact on the environment. A fleet that uses 1,000 gallons of bio-diesel per year generates enough CO2 emission reductions equivalent to removing 1.4 cars from our roadways. NatureAir is the first company to bring this cleaner, sustainable fuel to Costa Rica.

Please see the release below for more information on all NatureAir’s eco-friendly and educational projects and let me know if you have any questions or would like to speak with someone from NatureAir.
–
Thank you!

Carolyn Evert
Adventure Travel Media Source
Account Manager
Carolyn@atmstravelnews.com

And there was a press release attached — thanks, Carolyn. Now, reading through the email, you would be forgiven for thinking that Nature Air was running their planes on recycled vegetable oil; but, of course, that’s not possible due to the unforgiving nature of aircraft engines, which require highly refined kerosene to stay in the air — hence the caption in the photo above. Apart from running a few tiny ground vehicles on a bit of leftover cooking oil, what else are Nature Air doing to help “save the planet” (their words)?

Furthermore NatureAir reduces CO2 emissions through its fuel-efficient twin-engine planes, reduced taxi waits, and offsetting 100% of carbon emitted from every flight. The airline just embarked on its 5th consecutive year of compensations for its flight emissions, an approximately $90,000 yearly investment. 100% of its greenhouse gas emissions are compensated through preservation and reforestation of tropical forests in Southern Costa Rica’s Osa Peninsula.

Every flight NatureAir takes to the skies guarantees that a forest will be free from clear cutting.

Wow! That’s brilliant! I can take a flight and save a rainforest!

So what about the kerosene being burnt in the engine that isn’t contributing to climate change in any way at all? Oh, it’s being offset by the forest preservation, which would not have been necessary without the greed of market capitalism, which Nature Air are just another part of. And don’t forget that there is no guarantee whatsoever that the preservation will be there for 200 years, which is how long it has to be in place to account for the carbon emissions. Someone must be checking all this.

Let’s check out their certification page at http://www.natureair.com/carbonneutral/…

Oh dear, it seems to have disappeared for the moment. I’ll try somewhere else…

Since 2004, Nature Air has been the first airline to compensate for 100% of its carbon emissions from flight operations. We do this thru a locally certified compensation program, certified by the government and international third party auditors. Nature Air has chosen to support reforestation and conservation programs to help combat the impacts of deforestation in Costa Rica.

Well meaning, I’m sure, but incredibly naive.

The reason I decided to turn to this stupid email from this deluded company was because of a great blog written by my friend Annie on her blog a few days ago. She wrote about whether flying to see the family can ever be justified, which then raised a few comments about children being “denied” the opportunity of seeing far away places, and the chances of exotic experiences that would otherwise not be available if they didn’t fly. This, of course, is not “denial” at all — it is merely the way we were before we were sold the dream of being able to go wherever we want, very quickly, with little regard for our life-support system.

I will end with a comment that was made below the article itself, by another Annie, which I think is a wonderful statement of what holidays are about:

Most kids who fly abroad just go the beach or swimming pool of their hotel, eat chips and have no cultural experience whatsoever! Your children are NOT being deprived by not having foreign holidays. They live in a beautiful place with big gardens. Children need freedom and to be outside in nature not stuck in front of a telly, and the wilds of Wales are as good a place as any for that. Grasshoppers and ladybirds in your garden can be just as fascinating as an exotic animal. Also, your kids get to experience alternative culture at festivals etc. when they are older they can go anywhere they want – and by then trains might be cheaper and better and aeroplanes a thing of the past!

Also known as Waxman-Markey, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACESA) which is currently sitting in the US Senate awaiting approval, is being hailed by the environment mainstream as a real answer to anthropogenic global warming. Anyone with half a brain will realise that this is utterly false. One group, calling themselves Climate SOS, are making this point very loudly, and have written the following article just for The Unsuitablog.

