I have a lot more time for small companies than big ones; one reason is that they do not generally conform to a corporate aspiration of global dominance (although I suppose the owner might have such dreams), they exist to serve a much smaller market and therefore are far more receptive to positive change. There is no chance of a corporation ever being sustainable, but there is every chance of a small company becoming something that can potentially be sustainable: it has to get rid of the profit motive before it can actually be sustainable in any sense.

Given that, it does make me extremely frustrated, not to say angry, when a very small business that says it is making efforts to be sustainable decides to choose only one facet of sustainability, makes a really big deal of it, and ignores the bigger picture. In effect it is choosing its ethics to suit a particular image: it is greenwashing, however innocuous that may seem.

One example I came across recently (and I bet you can thing of lots of them) is a very small American retailer of baby products. I won’t name them, because they are just one of many, and there are far larger baby product retailers who do far worse things — this is just to illustrate a point. This company have, as their Unique Selling Point (USP) the use of “non-toxic” materials:

While searching for safe feeding gear, I realized how limited the information was and how few options were available. What started as a growing awareness of toxic plastics, became a mission to care for my own children and newborn nephews. A highly motivated search team grew out of my concerned family members and now we work together to find the highest quality non-toxic baby care products for our children and yours.

I then came across an item on their web site which must have been in response to the concerns of a fairly large number of people, otherwise it wouldn’t have been displayed quite so prominently. This item explained why the vast majority of their products were made in China, emphasising that the products were no less safe for that, and still remained “non toxic”. I thought about this for a bit and, basically because I realised they were digging a hole for themselves, sent them this email:

I was very interested in your statement about Chinese made products, and very disappointed indeed upon reading it. I take it from what you say, that the only factor in you stocking a product is that it is toxin free, but does that really imply that you don’t care at all about the toxins that are created in the supply chain, and the fate of the sweatshop workers in the manufacturing zones where your products are created? Are you aware of the appalling state of health amongst children whose surroundings have been blighted by the runaway expansion of industrialization in the Chinese development zones? Are you aware that 90% of China’s electricity (which makes your products) is produced using high-sulphur coal, meaning that Chinese electricity produces around 40% more carbon dioxide than American electricity and produces vast quantities of toxic ground level gas (Mexican electricity is nearly as bad, being based around coal and fuel-oil, in case you were thinking of going there for your cheap imports)?

It may seem that you can turn a blind eye by thinking “at least the end-product is safe”, but a major reason the Earth is in the perilous state it is in, is that we have learnt to conveniently ignore whatever we cannot see; globalization has made this so easy. Just keep using your “non toxic” products, so long as you forget about the people at the other end of the supply chain, dying to make them.

The response was disappointing to say the least, and underlined my concerns: they basically washed their hands of the bigger ethical concerns, blaming the USA chemical industry and globalization for everything:

While I agree with some of the statements that you’ve made about the supply chain of products made in China. It always interesting to me how much brainwashing that we employ in the US. Do you really think that the chemicals are really made overseas? Most of the toxic chemicals are actually made in the US. In fact, we are producing chemicals that have been banned by every country on the globe and can’t even export some of our products to Mexico, which most people view as a third-world country. There is zero question that a world-wide clean up in necessary and we recommend it and wholly embrace it…

Which didn’t address my concerns at all. What about slave labour? What about carbon emissions? What about China’s huge, unregulated chemical industry (does he not realise)? Sadly it comes down to that USP again: we sell “non toxic” products, that what we do, and if we have to do it at the expense of other ethical concerns then that’s not our problem!

You cannot pick and choose your ethics, however passionate you feek about something: things don’t go away if you ignore them, and often they keep getting worse.

Greenwashers don’t want to be exposed; exposure is dangerous because they no longer control the message, and if they cannot control the message then they cannot control what people think and do. My job, as the author of The Unsuitablog is to wrest control of the message from the greenwashers, and free us from the lies that are relentlessly paraded before us. In the light of truth, we are free to make our own minds up, rather than being made to see these purveyors of harm in the way they would like us to see them.

I want you to be able to do this as well: not only recognising the hypocrisy and the greenwash*, but taking part in exposing the liars for yourself. It’s not always easy, but with a bit of help we can really take them on.

