I want you to forget about April 22, 2009. Just do whatever you normally do on that day; don’t write anything in your diary; don’t put a circle round the date on your calendar; don’t make a special effort to talk about the environment. Why should you? If you are not a hypocrite then Earth Day will mean nothing special to you because like all other days it will just be sustainable living as usual.

Alternatively – like the idiot businessman who gives up his daily aircraft commute to “respect the Earth”, but just on that one day – you could treat it as something special, a day to make huge symbolic waves that, miraculously, make no one wet, and leave no one with a long-lasting feeling that they are living lives that are not their own. If you think I’m being overly cynical, don’t forget that Earth Day 2008 was a horror story of excessive consumption on behalf of The Planet™, and it is looking like Earth Day 2009 is going to be even worse:

April 22 will mark Earth Day, an annual event celebrated around the world as the greenest of holidays. Established in 1970, it was created to call attention to the environment.

Earth Day coverage has grown exponentially over the past decade and will get substantial coverage in most media outlets — including national television, radio, newspaper, magazines, blogs, etc.

Earth Day creates an excellent opportunity for companies to promote their environmental activities and concerns to a broad base, as well as to their local community.

What will your company do for Earth Day to stand out to its base and capture the attention of its public? How will you let your customers, prospects, employees and/or shareholders know about your efforts to reduce carbon emissions, use more eco-friendly materials, reduce waste in packaging, start a recycling campaign, cut emissions, etc?

My suggestion: Don’t forget the kids. Children are Our Future.

A national research study commissioned by the National Environmental Education Training Foundation noted that children placed the environment third in a list of 10 issues behind only AIDS and kidnapping. This contrasts greatly with adults, for whom the economy, crime, and drugs are of greater concern. Children worry about long-term issues such as damage to the ozone layer and destruction of the rain forest.

Did you know that 99% of children in America today have access to environmental classes in school, and 31 states require schools to incorporate environmental concepts into virtually every subject in all grade levels?

Reach out to children. Children have influence over parents’ buying habits. as well as being an influencing force for recycling and conservation activities.

If you have a local business, work with a school district and get imprinted eco-friendly promotional items, which are educational, into the students’ hands. Try to target elementary or middle schools for best response and maximum impact.

I genuinely feel sick, reading this. I encourage you to post your own blogs, and send your own letters in about what you think of this kind of cynical, bloated marketing behaviour. Earth Day has become the perfect example of why business has no place in the future of this planet!

I already love “What’s Going On?” by the political comedian Mark Steel, and I’ve only just started reading it, having spotted it earlier today in my local library (I’m sure Mark will approve of being borrowed rather than bought). Like Mark Thomas’ magnificent “As Used On The Famous Nelson Mandela“, Mark Steel’s book shows just how important comedians are in getting important messages to large numbers of people – something I could only dream of being capable of.

The quotation I have picked is beautifully pertinant to The Unsuitablog:

There’s nothing especially novel about large companies eagerly making vast profits with little regard for the consequences; what is new, is that it appears to be universally accepted by all major parties that it can’t be any different. The world must be run by big business. We can’t confront them, we must involve them. For example, if Tesco are able to buy computers for schools in return for their mass advertising campaign inside classrooms, why wouldn’t it be possible to compel the company to do the same without giving them the right to plaster their logo at the eyeline of the nation’s children? It wouldn’t be that unfair, would it, if the tax system were such that the major supermarkets had to cough up a portion of their profits (made from the parents of those children) towards education.

Similarly, throughout the debates on global warming, every initiative seems to include ‘bringing business onside’, with complex formulas to try to persuade big corporations not to continue destroying the planet. No one suggests this with less serious crimes. Imagine if someone announced, ‘The important point in dealing with street crime is coming up with a plan that can bring the muggers on board.’

Take note Sierra Club, WWF, Nature Conservancy and their ilk: just because business is the biggest cause of environmental destruction doesn’t mean you have to involve them in the solutions. Do you really think businesses give a fig about the state of the planet when (to quote Mark Steel again) ‘success’ is another word for ‘profit’?

