U.S. Agency for International Development
United States Department of Agriculture
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
United States Department of Defense
United States Department of Energy
National Institutes of Health
United States Department of State
United States Department of Transportation
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Aeronautics & Space Administration
National Science Foundation
Smithsonian Institution
International Arctic Science Committee
Arctic Council
African Academy of Sciences
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Royal Society of Canada
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Académie des Sciences, France
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina of Germany
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy
Indian National Science Academy
Science Council of Japan
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Madagascar’s National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
l’Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Academy of Science of South Africa
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
Turkish Academy of Sciences
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
The Royal Society of the United Kingdom
National Academy of Sciences, United States
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Science
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Medical Association
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Society of Agronomy
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Botanical Society of America
Crop Science Society of America
Ecological Society of America
Federation of American Scientists
Geological Society of America
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Society of American Foresters
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Engineers Australia
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of Australia
British Antarctic Survey
Institute of Biology, UK
Royal Meteorological Society, UK
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization

(but, apparently, they are all lying)

The following groups say the danger of human-caused climate change is a … FRAUD:

American Petroleum Institute
US Chamber of Commerce
National Association of Manufacturers
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Industrial Minerals Association
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
Great Northern Project Development
Rosebud Mining
Massey Energy
Alpha Natural Resources
Southeastern Legal Foundation
Georgia Agribusiness Council
Georgia Motor Trucking Association
Corn Refiners Association
National Association of Home Builders
National Oilseed Processors Association
National Petrochemical and Refiners Association
Western States Petroleum Association

(but, apparently, they have no reason to lie).

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.

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)

Indebtedness is a form of involuntary servitude and, in extreme cases, involuntary imprisonment. Consider, for example, the current usurious rates of interest (versus what savers earn on their savings in the same banks that charge that interest). Many religious organizations loath interest rates as immoral and criminal. According to all four gospels in the Christian bible, even the normally passive, peaceful prophet of Christianity got so worked up about usury in a temple he started acting like Alex Ferguson on the sidelines of a Manchester United football match.

Purchases by consumers (this awful word is used here only because that’s what we have become – involuntarily) drive the world’s industrial economy. And purchases by consumers depend on the confidence of those consumers, so that consumer confidence underlies commercial success. If a potential consumer has no confidence in her ability to purchase an item, then she won’t. If enough potential consumers lose confidence in their ability to purchase and pay for any particular item, the sales of that item will plummet, causing the manufacturer and sellers of that item to fail.

Considering the current financial situation, which will no doubt crash again within the next year, we can help create a situation that will both change behaviour for the better and prevent people from getting into financial trouble. The latter portion is vital to getting wide support for such activities, and will be a huge challenge for hopelessly optimistic, reality-challenged members of the industrial economy.

How do we convince people they definitely cannot afford to take out loans to buy things? More impact will be realized by targeting luxuries such as houses, cars, and appliances than small “goods.” Governments throughout the industrial world recognise this, and have therefore rewarded people for purchasing houses, cars, and — most recently – appliances, by giving them huge financial incentives (i.e. taxes on other taxpayers who might not even be tempted to play the “consumer” game).

Loans are required for most people to purchase these “durable goods” (which are no longer durable or good). Loans traditionally are seen as safety nets, but it has become clear they really represent traps. Never mind the psychological or ecological implications of consumerism — there exists no evidence suggests anybody has minded so far — the focus here is on the trap into which each potential consumer falls by taking out a loan to mindlessly invest in transient baubles. Every loan is a bad deal for the borrower, whether a straight money request, an HP deal, a mortgage or a credit card payment.

The system needs you to keep borrowing; if you don’t then who knows what could happen…

Note: The risk levels indicated below are approximate and will vary according to your personal situation and the jurisdiction you operate in. Always take legal advice if you are unsure.

No Risk:

Don’t take out a loan for anything. If you need it — and probably you don’t — save your money and buy it, barter for it, or borrow it.

Encourage others to join you. Start by sharing your car, your garden, your tools, even your clothes. Pass stuff on; give stuff away. You don’t need that loan and neither do the people you care about.

If you already have loans, and most recent students do, then seek deferral under economic hardship. Odds are pretty high you’re actually experiencing economic hardship, so this is no big deal. And even if you’re not, there’s no sense feeding the beast if the beast defaults down the road.