Critical to the act of Exposure, however you do it, is Investigation. Without investigation you have little or nothing to back up any claims you make, nor will you be sure of the accuracy of the information you present. Investigation is also critical because it can often lead to the discovery of far worse things than you may have initially expected, giving your effort far more justification, and potentially preventing extremely destructive activities. Feel free to — like I sometimes do — have a cheap shot at your Target, but if you want to do something really worthwhile, you need to investigate.

The Target

You can take two approaches to deciding on your target: there is the ad hoc approach, which involves identifying greenwash as it happens, regardless of the source, in order to pick off the most vulnerable targets; there is also the targeted approach, based on a set number of targets that most interest you — this may be because you have a personal grudge against a company, politician etc., are interested in a particular area of study, or because the target is simply very worthwhile — such as a major polluter.

Once you have identified your Target, you need to check that they are greenwashing. Your instincts are very valuable, as is the nature of the Target, in telling you quickly what is up. However, if you are going to investigate further, you need to be pretty sure that the Target is, indeed, greenwashing — using this guide will be of great help in most cases.

Before you embark on the investigation, you should also have some understanding of the nature of the Target’s operations: if it is a company, public body, charity, religion or other organisation, you need to know how they operate both within their “marketplace” and internally; if an individual, then you need to know a bit about their history and their personal life. Having prior experience in the area in which they operate is extremely valuable, and will always give you a head start.

Casing The Joint

Investigating greenwash is akin to carrying out a crime, in that you are trying to do something that runs counter to the desires of the Target. Anyone with experience of carrying out nefarious activities (whether strictly legal or not) will already have a fair grounding in the activity known as “scoping” (i.e. the research process), but if you have experience in preventing such activities (e.g. as a PR professional, or a security expert) this can be equally valuable, and in some cases moreso. Even if you don’t have personal experience, though, it doesn’t rule out doing the dirty on the greenwasher: someone with sufficient nous and a set of tools (see later) will be able to get along fine, and with practice become highly adept.

The dictum “know your enemy” provides an excellent guiding principle here, and underlines the first rule of investigation, namely that you should never go into the role unprepared.

Scoping can be a long and highly drawn out process, and the level of research you carry out depends on many factors:

– How risky the exposure is likely to be to you
– How much prior experience you have
– What level of damage you wish to inflict on the Target
– How difficult the Target is likely to be to penetrate / expose
– How much time you have

I cannot tell you how much research to do and precisely what to look for — remember, it’s your investigation — but the more you do, the better your chances of success. However, if you need to get something out into the open very quickly, then you may be restricted in how much you can do, in which case try and minimise the risk to yourself.

(For more information about risk levels, read the section on Sabotaging in A Matter Of Scale.)

The Internet is your friend in the scoping process: not only can it provide you with official information about the organisation or person you are targeting, it can also give details about the best people to contact, lots of background information from third party sources (Sourcewatch being a particular favourite of mine) and may even be able to put you in touch with other people trying to achieve the same aims. Beware, though: this kind of work is often best carried out alone, and you should only reveal your true aims to people you implicitly trust.

Spend time on the Target’s website, if there is one, to get a good feel for the way it presents itself publically — this is very important for The Sting, as you will see — and, in the case of a large company or public body don’t be afraid to call up their helpdesk or customer service team just to make innocent enquiries. One very useful exercise is “follow the links” which I describe in some detail in this article — it is surprising where a bit of lateral thinking can get you.

Make plenty of notes on paper (ensuring you shred everything afterwards), along with asking rhetorical questions along the way (e.g. will I really get the information I need from that person?) to ensure you are gathering the information you need and have enough of it. Once you are confident you have enough information to allow you to ask the right questions and/or to access whichever aspects of the Target you need to, then you are ready for The Sting.

The Sting

The Sting is the process by which you verify your suspicions and, in some cases, uncover things far worse. It is entirely possible to expose greenwash without carrying out this process — by doing so you minimise personal risk — and much of the exposure on The Unsuitablog is of this nature. Scoping information is also very useful for others who wish to go further, so on its own can be very useful. However, if you want to really rock the boat you are likely to have to get information right from the horse’s mouth.

You already know who you need to speak to, what to ask, and approximately how to probe further if the opportunity presents itself, and I am assuming that most of this communication is going to be carried out by telephone and, possibly, by e-mail. You may be using other methods, but I am not going to discuss, for instance, entering premises, hacking or interception, largely because I am not in a position to take responsibility for any repercussions. The information about Sabotaging, linked to earlier,, will help if you wish to do such things.

