Worth watching to see the range of views between the different commentators, three (out of the 4) who are right in their own way.

QED: It’s all about profit, whichever way you look at it.

It’s the concept that gets me: “Climate Cops”, as though it’s necessary to have some kind of enforcement regime taking down anyone who causes climate change; so long as that regime is the existing system — “Cops”, enforcing law and order in the battle against climate change.

Am I being too cynical?

Let’s go back to 2005, when RWE npower decided that it needed a place to dump thousands of tonnes of toxic spoil ash from its Didcot power station in the south of England. Not surprisingly, some of the locals weren’t too pleased at the thought of a local beauty spot and nature reserve being filled in by the remnants of the burning of coal to make electricity. Thus started the Radley Lakes campaign, and a chain of events that was to lead to a blanket ban on all media coverage in the area; brutal enforcement of anti-trespass measures by private security guards (climate cops?); the near-death of a protester being held in custody, but who simply wanted to protect the trees; and the final decision by RWE to instead sell the spoil to resurface roads.

That company, RWE npower, own the energy retailer npower, which thought up the idea of the “Climate Cops”. Here’s the boring administrative version of their website, which just happens to mention that those well-known environmental stalwarts Piers Morgan and Fearne Cotton (jet-setting celebrity arse-lickers, actually) are on the team; hmm, I can’t imagine what use those two people would be in encouraging teenagers to take part in the programme…

Anyhow, what happens is that schools sign up to the Climate Cops programme, and are sent all sorts of lovely “educational” materials to do with reducing energy use. This is already starting to sound like the sinister supermarket schemes I documented in so much detail last year.

The companies operating the schemes provide large amounts of promotional materials for the schools that have registered with them: these include headed paper which which to write introductory letters to parents; branded collection boxes for classrooms and common areas; posters and large banners to attach to internal and external walls, school boundary fences and other visible areas; curriculum resources including resource packs, information sheets and other information related to the scheme. Not forgetting the branding of the vouchers themselves, which always contain a supermarket logo.

Teachers and students alike can download packs, quiz cards and worksheets from the Climate Cops website, and you might like to as well:

Fun Pack: http://www.climatecops.com/downloads/funpack.pdf

Poster: http://www.climatecops.com/downloads/climate_cops_poster_earth.pdf

Door Hanger, for your child’s bedroom: http://www.climatecops.com/downloads/climate_cops_door_hanger.pdf

The more observant of you will have noticed three key things:

1) The happy characters adorning all the materials, armed with toolbelts and grins; as well as — bizarrely — a polar bear doing a “thumbs up” sign, because we all know the good stuff npower’s Climate Cops are doing for the planet.

2) The incessant branding of all the materials with the “npower” logo, just in case you ever forgot what fine company was responsible for all this great climate fighting gear. If you use the door hanger, then your child’s bedroom door can also be sponsored by npower.

3) The complete absence of any mention of RWE npower’s main business…

…which just happens to be the generation of electricity through the burning of coal, gas and oil.

Gas-fired power stations

Didcot B, Great Yarmouth, Little Barford, Cowes
total output: 1,900 MW

Coal-fired power stations

Aberthaw, Didcot A, Tilbury
total output: 4,900 MW

Fuel Oil-fired power stations*

Littlebrook, Fawley
total output: 2,500 MW

Combined Heat and Power

13 sites in UK
total output: 2,000 MW

RWE npower are also proposing to build 2 new gas-fired power stations and one new coal-fired power station in the UK.

Now, if you clicked on the “Fun Pack” link above, you will notice also lots of mentions of wind energy, so you would think that npower were really big generators of wind power and other renewable sources. After searching around their electricity generation web site, I had started giving up hope that I would ever find details of their renewables business. I eventually found their renewable power arm, RWE Innogy (presumably a play on the words “Innovation” and “energy”) which revealed that RWE’s total UK installation of wind power is around 420 MW.