Low to Medium Risk:

Start a “misinformation” campaign (from the point of view of the loan companies):

1) Via snail mail, send out false press releases from loan companies and banks to media outlets such as local radio stations, local press and even the nationals if you are brave enough. These press releases should discourage people from taking out loans because, after all, people don’t really need all the toys they buy on credit. If you make the “press releases” as complete as possible, and word them so that responses are not required then there is a good chance they will be run without questions being asked.

2) Do a bit of subvertising, on the internet or (for a little higher risk) on billboards: focus on loans companies and banks changing the messages to emphasise the theft aspect of loans. Alternatively, just remove loan adverts entirely. For more information on techniques, read this post.

Other potential actions along these same lines include:

- Organising “default-ins” along the lines of the “love-ins” and “sit-ins” of the 1960s,

- Devising and publicising satirical fake get-rich-quick schemes that exploit government mortgage subsidies and the overvaluation of real estate: “Get £1 million in property free from Government mortgage subsidy scheme with no risk or money down!”; “Sell property short before the crash and make £1 million with no risk or cash!” and

- Helping to organise and formalise the exploding “grey” market for overpriced property: Thousands of people are moving or retiring and unable to sell their homes at anywhere near their mortgages, so they are renting out their homes for a fraction of current market rents, and likewise renting others’ homes in areas to which they are moving at far below market rents. Everyone hopes prices will somehow bounce back and save them from default. Eventually these homeowners will have to threaten default to get mortgage companies to write off the excess of mortgage value over real property values. We need to help them do that, and also help them find “grey” market properties in the meantime.

Obvious satirical routines can be developed for a variety of venues. This strategy should hold particular appeal to artists.

Medium Risk:

This is taken from Dave Pollard’s article ”Walking away from your mortgages”:

Many people are now living in homes with mortgages that are greater than the value of their property. Why would anyone continue to pay a debt that is higher than the asset it secures? After all, big corporations view pulling the plug on unsuccessful ventures and sticking the debtholders and shareholders a key business strategy. The whole idea of “risk capital” is that the interest and other fees you earn for lending to risky borrowers compensates you for the risk, so that if the borrower defaults you accept the loss and chalk it up to experience. Yet for some reason homeowners feel some moral obligation to throw good money endlessly after bad. This of course is exactly what the corporatists, who have no such moral compunction, are counting on, what economists call moral asymmetry. The logical response would be to tell the lender to write off the excess of the mortgage beyond the property value, and refinance the mortgage accordingly. Apparently in some US states (called “recourse” states) this moral asymmetry is institutionalized — that is, lenders can go after a mortgagee’s personal assets if they default. There is, of course, no recourse when the corporatists walk away from debts, offshore their operations, and stiff the taxpayers whose subsidies and bailouts paid for the corporatists’ ventures.

Where is the sense of outrage here? Have the education system and media so dumbed down the citizens that they can’t see this scheme for the cruel and criminal con it is? If everyone with a mortgage greater than the value of their home either walked away from it, or was legally empowered to require the excess to be written off as the “bad debt” it is, then of course there would be many bank failures and plunging profits. That’s how the market system is supposed to work. The lenders, of course, want it both ways, and Obama and the citizens seem blithely willing to let them have it.

Walking away from your mortgage entails medium risk because it will damage your credit rating. Obviously, this doesn’t matter in the long term, but it still causes concern for many people.

On the same lines as the lower risk snail mail press releases, via electronic communications, send out false press releases from loan companies to media outlets. These press releases would discourage people from taking out loans because, after all, people don’t really need all the toys they buy on credit. This requires a level of technical expertise as the instigator would need to hide behind an alter-ego and fake domain.

High risk:

Taking a step beyond abandoning your underwater mortgage, don’t pay off your mortgage even if you’re not underwater. Simply default but continue to occupy your house. Ditto for other loans. The lenders cannot afford to tell their stockholders about it, so the borrower gets the loan for no payments while the lender gets stuck. This idea was encouraged by the reporter who writes about housing issues for the New York Times when he stopped paying his mortgage (and wrote about it, nine months later, in the Times, by which time nobody had asked for a payment). At this point, the idea is receiving plenty of attention, and even CNBC is on board.

These actions are high risk because they could bring criminal proceedings related to fraud. Probably they won’t. But stranger things have happened, so we issue the following disclaimer:

The authors and the host of this web site do 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.