To carry out The Sting you need, as I have said, to have done your homework; but you also need two more key things: Tools and Techniques. These are not only beneficial, but without some of them it may be impossible to get the information you need at all, and you may also put yourself at far more risk than is necessary. The second key rule of investigation is to avoid getting caught.

Tools

If you wish to present information formally, or use it for reference later, you will need to record this information. All large organisations, as a matter of course, record incoming telephone calls and do not have to state that this recording is taking place if it is for the purpose of crime prevention: as you are investigating environmental crimes, albeit not crimes as the system would necessarily judge them, you are morally justified in doing the same. If you use internet phone software then any audio capture tool will record the conversation, but remember that you will need to mask your identification (see later). For recording telephone calls, either land or cell phone, then there are a number of devices on the market, including this Sony microphone, which can be recorded to a tool like Audacity.

If using email, make sure you keep anything sent by the Target in its original format — if you convert or copy emails, you potentially lose valuable tracking information.

Because you are communicating in a two-way manner, you must always conceal your identity to avoid comebacks. By telephone this can be carried out either by using a known privacy prefix (in the UK it is 141, check with your provider for the code) or going through the main switchboard of the organisation you are calling — switchboard transfers almost always mask the caller’s number.

Obviously you should use a pseudonym during this stage, not forgetting at any point that you are operating under an assumed name! It is best to keep the same pseudonym for a while, so you get used to being referred to by that name.

When using email, never use your primary email address or give it out, unless you are doing low risk work (you need to decide if it is worth the risk): create one or more pretend accounts, either by owning your own domain, so you can create any prefix you like, e.g. fred.smith@mydomain.com, or using Hotmail or Yahoo! Don’t forget that if you are using your normal mail client, your return address may expose your identity!

If you are using public internet or telephone access, remember that your history or call information (and even the call itself) may be stored centrally. Never go beyond the scoping process if you are at work, unless you are prepared to lose your job!

Techniques

These techniques are primarily for the purpose of getting the Target to give away more than they would like to, so it goes without saying that more experience you have, the more likely you are to extract the proverbial “golden egg”. That said, there is no reason you won’t get lucky first time. Be aware, though, some of these techniques are risky, and may damage your chance of following up should you wish to.

As I said, you need to cover your tracks, so apart from the technical means, you also need to make sure that you are in control of the communication: this means using such tactics as asking for names and numbers in order to call back later; only offering your contact details (fake ones) as a last resort and having a cache of useful excuses for conducting the conversation on your terms (“I’m using someone else’s phone” or “I don’t know where I’ll be in an hour”).

Remember when I mentioned knowing about the Target’s public presentation? One important aspect of this is knowing what their audience is: for instance, if a suspect advertisement was placed in a professional journal, then you will be best playing the part of the type of professional in question — this can be very tricky; if you see a suspect product in a supermarket, then pretend you are a customer. What this does is make the recipient of the call comfortable, so that you can ask leading questions without them becoming too supicious (remember, you are recording this). If you can really act stupid then hit the Target with a killer question they may be caught unawares and give too much away.

Another useful technique is “hitting below the belt”: basically this involves talking to employees or representatives at the lowest possible level. It is sometimes said that the people who know most about an organisation are the people who work in the post room, so why not get friendly with them (just ask to speak to the Post Room from the switchboard)? You may be lucky and find a disgruntled employee who wants to dish the dirt. There is little point in going to the top: directors and senior managers are usually trained in dealing with the media, so rarely give much away; their assistants, on the other hand, could be useful.

One final technique that sometimes yields stunning results, is using the CC function on email. This has limited applications but, say for instance you send an email (from your fake mailbox) to a senior person, while CC-ing a number of other senior people in an organisation: their training will mean that they are liable to contact each other to ensure that everyone stays “on message”. If your CC list is long enough then you can bury your own address in the middle of the list, so when they click “Reply All”, you also become the recipient of that sensitive email!

In the final article of this series I will describe different ways of Exposing greenwashers, but having read this far, I strongly suspect you are already keen to get on and do some investigation yourself. Have fun, and do some damage!

---

(*for this article, I use “greenwash” as a generic term for all types of environmental hypocrisy and other acts of environmental harm. The information in this article is specific to greenwash investigation, but may be used for a wide variety of other investigative activities.)