This means that the total electricity generation portfolio, for a company that is proudly trying to produce a force of Climate Cops, consists of:

3.5% low carbon (renewables)
33.3% medium carbon (gas and CHP**)
63.2% high carbon (coal and fuel oil)

Would you trust this company with your children’s environmental education?

On the night of Dec. 2nd and 3rd, 1984, a Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India, began leaking 27 tons of the deadly gas methyl isocyanate. None of the six safety systems designed to contain such a leak were operational, allowing the gas to spread throughout the city of Bhopal. Half a million people were exposed to the gas and 20,000 have died to date as a result of their exposure. More than 120,000 people still suffer from ailments caused by the accident and the subsequent pollution at the plant site.

These ailments include blindness, extreme difficulty in breathing, and gynecological disorders. The site has never been properly cleaned up and it continues to poison the residents of Bhopal. In 1999, local groundwater and wellwater testing near the site of the accident revealed mercury at levels between 20,000 and 6 million times those expected. Cancer and brain-damage- and birth-defect-causing chemicals were found in the water; trichloroethene, a chemical that has been shown to impair fetal development, was found at levels 50 times higher than EPA safety limits. Testing published in a 2002 report revealed poisons such as 1,3,5 trichlorobenzene, dichloromethane, chloroform, lead and mercury in the breast milk of nursing women. In 2001, Michigan-based chemical corporation Dow Chemical purchased Union Carbide, thereby acquiring its assets and liabilities. However Dow Chemical has steadfastly refused to clean up the site, provide safe drinking water, compensate the victims, or disclose the composition of the gas leak, information that doctors could use to properly treat the victims.

(from The Bhopal Medical Appeal website)

After 25 years of greenwashing and denial of their abhorrent abandonment of thousands of chemically-scarred people, Union Carbide and subsequently their owners Dow Chemical appear to have met their match. The temporary abandonment of the London site says more about Dow Chemical than any press statement or defensive advert ever could have: it says, “We refuse to face up to reality. We are in denial of the facts, and wish to remain in denial until the poisoned of Bhopal have died, and the world has moved on.” The people living with disease and deformity will eventually die, and the world will move on — probably because some other even more toxic event overshadows this one — which is why it is vital to keep reminding, and keep attacking those responsible.

The Yes Men take up the story of this brilliant stunt:

A new, beautifully-designed line of bottled water – this time not from the melting Alps, nor from faraway, clean-water-deprived Fiji, but rather from the contaminated ground near the site of the 1984 Bhopal catastrophe – scared Dow Chemical’s London management team into hiding today.

Twenty Bhopal activists, including Sathyu Sarangi of the Sambhavna Clinic in Bhopal, showed up at Dow headquarters near London to find that the entire building had been vacated.

Had they not fled, Dow employees could have read on the bottles’ elegant labels:

B’eau-Pal: Our Story

The unique qualities of our water come from 25 years of slow-leaching toxins at the site of the world’s largest industrial accident. To this day, Dow Chemical (who bought Union Carbide) has refused to clean up, and whole new generations have been poisoned. For more information, please visit http://www.bhopal.org.

The launch of “B’eau-Pal” water came as Bhopal prepares to mark the 25th anniversary of the Bhopal catastrophe, and coincides with the release of an official report by the Sambhavna Trust showing that local groundwater, vegetables, and breast milk are contaminated by toxic quantities of nickel, chromium, mercury, lead, and volatile organic compounds. The report describes how a majority of children in one nearby community are born with serious medical problems traceable to the contamination.

The attractive yet toxic product, developed by the Bhopal Medical Appeal and the Yes Men with pro-bono help from top London creative design firm Kennedy Monk , highlights Dow’s continued refusal to take responsibility for the disaster.

Though Dow has consistently refused to clean up the mess in Bhopal, they have taken numerous steps to clean up their image. In a recent press release, for example, Andrew Liveris, Dow’s Chairman and CEO, noted that “lack of clean water is the single largest cause of disease in the world and more than 4,500 children die each day because of it.” He went on to assert that “Dow is committed to creating safer, more sustainable water supplies for communities around the world.”

