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

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

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

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

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

No Risk

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

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

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

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

Low and Medium Risk

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

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

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

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

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

High Risk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now go and break those ads!

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

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

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

So, are you up for it?

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

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

Low Risk

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

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

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

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

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

Medium Risk

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

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

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

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

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

See, you are freeing people up. Well done!

High Risk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(click for large version)

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

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

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

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

ACTION UPDATE:

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

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

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

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

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

Angry? You bet I am!

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

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

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

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

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

MONTHLY ACTIONS POSTED:

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

Watch this video, especially if you live in the UK, although it probably applies in many other legal frameworks. Do your homework and find out – this is a VERY POWERFUL TOOL for undermining the system, and the many fictional entities that have statutary power over you.

N.B. Violence and peaceful when mentioned are relative to Common Law, NOT STATUTE. You can LEGALLY use force against anything not backed by Common Law.

I cannot say this enough: Governments and Business have no part to play in the solution to the environmental crisis. This is part of the “Eco Meme” in Time’s Up! for a very good reason – the primary role of government is to grow the economy, regardless of the consequences. This is exemplified perfectly in an article from todays Guardian, which I will reprint in full, given that it is such an indictment of the political system.

You will notice that Greenpeace have done something good: they have performed an undermining activity in exposing the machinations of the corrupt system, thus working against one of the Tools Of Disconnection – namely “Seven: Lie To Us”. For this they must be congratulated – they are using their high profile to get this information out to the widest possible audience: this is the kind of thing groups like Greenpeace should be concentrating on.

Bear in mind, anyone can file a Freedom of Information request, where the relevant laws exist; alternatively, if you are in a privileged position, or know someone who is, then you can bypass this bureaucratic system and simply leak the information…

Department for Transport civil servants repeatedly met aviation industry chiefs in advance of the decision to back a third runway at Heathrow, even though they told environmental groups that there was a blanket ban on meetings with any external bodies.

The disclosure comes in documents the civil service was directed to release to Greenpeace by the information commissioner after nearly nine months of stonewalling by civil servants.

The documents, in the form of a risk register produced by the DfT last year, also disclose that the communications directorate at the department saw it as its job to “monitor protest groups continuously and brief staff and police accordingly”.

The risk register is a document listing everything that could go wrong with the project, the likelihood of something going wrong and how much of a problem such an event would be.

Ministers regarded losing the economic and environmental arguments as “high” impact and “medium” likelihood, combining to give a “high” exposure to risk for the government. The threat of disruption was seen as one of the highest risk threats to the third runway.

The documents also disclose that at one point the department thought it would only be able to meet the noise reduction demands by introducing a congestion charge for the area.

Civil servants also advised that they continue high-level and frequent engagement with industry stakeholders, including at ministerial level, as necessary to keep abreast of developments and strategies.

At the same time an environmental organisation was being emailed by transport department civil servants: “In advance of the meeting I would like to make clear that discussion of Heathrow expansion will not be possible. This is for reasons of propriety as the consultation has now closed and ministers are considering the submissions that have been made.

“This condition applies to all meetings that the secretary of state is holding with external groups. Wider issues around aviation and the environment may, of course, be discussed with the ministers.”

The document also shows that civil servants thought it right to contact the Competition Commission so it did not create “uncertainty over BAA capacity/drive to take forward LHR expansion”.

Meanwhile, the government has indicated that BAA cannot lodge a planning application for a third runway before the next general election – an admission that ensures a Conservative government could block a new landing strip at the airport.

According to a presentation by the DfT, seen by the Guardian, BAA is not expected to seek planning permission for a third runway until 2012. The last possible date for a general election is 3 June 2010. Executives at the airport group have conceded that it will be impossible to compile the plans and data necessary by that date.