The Climate Group, The Climate Group, The Climate Group…if you say it enough times then it starts to sound familiar: a bit like a business, or the kind of organisation funded by businesses to provide advice to businesses. But is it?

Take a look at some of the web sites and organisations that are waxing lyrical about them:

– John Laumer at Treehugger.com said, of their keynote report: “The most important report you’ll read all year……You’ll not find a better capsule summary of what we face and what needs to be done for the rest of your life – and your childrens’ lives. Honestly. Read the report. The details are gripping.”

– The heads of both Greenpeace UK and Friends of the Earth are happy to be associated with The Climate Group, turning up at events and speaking as one.

– WWF has partnered with The Climate Group on a number of major environmental projects.

Associating and being praised by the great and good within the “environmental movement” (I think those quotes are well earned) is necessary for The Climate Group because they are clearly determined to get things done. Their establishment comes off the back of an urgent need to reverse the appalling state of the atmosphere and other carbon sinks, and they have gone to great efforts to acknowledge the problem and give it the highest possible profile – launching their most significant report with the support of Tony Blair and being highlighted by Ban Ki-moon (United Nations Secretary General) as part of the global solution to climate change.

Regular readers of The Unsuitablog will realise that, while on the surface seeming like significant endorsements, these things really don’t mean as much as they appear; as you will see from this link, this link and this link. Ban Ki-moon went on to say that, “Scientists have given us many tools to make carbon-based fuels cleaner and more efficient, and they are working on many more. At the same time, we are also becoming much better at harnessing the renewable power of the sun, wind and waves. Due in part to these advances, governments, businesses and civil society are all discovering that the move towards a low-carbon economy, far from costing the Earth, can actually save money and invigorate growth.”

Likewise, The Climate Group’s goal is to help government and business set the world economy on the path to a low-carbon, prosperous future.

Now, if you are anything like me then you will straight away see a dichotomy: “low-carbon” is low-carbon; it means not emitting or causing to emit much carbon, which is obviously the only game in town for the next 50 years and more. Then you have “prosperous”, meaning to create financial wealth, and “help government and business” which most certainly sits in the “growing economy” camp. Have you ever heard of a government or business that doesn’t want the economy to grow? Take a look at this (only partial) list of Climate Group Members, a list that is growing all the time, and see if you can find a name that deeply and genuinely wants the planet to return to pre-industrial levels of greenhouse gases:

Arup
Austin Energy
Baker & McKenzie
Barclays Bank
Better Place
Bloomberg
BP
The Province of British Columbia
Broad Air Conditioning
British Sky Broadcasting
British Telecommunications
Cadbury
The State of California
Catalyst Paper
Cathay Pacific
CB Richard Ellis Group, Inc.
The City of Chicago
China Mobile
The Coca-Cola Company
Dell
Deutsche Bank
Dow Chemical
Duke Energy
Florida Power & Light Group

Some stunning names here, and that’s only A-F — leaving out Nestle, Nike, PepsiCo, Tesco and Virgin Atlantic among others.

If all that seemed rather frenetic and complicated, then that is just the appetizer. Wait until you read what is in their report, “In the black: The growth of the low carbon economy”

The climate change cause has turned a corner. It used to be seen only in terms of the costs of action; now, astounding profits and rates of return are catching the eye of entrepreneurs and investors around the world. Almost overnight, an ugly duckling of the world economy has grown into a swan.

Climate change action can bring “astounding profits” for “entrepreneurs and investors”. Can it really?

This is from an article of mine, entitled “If The Economy Doesn’t Shrink, We’re Finished!”