The Yes Men met Liveris’ attempt to greenwash Dow’s environmental record with a challenge.

“Since Liveris earns $16,182,544 per year, he could give each of the children who die worldwide for lack of clean water $10 per day to buy Evian, Fiji Water, or Perrier,” said Mike Bonanno of the Yes Men. “Or, for vastly less money, he could build them clean-water pipelines, like the ones that Bhopal so badly needs.”

Dow’s greenwashing comes while Bhopal is experiencing an extremely rare drought, just three years after facing its greatest floods ever. “Even though people are already dying by the hundreds of thousands, and we know that climate change will kill many more, companies like Dow are not being forced to cut back on emissions,” said the Sambhavna Clinic’s Sathyu Sarangi. “Bhopal should be a lesson to the world – one we must learn before it’s too late for all of us.”

I was cleaning the front room and switched on the TV for a few minutes to reduce the boredom; the BBC News Channel was relaying some grainy, greenish-tinged footage of Barack Obama speaking to a large crowd in Accra, the capital city of Ghana. Just another diplomatic speech, I thought, but I listened all the same. Clearly what I was listening to was the meat of the speech as, based on the White House release, I had missed the preamble.

But this was no mere diplomatic feel-good spiel; there was considerable substance, and menace, in these words:

America can also do more to promote trade and investment. Wealthy nations must open our doors to goods and services from Africa in a meaningful way. And where there is good governance, we can broaden prosperity through public-private partnerships that invest in better roads and electricity; capacity-building that trains people to grow a business; and financial services that reach poor and rural areas. This is also in our own interest – for if people are lifted out of poverty and wealth is created in Africa, new markets will open for our own goods.

Say that again?

“we can broaden prosperity through public-private partnerships that invest in better roads and electricity”

Where have I heard that before? These were not the words of a caring, socially-responsible man: they were the words of the World Bank; an American-led organisation that exists primarily to lend money to governments in exchange for granting private companies the rights to operate and profit from public services. Companies like Bechtel, the largest private engineering firm in the world.

“If people are lifted out of poverty and wealth is created in Africa, new markets will open for our own goods.”

Oh, my goodness — I thought — he’s talking about Imperialism! This is essentially the same attitude that the British Government had when ably assisting the British East India Company for nearly 200 years during the most brutal periods of colonialism; using government policies to increase the wealth of corporations. The markets were opened, the people and resources were exploited, and the promised wealth for the people never materialised.

There is no need to read deeply into the speech to tease out this agenda; a section that followed shortly afterwards was enough to seal my suspicions:

One area that holds out both undeniable peril and extraordinary promise is energy. Africa gives off less greenhouse gas than any other part of the world, but it is the most threatened by climate change. A warming planet will spread disease, shrink water resources and deplete crops, creating conditions that produce more famine and conflict. All of us – particularly the developed world – have a responsibility to slow these trends – through mitigation, and by changing the way that we use energy. But we can also work with Africans to turn this crisis into opportunity.

Together, we can partner on behalf of our planet and prosperity and help countries increase access to power while skipping the dirtier phase of development. Across Africa, there is bountiful wind and solar power; geothermal energy and bio-fuels. From the Rift Valley to the North African deserts; from the Western coast to South Africa’s crops – Africa’s boundless natural gifts can generate its own power, while exporting profitable, clean energy abroad.

And who, I may ask, will be running these giant engineering projects, and benefiting most from “Africa’s boundless natural gifts”? Certainly no large companies in Africa have the necessary expertise to set up a global trading system for energy; there are experts across the water who are straining at the leash to get out there. The spectre of biofuels hangs over that last paragraph too; relegated to the end, but the baby of corporations like Cargill, there is massive opportunity for profit from crops.

You don’t have to be terribly creative to suggest other massive “opportunities” for American companies, deified by Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr. and now Obama: there is timber, gold, gas, sugar, cocoa, constant war and disease-ridden populations, all lined up for the onslaught of corporate America. A brave new colonial future: but instead of being ruled by European nations, Africa ends up being ruled by corporations.