(from http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/27/heathrow-third-runway-civil-service)

I think I can truthfully say that television is the means by which greenwash, and other forms of anti-environmental propaganda, reaches people most effectively: magazines, newspapers and billboards are certainly grevious offenders, but as we subvert more and more of our lives to the great glass teat in the sitting room (the bedroom, the kitchen, the dining room, the pub, the car…) we become ever more receptive to what is coming out of it, even though we may not think we do.

Television is where the greenwashers go if they really want to get their message over to the maximum number of people in the most insidious way possible — which makes television, public television in particular, an obvious target for sabotage. You might not be able to get into peoples’ homes (although, as this article suggests, it would make a fine project) but, as this article from The Sietch Blog shows, everyone can have a go at freeing peoples’ minds…

I have had some interesting discussions with people who don’t like what I say in my book about sabotage. In a nutshell, sabotage, or probably more accurately, “undermining” is a vital activity in allowing a sizeable number of people to regain control of their lives that are otherwise being controlled by the forces that ensure we follow our current, destructive path. Sabotage of the things that control us is therefore, fundamental to creating large-scale change.

The way we have been taught, especially in recent years, to view anyone interfering with the workings of civilization as “terrorists” is a travesty. Sabotage for the sake of creating something better, no less than in order to ensure humans have a future on Earth, is no more negative than growing your own food or refusing to buy new goods; and is a lot more positive an action than, say, voting, which changes nothing except the superficial appearance of the political system.

And in case you think sabotage in order to give people their minds back is going to be difficult, here’s an example of something that everyone can do easily, quickly and without getting caught – and if you do get caught then what’s the worse that can happen? “Officer, I caught this individual switching my bank of televisions off!” Clearly a capital offence.

TV-B-Gone — and I make no excuses for advertising a product, because it’s one that could really change things — switches televisions and other remote controlled screens off. Simple. And it does it brilliantly…

This turns 17 off in 2 minutes at an electronics fair:



This clip shows how to use it through windows:



And this one, which I think is the best of all, shows how to use it in places where, surely you would get caught, but are not!



You can buy TV-B-Gone directly from the www.tvbgone.com or on your local eBay site.

I’ve just ordered one, and It’ll be attached to my house keys, so it’s always there when I get the urge. Go on, you know you want to do it!

You would be amazed how many times, and in how many different places, I have used mine…

People aren’t listening: this is the season of supermarket voucher collecting in schools around the UK, and the exortations to “Collect! Collect! Collect!” are coming thick and fast, in every newsletter sent home with students, on every school website, and on posters liberally pasted and hung on the walls of a school near you.

I have tried my best to be analytical and instructive. The Unsuitablog published a series of three articles last year giving details about the operation of, the commercial incentives and the brainwashing imposed by such schemes. Here they are, in case you missed them:

http://thesietch.org/mysietch/keith/2008/10/13/school-supermarket-voucher-special-introduction/

http://thesietch.org/mysietch/keith/2008/10/15/school-supermarket-voucher-special-greenwashing-children/

http://thesietch.org/mysietch/keith/2008/10/17/school-supermarket-vouchers-special-winners-losers-and-fighting-back/

The schemes are back with a vengeance – most prominently the newly rebranded Tesco for Schools & Clubs and the Sainsbury Active Kids 2009 schemes: both designed to teach children and their parents that supermarkets are a force for social good, and not the commercial resource-sucking, community-killing, globalization machines that anyone who pauses for even a short moment would realise they really are.

In the last article I tried to suggest ways of stopping these schemes, and tried a number of them myself, to little effect – all except for one, which worked wonderfully!

All you need is a pair of these:

Take a look at the photo at the top of this article, paying particular attention to how the incidious banners — which provide supermarkets with wonderful free advertising on public land — are attached. Not very securely, are they?

Now, with your wire cutters to hand, pay a visit to any school which has one of these banners, preferably when it is dark, and with just four quiet snips, you can cut down this brainwashing tool, stuff it into a bag (why not use a Tesco or a Sainsbury’s one, for extra irony) and then put it in a bin a few streets away. It’s not illegal, by the way: you are doing a public service, and the banner was a “gift”, rather than part of a contractual arrangement.