What we’re trying to do here is help bring down a house of cards: People feeling forced to pay debts far greater than the real value of the assets that secure them. People seduced into getting into debt needlessly. People paying usurious interest rates and fees because the banks own the politicans. It’s a debtors’ prison without locks and doors, and it’s immoral. Help us bring an end to it.

________________________

This essay is part of a larger collaboration between the authors. It represents the third month of the Monthly Undermining Tasks.

A trowel of baby-smooth plaster
Masking walls of spin.
Where once asunder
Now rent-free.

Smears of light and clever shading;
Filth washed off by jets.
Unwanted expelled:
This way please!

A double coat of shining varnish
Glosses the shit;
Its colonic ripples
Trace elegant contours.

Fitted, made-up and tonsured,
The old guard speaks
Through ad-lib free prompt
And time delay
(Just in case).

Is this a metaphor I see before me?
Steel, words or deeds
I take my blade and cut.
The truth bleeds out.

Keith Farnish, February 23, 2010.

This item starts at about 10′ 30″ on BBC iPlayer, by following the link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00r3rzv/Countryfile_21_02_2010/ (Note: This will expire on February 27, 2010)

Early on, and you can see this at 11′ 30″, something I hear time and time again from both children and adults is said by a young girl in response to a question about why we should generate our own electricity:

“Because our ozone layer is slowly going, and we will be polluting it more if we don’t start thinking about it a bit more now.”

In all fairness she sounds pretty bright, so the only explanation for this gobbledigook is that she has been given this information by an ill-informed teacher who hasn’t learnt the subject properly. The school in question seems to have shoehorned the wind turbine into everything (“Today, children, we will be learning about ants by watching them climb up the pole of our lovely new wind turbine”), and it’s likely that every teacher, knowledgeable or not, has been told to talk about a number of environmental issues; in the process completely getting it wrong.

Do I have to say this? The ozone layer has nothing, in any meaningful sense, to do with climate change. Damage to the ozone layer is a related, but physically discrete topic from the effects of greenhouse gases on global temperatures. There are some chemicals that feature in both topics (CFCs and some of their global heating replacements), but I very much doubt the person teaching the poor girl – and thousands of teachers like him or her – is aware of this. They simply don’t know enough about the subject to teach it, so should not be doing so!

We will be moving to Scotland shortly, and one thing going for the school system is that you are not allowed to teach a subject in secondary school if you do not have a related degree-level qualification. This will not help primary children, but just a little knowledge in this case would go a long way. Next time, if you hear anyone talk about the ozone layer in relation to climate change or greenhouse gases, please put them right; then perhaps they will pass the information on themselves, and kill off once and for all that really annoying piece of misinformation.

It’s painful to watch this, but if you really want to see a giant green marketing Weeble take centre stage at a presentation by a racing team that, by its own admission, will “dabble in just about anything that has wheels”, then feel free. It gets really silly about 5 minutes in.

But first is the email exchange between myself and Megan Palmer who works for a PR company, promoting a product that – and it gets a bit complicated here – has a part to play in the thing that they actually mention, as opposed to the thing they don’t mention which is the product they are supposed to be promoting! You’ll see what I mean if you keep reading…

From: Megan Palmer
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 1:09 AM
To: Megan Palmer
Subject: FW: Rick Ware Racing Video Press Conference Tomorrow at 3pm EST To Announce Green Sponsor

Hi,

I wanted to introduce myself and invite you to participate in Rick Ware Racing’s Video Press Conference where they will announce our green client as their multi-year sponsor for NASCAR, right before Daytona 500 next week tomorrow during a live video press conference. I will be contacting you in the near future regarding this exciting green product.

The press conference is tomorrow at 3pm EST http://www.ustream.tv/channel/rick-ware-racing or follow them on twitter for more @rickwareracing

Hope you can tune in and I look forward to working with you soon!

Megan

Megan Palmer
Executive Account Manager
Public Relations & Events

megan@amgwagency.com

ph: 305.856.8004 x: 304
fax: 305.856.8650
bb pin: 30FDCD98

Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/meganpalmeramg

900 SW 8th Street C-2
Miami, Fl 33130

From: “Keith Farnish”
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 09:25:10 -0000
To: Megan Palme
Cc: Keith Farnish
Subject: Re: Rick Ware Racing Video Press Conference Tomorrow at 3pm EST To Announce Green Sponsor

WHAT! How can a “green” client be a sponsor of a motor racing team?!