You wouldn’t expect a political leader to set out such an agenda in the clear, but with the words above, Obama has said enough to start the ball rolling. While millions of Africans remain in thrall of Obama’s “message of hope”; the real agenda setters are planning their next moves.

Heard the one about the giant electricity generation company that wanted people to use less energy?

No, neither have I — why would an energy company want you to use less energy, given that would mean they are getting less money from the energy being used? But if appearing to want to make people use less energy could give you the bigger market share you’re after, then sponsoring a “green” day is a guaranteed winner.

This blog has already had a few words to say about the dodgy tactics of EDF Energy (see this article), so it’s no surprise that they are still greenwashing all the way to the bank. With their blanket sponsorship of the Team Green Britain website and activities then anyone getting involved couldn’t help but be impressed by the credentials of EDF Energy; especially given that some of the things on the web site (walking instead of driving, swapping stuff and meeting your neighbours) are all decent things to do in themselves.

But I couldn’t help but notice that there seemed to be no overall body behind it; wherever I clicked just took me round in circles — no contact details, no credits, just various organisations and companies “supporting” the project. The Team Energy page says: “EDF Energy is supporting Team Energy. They’re the energy experts [Hmm, are they?] and know that the less energy we all use, the less CO2 we produce which is believed [A little bit of scepticism here] to be one of the main causes of climate change. That’s why they’re doing what they can to cut down their own energy emissions as a company and to help their customers reduce the energy they use at home.”

Not being able to phone anyone, I resorted to a DNS Lookup, which is how you find out who owns a domain name on the internet. By querying DNSStuff I got back the following:

Domain ID:D154858173-LROR
Domain Name:TEAMGREENBRITAIN.ORG
Created On:08-Dec-2008 17:52:54 UTC
Last Updated On:07-Feb-2009 03:52:53 UTC
Expiration Date:08-Dec-2010 17:52:54 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Group NBT plc aka NetNames (R60-LROR)
Status:OK
Registrant ID:758771515-NBTo
Registrant Name:EDF Energy PLC
Registrant Organization:EDF Energy PLC
Registrant Street1:40 Grosvenor Place
Registrant Street2:Victoria
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:London
Registrant State/Province:London
Registrant Postal Code:SW1X 7EN
Registrant Country:GB
Registrant Phone:+44.442082988292
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:+44.442082988364
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant **************@edfenergy.com

Team Green Britain, and Green Britain Day is owned by EDF Energy, a company with a UK generation capacity of 4.8GW, of which 83% is coal: the dirtiest mainstream form of power generation there is.

This appalling contradiction was exposed by Fred Pearce of The Guardian, a few days ago. He was unequivocal about the depth that this greenwash sank:

Just two months ago, EDF Trading was patting itself on the back for bringing the largest load of coal ever to Antwerp, when the 300-metre-long ship Bao Guo docked 163,000 tonnes from Richards Bay in South Africa, destined for the company’s French coal-fired power stations.

Well done, guys. But don’t call it green.

But what can we expect? Judging by this link, EDF seems to have (shall we say?) borrowed the idea of a green union flag from its rival Ecotricity, a genuinely green power provider.

But back to EDF’s Green Britain Day press release, a model of Greenwash that its hirelings at Lexis Public Relations may well be proud of. “EDF Energy will be asking people to ‘do something green for the team’ on Green Britain Day, creating a wave of tangible actions across the UK,” it reads.

Perhaps, dare I suggest, EDF should join the party and “do something green” itself by committing to getting out of coal.

That, and the fact that Team Green Britain is run by EDF Energy, makes the statement, “That’s why they’re doing what they can to cut down their own energy emissions as a company”, look rather disingenuous, doesn’t it? They are talking about themselves, but speaking in the third person; this Astroturf methodology is pretty sophisticated greenwashing.