Once you have done it once, then you’ll want to do it again: and maybe in a short while, we will have together, given the supermarkets a good kick in the balls, which is the least they deserve.

I must admit to a wry grin when I heard that UK Business Secretary (a very important minister of state) Peter Mandelson had been “slimed” with green custard prior to entering a conference in London to discuss “green” industry, on Friday 6 March. The protagonist, Leila Deen, certainly made a good shot, and not surprisingly, the incident was covered not just nationally, but internationally. The usual splits between the pro-environmental and anti-environmental press showed through, and many of the tabloids took the chance to make fun of one of the least popular British politicians of the last 20 years.

So what was the point of this? Superficially, Leila Deen, acting on behalf of the campaign group Plane Stupid, was making the point that they do not welcome the current pro-business stance of the UK government, in particular the decision to build a 3rd runway at London Heathrow Airport. At a slightly deeper level, it was a reflection on the state of politics in general – as Leila states:

Peter Mandelson epitomises all that is wrong with our democratic system. His CV is a reason for us to give up on democracy and take direct action. After several disgraces and resignations, Mandelson is back from exile in Europe to be shoe-horned into government as an unelected minister, via an archaic loophole which allows the Prime Minister to create peers and place them in power for his own political ends. This is what democracy in the UK looks like.

So the incident leaves a clear message that Mandelson and his ilk are not safe from environmental protestors and the watchfulness of the public in general — or does it? I’m not convinced: despite my immediate glee, the feeling I get from this is one of superficiality. The action, which Plane Stupid will accept was symbolic in all sorts of ways, went as well as it could possibly have done, yet all that is being discussed in the media now is the incident itself, not the reason for it. This is not surprising: the press are notoriously fickle about what makes a good story, and the nefarious goings-on between the UK Government and various industry lobbyists is not news, sadly. So we are left with a story about a woman who threw green custard at a government minister and is now on police bail. Furthermore, such opportunities for mischief-making — potentially a very effective thing, if you are able to make a public figure genuinely look bad — will now be curtailed even further because of this incident.

The lesson here is: don’t expect the media to do your work for you; you must keep on pushing and pushing, exposing the catalogue of corruption and never letting go on your key message. More important, though, it would be far better to concentrate your efforts on getting at the real villains of the piece: the lobbyists and the PR people themselves, without whom such corruption would be far less likely to take place. Target the PR machine and the channels though which the lobbyists are able to brainwash not just governments, but the public in general, and you can get away with a lot more than just an opportunistic custard lob: you can do some serious sabotage without anyone being any the wiser.

Which do you think is the more effective action?

Exposure is what Greenwashers fear most of all — serious exposure can destroy a campaign; it can destroy a reputation; it can destroy a brand; it can destroy a government. It has happened before and it will happen again.

Exposure is the nexus between ignorance and awareness.

On this short journey we have learnt to spot greenwash from a mile away – recognising the tell-tale smirk in the eyes of the publicist and the lies between the lines written in your morning paper. You can spot greenwash.

We have also learnt how to investigate the murky recesses of the greenwasher’s mind and dig out the dirt that the corporate lobbyist or the public servant wants to keep hidden away. You can find out their secrets.

Now it is time for the final stage in our journey: Exposing The Greenwashers.

Doing It Right

I’m assuming you have all the information you need to expose the greenwasher, and just want to get it out there. Regardless of whether you do the exposing yourself, or rely on some other willing (or unwilling ) party to do the exposure for you, there are four factors that will determine the success of your efforts — four factors, that you have control over.

