I’m not a fan of freesheets at the best of times: these omnipresent pups of the big newspapers line the streets of major cities around the world, especially London, which sees in excess of 1.5 million copies distributed every day. The problem is so bad that various London councils have threatened to ban their distribution if the distributors don’t clean up their act. Not happy to cut their circulation, of course, they have asked people to recycle the papers; which is about as effective as asking a city broker to forego his Christmas bonus.

To bad that the ban hasn’t happened, then we would have been spared the gross excess of what I am pretty sure is the most irresponsible travel article published in modern times, maybe ever if you take into account the potential attractiveness of the journey being hyped.

AFRICA…IN A WEEKEND

Don’t forget it is the people of the UK who are seeing this article, and we’re not talking about North Africa, we’re talking about Cape Town, South Africa – a distance of nearly 25,000 miles there and back. According to “Climate Care” (I feel sure I’ll be blogging about them soon), the flight described, for each person will emit 2.8 tonnes of carbon dioxide, which is the average annual total emissions for a person in Latin America. Here’s the strapline:

“Cape Town may be a long way away, but if you’re short on time, don’t dismiss it. With overnight flights and zero jet lag, a four-day jaunt is the perfect introduction to South Africa’s most cosmopolitan city,” writes Alistair Foster.

It just shreaks of “rich guy doesn’t give a toss about the planet” doesn’t it? But of course the author has a Get Out Of Jail Free card, simply by writing “I know it’s not eco-friendly to go so far in such a short time, but it’s the only long-haul trip I’ll do all year.” Try telling that to the Puerto Rican who has just realised that his entire annual emissions have been equalled by your quick trip to a cosmopolitan place. And what about that “only long-haul trip”? Poor Mr Foster, only one long-haul trip! Ah well, you can have another next year, along with your (implied) 2 or 3 other return flights closer to home: maybe that’ll put you nearer the Mexican emissions average on flights alone.

I was assuming that the publisher of the London Lite, in which this grotesque article appeared, would have something to say; but all I got was “It’s a travel article”, from a reporter, and “We don’t have a published environmental policy” from the Legal office of Daily Mail Ltd, the parent company.  So, not quite hypocrisy, but wait…the suggested tour operator (the one that paid for the flights in question) is none other that Virgin Holidays. Yes, that Virgin, the one owned by our beloved Richard Branson, who is apparently quite the eco-hero in corporate circles…

Something about the use of Kermit the Frog pulled me in to explore Ford’s concept ethanol high-powered luxury saloon (adjective overload, sorry) – the Lincoln MKR. That’s one problem with cars, there are so many different ways of describing them, you start run out of space – so, here’s an easy way of describing them: polluters. It’s a car, it pollutes, get over it.

How ever much Ford try to dress this monster saloon up as green in design (gee, it has recycled wood and chrome free leather up front, that’ll make it a “green” car then), green in fuel  (it uses 85% ethanol, which means your food is now going to be turned into fuel) or green in, well just green-ness, they will never escape the fundamental problem that building and selling cars is a totally unsustainable activity, and if they want to go green then they should go out of business. But here’s where the brainwashing starts: “GUILT FREE”.

Yahoo!

I couldn’t contain myself there, I’m just so excited that I can now buy a car which, despite the fact that it does a measly 27 miles per gallon, is just so brilliant that I need feel no guilt at all. If you drive a Lincoln, then you must really empathise with this quote, from Ford’s Executive Director of Design, in an article called “Guilt Free Luxury with the Lincoln MKR” :

“The Lincoln driver wants to spend money and enjoy it, but not at the expense of other people or the environment”

Yeah, right. The Lincoln driver who decided that a big luxurious car was the best way of caring for other people and the environment. But you still have my sympathy; after all, who told you luxury could be “guilt free” but the hypocritical idiots who sold you the car in the first place.

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

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

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

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

Dear xxxxx 

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

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

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

Regards

Keith Farnish

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

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

Oh, where to start on the horrors of oil sands extraction, as both a local and a global destroyer of environments? 155,000 barrels of oil a day, according to Shell’s proud boast. A filthy fuel source that requires twice as much water to steam off the oil, as the oil itself. An industrial process that is guaranteed to leach and creep tarry residues into the soil, the rivers, the skins of animals, human and non-human alike. A momentous drive to make Canada the second largest producer of oil in the world, simply to ensure that north America can continue driving up carbon dioxide levels in sustaining a “lifestyle”.

This is all fact. Now for the fiction.

“For us, as a company, the scientific debate about climate change is over. The debate now is about what we can do about it. Businesses, like ours, should turn CO2 management into a business opportunity and lead the search for responsible ways to manage CO2, use energy more efficiently and provide the extra energy the world needs to grow. But that also requires concerted action by governments to create the long-term, market-based policies needed to make it worthwhile to invest in energy efficiency, CO2 mitigation and lower carbon fuels. With fossil fuel use and CO2 levels continuing to grow fast, there is no time to lose.”

This quote by Jeroen van der Veer, Shell’s global Chief Executive is bullshit of the highest order. Shell’s raison d’etre, as a corporation, is to make money, and it does that by selling oil. It convinces people that selling oil is necessary by using phrases like “provide the extra energy the world needs to grow”. Excuse me? Exactly how is filling the biosphere and the atmosphere with pollutants going to help the world “grow”?