The loudest voices during any kind of economic downturn come from those people who have most benefited materially from economic growth: the urban and suburban rich, the corporate leaders and the political elites who judge the quality of their lives by the size of their house, the size and number of their cars, the expense of their vacations, the amount of consumer goods they own and the number of people they control. To them, recession means the unimaginable prospect of a more frugal and less powerful lifestyle; Economic depression is lifestyle meltdown. If their place in civilized society is threatened then the whole of society must be made to feel their own fears: by exploiting their position in the hierarchical structure, they manufacture a universal fear of Economic contraction. We become scared because they want us to be scared.

There is a clear dichotomy between acting on climate change and benefitting business; so much so that businesses and their serfs in government will do anything to ensure that theirs is the only game in town.

They don’t want to save us — they just want to make money. Don’t let them.

I wonder how they are all feeling this morning – the morning after the International Conservation Caucus Foundation 2009 Inauguration Gala. It was a chance for people to talk about the way forwards in preserving the planet for the future, in the light of promised change in the political landscape (isn’t Hope wonderful?); it was a chance for corporate-friendly conservationists and politicians to network with each other; it was an opportunity for some of the most destructive corporations on Earth to talk up their ‘green’ credentials; it was — in short — a Greenwashing Gala.

Climate Progress takes up the story:

Q. If an inaugural gala is sponsored by ExxonMobil, can it still be green?

A. No.

The NYT reported yesterday on tonight’s two big “Green Galas”:

The first gala is being held by Al Gore, the former vice president and Nobel laureate. His event is also joined by a no-compromise crowd long frustrated with the Bush administration. Among them, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council….

The second gala is being held by the International Conservation Caucus Foundation, comprising the goliaths of international and animal wildlife conservation like the Nature Conservancy and the World Wildlife Federation.

Inexcusably, “Exxon Mobil is a prominent sponsor of the event.” The oil giant has spent millions of dollars over the years as a principal sponsor of the global warming disinformation campaign aimed at stopping efforts to conserve a livable climate — even after they said they stopped such funding. Chris Mooney has an excellent piece on ExxonMobil’s two-decade anti-scientific campaign

…

The non-green gala has other non-green elements:

Roses will be flown in from Ecuador. Marinated beef is being flown in from Texas to Virginia, where it will be grilled and then trucked to the auditorium.

Wow, that’s a two-fer — beef and air shipment!

While in general I don’t think individuals or groups should obsess about these kind of individual actions, it’s absurd for an environmental or conservation organization to flaunt unsustainability:

“We are not into symbolism,” David H. Barron, the caucus president, said unapologetically. “We are focused on a much bigger impact.”

Mr. Barron says that personal efforts to lower energy use are admirable; he himself uses low-energy LED’s at home. But more gets done to protect the environment, he says, when big corporations get involved in a committed way.

This may explain why Exxon Mobil is a prominent sponsor of the event.

Climate Progress has focused on ExxonMobil, but as you will see in my comment below the piece, virtually everyone attending — whether corporation or ‘environmental’ group — is swilling in the same trough…

What a load of stupid f*ckers. I’m not going to tone down my language [ok, I did for The Unsuitablog]: when you see not only ExxonMobil, but JPMorganChase (they invest in anything bad), AFPA (clearcutting apologists), Chevron (just as bad as ExxonMobil), Unilever (massive user of palm oil), Nestle (baby milk murderers) and a host of others doing this it just makes my teeth grate.

It’s a greenwashing beanfeast, and I have no doubt they know this. Let’s just say it’s a great opportunity to lobby and network for the next stage of the denial plan – after all, we know what has gone wrong, now we all need to be shown how corporations are going to save the world.

As for WWF; they are corporate-loving symbolists (http://www.thesietch.org/mysietch/keith/2008/01/15/wwf-buy-yourself-a-new-corporate-image-part-1/) who will feel very much at home there. The Nature Conservancy don’t even deserve a comment, this will do instead: http://thesietch.org/ mysietch/ keith/ 2008/ 04/ 19/ the-nature-conservancy-partnering-with-poisoners/

Keith

It’s worth reading the rest of the comments, too: if you think greenwashing, corporate-conservation love-ins and politicians pretending to care while keeping their pockets open (for that is what ICCF is all about) is what these things are all about, and refuse to accept them, then you are not alone.

every week I get the usual splurge of emails from companies, big and small, and sometimes PR people representing some of the biggest of the big; like this example sent by IBM Public Relations on behalf of Bosch, Xerox and DuPont, all companies that have a less than excellent record in environmental and social behaviour.