Timing

Timing can be pretty complicated to get right, especially when you are not executing the exposure yourself, but a good rule of thumb is: The quicker the better. As an example of how important this can be; when I found out about the Triangle Of Peace Foundation, I found, to my delight, that they had foolishly neglected to use that phrase anywhere on the Internet, so by investigating and exposing the issues online, and also republishing the article to a few places, I was able to ensure that anyone who looked for information as a result of the newspaper advertisment, would come across my negative article straight away.

Sometimes you need time to investigate properly, though, but that may not be a problem if you happen to have received an embargoed press release: simply carry out the exposure before the embargo date! It’s also useful to take advantage of a topical item, such as the annual financial results of a company, to inject a frisson into the proceedings; or perhaps you might want to do something under cover of night (for safety), or at a weekend to ensure your exposure is visible when business opens on Monday morning. However you time it, though, do it while the information is fresh.

Medium

You probably can’t afford to buy a minute of peak advertising time on a network TV channel in order to place your alternative message — in fact, the chances of a media cartel ever allowing such a message is slim to none (and slim just left town) so lack of funds isn’t necessarily an issue; it’s finding a medium that complements both the message you are sending, and also the greenwash that is being purveyed. Obviously web sites are one place to do things, but without an audience you’re going to struggle to get your message out. But there are ways to use a medium to best effect — for instance:

- Phoning up a radio station to make an on topic point, then changing the subject halfway through to do your exposure
- Subvertising a billboard or other useful surface close to (or in) a premises belonging to the target
- Inserting information inside magazines and newspapers at news stands / newsagents
- Sending fake letters “from” the organization, or calling up (remember the rules about secrecy) “on their behalf” to give an alternate take on their greenwashing to a journalist or TV station

The medium is not the message, you just need to use your imagination to use the medium well.

Simplicity

Your target audience are probably not going to be in the same headspace as you, in terms of understanding why you are doing the exposure in the first place. Subtlety may be fine for media-savvy showoffs, but clever has to be very clever indeed if the message is to work. The best strategy is just keep it simple. If an oil company are lying about their emissions, say that they are lying about their emissions; if a politician has been a hypocrite, expose the hypocrisy in simple language; if an environmental charity are getting too close to a corporation for comfort, say how uncomfortable this is, and say it loud and often enough to make sure your message gets across.

Simple language; minimum words; clear graphics: maximum understanding.

Scale

You are only capable of doing so much, so don’t beat yourself up about not being able to save the world on your own: you can’t. Most greenwashing is carried out by organizations with lots of money, lots of contacts and the means to get their lies across to a huge audience; but that doesn’t have to matter, so long as you understand the target audience. Let’s face it, and here is a BIG CAVEAT: the vast majority of people are not that interested in whether a company is green or not; neither are they that interested in changing their views once they have been set. Greenwash is aimed at those bodies and individuals who are interested, so regardless of whether BP spend millions of Euros telling the world they are the kings of renewable energy, you only need to target those people likely to have been stirred by this message.

It makes things seem a lot easier, doesn’t it.

Let’s say a big press release goes out saying how Ford are reducing their car plant emissions (while still producing huge SUVs and pickups). Do a search for the text of the release, and you can find out who has reported their lies – you might find that by approaching these very same people, you can embarrass them into retracting, or at least amending their reports; or you might just want to target the fool who blindly pasted the lies into their report, and expose them. It’s an idea, at least. What I am saying is that you don’t need to operate at the scale of the greenwasher if you are clever enough; a targeted exposure of a very embarrassing fact can be just as effective.

Going Further

It’s clear from this article that there are a host of different ways to expose greenwashers; I have only scratched the surface, and you can probably think of lots more. If you feel you’re not able to do as much as you want on your own, then perhaps you need to join a network of anti-greenwashers: Earth First! are a good port of call; or you could send out a request via Indymedia; and there is now a Facebook group which might be able to help you out…

Remember, also, that exposing greenwash is an effective form of Sabotage, and when you join the ranks of the saboteurs there is a whole world of change that you can be creating!