And not only have they tried to greenwash the public big time, with their avalanche of posters across the whole of Britain, they have even stooped so low as to steal the Green Union Flag idea from another, much less environmentally damaging energy provider; Ecotricity:

The most amazing thing has happened.

Our Green Union Jack – the one that Ecotricity’s been using for the last three years or so, has been ‘borrowed’ by another energy company.

We’re used to the Big Six energy companies behaving badly, but this is something else.

One of them decided that they liked the idea of a green union jack and the idea of a Green Britain so much – they’ve just gone and adopted it – lock, stock and barrel.

That would be shocking enough but the culprit is none other than EDF.

And that’s all the more shocking because of what the letters EDF stand for – Électricité de France, which seems just a little at odds with the adoption of the green flag… :) And of course the fact that they are a Nuclear power company [Ed. And a coal power generator in the UK] (not everybody’s idea of Green).

A French, state owned, Nuclear power company – using ‘our flag’ (or one very close to it) to green itself up – you couldn’t make this stuff up. And they’ve submitted a Trademark application… they want to own the Green Union Jack!

You know what I’m doing on Green(wash) Britain Day? I’m going to make sure as many people know what a bunch of arrogant, money-grabbing, carbon-belching turds EDF Energy are.

Please join in.

Well, I don’t know what to say. It’s clearly time for us all to stop worrying; I shall certainly be closing down my blogs and pulping all unsold copies of my book — in fact I’m going to fly round the world and dig a few million tons of coal out of the ground, and destroy the odd rainforest when I pop over to Brazil to check on my massive, methane-farting herds.

Why the big change?

Because there is a new showerhead for sale — that’s why!

Hi Keith,

Many Americans are changing their lifestyle habits in an attempt to become more eco-friendly, but “going green” does not mean giving up all of your earthly possessions and moving into a biodegradable shack made of clay and bales of hay. Making an effort to make a difference is as easy and simple as buying a new showerhead. Showertek, Inc., a Napa Valley-based company, has a new product available at all local Costco and Wal-Mart stores, which allows users to conserve water and control the water pressure depending on their personal needs. The Green Choice showerhead can even save customers up to $250 on their water bill each year.

Would you be interested in learning more or trying out the new product?

Please let me know!

Halie Jespersen
SS|PR
847.415.9301

hjespersen@sspr.com

You can imagine my excitement; I wrote back straight away…

Really? So your showerhead will save the world will it? Guess I can start driving, flying, eating meat and buying loads of crap from WalMart if I buy your new showerhead then.

Great, problem solved!

Keith

Strangely, he hasn’t got back to me yet – I guess the company must be preparing for their imminent Nobel Peace Prize.

Excuse the partial reposting of my own article, but because there is a big chunk about Greenwashing, and also that Climate Change Denial is one of the major manifestations of environmental hypocrisy, the article is extremely relevant to The Unsuitablog.

And I also put an awful lot of work into it, so why not?

If someone doesn’t want to believe something then what can you do to change their mind? Trust me, it’s more difficult than you think: it isn’t just the simple case of someone not believing something, the key word is “want” – if they don’t want to believe then there is almost nothing you can do about it. Even if all the evidence is against them.

I see this all the time: on the TV news, in the printed media, on blogs and discussion boards, and in the streets; this constant battle between two entrenched positions – be it over religious idealism, abortion, vaccinations or anything else that invokes emotional involvement – is almost unbearable to witness. For the most part, this battle will grind on and on until the various parties give up trying to convince the other side, through lack of energy, lack of time, illness and even death. People have died for their beliefs, in their millions – but there are always others to take their place.

The battle between the two sides over climate change, or anthropogenic global warming (AGW), won’t be ending any time soon; and there will be blood, mark my words. This is more than a battle for intellectual superiority – it is battle over an idealistic principle, and that principle is…actually, let’s come back to that. First of all, given the title of this essay, I think we need to consider the words “denial” and “denier”.