Please respond as this is astonishing.

Keith

From: megan@amgwagency.com
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 11:28 AM
To: Keith Farnish
Subject: Re: Rick Ware Racing Video Press Conference Tomorrow at 3pm EST To Announce Green Sponsor

Good morning, maybe its better phrased as ‘eco friendly’. hope you can tune in.

Sent on the Now Network� from my Sprint® BlackBerry

On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 6:33 AM, Keith Farnish wrote:

That still doesn’t make sense, Megan. What part of motor racing is “eco friendly”?

Keith

From: Megan Palmer
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 11:54 AM
To: Keith Farnish
Subject: Re: Rick Ware Racing Video Press Conference Tomorrow at 3pm EST To Announce Green Sponsor

The product is “eco-friendly” but that’s only one component. It’s an automotive product, which is why they’re taking part in the motor racing sport. I can’t say too much more before the video conference. As I look further at your website maybe it’s not a fit for your type of “green” coverage. Sorry for wasting your time. Have a good weekend

My type of “green” coverage. As opposed to what? I assume Megan meant really gullible “green” coverage that dumbly reproduces anything that purports to be green in order to pack out its RSS feed.

[On a sidenote, one reason The Unsuitablog doesn't have 10000 subscribers is precisely because it doesn't dumbly reproduce every bit of cack sent to it in order to have 5 or 10 posts per day. I would like to think the people who read this actually care about the subject matter...]

So, much later on I watched a recorded version of the Rick Ware Press Conferenc because, for some strange reason, I didn’t feel like watching it live. It turns out that Megan’s client is (I assume) the makers of Fuel Doctor, the product represented by the Weeble. I popped over to their site and had a read.

Apparently, simply by plugging this little gizmo into the cigarette lighter port of a car, your mileage can improve by 25%. This is mightily impressive considering all it is is an electrical filter, much like the ones you can put between a power supply and an amplifier to (theoretically) improve the sound quality of a hi-fi. Which makes me rather concerned that hundreds of millions of people are driving around at any one time in highly complex pieces of machinery that are so badly made that a simple line filter can fundamentally alter the ability of an engine to process gasoline.

So it’s a good thing that it’s a complete load of bollocks.

The so-called “certified lab tests” show, in shattered English, between 0.055% and 0.5% fewer carbon dioxide emissions. Yes, this incredible “green” technology has the equivalent emissions improvements to cleaning a bit of dirt off the windscreen.

Now, I know the CO2 test is right, because it uses a standard piece of kit, used around the globe to a recognised level of accuracy. But in the test that produced 0.055% less carbon dioxide, the car used 16% less fuel! They have somehow contrived to create something that uses up to 25% less fuel, yet emits virtually the same amount of carbon dioxide. According to a link on their web site:

It should be noted that the majority of the Carbon (99%) coming out of an engine is in the form of CO2. This means that improvements in fuel economy result in reduced CO2 emissions.

How did they measure the fuel use? Well, nowhere does it actually say, except on one of the tests we see some rulers next to some measuring jugs containing alarmingly orange liquid. Anyway, as the man said, emissions should match fuel economy, and they don’t, so nothing on the Fuel Doctor site has any credence whatsoever.

And neither does sending out a press release claiming that something to do with a motor racing team is “green”

There is a story, and it is partly true, that the Ford Motor Company were responsible for the mass incursion of free market capitalism and the associated violent suppression of opposing voices, across South America in the 1960s and 1970s. Certainly the Chicago School of economic thought, led by Milton Friedman, were grateful for the funding provided to a number of their programs by Ford; but as with many of these things, it is not so much the isolated horrors that probing into the history of a great corporation will reveal, as the net effect of thousands of lesser actions, creating a toxic scum around the edge.

Most of these “lesser” actions are in the form of advertising and political funding, and right from the up, Henry Ford was no mug – understanding the importance of having both the public and the political system on his side. Personally I’m not that bothered who killed the electric car – it would have still needed something to run it; what is far more sinister is that such vast corporations can exist at all in a society that, apparently, allows people freedom of choice in how they live their lives.