From: Michael Maloney
To: keith@theearthblog.org
Subject: Xerox, DuPont and Bosch Join Eco-Patent Commons

Keith,

I want to let you know that today Xerox, DuPont and Bosch have joined the Eco-Patent Commons, a first-of-its-kind business effort to help the environment by pledging environmentally-beneficial patents to the public domain. The newly-pledged patents include:

— A Xerox technology that significantly reduces the time and cost of removing hazardous waste from water and soil;
— A technology developed by DuPont that converts certain non-recyclable plastics into beneficial fertilizer;
— Automotive technologies from Bosch that help lower fuel consumption, reduce emissions, or convert waste heat from vehicles into useful energy;
— Technologies developed by founding member Sony that focus on the recycling of optical discs.

The Eco-Patent Commons, launched by IBM, Nokia, Pitney Bowes and Sony in partnership with the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) in January 2008, provides a unique opportunity for global business to make a difference sharing innovation in support of sustainable development. The objectives of the Eco-Patent Commons are to facilitate the use of existing technologies to protect the environment, and encourage collaboration between businesses that foster new innovations.

The new pledges more than double the number of environmentally-friendly patents available to the public. They are available on a dedicated Web site hosted by the WBCSD (http://www.wbcsd.org/web/epc). Many of the original patent holders have been contacted directly about their patents and we know of at least three patents that have already been used by others since the January launch of the Commons.
…

Nothing too terrible about this, until you look into the organisation behind this move, the WBCSD — a blatently business-friendly trade organisation that…well, here was my response:

To: Michael Maloney/Somers/IBM@IBMUS
cc: christian.fronek@de.bosch.com ; daniel.a.turner@usa.dupont.com ; Elissa.Nesbitt@Xerox.com ; keith@theearthblog.org ; obm@wbcsd.org ; Shusuke.kanai@jp.sony.com
Subject: Re: Xerox, DuPont and Bosch Join Eco-Patent Commons : The WBCSD are trying to kill us

Dear Michael

The WBCSD are proposing a trajectory for greenhouse gas emissions towards 550PPM by 2050 (http://www.wbcsd.org/web/tmp/policy-low.pdf). This is in stark contrast to the actual scientific findings by NASA chief climatologist Jim Hansen that 350PPM is the maximum permissible to prevent irreversible climate change (http://www.sub350.org/). 550PPM, which all of the contacts on the email below support in principle, will lead to catastrophic and deadly climate change leaving a world where prior human activity is utterly impossible, let alone the business as usual strategy that the WBCSD are pursuing.

No matter, it seems that industrial civilization is on the verge of collapse, and IBM will go the same way as Du Pont, Xerox, Bosch and Sony — all irrelevant icons of a past in which humanity was brainwashed into thinking that this toxic existence was the only way to live.

I recommend you and your colleagues read A Matter Of Scale (http://www.amatterofscale.com – free online), particularly Chapters 11, 13 and 16, and consider whether your job is part of the solution or the problem.

Kind regards

Keith Farnish
www.theearthblog.org
www.unsuitablog.com

Basically, what I did was to CC the company PR people he had listed at the bottom of his original email, and included my own email address in the CC list. If I had thought about it, I would have followed my own rule of putting my address in the middle of the CC list, but in this case it didn’t matter, because Michael panicked:

From: Michael Maloney
To: christian.fronek@de.bosch.com ; daniel.a.turner@usa.dupont.com ; Elissa.Nesbitt@Xerox.com ; keith@theearthblog.org ; obm@wbcsd.org ; Shusuke.kanai@jp.sony.com
Subject: Re: Xerox, DuPont and Bosch Join Eco-Patent Commons : The WBCSD are trying to kill us

Sorry everyone. I’ve sent this blogger news in the past and he hasn’t jumped down my throat like he does below. I don’t recommend that we respond. I guess you can’t please everyone.