Lots of mainstream enviros, especially those involved in the US Climate Action Partnership, are promoting the recent house climate bill as a great step forward. Then there are a bunch more who think it is “better than nothing”…or “the best we can get under the circumstances…”

Very thought-provoking, and worrying. Thanks to Rachel for the words.

It’s a chilly autumn evening and you have some friends round for dinner. A beautiful cloudless night reveals the Milky Way in all its splendour, spreading a dusty arc across the sky. The chatter turns to nature, and the mention that it would be nice to spend some time outdoors now that the rain has cleared.

Your guests move to put on their coats, but you stop them: “No need to wrap up,” you call in the direction of the hallway, “it can be just as warm outside.” Of course! You had heaped scorn upon the neighbours with their patio heaters and the stack of butane heated air being released to the atmosphere; and then you chanced upon the Designer range of products from Ecosmart…

EcoSmart Fire (www.ecosmartfire.com) today announces their lower price-point Outdoor Range product line that will include four new fireplace models, which can be used interchangeably between indoor and outdoor spaces. As with all EcoSmart Fire products, the new Outdoor Range models are environmentally-friendly, designer fireplaces that are fueled by a renewable, modern energy (Denatured Ethanol) so they burn clean and are virtually maintenance-free.

The new Outdoor Range products include three new freestanding models – Cyl, Mini T and Lantern, and one new burner – Around Burner. Details about the new Outdoor Range products follow:

. Around Burner: Around Burner offers the ultimate flexibility due to its modular design, allowing you to create an open fire just about anywhere. The lowest priced EcoSmart Fireplace currently available, Around Burner retails for $990.
. Cyl: Cyl is a cylindrical shaped “tea light” inspired fireplace. Cyl features a stainless steel base and a cylindrical glass surround made of toughened glass panels which embrace the flame. Cyl retails for $1,990.
. Mini T: Mini T is a smaller version of its “big brother” Tower. Mini T features a brushed stainless steel base and a solid plinth, made from four toughened glass panels, which encloses the central, elevated flame. Mini T retails for $1,990.
. Lantern: Lantern is constructed from mild steel with a bronze patina. Each side is decorated with an abstract cut-out pattern so that when the Lantern is lit, the pattern is enhanced by the flame, creating a visually dramatic fireplace. Lantern retails for $3,990.

Through December 2010, the purchase of any EcoSmart Fire product qualifies for Federal Tax Credits for Energy Efficiency, with customers receiving up to 30% or $1,500 in tax credits, making the cost of an EcoSmart Fire considerably less.

Yeah!

Sucks to all those coat-wearing losers: let’s get outdoors and heat the air guilt free with this eco-friendly denatured ethanol stuff. No way is ethanol a greenhouse gas; it just comes like magic fairy dust from the big ethanol tree in the pixie forest, or maybe from the vast ethanol fields of no use for anything else.

Hey guys! Where are you going?

When I mention Norway to you, things like a high standard of living, sexual equality, beautiful but harsh landscapes and the Northern Lights are almost certain to come to mind. You might also think of North Sea oil and gas, and the fact that Norway has claims to the majority of remaining reserves; or perhaps you will think of the constant pressure that Norway piles on the IWC to allow it to resume commercial whaling. Even less likely, perhaps, you would recall Norway as the home of a private company that defrauded indigenous forest dwellers in Ghana of tens of thousands of hectares of homeland in order to destroy it and plant a lucrative crop of jatropha for use as a biofuel — or rather, an agrifuel.

Incredibly, it wasn’t until last week that this came to my attention; a bile-inducing article in The Independent about resource colonialism (which is essentially what colonialism was always about) mentioned the Norwegian company — the one that angered me the most — in this way:

Food is not all the new colonialists are after. About a fifth of the massive new deals are for land on which to grow biofuels. British, US and German companies with names such as Flora Ecopower have bought land in Tanzania and Ethiopia. The country whose name became a byword for famine at the time of the Live Aid concerts has had more than 50 investors sign deals or register an interest in the cultivation of biofuel crops on its soil.