Put simply, denial is an unwillingness to accept a position: I deny that white people are racially superior to black people, which to most of us is a reasonable position to take. The opposing position is less common, but nonetheless can be couched in similar terms; the denial that black people are racially equal to white people. Go back less than 100 years, though, and the second position would stand you in pretty good stead as a European or American citizen wanting to get ahead in the civilized world.

A denier is someone who adopts a denial position. For instance, I deny that economic growth is a necessary characteristic of human society, which places me very much in the minority of people in the civilized world. I’ve discussed the reason for this elsewhere, needless to say the opposing position – that economic growth is a necessity – is far more cultural than based on an absolute body of factual evidence. That is important, because it helps understand why denial positions are so difficult to deal with: if someone is deeply inculcated with a particular belief, such as economic growth being a necessity, then no matter how much contrary physical evidence is presented to them, they are highly unlikely to change their position. If that physical evidence is overwhelmingly contrary to their belief system then we say they are “in denial of the facts”.

That, of course, often only serves to inflame things.


The Danger Of Denial

I make no bones about my belief in anthropogenic global warming, for various reasons, and not just the scientific evidence; so if you are reading this and thinking about clicking somewhere else because you don’t agree with me, then click away – this essay is aimed at those people who more or less have the same mindset as myself, and are in the all-too-common situation of feeling they have to defend that position. To you, dear reader, I offer the following words: you are in danger of losing your sanity.

As we have seen, and probably realised from experience, arguing with a Climate Change Denier is like wrestling in a deep, muddy pit: it can be filthy, exhausting and, worst of all, there seems to be no way out. Personal issues aside, the wider danger is that the other side might get their way – and that person, or group, or business, or government, will then be able to spread their own beliefs in the knowledge that there is no-one willing to take the opposing position. The many people who are wavering, or even understand that AGW is fact, can then be easily tipped into denial. This is what happens in totalitarian states: the ruler’s position becomes the de facto belief.

In ecological terms, this would be disastrous should it happen against AGW, for there would not even be enough dissenters to restart the process of change, let alone carry it through. It’s strange in a way – all the time it has seemed like an endless game of factual table tennis, it has in fact been a battle for the future of humanity, played out in a million places across the globe.

You can read the rest of this article at The Earth Blog.

It’s not just greenwash that gets me angry, anything that makes unqualified claims that could end up harming people or the wider environment deserves to be targeted: in this case it is a company I have already challenged on The Unsuitablog, Holland and Barrett. Not content with lying through their teeth about the pathetic efforts they are making to green themselves up, they are now claiming to be able to reduce the risk of Swine Flu.

Now bear in mind that Swine Flu may or may not become a global pandemic of monumental proportions, that an awful lot of people are scared about it (and I believe they should be to a certain extent). Also, bear in mind that H1N1 Swine Flu is the direct result of the hyper-consumer economy and the desire to produce food as cheaply as possible for the most profit. Any backlash should be directed squarely at the commercial world but, of course, not content with creating the conditions for a global catastrophe, the system that created the problem is now seeking to benefit as much as possible from it: such as Tamiflu distribution being the de facto response to any outbreaks; as opposed to the far more logical move of stopping the mass movement of workers, holidaymakers and schoolchildren to and from their respective locations. One of these measures benefits the industrial machine — one of them does not.

Guess which the world’s richest nations have chosen.

On the back of this are the various bloodsucking companies that are trying to make a fast buck from people’s perfectly rational fears of global pandemic. When I see a poster in the window of my local Holland and Barrett saying:

SWINE FLU WATCH!

SPECIAL OFFERS ON SWINE FLU PREVENTION IN STORE

NOW!

I have to wonder whether they are selling anti-viral masks, sensible transmission prevention advice, or perhaps something less than effective from their existing range of “remedies”.

Something like this:

The little I know about Echinacea could be written on the back of my hand, but I do know that it has most definitely not been shown in any objective scientic study whatsoever, to prevent Swine Flu, or any other kind of influenza, for that matter (it may help prevent the common cold, but that’s another thing entirely). But, that’s what the people in my local shop have been told to push as an influenza prevention treatment.