Any way you like, to paraphrase Mr Ford, “So long as it’s our way.”

A mere trifle, but a perfect example of the corporate mind-meld, comes in the form of an email received a couple of days ago. I reproduce it in full, safe in the knowledge that my readers have the nous to see through the layer of greenwash:

Hello,

Going green is a tagline that everyone wants to be associated with. But Ford Motor Company is walking the walk.

A large part of all auto makers environmental credibility gets placed on how fuel efficient their cars and trucks are. But Ford is taking significant measures this year to spread their sustainability efforts beyond miles per gallon, and into operations and corporate practices.

Today ford announced their Dealer Sustainability Program, in partnership with the Rocky Mountain Institute, aimed at implementing cost-effective ways to improve the energy-efficiency of their facilities, resulting in a long-term reduction in individual dealership’s carbon footprint as well as overall operating costs.

This industry-leading effort kicks off today at the 2010 National Automobile Dealers Association Convention in Orlando.

Please see the full release below let us know if you have any questions or would like any additional information or a follow up briefing from Ford.

Thank you!

FORD ANNOUNCES DEALER SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAM

* Ford Motor Company is launching a voluntary sustainability initiative for Ford and Lincoln Mercury dealers to reduce their carbon footprint and improve the energy-efficiency of their dealerships

* Ford has partnered with Rocky Mountain Institute, a leading energy-efficiency organization to pilot new technologies and architectural design principles, at three dealerships in diverse climates

* The ‘Go Green’ dealer sustainability initiative is fully integrated into the company’s existing architecture to provide dealers with the ability to improve energy efficiency and lower operating costs

ORLANDO, Feb. 14, 2010 – Ford Motor Company’s commitment to contributing to a better world further expands today with the announcement of the ‘Go Green’ Dealership Sustainability Program. The program is being shared with the company’s U.S. Ford and Lincoln/Mercury dealers today at the 2010 National Automobile Dealers Association Convention.

The goal of the program is simple: Collaborate with dealers to implement cost-effective ways to improve the energy-efficiency of their facilities, resulting in a long-term reduction in individual dealership’s carbon footprint as well as overall operating costs. Participation in the ‘Go Green’ Dealership Sustainability Program is voluntary for dealers.

“In keeping with Ford’s commitment to the environment, this program is a great fit for our dealers because it provides a variety of energy-efficient improvement options regardless of the current age and design of the facility,” says Sue Cischke, group vice president, Sustainability, Environment and Safety Engineering. “This allows all dealers the opportunity to participate in improving the energy efficiency of their facility and gives them flexibility in making choices that are right for them and their dealership.”

Ford has partnered with Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI), an organization recognized as a leader in providing energy-efficiency solutions to businesses, communities and organizations around the world.

“We applaud Ford for their ongoing energy-efficiency efforts around the world,” said Amory B. Lovins, Co-Founder, Chairman and Chief Scientist, Rocky Mountain Institute. “This initiative will have a positive impact participating dealers decrease their consumption of energy. Implementing these cost-effective solutions will also improve dealer’s bottom line over the long-term.”

Getting Started

Dealers interested in participating in the ‘Go Green’ Dealership Sustainability Program will first receive a comprehensive energy assessment from sustainability experts at Ford. After the thorough assessment is completed, Ford and the dealer will collaborate on energy-saving options available and will tailor a program to meet the needs of the dealer. Solutions are wide-ranging and can be implemented for dealers with existing facilities as well as dealers who are constructing new facilities.

Dealers who participate in the program will be able to take advantage of several benefits, including guidance on available State and Federal tax credits and incentives, as well as access to technical expertise and resources to assist with selection of energy-efficient products and equipment.

Ford is finalizing details to initiate a pilot program with three dealers located in Florida, New York and Nevada.

“Through this initiative we are making available to dealers the same techniques, principles and expertise we use to reduce our energy use and contribute to a better world,” said Cischke.

___________________________________________
Eddie Fernandez I Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide
T: 916.231.7733 / F: 916.418.1515
E: eddie.fernandez@ogilvypr.com
A: 1414 K Street, Ste 300, Sacramento, CA 95814

Hello, Eddie, did you forget to mention that Ford exists to sell cars and trucks that burn fossil fuels. Never mind, perhaps you would like to use the logo at the top in your next press release. It would be a lot more honest.

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!

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.