Michael Maloney
IBM Media Relations
Energy & Utilities, Chemicals & Petroleum, and Environmental Issues
P: 917-472-3676 T/L: 522-3676 M: 516-578-5535
E: maloney2@us.ibm.com

My emphasis, but do you see what happened? He clicked on “Reply All” and asked his colleagues to not engage me in discussions, essentially because they might say something that the IBM PR machine didn’t approve of.

Well, I wasn’t having that:

To: christian.fronek@de.bosch.com ; daniel.a.turner@usa.dupont.com ; Elissa.Nesbitt@Xerox.com ; keith@theearthblog.org ; obm@wbcsd.org ; Shusuke.kanai@jp.sony.com; Michael Maloney/Somers/IBM@IBMUS
Subject: Re: Xerox, DuPont and Bosch Join Eco-Patent Commons : The WBCSD are trying to kill us

That’s right, everyone, you do as Michael says – rather than make a coherent response, just ignore any attempt to suggest that there is
another way to live.

Now, if I were in your shoes I would consider what the responder has said, read the relevant sections of the book and act like a free-thinking human being.

Your choice, and that’s what life is all about.

Kind regards

Keith

P.S. If being presented with some stark information and choices is “jumping down my throat” then maybe PR isn’t Michael’s ideal vocation ;-)

Sadly, that was that, but I do wonder what they thought of Mr Maloney afterwards, and whether anyone on the list had second thoughts about what they were doing in their current line of work.

Here’s a quick question: what is the most unsustainable thing you can do?

Stock car racing, maybe; or perhaps pouring a gallon of cyanide into a river. What about things that lots of people do on a regular basis? Yes, it’s obvious really, but flying is the answer — only a complete numbnuts would claim that you can zip around the world in a heavier that air machine, kept off the ground by the combustion of oil, and consider what you are doing as “sustainable”.

Yes, that world “sustainable”: it’s been horribly misused recently, to the extent that it seems that you can even have “sustainable economic growth”, which is one of the most stupid things I’ve ever heard. If you want an economy to grow, you have to get the source of that wealth from somewhere, and if it isn’t nicking it from another country (which is one way, I suppose) then it’s going to come from using resources even more intensively.

Sustainability means leaving something in the same or a better condition than it started. That’s really simple to understand; so simple that, as I said, even a complete numbnuts could fail to understand it: or lots and lots of numbnuts in lots of self-interested groups that don’t give a flying (pun intended) f*** about the state of the planet for future generations.

Which makes the phrase “Future Heathrow” (Heathrow being the biggest airport in the UK) so ironic.

Here they write about Climate Change:

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

Well, I hate to criticise, but if you don’t have lots of airport capacity then not as many people can fly and — worse for all the tour operators, fuel companies and airport operators — you cannot achieve the economies of scale necessary to lower the cost of flying, meaning that even fewer people will be able to fly.

People, in this spoon-fed consumer culture have learnt to follow the path of least resistance: they won’t go to Frankfurt or Amsterdam, they just won’t bother flying.

What, in fact, Future Heathrow mean when they say “Supporting sustainable growth” is ensuring that the aforementioned vested interests keep on making money out of the air industry, until the oil runs out and (perhaps) people start to understand that by being rampant consumers of products, services and energy is actually a very bad thing indeed.

(And just in case there are a few typing errors, or short memories, you might want to try out www.heathrowfuture.com, www.heathrowfuture.org and www.futureheathrow.org.uk :-D )

Environmentalists like polar bears, and it’s not hard to appreciate why: not only are they extraordinary hunters, survivors and an integral part of the polar ecosystem, they are a vital marker to indicate the impact of global warming on this ice-dependent species, and they look pretty good on campaign posters too — if that’s your kind of thing.

