It’s 2008. Chevy have broken the mould and built a big SUV that is also a hybrid! Aren’t they fantastic?

The Hybrid Taken To Its Logical Extreme

The 2008 Chevy Tahoe already has best-in-class fuel economy. So why mess with a good thing? To make it better, of course. Seems the Green Car Journal agrees — they’ve named the 2008 Chevy Tahoe Hybrid the Green Car of the Year.

This is from the Chevy web site. There are a few notes attached to the statement, which you might find interesting. Shall we read it again?

The Hybrid Taken To Its Logical Extreme

The 2008 Chevy Tahoe already has best-in-class fuel economy. (1) So why mess with a good thing? To make it better, of course. Seems the Green Car Journal agrees — they’ve named the 2008 Chevy Tahoe Hybrid (2) the Green Car of the Year.(3)

(1) Based on 2007 GM Large Utility segment and 2008 EPA estimates. Tahoe 2WD with available 5.3L V8 has EPA est. MPG 14 city/20 hwy.

(2) Limited availability starting January 2008.

(3) For more information, visit GreenCar.com.

So, let’s get this right: (1) It is Best In Class compared to GM’s other f*** off SUV monsters — not other manfacturers’ SUVs, just those made by GM. (2) There will be hardly any of them (actually, that’s got to be a good thing). (3) Green Car magazine is run by a guy who loves cars — the “environment” (as they define it) is a selling point.

Just in case you missed it, the 2008 Chevy Tahoe Hybrid does 20MPG on the highway (that’s 25MPG if you are not in North America). Quite frankly, that is s***. It’s a huge lump of metal, tweaked by some engineers to make GM look green, which, even compared to other SUVs is just another gas-guzzler.

Time to learn a lesson: the auto industry want to sell cars. They will say anything to sell cars. They will destroy the planet if it means they can sell more cars. Don’t believe a word they say.

End of lesson.

A golden rule I have on The Unsuitablog is, regardless of the target of an item, I will not shy away from saying what I think — and I will also ensure this is backed up by facts on the ground, in the air, water, wherever.

When a company, authority, charity etc. tries to pull the wool over my eyes, I will make sure I find out the truth, and not pull any punches with my opinions. If a company etc. is honest with me (after 25 years of buying and selling stuff, It’s easy to tell) I will just lay down the facts, and go easy on the opinion.

So, in this case, my only comment is: “Who are they trying to kid?”

---

On Saturday I received an e-mail from Kristin, representing a group of Honda dealers in California:

Hi Keith,

I am interested in speaking with you about the editorial content of your blog. We are the PR/Marketing agency representing the So Cal Honda Dealers Association, who has launched a new initiative for the Honda Helpful campaign, Honda Blue Goes Green. This new initiative goes hand in hand with this month’s environmental theme and would be a great fit with your website!

Please find attached the press release on the initiative. This new eco-friendly initiative is one of the many ways the So Cal Honda Dealers are unexpectedly helping the local residents, whether they’re handing out waters, hand wipes, helping people with their purchases or walking people to their cars with umbrellas on a rainy day. The community has responded really well to the Helpful teams and is always pleasantly surprised by their unexpected helpfulness. Again, we think this initiative is a perfect fit with your website!

I’d love to speak with you further about this great new initiative helping local residents become more eco-friendly! Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information. Feel free to email me or call!

Best,
Kristin Baker

I responded:

Dear Kristen

This is greenwash of the highest order. All of the examples you mention are encouraging people to drive more: exactly how is this “eco-friendly”?!

I’m sure your Tote Bag hasn’t got a Honda advert on it, has it?

And what about those wonderfully environmentally friendly vehicles you are selling. I picked out the first one on the web site’s list: the Odyssey (http://automobiles.honda.com/odyssey/specifications.aspx?group=epa). 20 miles per gallon: that is a complete pile of excrement. But it’s ok, because you are helping people plant trees — and, of course, telling people not to drive…no?