Oh, I see! You mean, help the pockets and the bank balances of the already rich and powerful grow, for the mere inconvenience of extinguishing life on Earth.

I have left the most extraordinary quote until the end, though. This comes from Shell Canada’s web site. It says: “Environmentally, in 2004 the AOSP became the first oil sands operation to have its environmental management system certified under ISO 14001.” Well done, Shell. You have succeeded in making ISO 14001 the most irresponsible, hypocritical international standard in existance.

You can be sure of Shell.

Whether you consider Live Earth to be hypocritical depends on whether you think it was a genuine attempt to change the way we live, or just a corporate beanfeast to make people feel good about themselves. I have always sided with the latter opinion, and got a lot of stick for it at the time when I announced I wasn’t a Live Earth Lover. This opinion was vindicated when it turned out that the people behind Live Earth really hadn’t read the script, and that they wanted to pretend everything was fine and dandy with the corporate world. I sent this letter to them, and published it in various places:

Dear Live Earth Press Room

I have been very vocal over the last few days about what I think are the chances of Live Earth succeeding, and I would be dishonest if I thought that it would change more than a very few minds for good. I don’t know how you measure the success of a set of concerts, but regardless of my predictions, I did state to various journalists that I did wish you all the best in your venture.

That is, until now. I have had the deep misfortune to stumble upon your streaming media site to discover that your key sponsor is one of the most notoriously anti-environmental vehicle manufacturers on Earth. The parent company, GM, was the last auto manufacturer to leave the voracious climate change denying Global Climate Coalition. GM were also a key funder of the anti climate change lobby group, the Competitive Enterprise Institute. As for Chevy themselves, the Forbes Top 2007 Gas Guzzlers has Chevrolet’s models really cornering the market with vehicles at numbers 4, 6 and 8! This is one company that loves to pollute.

If I want to see a video of a performance I have to see a Chevy banner ad, and watch a 30 second advert saying what a great company they are. And that is meant to be a good demonstration to the millions of Live Earth viewers on how to care for the planet?

It sucks, and you know it. Live Earth has been polluted, and I am more than happy to tell Al Gore this myself.

Yours

Keith Farnish
www.theearthblog.org

I resent the letter a couple of times, then gave up. Today I revisited the Live Earth site and had a look at the sponsors. Guess what I found? Well, you can see some of them at the top of this item, so let’s have a quick look through them:

SMART : Owner by DaimlerChrysler, manufacturers of some of the most polluting vehicles on (Live) Earth.

PHILIPS : Major electronics manufacturer.

PEPSI : Owners of Burger King, KFC and, of course, PepsiCola. Corporate food giants.

ABSOLUT : Vodka giant, and advertising masters.

ESURANCE : Motor insurance company.

I’m sure you’ll agree that the synergies between the sponsors and the protection of the planet from corporate-driven destruction are remarkable. Or maybe not.

I just don’t understand it. National Geographic Magazine has some fantastic environmental articles, and its environmental credentials as regards to editorial objectiveness and openness are second to none. It’s just a shame that no one at NG told the advertising department this.

Open any edition of National Geographic and you will find a host of advertisements promoting big cars, big trucks, airlines and long-haul holidays. This is a magazine that pushes carbon consumption harder that any other.

And then you go to their web site and find this:

 “From saving forest canopies to forging elephant corridors, the [National Geographic] Conservation Trust is dedicated to preservation around the globe.”

Very good. And this is just one of their many initiatives. They have many more initiatives on the advertising side, proudly boasting in their Sales Kit:

“National Geographic magazine enjoys an intensely loyal readership with some of the most influential consumers in the world. As opinion leaders, they are affluent, well educated, and professional – and have discretionary income to purchase quality products and services.” (my emphasis)

So, National Geographic readers, you are loyal, you are powerful and you are rich, and that’s why you will put up with and respond to hoards of adverts for products that are destroying the Earth. Well, here’s one former reader who won’t be buying National Geographic again. Good riddance.

I suppose you can’t accuse the largest shopping mall in London as being hypocritical if they tell you to “Feed Your Addiction“, but it’s either a monumental PR blunder, or absolute proof that shoppers are so stupid that they think having an addiction to shopping is something positive.

“The Brent Cross Sale. Feed your addiction!”

“Hey, Barry, we need to go there; I’m like, so addicted to shopping.”

Whatever the reason, it’s incredibly honest, though very disturbing.

So I’m browsing the Guardian web site, looking for this and that, and I come across this little nugget. Someone (I’m not sure they have really as it’s really an advert) has asked those nice people at British Gas how to save energy. “Of course!” BG cry, “We can save you money!”

“But that’s not what I wanted,” says imaginary Stewert Hancock, “I wanted to save energy.

“Look at all the money you can save, Mr Hancock. Money, money, money! Doesn’t that sound nice?”

“I only wanted to make my children happy.”

How typical of British Gas (and foolish of The Guardian’s Editors) to turn something that should be an altruistic activity into ways of saving money. This is an absolute rock-solid indication of how BG would never dent its bottom line by allowing people to question the system that ensures their shareholders are kept in profit.

If British Gas were serious about saving the planet then their bottom line would be that such energy saving actions should be carried out because the planet is being killed by our activities; but it all comes down to money. Money that ensures that, if British Gas can continue to look good enough then they can continue trading rather than having their motives questioned deeply by the public who have been made blind to the greenwash being thrown over them by energy companies.