But it’s not just Echinacea, they also appear to be pushing Manuka Honey as a prevention remedy: again, Manuka Honey may well have certain beneficial effects for certain conditions, but as to being a way of preventing Swine Flu…no.

Now, I have no problem with non conventional remedies — I use nettle draught for hayfever and plantain for stings and bites, but when they are pushed for commercial purposes, especially by a company as large and ambitious as Holland and Barrett (owned by, not surprisingly, a giant producer of vitamins and supplements), then I see nothing but bad things on the horizon.

Now, who said the airline industry don’t have a sense of humour? Profits are falling, staff are being asked to take unpaid leave, airlines are being pilloried for their environmental impact, biofuels are being derided by the United Nations as greenwash and authorities, on the orders of airports, are being told to gas birds rather than accepting that maybe flying planes through migratory paths isn’t such a good idea.

Gosh! I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes at the moment. And yet, despite all this, Giovanni Bisignani, the head of the International Air Transport Association managed to make a genuinely hilarious joke that certainly had me in stitches:

“We are giving the environment a very high priority with a very clear plan”

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!

Oh, my sides!

In the ongoing saga of the Baby Show and its organisers, Clarion Events, being the very same company that organises the DSEi arms fair, the campaigners seem to have hit an interesting, but not insurmountable brick wall. There is an ongoing effort to persuade the various sponsors of the Baby Show to pull out, in view of the contradiction between the care of children (although, obviously, the Baby Fair is essentially a marketing spectacle) and the insertion of large pieces of schrapnel in their bodies caused by the “legitimate” weapons that are touted at the DSEi arms fair. The sponsors are pretending to listen, and then responding with pro forma letters that simply restate their social and environmental policies, ignoring the issues at hand; not willing in any way to give up such a lucrative sponsorship position.

Mothercare have a long history as one of the leading lights in the baby and child retail market. They pride themselves on their positive image, and make great efforts to present themselves as an ethical and responsible company. With a market value of nearly £400 million and an annual profit of over £40 million, they are not a small player in the baby and child market: they have a lot to lose, should their reputation suffer.

Mothercare are a major sponsor of the Baby Show, and have been for many years.

With this in mind, I wrote to Mothercare (Justine Allister, Head of PR) asking some pertinent questions, particularly related to the work of Clarion, and Mothercare’s association with the Clarion organised Baby Show:

From: Keith Farnish
To: Allister, Justine
Subject: Baby Show / Clarion Issues

Dear Justine

Thank you for discussing the involvement of Mothercare with the Clarion organised Baby Show (http://www.thebabyshow.co.uk/nec-birmingham/unbeatable-shopping/mothercare/), with me today. As I made clear, a number of people I have been in contact with are deeply unhappy with the pro-forma response of Mothercare to their concerns. As I see it, there are three main issues:

1) That Clarion, as part of their business, operate the DSEi (http://www.dsei.co.uk/) arms fair, selling weapons to governments and private security companies.

2) That, regardless of the legitimacy of this trade, there are thousands of “collateral” child deaths and injuries every year caused by the equipment sold at these arms fairs.

3) That Mothercare are legitimising such activity, by exhibiting at a show organised by a company that is indirectly responsible for these “collateral” deaths.

With formidable irony, the Spring 2010 Baby Show will be held in the very same hall that hosts DSEi.

For the purposes of my piece, could you please answer the following questions:

1) What is Mothercare’s policy, if any, regarding its relationships with companies that have morally questionable activities?

2) How are Mothercare able to market themselves as a responsible company, given their indirect approval of the sale of arms that, regardless of legitimacy, will be the cause of child death and injury?

3) Are Mothercare prepared to work with relevant organisations, including CAAT (http://www.caat.org.uk/events/Baby_Show_2009.php), to effect the removal of Clarion in their role as organiser of The Baby Show, and if not, why not?