You’ve never read my web site, have you? Try this, and see if it fits with your plan: http://earth-blog.bravejournal.com/entry/24053. So, of course I will featuring your campaign with pleasure — on The Unsuitablog:
www.unsuitablog.com

Best wishes
Keith

Maybe I’m getting grumpy and cynical in my old age (well, there’s no “maybe” about it) but she did say it would be, “a perfect fit with your website”. Just not the one she was thinking of. To give her credit, she was polite in return:

Dear Keith,

I’m sorry if you misunderstood the message behind the Hobda [sic.] Helpful campaign. The Helpful teams are out in the field helping the local community in unexpected ways, not asking people to buy Honda vehicles.

The same goes for the Honda Blue Goes Green campaign. The Guys and Girls in Blue hand out reusable grocery totes at recycling centers, grocery stores and farmer’s markets to all customers, not just people with Hondas! And, with each reusable tote So Cal Honda Dealers Association will plant a tree in the recipients name for free, without asking them to buy a car but help replenish acres of forest land destroyed by fires.

I understand if you don’t feel the campaign is  right for your blog, but I’d appreciate the chance to explain the message behind the Helpful campaign a bit further, before you post it as unsuitable.

Thank you for your time.

Best,
Kristin Baker

I didn’t misunderstand the message, but I thought I’d give her a chance:

Ok, just three questions:

1) Do the Tote Bags have “Honda” or a Honda logo on them?

2) Do the people being helped out know that the helpers are employed by Honda dealers?

3) Why did you want me to mention your current campaign on my blog?

Regards
Keith

I even chased her up last night for a response, so I could get the full picture. Here it is:

Hello Keith,

In answer to your question, when the Guys and Girls in Blue approach customers, they initially ask if they would like to receive a reusable grocery bag, and when the recipient says “Yes. Thank you” the teams respond with “You’re welcome; It’s our job to be helpful at Honda!”

I have attached an image of the tote bags for your reference.

And finally, we contacted you to see if you were interested in posting items that let readers know about the different ways businesses are encouraging local communities to become environmentally friendly.

Please let me know if you have any other questions or need anything else!

Best,
Kristin Baker

Thank you Kristin; no more questions.

A few years ago, possibly in 2004, I visited the Eden Project; a mixture of perfectly tended meadows, terraces and exotic planting, topped off by a pair of impressive plastic “biomes” (they were building the third at the time), all in the setting of an abandoned clay pit in Cornwall, England. My family took home some wonderful memories from that day — it was steaming hot, so much so that the Tropical Biome had to be fully vented; my younger daughter had endless fun running around the mazes and gawping at the giant bee; my older daughter discovered what it was like to be soaked in a tropical mist.

Spin forwards four years, and something has gone bad in Eden — they are allowing themselves to be used as a platform for every major car company to do a spot of greenwashing. What better place to pretend you have the interests of the planet at heart than at the Eden Project, that bastion of sustainable tourism and ecological education for all generations? What better place to show that cars are not bad things — they are just misunderstood.

The official blurb makes for deeply uncomfortable reading:

Why a car show at the Eden Project? 
 
Love them or hate them, cars are not going away. But road transport accounts for a fifth of our carbon dioxide emissions in the UK, so it’s time to transform the way we buy and use them.
 
The good news is that we can reduce road transport carbon dioxide emissions by a massive 80% by 2050 if we start buying the right vehicles now and take our old bangers off the roads. The technology is out there and our Sexy Green Car Show brings it to you.

You can read this in one of two ways: first, that there is a general acceptance that car transport is not going away for a long time, so we need to make the best of the situation we have; second, that car transport is a good thing, and it can be made even better if it is made greener. The difference is subtle, but is important.

The first explanation is realistic — it accepts that there will be a need for some car transport, in some places for quite a while until alternatives are found or, more importantly, people stop having the need to travel so much. The second explanation is straight out of the greenwashing guide, written by the automotive giants. Yes, maybe individual vehicle emissions can reduce by 80% in 42 years (not that that is anything like sufficient), but the car companies are exploiting huge markets in Asia and South America, plus pushing to ensure car transport is the only option for travel in the industrial West: net transport emissions are unlikely to go down at all, regardless of how “green” individual vehicles are.