Coca-Coca loves polar bears, and it’s not hard to appreciate why: they are a powerful symbol of survival in a isolated environment, they make great TV and they look really funny and quirky with a bottle of carbonated soft drink stuck between their paws. Since 1993, Coca Cola have made the most of the “Aah!” factor of polar bears.

It’s no surprise that the Coca Cola Corporation have a big carbon footprint: 7.4 million tonnes in 2007, according to their own carbon disclosure, which is the same as the emissions for Honduras. Along with this they have a terrible history of extracting water illegally, or otherwise taking far more than is sustainable, along with all sorts of other unacceptable social and environmental behaviour (see this damning report by War On Want for more information).

So along come WWF Canada to take Coca Cola by the hand and lead them into a better place…except it’s not WWF who are doing the leading, despite what they would like to think. Despite WWF’s clumsy attempts to suggest that by partnering with such a nefarious corporate monster, the monster can be tamed to be a good environmental steward, and even assist with the preservation of the polar bear, Coca Cola are clearly laughing on the other side of their collective face.

Yes, what else would Coca Cola do but make some fantastic commercial capital out of this partnership — or should I say, sponsorship, because that’s what it is.

Since 1993, the Coca-Cola Company has celebrated the polar bear as a symbol of holidays and togetherness. Sadly, the polar bears are now at risk from the effects of climate change. As the Arctic warms, the sea ice is melting, limiting their abilities to successfully reproduce and feed their cubs.

Deck Your Halls…

…with exclusive polar bear downloads, plush bears, holiday ornaments, and more! There’s something for you, and everyone on your holiday list.

Buy Stuff.

Who needs irony when you have WWF?

“We want to make the world a better place for future generations.”

That is taken directly from the website of Monsanto, one of the largest producers of agricultural chemicals in the world, and by far the largest “owner” of genetic crop patents on Earth.

Now read this, written by Craig Mackintosh at the Permaculture Research Institute of Australia…

Imagine yourself as a farmer. I know it’s not easy, since few do it anymore, but give it a shot. Picture yourself as a seasoned farmer on the Canadian prairies. You’ve been working your farm for fifty years, with your wife working at your side. Despite the vicissitudes of life, and heavy pressure from ever-enlarging mechanised farms around you, you’re still there. Then, one day, you find a large seed and chemical company has filed suit against you – because they’ve found their genetically engineered plants on your land. Firstly, you’re wondering how representatives of this company came to be sniffing around on your land without your knowledge or permission, and secondly, you’re perplexed because you’ve never bought the seed they accuse you of using. In fact, you’ve deliberately avoided using such seed, and have survived competition by saving your own, developing improved strains through the age-old process of natural plant breeding. Furthermore, despite their genetically modified seed having contaminated your own natural crop – an irreversible action with major long term biological and financial implications for you and any farms around you – you find the courts are only interested in protecting the rights of the ‘copyright holder’ of the seed, even while acknowledging that the seed may have blown in from neighbouring fields or passing trucks. It turns out that it doesn’t matter how the seed got onto your property, or whether or not you knew it was there. It’s on your land, so you have to pay.

But it doesn’t stop with individual farmers — as bad as GM contamination is, the intentions of the GMO corporations go far further than simply selling (or suing for) GM seed and the chemicals that work with it. They want to change the stuff of life itself, for profit — and screw the consequences.

Ecological issues aside, as alarming as they are, these seeds that are blowing all over the place are making the whole world a potential ‘captive market’ for the seed companies. Pollen and seeds are uncontrollable, and at the moment the ‘lucky recipient’ must surrender to the demands of the company – essentially becoming a legally obliged subscriber to a service they not only never asked for, but that operates on a biological and economic philosophy they may wholly reject. The central issue here, is this ability for a company to patent life. A small genetic change to an organism can enable an organisation to seek intellectual copyright, and charge technology fees and other costs for its use. With life forms, unlike a widget on a conveyor belt, the ‘product’ is self perpetuating (unless that ‘feature’ has been removed by the company – a whole other problem on its own). This effectively means, if unchecked, organisations that megalomaniacally tinker with the building blocks of life (seeds, or otherwise), can take control of everything that makes this planet tick.