A strange determination struck me while on a run this morning: it was while passing a front “garden” that had been block-paved, leaving a little space for a minuscule flower bed and, get this, a patch of grass four feet by one foot. This was not just any grass, though, it was astroturf! What could have passed through the minds of the people who laid this tiny eccentricity in front of their house:

“You know what, we’re going to have too much paving in the front, we need a bit of greenery.”

“But we need to park three cars.”

“Ok, let’s plonk down a few petunias in a tiny brick flower bed, and some astroturf.”

Maybe the conversation didn’t go exactly like that but, as I say, the thought of this made me determined not to let readers get smug about the various environmental crimes that corporations and authorities are carrying out — your own back, or front, garden is probably not that rosy either: you are probably greenwashing.

– Every time you do the recycling and you think it’s ok to generate waste, you are greenwashing.

– Every flight you take and you offset your emissions, use public transport to get to the airport or do some other act of servitude, you are greenwashing.

– Every piece of electrical equipment or furniture you buy new and then take your old one to the charity shop, or sell it second hand, you are greenwashing.

– Every car journey you take during which you decide not to use the air conditioning to save fuel, you are greenwashing.

– Every tree you plant, while putting your money in a bank that makes money out of deforestation, you are greenwashing.

– Every time you say to someone else that you care about the planet, then go on and do something environmentally irresponsible, you are greenwashing.

– Every time you do something that damages nature and then carry out some minor act in order to assuage your guilt or make you appear “green”, you are greenwashing.

I am not about to cast down every trivial act of environmental improvement, in some cases they may be useful first steps, and sometimes you don’t have a choice in this society but to do something a little damaging; but in many other cases these acts of Domestic Greenwashing simply act to attach you to the way of living that has caused the global environmental catastrophe in the first place. By making yourself feel that trivial positive actions permit major negative actions, you are assisting Industrial Civilization in its relentless grinding down of natural processes in order to fulfil a hopelessly outdated dream.

You don’t have to be part of that dream, and you don’t have to be a hypocrite. You are better than that.

A don’t really have a problem with Facebook; it’s becoming pretty ubiquitous, but so far I haven’t seen any reason to damn it to hell. It’s not trying to be something it’s not; unlike most of the other things I feature on The Unsuitablog.

I even have a couple of groups of my own; one for Green Seniors, and one for A Matter Of Scale. Feel free to join!

No, the problem I have with Facebook is the users. More specifically the users who think by sending electronic versions of natural artefacts, messages of hope and pointless games, that they are actually going to make a difference. Nothing is further from the truth.

Here is a short list of the types of messages I have had from otherwise well-meaning and nice people recently:

1 save the earth invitation : a fun and addicting game that helps support green causes. Just by joining you will be saving 10 square feet of rainforest.

(Actually it gives a bit of money to the Nature Conservancy, a friend of big business. 1 acre is 44000 square feet, so they need 4400 users to protect a single acre!)

1 tree nation invitation : Tree-Nation.com is a free online community which purpose is to plant trees to fight Climate Change. We receive the full support from the United Nation Environment Programme (UNEP).

(A project partly sponsored by Unilever, Alcan, Chaumet, Nexus and other commercial interests in order to do a bit of cheap greenwashing)

1 wildlife reserve request : Rescue endangered animal babies, send them to friends for rescue, raise them in your own Wildlife Reserve and release them into the wild, or sending mating request to breed babies!
(Meanwhile, real habitats are being destroyed as you play – and WWF are also corporate hypocrites)

1 earthkeepers invitation : Plant virtual trees and share seeds with your friends. Each tree grown to adulthood will be planted in the real world to fight deforestation, desertification, and drought.

(Looks like a great way to spend your time – how about just planting some trees? Oh, and the whole application is just an advert for a Timberland boot.)

And now I’m really sick of these apps. The best thing you can do is block the applications as soon as they get to you, and if you really want to make a difference, get out there are do something in the real world.

I threatened to do it, and I always carry through with my threats (being a good parent, ecologist and all round pain in the backside) so, with great fanfare I would like to induct John Reed into the EcoSpam Hall Of Fame¹

John Reed is Creative Director of Elevator Communications, a mainstream and not at all different (despite the claims) PR company. He started sending me spam a few weeks ago, and didn’t stop, regardless of my appeals. As a former IT Security bod, I know it’s risky responding to spam, but this guy has his picture on the website, and doesn’t hide any communication details — not your ordinary spam merchant, or so you would think.