The second explanation is the true meaning of the Sexy Green Car Show. Take a look at the roster of companies showing at the event:

All the major manufacturers will be flaunting their newest, greenest models including Ford, Peugeot, Citroën, Fiat, Volkswagen, SEAT, Honda, Axon, Lotus, Saab and Morgan. Vectrix’s electric motorcycle will also be on show, and the hydrogen-powered Morgan LIFE car will make its first public appearance in this country.

This is a trade event, designed to make car manufacturers look good, while still continuing their effortless plundering of the planet’s diminishing natural assets. Eden Project, you have well and truly been taken for a ride.

How green is your telecommunications company? Can it match us? AT&T lead the world in compassion and environmental nurturing through four main areas of its business. 

1. Supplying military equipment:

AT&T is an official provider of personal telecommunications services for all five branches of U. S. military at 529 military bases worldwide and on 200 U. S. Navy ships afloat through contracts with AAFES, NEXCOM, MCCS and the Coast Guard Exchange.  (from here)

2. Spying on the public:

Mark Klein, a former technician who worked for AT&T for 22 years, provided three technical documents, totaling 140 pages, to the EFF and to The New York Times, which first reported last December that the Bush administration was eavesdropping on citizens’ phone calls without obtaining warrants.

AT&T built a secret room in its San Francisco switching station that funnels internet traffic data from AT&T Worldnet dialup customers and traffic from AT&T’s massive internet backbone to the NSA, according to a statement from Klein. 

3. Polluting waterways:

AT&T Corp. agreed to a $25 million settlement of a lawsuitalleging that the company risked polluting ground water with toxicchemicals by failing to properly test and repair hundreds of underground storage tanks for gasoline and diesel fuel, California officials said Tuesday. (from here)

4. Recycling cellphones:

When you donate your used cell phones to Cell Phones for Soldiers, your phones are either reconditioned and reused — or they’re disposed of in an environmentally friendly way. Best of all, the proceeds provide free phone cards for U.S. military families.

You can celebrate Earth Day every day. Run a cell phone donation drive in your community — at your office, school, apartment building or place of worship.

Well, that does it for me! Recycling cellphones is such a great thing that I’m just going to forgive AT&T for being a key part of the military-industrial complex, and using their corporate leverage to ensure that their worst secrets go untold (Don Rumsfeld was right when he talked about “unknown unknowns”).

I’m not going to comment on the rights or wrongs of Cell Phones for Soldiers — soldiers are human too (even though their leaders clearly aren’t) so want to talk to their families — but why are AT&T making such a big deal about their recycling drive, touting it as their Earth Day effort? It’s a classic piece of greenwashing designed to make this corporate behemoth look good as they do so much bad stuff.

The Unsuitablog received this from an AT&T employee recently:

AT&T touts its goal to double the number of cellphones recycled  through its stores in 2008, while refusing to provide bins in its offices for employees to recycle non-business paper (i.e. newspapers),  aluminum and plastic. The reason they don’t? They say it is too  expensive. The cellphone recycling press release touts how easy it is  to “go green for earth day”, but the company doesn’t follow through in  other areas. They do provide bins for office paper, but that is only  to protect customer and corporate data; I’ve been yelled at for  putting newspaper in there. My office used to have bins for  recyclables, but they were removed in the interest of “cost cutting”.

When I asked if there were any other examples of environmental hypocrisy, this nugget of information followed:

We are expected to leave our computers on overnight so that “updates can download”. They want us to logout and leave Windows at the login screen, and turn our monitors off (not let them go to sleep; turn them off). As a corporate laptop user, I’m not supposed to leave the laptop on overnight, since I have to lock it up. To me, that pretty much indicates that the necessary updates can download just fine in the background as I’m working on other things.

As for corporate excess, their environmental controls policy really needs work. In the summer, the internal temperature is set to 68. In the winter, it’s 78. It is not uncommon for people to wear coats at their desks during the summer and having to use fans (to no avail) in the winter.