And just in case you think that all of the environmental NGOs are fighting against this pathological behaviour, bear in mind that Monsanto have become partners with no less than the Nature Conservancy (remember them?) and Conservation International: both fighting for the right of massive multinational agricultural corporations to make a profit and greenwash at the same time.

What is it that Monsanto say on their website?

“We want to make the world a better place for future generations.”

They forgot to add, “of Monsanto executives.”

You can read the whole of this excellent article at http://permaculture.org.au/2009/01/03/pay-monsanto-or-starve/

I won’t be posting for a while because of Christmas; we have people to see, fun to have and just a few presents to give – the vast majority of them either second hand or handmade, because I really can’t bear to buy new stuff any more – when you have been writing about hypocrites for so long it becomes almost a physical impossibility to be one yourself.

It wasn’t always that way, and I am not ashamed to say that I was once a consumer; I used to do Christmas shopping with relish, and take great pleasure in wrapping and stacking all sorts of fancy new stuff under the tree, and far beyond it. It took the cathartic experience of writing an article called “The Problem With…Christmas” a couple of years ago to shake me out of the consumer mindset and realise that the “need” to shop, especially in November and December, was simply a system-led exercise in corporate brainwashing, eagerly followed by the hive mind of the Behemoth Consumer. Take a look at the illustration on Hobbes seminal (but horribly flawed) work “Leviathan”, and imagine the body politik constructed of television sets, electronic games, perfume, DVDs and kitchen gadgets and you have a fairly good impression of our new “consumer politik”.

The Emma Maersk – a 45,000 tonne container ship from China, renamed the “SS Santa” in honour of its mission – arrived in the UK on 4 November 2006, loaded with thousands of shipping containers full of toys, books and computers. A Chinese Online News service managed to obtain an oddly wistful quote from an English bystander : “It’s like a dream to see such a mountain-like ship floating on the sea, and all the more incredible to learn that the ship is bringing Europeans with Christmas made mainly in China,” which sounded more like a quotation from a Chinese Government press release. 3,000 of these containers were unloaded and the toys, books and computers distributed to warehouses and then sent out on their next leg to fill the shelves of Toys ‘?’ Us, Tesco and the mysterious back rooms of Argos. On Christmas Day 2006, carefully wrapped packages were hurriedly opened by children, teenagers and parents, their paper discarded, and the keys to temporary enjoyment revealed in all their glory.

This year I am receiving emails, urging me to advertise and to buy “eco gifts”, as though somehow our consumer frenzy can be sublimated into a kinder, more caring form of consumption — as though it makes any difference; as though, somehow, by buying “green” we become better people, while still being the rabid consumers we are continually urged to be. These people are not trying to save the planet, they are just trying to make you feel better, while the consumer machine keeps grinding away, desperate that no amount of recession, resource depletion or ecological destruction will stop it.

Dear Keith,

The holiday season is too often characterized by overconsumption and waste, rather than the spirit of giving. From conception, SpaRitual has been committed to creating eco-friendly products crafted to raise environmental awareness and cater to the conscious consumer. “As a brand, we are passionate about safeguarding the environment, reducing waste and limiting the use of non-renewable resources,” says Shel Pink, creator of the SpaRitual brand.

Therefore it is only fitting that the eco-luxury brand would gift its customers with a donation to Trees for the Future, which benefits people living on threatened lands.

With each purchase of SpaRitual products, consumers are making a choice that directly and positively benefits the planet,” Pink says. “By treating ourselves with consciousness, compassion and caring, I realized that the creation of this brand could be a vehicle for extending a larger sense of caring for each other, for our communities and for the world.