He sends out spam pertaining to be ecologically sound. Here is a sample:

INTERVIEW: Lewis Buchner, CEO of EcoTimber, Inc. (San Rafael, California) is available to talk or meet with you.
NEWS: a new, patented, woven bamboo flooring product has just been introduced by EcoTimber. This new flooring product is significantly harder and more stable than most tropical hardwoods and can be used in residential and commercial applications.

California’s Solar Pioneer and his “Green Business”, Berkeley-style Story Notes:
Interview: Gary Gerber, Founder and President of Sun Light and Power is available to talk with you. As 2008 President of CALSEIA – the California Solar Energy Association – he can talk about the growth of the solar energy industry over the past 32 years, pending legislation, potential roadblocks to the growth of solar and the future of this industry in an age of $137 a barrel oil.

Publicly traded Carbon Sciences, Inc (Santa Barbara, CA) the developer of a breakthrough technology to transform harmful carbon
NEWS AND STORY IDEA, SUMMARY:
Publicly traded Carbon Sciences, Inc (Santa Barbara, CA) the developer of a breakthrough technology to transform harmful carbon dioxide (CO2) into high value, earth-friendly products, Monday announced that it has signed a joint research agreement with Abo University, Finland. This new technology converts CO2, a greenhouse gas, into commercially useful products and providing a technological alternative to the unknown consequences of sequestering (burying) CO2 under the land or oceans. Due to the unique geology of Finland, underground sequestration of CO2 is not an economically viable option.

And so on. The usual eco-bollocks of the highest order. When you look into the kinds of people this guy represents, then you realise that his motivation is rather suspect, to say the least:

University of Tennessee Mouse Brain Library : The MBL consists of high-resolution images and databases of brains from many genetically characterized strains of mice.

KrispyKreme! : Junk food purveyors to the working business breakfast.

Shea homes : Largest private house builder in the USA. Lots of big luxurious pads.

TAG Oil : Canadian-based petroleum company with more than 1,000,000 acres of exploration land in New Zealand.

Along with many other companies you really wouldn’t want to rub shoulders with. I’m not alone in feeling the pain of EcoSpam. Here is the slightly twee, but harmless Green Living Tips on the same subject:

Today I received my first piece of “green” spam. The subject line was “Don’t invest in gold, invest in green”. It was touting yet another miracle, totally natural and sustainably produced exotic fruit drink that would do all sorts of things for me; probably including some of the incredible and pretty much impossible physical, umm.. enhancements, that other types of spam offer :).

Green spam will only increase; so be really careful when receiving unsolicited email about earth friendly products that you research whatever is being hawked thoroughly before reaching for your credit card.

(Actually, the last thing I would do when receiving spam would be to reach for my credit card — the “Delete” key will do just fine.)

A slightly more caustic response (and hooray! for that) from Intemperate Remarks:

G Ananthapadmanabhan, Executive Director of Greenpeace India is sending me spam every few days. The mails come from fake Gmail accounts like greenpeacetree@gmail.com, or from their domain IDs like tree@in.greenpeace.org or sapling@in.greenpeace.org

This a*shole wants me to plant a tree. To save the world. Before it’s too late. I understand the gravity of the situation, with evils like Global Warming, Global Prosperity, Capitalism and all running riot. Considering that such high stakes like the survival of green beetles in sub-Saharan Africa are involved, it is understandable if this jerk has given up basic decency like not spamming unknown people’s private email IDs, and joined the league of snake-oil salesmen offering oriental remedies for towering erections.

You see, this EcoSpam is just another branch in the ever-expanding world of electronic marketing. Just because it says it’s green – as you well know if you read The Unsuitablog regularly – doesn’t mean it is green. Any company wishing to sell a product for a net profit, regardless of its pedigree, is contributing to a net degradation of the global ecosystem: end of story. It may take money away from more damaging products, but it still perpetuates the market economy and takes us ever further away from the things that really matter — like having a real life.

---

1. Possibly to be repeated

My inbox has been overflowing with love and best wishes to the planet from all sorts of people recently — one of them is no less than Tony Blair, that great peacekeeper¹, climate saviour² and lover of human rights³ is pushing his big plan (yes, another one) to return the planet to its former health. It’s called “Breaking The Climate Deadlock” and you can read the latest report here⁴.