So there’s a company acting both globally (bad) and locally (bad). AT&T, welcome to the Greenwashing Elite!

---

N.B. If you have any examples of corporate greenwashing then The Unsuitablog welcomes them. All sources will be kept anonymous upon request. Just e-mail news@unsuitablog.com.

There are few things more entertaining than when two different businesses, both loaded with money, battle it out for supremacy , with the only losers being one or other industry. This particular battle is taking place between the multi-millionaire (billionaire) stable owners of Newmarket, in the English Midlands, and the air industry, led by National Air Traffic Services, a recently privatised air infrastructure business. It has become a turf war…literally.

From the point of view of the avid greenwash spotter, anything that promises to dent the imperialism of the air industry has got to be good news; yet the racing industry is run by people who spend their lives dashing from one international stable to another — by plane, of course — only interspersed by journeys in their leather and burnished walnut lined Range Rovers to and from large lunches where they discuss how much more money they can make.

Surprisingly, I don’t have any sympathy for either side. Here is the Observer newspaper taking up the hilarious story:

Plans that would see up to 33 planes an hour, circling over a major horse breeding area, threaten to drive away the world’s top stud owners, including the ruler of oil-rich Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum, and Kirsten Rausing, the Tetra Pak heiress.

Owners and trainers have hired aviation and planning law expert John Steel, QC, to force the National Air Traffic Services (Nats), the UK’s leading air-traffic management company, to rethink its proposals, which they say could result in the death of Newmarket as headquarters of the racing industry.

‘The proposed stacking is right over the top of the horse-breeding area,’ said Alastair Watson, chairman of the Newmarket Stud Farmers Association and manager of Rausing’s Lanwades stud. ‘Breeders have chosen the area for its quiet environs. There is obviously the possibility of them moving away.’

An urgent meeting to discuss the proposals was attended by representatives from Sheikh Mohammed’s stud, as well as from the Newmarket Stud Farmers’ Association, the National Stud, the Thoroughbred Breeders’ Association and Tattersalls, the UK’s leading bloodstock auctioneers. ‘Brood mares come from around the world to be covered here. It could really knock confidence,’ said Louise Kemble, chief executive of the breeders’ association.

Oh, how I laughed!

Ever get the feeling you’ve been had? It’s an iconic quote from a punk legend, but as with all great sayings, it can be applied in many different places. This is one example: the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, an industry talking shop if ever there was one and, like the ineffectual light-green environmental groups who “fight” for changes to government policy and send out gleeful press releases whenever a corporation promises to behave itself, the RSPO are actually making things far worse than if the public were left to their own devices. Sustainable palm oil is simply snake oil in a clever diguise: it doesn’t exist and it never will do.

Here’s how it works.

1) As a group of big businesses whose primary interest is to ensure the expansion of the lucrative palm oil industry — retailers, traders, processors, growers, investors; that sort of thing — set up a shell organisation that claims it is going to make the industry “sustainable”.

2) Call in some gullible (yes, I said “gullible”) NGOs and environmentalists and say that they can have a seat on this august, influential body if they allow business to continue as before — but they will be allowed to suggest changes to the industry providing it doesn’t affect the business model.

3) Repeatedly announce to the world, through member companies such as Sainsburys and Unilever, that agreements are being reached and work is moving on swiftly to make plantations sustainable, but that we have to give them time because this is a tough job, and there are so many products that contain this oil it is just “impossible” to do this any other way.

 4) Do almost nothing for years while counting the massive profit that has been made from cheap oil being grown on recently deforested land using cheap labour.

5) After a few years say that the there are so many plantations that no more deforestation has to take place. Meanwhile the South East Asian rainforest has ceased to exist, carbon levels through wood and peat burning have boosted the greenhouse effect, and people have still not realised they have been well and truly greenwashed.

Alternatively, you could, like Meridian Foods, just take palm oil out of your products until it is sustainably produced. I’m not in the habit of promoting companies, but you have to give them credit as they didn’t even publicise the change.