Happy Holidays from the SpaRitual Team

What can you say, given all you know about the consumer machine except:

If you’re so bothered by overconsumption at Christmas why…

a) are you sending this email advertising your products at Christmas

b) are you selling this pointless stuff that no one needs at all?

Pure hypocrisy. You don’t lose the consumption yoke by trying to make your company seem ethical – you are selling product, end of.

Keith

Have a wonderful Christmas, Yule, or whatever festival you may be celebrating at this time — and please remember, it’s not what you buy, it’s what you do that matters.

You have to feel sorry…no, scrap that…Why should we feel sorry for the desperate little people thinking up their desperate little promotions in their desperate little offices for desperate companies in order to sell desperate little lives that other desperate little people will be stupid enough to want to live.

So much for the world of marketing, which in sheer desperation is increasingly turning to bucketloads of “eco descriptors” (that’s greenwashing adjectives and adverbs) to try and convince us that we don’t have to change because they are doing the changing for us…

“Forget old luxury, welcome green luxury!” said Joel Cere, CEO of [deleted] Resorts.” [deleted] Resorts is offering eco-aware urban escapees the luxury of private island home ownership with the launch of a truly guilt-free investment: The [deleted resort], Palawan.” “In a world of homogenous, over-developed concrete destinations, disinterested developers, fake themes and over-priced mini-bars, token green gestures and disenfranchised communities, [still deleted] Resorts provide an authentic experience for the grown-up backpacker, a guilt-free option for the traveler with conscience, a breath of fresh tropical air for sophisticated urban escapees.”[You just repeated yourself]

Designed exclusively for [stop it!] Resorts by former film art director, Antonio Calvo (“Love Actually,” “Alexander”, “Pride & Prejudice”.) 60 off-plan private residences await discriminating investors, who want to own a truly chic eco-home with a conscience and investment-grade security with an option to buy, re-sell or rent.

[utterly deleted] Resorts operates a “greenprint” for operations and, with development partners [anonymous] Investments and [null] Management [Ed. actually all the same company], benefit from sustainable construction methods employed, ethical management practice observed, and ecologically responsible operations as standard. That means 100% renewable energy, and for the first time in the hospitality industry, 100% of the resort’s net operating profits will be used to support local environmental and social programs. You can now own a truly chic eco-home with a conscience and investment-grade security.

I think my highlighter just ran out! Certainly my patience has run out, though I have no doubt that a number of gullible light-green blogs will be merrily posting this “news” because they are desperate for something positive, and have no qualms about giving a lovely green company a bit of free advertising.

Yes, except…

1) The resort is designed as an investment for very rich people who want to sink their money into a second (or third) home in an island paradise, except for those who want to make lots of cash from rich globetrotters in their gap-years who wouldn’t understand the word “connection” if it didn’t have a cellphone logo attached to it.

2) The much-vaunted “100% of the resort’s net operating profits” going to social projects, is after the developers have sold the units for big money, safely (well, hopefully not) putting it away in their expanding bank acounts. The “operating” remainder will be a pittance.

3) Everyone who stays there will have flown, in most cases long-haul, making a complete mockery of the “eco” tags. While the solar panels and mini-wind turbines keep the margueritas cool, the traveller will be spewing out tons of carbon dioxide on their way to and from their “eco-home”. Offset that, you bastards!

[That’s a joke, you can’t offset flights, obviously]

4) With all this greenwashing comes the classic guilt-shedding that only truly rich people can afford…

“We are now accepting interested buyers for our guilt-free residences in South East Asia”

…but they are guilty, truly guilty of hypocrisy.

My idea of luxury is lying under a tree in the sun with a book as the breeze caresses my back and the birdsong tumbles down upon me from the branches above…but if you are selling a dream there can be no “guilt-free” luxury, they are morally and practically inconsistent: “luxury” in civilized terms means money; “luxury” in civilized terms, means environmental harm. If you have to fly half way round the world to achieve your “simple” pleasures, you are morally bankrupt, my friend.