Yours sincerely

Keith Farnish

The response took a little time: “with regards to your enquiry below, we take your concerns very seriously so I am sure you understand that this will take slightly longer for me to get back to you, in order for me to speak to the relevant members of staff. I will endeavour to get back to you with a response tomorrow morning.”

If I had been the kind of person who hopes, I would have hoped for a positive outcome given the time taken and seriousness with which the response was being dealt. I had a response one day after the promised date — it was not what I would have hoped for.

From: Pirie, Annique
To: Keith Farnish
Cc: mothercare@brunswickgroup.com ; sandra@sandrabull.co.uk ; Allister, Justine
Subject: Mothercare Response

Justine is at an external meeting today and has asked me to forward the following in response to your enquiry on her behalf.

Many thanks

Annique

—–

Dear Mr Farnish,

Thank you for your enquiry in regard to Mothercare’s position on the Baby Show. Taking your 3 questions one by one:

1) What is Mothercare’s policy, if any, regarding its relationships with companies that have morally questionable activities?

a.. Mothercare takes its ethical commitments extremely seriously and both our policy and targets in the area of Corporate Responsibility are published each year in our Annual Report & Accounts and on our web site www.mothercare plc.com. We are members of the Ethical Trading Initiative and have initiated projects with, for example, governments and NGO’s in India to help find ways to improve the lives of workers in our supply chain. This includes the building of a maternity wing in a local hospital in South India. Our Foundation provides substantial support each year to many important charities which support good health and well-being of mums-to-be, new mums and their children; special baby-care needs and premature births; and other parenting initiatives relating to family well-being.

2) How are Mothercare able to market themselves as a responsible company, given their indirect approval of the sale of arms that, regardless of legitimacy, will be the cause of child death and injury?

a.. It is wrong to imply that we give indirect approval for the sale of arms. We do not participate in the DSEi exhibition, so any concerns relating to that event, or any other event in which we do not participate, should be addressed to the organiser, Clarion Events. Mothercare is a responsible company and has participated in the Baby Show for nearly ten years, alongside some 200 or so fellow retailers, brands and manufacturers in the parenting sector. As the UK’s number one specialist retailer for mums to be and parents of young children, tens of thousands of visitors to the Baby Show have high expectations of experiencing our brand at the event.

3) Are Mothercare prepared to work with relevant organisations, including CAAT (http://www.caat.org.uk/events/Baby_Show_2009.php), to effect the removal of Clarion in their role as organiser of The Baby Show, and if not, why not?

a.. Mothercare takes into account the views and concerns of all relevant, law abiding organisations in framing and monitoring its ethical and social responsibility policies.

Regards

Justine

So, essentially, Mothercare are not concerned that they give money to a company that organises arms fairs, and seem to be able to wash their hands of this link entirely. Their hands certainly need washing, given all the blood that is on them.

I sent the following response, which has yet to garner a reply:

Dear Justine (via Annique)

Thank you for your advertisement for Mothercare (“As the UK’s number one specialist retailer for mums to be and parents of young children”). I will infer from your response that Mothercare takes no responsibility for its commercial links with Clarion and, while continuing to support Clarion financially really doesn’t care what they get up to in their own time. Saying “Mothercare is a responsible company” doesn’t make Mothercare a responsible company (note, that this is a typical Greenwashing response as elucidated by the big oil and coal companies, e.g. “Exxon really care about the planet”), it simply states your belief.

The simple fact is, Mothercare — through its continued links with Clarion Events — condones Clarion’s portfolio of events: if Mothercare did not condone the sale and, by extension, use of weapons that kill children (note this article only today: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8096374.stm), then it would not be involved in the Baby Show whilst it is organised by Clarion. This will be my line of discussion in the article, which is logically substantial.

I will also state that Mothercare is not willing to engage with CAAT.

Regards

Keith

Readers are strongly encouraged to contact Justine Allister (mailto:justine.allister@mothercare.com) at Mothercare, letting them know why it is morally indefensible to ignore where their money is going and what it is being used for — especially if that money is being used to promote the trade in those “legitimate” weapons that happen to kill thousands of children every year.