The RSPO have an impressive roster of members, but it’s the board that matters, so here is their board membership, in full:

President:
Unilever : Jan Kees Vis (massive food multinational)

Vice-President I:
WWF Malaysia : Darrel Arthur Webber (NGO — history of corporate partnerships)
 
Vice-President II:
Indonesian Palm Oil Producers Association (GAPKI) : Derom Bangun (growers and producers trade body)
 
Vice-President III:
Malaysian Palm Oil Association : Mamat Salleh (growers and producers trade body)
 
Vice-President IV:
New Britain Palm Oil Limited : Simon Lord (Papua New Guinea’s largest oil palm plantation and milling operator)
 
Treasurer:
Aarhus Karlshamn UK : Ian McIntosh (Palm Oil trade “solutions” company)
 
Members:
 
Federation of Migros Cooperatives : Robert Keller
IOI Group (Malaysia/Netherlands) : Don Grubba
Cadbury Schweppes plc : Tony Lass
WWF-Indonesia : Fitrian Ardiansyah
Oxfam International : Johan Verburg
Sawit Watch : Rudy Lumuru
HSBC Bank Malaysia Berhad : Paul Norton
FELDA : Mohd Nor Kailany
Co-operative Insurance Society : Samantha Lacey

You will notice that there is only one organisation represented on the board management that has any interest in ensuring the palm oil becomes sustainable, and that organisation is one of the most business-friendly NGOs in the world. Overall, NGOs and small growers are outnumbered three to one on the board. They will always lose in voting.

Add to this their pathetic “aspirations” as a body:

RSPO is an association created by organisations carrying out their activities in and around the entire supply chain for palm oil to promote the growth and use of sustainable palm oil through co-operation within the supply chain and open dialogue with its stakeholders.

In other words, the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil is an industry body that has absolutely no intention of producing or using sustainable palm oil all the time there is more profit to be made from the type that comprises 100% of all palm oil currently being produced. Clearly they also have no intention of scrapping the use of palm oil all the time it is unsustainable.

*** UPDATE ***

A post in Tempo Magazine Indonesia (via the Dear Kitty Blog) has justified my decision to attack the RSPO:

Novi Hardianto, manager of the habitat program at the Center for Orangutan Protection (COP) said on Thursday last week (4/9) that two big palm oil companies, IOI Group and Agro Group, have cut down forests that were known to be the habitat of orangutan.

This was despite the fact that these forests were included in the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO).

Not content with members refusing to keep their word, they somehow try to smooth it over in this appalling example of sycophancy:

Meanwhile, RSPO spokesperson Desi Kusmadewi said that RSPO would check out the area mentioned by Greenpeace.

“If it is true, we will give chance for the company to repair what they have done first before being removed from RSPO,” said Desi.

Repair! How can you repair the destruction of pristine ancient rainforest?!

The rest of the article makes for equally depressing reading, putting the lie to the claim that there can ever be such a thing as “sustainable” tropical forestry where governments and corporations are involved.

I tend to rely on my instincts a lot. When I saw an advert linking Procter & Gamble with a regional water authority in the newspaper this week I was concerned. I mentioned instinct, and here’s why: the advert didn’t mention P&G, instead it talked about a product called Pur — a water purification device that is apparently saving lives all around the world and could be good for the consumer too. A quick search found the P&G link, and lots of web sites talking about the work P&G are doing in raising awareness of water borne diseases, and supplying purification packs to countries like Kenya.

“Much of their water is filled with pollutants, bacteria, parasites, and viruses. With every drink, children and adults face the risk of illnesses, such as severe diarrhea, which can result in death.

“The introduction of the Pur Purifier of Water gives hope by helping transform contaminated water into clean drinking water. Watching the Pur Purifier of Water work seems almost magical. This innovative method has dramatically reduced contaminated drinking-water-related illnesses, thereby saving the lives of many children worldwide.”

All well and good — water filtration is a potential life saver (though the poor state of water supplies in poor nations owes almost everything to human damage and mismanagement than any natural abberation) and is definitely more environmentally friendly than bottled water. But I can’t get over the idea of Proctor & Gamble as water philanthropists.