From Ethiopia’s point of view, the economic logic is straightforward: the country is an importer of oil and is therefore vulnerable to price fluctuations on the world market; if it can produce biofuels it will lessen that dependency. But at a cost. To keep the foreign biofuel investors happy, the government doesn’t force any companies to carry out environmental impact assessments. Local activists claim that 75 per cent of the land allocated to foreign biofuel firms are covered in forests that will be cut down.

More worrying is the plan by a Norwegian biofuel company to create “the largest jatropha plantation in the world” by deforesting large tracts of land in northern Ghana. Jatropha, which can be cultivated in poor soil, produces oily seeds that can produce biodiesel. A local activist, Bakari Nyari, of the African Biodiversity Network, has accused the company of “using methods that hark back to the darkest days of colonialism… by deceiving an illiterate chief to sign away 38,000 hectares with his thumbprint”. The company claims the scheme will bring jobs, but the extensive deforestation which would result would deprive local people of their traditional income from gathering forest products such as shea nuts.

A little digging around, reveals the company in question to be called BioFuel Africa, a private firm that specialises in the production of agrifuels in West Africa and, according to their website, operates “under the principle that production can only be sustainable if it is low cost, provides a solid return, and enhances and enriches the lives of its workers and surrounding communities.”

Now, even this self-serving definition of “sustainable” is extremely revealing, for it shows clearly that the priorities of the company are profit and exploitation of local people. Quite how sustainability can be equated with profitability is a question that only arises in Industrial Civilization; justifying this outside of a system that values intangible profits and growth above the survival of the global ecology, would be utterly impossible. Even inside the system, it is illogical. And as for enhancing and enriching the lives of those people who up to the invasion of commercial forces were connected to the land, wanting little beyond that which sustains them on a daily basis, and the cohesive structure of a stable community…this is about as hypocritical as it is possible to be in a few words.

On BioFuel Africa’s “Social Impact” pages, you will also find this description of how they “restore” land by planting Jatropha:

By the current national definition of “forest” as outlined by the Forestry Commission of Ghana, the project area can be considered degraded and therefore suitable for reforestation. Planting jatropha trees removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, helps restore soil fertility and protects the land from wind and water erosion.

The roots of the jatropha trees bind with topsoil to make it less vulnerable to wind and penetrate the soil to allow infiltration of water, thereby reducing land degradation. This makes the crop ideal especially for marginal soils where land degradation, desertification and water stress are real problems.

Which is great; providing you want monocultural green concrete as your restored ecosystem, you don’t want any indigenous forest people disturbing your commercial operation, and you accept the definition of “degraded” from the Forestry Commission of Ghana which, incidentally, is funded through a combination of government money and “our share of revenue from the sale of timber and wildlife resources to contractors.”

On the sustainability point alone, the true impact of the 38,000 landgrab is outlined in a brilliant report by the Regional Advisory and Information Network Systems (RAINS), based in Ghana:

In November 2007 a team from RAINS discovered massive destruction of vegetation cover over a large stretch of land near a village called Alipe within the White Volta River basin about 30 kilometres from Tamale, the capital town of the Northern region of Ghana. Heavy agricultural machinery were systematically pulling down trees and decimating the area a few metres south of the village. The land had been stripped bare of all its vegetation cover. Enquiry revealed that the site was to be the beginning of a large jatropha plantation developed by a Norwegian biofuel company called BioFuel Africa – a subsidiary of Bio Fuel Norway (www.biofuel.no). At a public engagement session in Kusawgu, the traditional capital of the Kusawgu Division of the Gonja Traditional Council, Mr. Finn Byberg, Director of Land Acquisition for BioFuel Africa, stated that BioFuel Africa hoped to “develop the largest jatropha plantation in the world in Ghana”.

The discovery of the cleared land brought the realization that the battle against land grabbing and community disempowerment was no longer just happening in other countries but also in Ghana. In collaboration with the Central Gonja District Assembly and the Environmental Protection Agency, work was suspended on the development site.