For a start, here is a roll of some of P&G’s best selling products:

Always feminine hygiene products
Ariel washing powder/liquid
Bounty paper towels
Cascade dishwasher detergent
Cheer laundry detergent
Dawn dishwashing detergent
Downy/Lenor fabric softener
Dreft laundry detergent
Head & Shoulders shampoo
Fairy dishwashing liquid
Joy dishwashing liquid
Luvs disposable diapers
Pampers disposable diapers
Tampax tampons
Tide laundry detergent 

I’m not quite sure how much of this stuff is annually put into the water supplies of the world, but to take the example of Ariel —  a “billion dollar brand” which, incidentally, is not sold in the USA due to its historically high phosphorus (brightener) content — this detergent contains benzene based brighteners, which are classified as “toxic to not harmful” (i.e. they can be toxic) to fish, algae and crustaceans. P&G confidently state “they are highly removed by wastewater treatment, which results in very low concentrations that will not adversely affect organisms in the environment.” Except, from their own data, primary wastewater treatment only removes 30-55% of toxic materials — primary wastewater treatment is a relative luxury in many parts of the world; goodness knows what is left behind in untreated sewage.

Tampax and Always are also Billion Dollar Brands, the detritus of which litters the beaches of the world providing interesting playthings for children. They are extremely common items to find in all coastal environments. Tampax applicators have been found in the maws of seabirds

The common link between sanitary protection and detergents here is that P&G seem to be depending on the good will of the public and the waste removal systems in order to reduce the impact of the products they sell in such huge numbers. Where are the totally biodegradable detergents? Where are the sanitary products that leave no traces in the water? With production comes responsibility: you cannot make billions of dollars out of a selling a heavily marketed product and then say, “It’s not our problem.” It really doesn’t seem as though Procter & Gamble are taking their responsibilities seriously.

Procter & Gamble are enthusiastic purveyors of a product that creates safe water for millions; yet they are also, and primarily, purveyors of multiple products sold to billions of people, that help turn seas, rivers and groundwater into a toxic, litter-strewn miasma.

Few people will be surprised at the revelations of a recent Washington Post article which highlighted the toxic waste being dumped by the manufacturers of solar photovoltaic panels and films into the waterways, soils and other ecosystems of China. The demand for Solar PV largely comes off the back of businesses that want to greenwash their way into our consciences by slapping an acre of solar panels on the roof of their headquarters, knowing full well that solar PV is totally inadequate for powering large-scale offices, data centres and industry. Few of these businesses consider the real benefits to be had from reducing their energy consumption in the first place: after all, governments and corporations say the economy has to keep growing, don’t they?

But at what cost? One cost is the massive offshoring of manufacturing to places where environmental and human working conditions are, quite frankly, atrocious. This is solely to gain the most product for the least cost. Compact fluorescent lamps are another area where a similar trend is being seen (and which I may cover in a different article). In principle, the use of CFLs is a good thing, but again, at what cost? It doesn’t have to be that way.

The Worldwatch institute have this to say about the despoilation of China’s environment:

“Technologies exist to recycle the chemical byproducts of solar-cell production, but some Chinese polysilicon plants, including Luoyang Zhonggui, are cutting costs and corners by avoiding significant extra investment in pollution control. The cheaper prices of their products, which do not currently factor in environmental costs, are projected to fan the rapid expansion of Chinese-made solar PV systems around the world, especially in industrial countries that can afford the still-expensive units.

“Although China will eventually benefit from this green technology as well as costs decline further, for the time being the industry continues to tread the traditional path of ‘pollute first, clean up afterwards.’ At stake are the underrepresented groups in Chinese society, especially rural farmers who depend on increasingly polluted lands for a living. China’s shining solar industry, while enabling blue skies elsewhere, is leaving behind a scarred landscape at home.”

The shift of manufacturing towards the production of goods that are environmentally “neutral” (i.e. they actively reduce the pollution / emissions that would otherwise be generated) would be a good thing if that manufacturing was not simply in addition to producing all of the other needless goods we voraciously consume. Sadly, not only is this manufacturing in addition, but it is being carried out at considerable environmental expense. This cannot be accepted: a “green” product is not green just because of what it says on the box. There needs to be a genuine cultural shift.

Americans for Balanced Energy Choices: it sounds sensible enough, balancing the different kinds of energy with the need to massively reduce the amount of energy consumed. Except that ABEC is doing nothing of the sort. Like the Oregon Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Heartland Institute (notice that they are all “institutes”, a nice homely monicker, but also rather close to “institution”) before it, Americans for Balanced Energy Choices is a very public front for the coal industry.

The idea of such setups is to provide a friendly face for something that is inherently unfriendly: the coal industry in the USA is responsible for 36 percent of all national carbon emissions. This has been the same since 1990, despite the headline claims that the coal industry is getting cleaner – and that is precisely why I have changed the image above from the ABEC website to read 0.0% CLEANER rather than the absurd 70% CLEANER on the original front page. You can find out more about their claim here.

Except you can’t, because they don’t justify the “70% cleaner” claim in any way: maybe it’s sulphur dioxide, maybe it’s sooty ash, maybe it’s something else – it most certainly isn’t carbon dioxide, the pollutant that really matters!

So, who are these Americans who want “balanced energy choices”. Do I have to spell it out?

AMEREN Corporation, American Electric Power, Arch Coal, Inc., Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation, Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc., Basin Electric Power Cooperative, BHP Billiton, Buckeye Industrial Mining Co., Buckeye Power, Inc.,Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp., CONSOL Energy Inc., CSX Corp., Detroit Edison, Duke Energy, First Energy Corporation, Foundation Coal Corp., Hoosier Energy, Norfolk Southern Co., Peabody Energy Corp., Southern Co. , Tri-state Generation & Transmission Assn. Inc., Union Pacific Railroad, Western Farmers Electric Cooperative.

Hmmm, wonder what all of these companies have in common?

ABEC is what is known as an “Astroturf”:

Campaigns & Elections magazine defines astroturf as a “grassroots program that involves the instant manufacturing of public support for a point of view in which either uninformed activists are recruited or means of deception are used to recruit them.” Journalist William Greider has coined his own term to describe corporate grassroots organizing. He calls it “democracy for hire.”

(from Sourcewatch)

I urge you to explore these Astroturfs when you find them: you can have great fun working out what they don’t say. As for ABEC — they are downright dangerous, and deserve every bad-mouthing they get.

The largest mining company in the world isn’t, by definition, ever going to be a cosy environmental partner; more of a partner who regularly stabs you in the face with a sharp instrument to remind you that they are, indeed, the daddy, and you are just a lowly human. BHP Billiton turned over $47.5 billion in 2007, and made a profit in excess of $13 billion – more than enough, you would think, to take a serious look at their activities and use their money (a la Stern) to replant, say, the entire Amazon Rainforest.

But no, as a company they really are the essence of corporate destructiveness: for example, having exposed thousands of indigenous tripal people in Papua New Guinea to thousands of tonnes of polluted “tailings” (mine waste, to you and me) they tried to cut and run, despite admitting that the output of the Ok Ted mine was an environmental disaster. Their destructive operations are spread around the world, and where BHP Billiton go, they leave a trail of toxic waste, along with diseased humans and degraded habitats in their wake.

Like all destructive companies, BHP Billiton are engaging in some striking greenwash: in fact they have just agreed a new Climate Change Policy, which is not surprising considering their operations emit nearly 52 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent into the atmosphere every year (that’s about the same as Denmark – yes, the entire country!) It’s a pity they have entirely failed to commit to any reductions in greenhouse gases at all. Exactly what kind of Climate Change Policy is this? One that ensures the climate will change, I suppose.

And now, BHP Billiton are proudly sponsoring the Beijing Olympics. This is one olympic games that, as I have written, is threatening to become the most notorious in history, and with BHP Billiton as a key sponsor of the Olympic Organizing Committee, it will only get worse.

I wonder why a mining company would want to be part of a global event taking part in a country that uses more coal and concrete than any other nation on Earth. I wonder.