I strongly urge you to read this paper; it is factual, and covers the issues in far more detail than I could here. Not knowing the background — as I said, I’m new to this story — it’s still pretty clear that this paper was the catalyst for BioFuel Africa going into receivership. In effect, this report screwed up the company…

…almost:

STAVANGER, NORWAY – BioFuel AS founders Arne Helvig and Steinar Kolnes have acquired 100 percent of the shares in BioFuel Africa Ltd. (Ghana), a biofuel company focused on growing sustainable alternative fuels in West Africa, a company that was fully owned by BioFuel AS.

As a result of slanderous public remarks made against BioFuel AS and one of its primary shareholders, the company was forced to file for bankruptcy on 13 March, 2009, putting all of BioFuel AS assets up for sale. Two of the company’s founders took that opportunity to buy all shares of BioFuel Africa Ltd., assuming all its debt and acquiring all assets. As a result, BioFuel Africa will be able to continue its operations in Ghana.

“We feel optimistic about the acquisition, which will allow us to focus on the business at hand,” said Chief Executive Officer Steinar Kolnes. “We will not let false accusations or petty behavior on the part of one highly irresponsible company deter us from the mission of bringing a socially and environmentally product to market.”

A new company, Solar Harvest AS, has been formed in Norway and is now the sole owner of BioFuel Africa Ltd. (Ghana).

The Solar Harvest/BioFuel AS founders are preparing for a lawsuit against the company that wrongly accused is shareholders of misconduct. Because the case is about to be filed in Norwegian courts, no further details of the ongoing investigation and subsequent lawsuit will be released at this time.

EDITORIAL CONTACT:
Steinar Kolnes
Chairman of the board – Solar Harvest AS
CEO – BioFuel Africa AS

To the rescue of a penniless company comes a couple of ecocidal maniacs, determined to continue the work of the destructive incumbent.

Fancy having a pop at the new company? Here’s where to make your feelings known:

Steinar Kolnes
Solar Harvest AS
Verven 12, Ground Floor
Seaside Entrance
NO-4014 Stavanger

steinar.kolnes@biofuel.no

There is such a thing as bad publicity!

Addendum: One of the directors of BioFuel Africa, who I didn’t even name in this article has started resorting to personal threats. These are published in a more recent article. If I receive a “cease and desist” letter from a UK solicitor, then I will remove any non-factual, subjective, statements from this article.

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.

Strange, how I almost never seem to get responses from people who have gone to all the effort of sending me an email, telling me all about the special green ideas that their special green employers have asked them to send to hundreds of special green blogs, to which I have kindly sent back a response giving a heartfelt and honest critique of these special green ideas.

Take this response I sent out:

“Aah, how lovely. Is that one tree for every thousand children Disney have brainwashed into living the synthetic hyper-consumer dream?”

It’s got a question attached to it — you would have thought they would be kind enough to respond…

Before I show you what was in the original email, I want you to click on the thumbnail picture above. You might recognise the place; may even have been there. What do you think?

[thinking time]

A few years ago I might have thought: “Well that’s nice, aren’t there lots of trees, and look at the big lakes.”

Now I think: “What is that f****** great concrete hole doing in the middle of the Florida Everglades?”

Here’s the email:

Dear Keith

Please see below. Wonderful news for Earth Day!

Let me know if you are interested in covering this or would like any interviews or artwork?

Hope all is well.

Kind regards,
Warren Betts

—–
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

STRONG ADVANCE SALES FOR “EARTH” MOTION PICTURE

BOLSTER TREE-PLANTING INITIATIVE:

500,000 TREES TO BE PLANTED SO FAR

DISNEYNATURE EXPECTS NUMBERS TO CONTINUE TO GROW

EARTH Motion Picture Opens on Earth Day, April 22

Burbank, Calif. (April 18, 2009) – “EARTH” won’t open till Wednesday, yet moviegoers have already snapped up half a million tickets to catch the movie in its opening week and have a tree planted in their honor. Disneynature’s commitment to plant a tree for everyone who sees the motion picture between April 22-28 means that already 500,000 trees will be planted—and that number is still growing with advance ticket sales on the rise and the April 22-opening just a few days away.

“With half a million new trees committed so far, Disneynature’s first film is already making an impact on the world—and ‘EARTH’ hasn’t even opened yet,” said Mark Zoradi, president of Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures Group. “We’re so pleased that moviegoers have embraced this film and our tree-planting initiative to this degree and we expect the numbers to keep climbing.”

Disney’s goal is to ensure that it plants trees in areas that conservationists have identified as critical areas of biodiversity. Disney will oversee the planting of the trees in Brazil’s Atlantic Forest, which is considered one of the most endangered rain forests in the world. Today, only seven percent of the Atlantic Forest remains. Disney is committed to ensuring the trees are planted to provide the greatest long term benefit for the planet.

ABOUT THE MOVIE

Narrated by James Earl Jones, “EARTH” tells the remarkable story of three animal families and their amazing journeys across the planet we call home. “EARTH” combines rare action, unimaginable scale and impossible locations by capturing the most intimate moments of our planet’s wildest and most elusive creatures. Directors Alastair Fothergill and Mark Linfield, the acclaimed creative team behind the Emmy Award®-winning “Planet Earth,” combine forces again to bring this epic adventure to the big screen.

Moviegoers need only purchase a ticket to see “EARTH” opening week to automatically have a tree planted in their honor. To find a theatre near you and to purchase tickets, go to www.disney.com/earth.

There were all sorts of alternative images I could have put at the top of this article: sweatshop workers sewing together Disney branded clothes or assembling Disney branded toys and other consumer goods; container ships full of Disney goods, crossing the oceans with wares destined for every nation touched by the rank hand of industrialisation; airports full of people waiting for their departure to one of the Disney resorts dotted around the world, or aircraft in the air pumping out greenhouse gases directly created by the desire to travel to a Disney resort; landfill sites full of Disney goods, slowly leaching their toxins into the ground; queues of gas-guzzling traffic and hyper parking lots outside shopping malls replete with Disney Stores full of toxic, climate changing, sweatshop produced consumer items; children goggle-eyed before the latest saccharine-sweet, consumer-friendly, merchandise-linked version of the world brought to you by your friendly corporation; fast food stores full of obese families drawn towards the counters by the offer of Disney toys with every Happy Meal; a globe full of brainwashed humans, on their knees, praying in the direction of a Magic Castle, that sits at the centre of a vast concrete, brick, chrome and plastic complex that used to be a swath of pristine, wildlife-rich Everglade.

Take your pick.

500,000 trees. Actually, according to the New York Times, about 3 million tickets have been sold for “Earth” so far, which is 3 million trees. Sounds a lot? If we assume there are 500 trees per hectare of rainforest, then that’s 6000 hectares, or 23 square miles of rainforest.

Every year, approximately 8 million hectares of forest is cut down globally, with at least the same amount being degraded in the same period of time.

Disney will be planting enough trees to offset 0.0004% of that destruction.

At the same time they are responsible for sweatshop workers sewing together Disney branded clothes or assembling Disney branded toys and other consumer goods; container ships full of Disney goods, crossing the oceans with wares destined for every nation touched by the rank hand of industrialisation; airports full of people waiting for their departure to one of the Disney resorts dotted around the world, or aircraft in the air pumping out greenhouse gases directly created by the desire to travel to a Disney resort; landfill sites full of Disney goods, slowly leaching their toxins into the ground; queues of gas-guzzling traffic and hyper parking lots outside shopping malls replete with Disney Stores full of toxic, climate changing, sweatshop produced consumer items; children goggle-eyed before the latest saccharine-sweet, consumer-friendly, merchandise-linked version of the world brought to you by your friendly corporation; fast food stores full of obese families drawn towards the counters by the offer of Disney toys with every Happy Meal…