The e-mail from Tony (well, there were three kisses at the bottom, so it must be personal) said:

TOKYO – Tony Blair today (Friday) published the first report from the ‘Breaking the Climate Deadlock’ initiative which will set out the framework for a new global deal for a low carbon future.

Mr Blair presented Prime Minister Fukuda with a copy of the report in his role as host of the G8 summit this year. The report has been drawn together with a group of recognised climate change experts, under the direction of the former British Prime Minister. It answers a series of practical questions about how the world can move to a low carbon economy.

It identifies the actions and questions that need to be resolved by political and business leaders over the next 18 months to achieve a successful outcome to the UN climate change negotiations in Copenhagen in December 2009. The report contains a warning for the world to get on this path now or face irreversible damage and much more cost later. But the report also contains a message of optimism that success is possible and the technologies, the capabilities, the resources, and the ingenuity and entrepreneurship of people around the world exists to create a new low-carbon future.

Tony Blair said this report is all about trying to unite the scientists and experts with the political leaders and decision-makers.

Interesting. Uniting who with who? Didn’t mention “businesses” did he?

So who is running Mr Blair’s show at the moment?

Tony Blair came under heavy fire today for accepting a lucrative job with a Wall Street bank.

Mr Blair, who quit as prime minister in July, is to become a part-time adviser to JPMorgan on a salary rumoured to be at least £500,000 a year. It puts him on course to become the richest former premier in recent history.

He also revealed he expected to take a “small handful” of similar jobs with other companies in the near future.

So, between his various jobs providing expert advice about how to dodge and weave your way around the political system and negotiate great deals with foreign nations, former Prime Minister Blair is intent on saving the world. So long as it’s on his terms: like ensuring he goes everywhere by private jet…

“those wishing to book him on the international lecture circuit are routinely told that providing Mr Blair with his own airliner is a non-negotiable requirement.”

Clearly a man not prepared to budge his principles, nor one who is prepared to see others budge on theirs, considering he famously stated that he didn’t think it “realistic” that people should stop flying on holiday. A dose of realism — like perhaps the Arctic ice caps being free of ice this year; or increasing regional food shortages caused by extreme weather; or the sudden drop in the ability of tropical soils to absorb carbon dioxide — seems to be in order here. But we are talking about a man that fervantly refused to ever place the UK business lobby into an uncomfortable position, preferring instead to demonstrate the power of the free market in regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

And what a dismal failure that has been. It was bound to be — he did it because Blair is a corporate man, through-and-through. Read the report I mentioned earlier, and for which the e-mail was so lovingly sent to me, and you will see the truth:

Just as there is a large body of evidence on the risks of climate change, there is also a large body of evidence on what we can do about it. There is a growing consensus that emissions can be reduced without damaging prosperity in either the developed or developing world. Reducing emissions will require a transformation of our economies, but not giving up on growth.

And there’s the rub: protecting the planet, but not at the expense of economic growth. Continued growth, which keeps the corporations happy, so they keep offering Tony his lucrative jobs; increased “prosperity” which makes people believe they are going to get a better life, despite the definition of “prosperity” having little to do with the Declaration of Human Rights, and everything to do with the acquisition of material goods. Let’s make it clear — economic growth is NOT SUSTAINABLE. It never has been, and never will be. In order to grow an economy, you need to use resources at an increasing rate.

But let’s just duck that small issue, while there is still money to be made. Just remember, Mr Blair, your cash will be of no use to you at all when you have to scrape a living from the remnants of the planet you pretended to care about. Fancy changing your mind about economic growth?

No, thought not. Moron.

---

Notes:

1) Need I mention Iraq? Thought not.
2) Oversaw the UK actually increasing its carbon emissions despite the rhetoric of global leadership.
3) Opposed the setting up of Collective Tribal Rights under the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights
4) From The Climate Group; more about their sponsors later.

I’ve had enough of the sanctinomious, corporate marketing of Earth Day, and it looks as though a group in Toronto have had enough too. The Toronto Climate Campaign ran an event on Sunday which reflected almost exactly what I wrote earlier:

In April, 1970, the environmental movement burst onto the political stage with one of the largest grassroots demonstrations ever seen. Between 20 and 25 million people, mostly in the United States, answered the call on the first Earth Day. Event organizers were shocked at the response and marveled at the crowd that drew from every constituency: students and seniors; inner cities and small towns; faith groups and hippies. 

Over the years, corporations began to fund and sponsor Earth Day events, some out of sincere interest, more out of desire to buy “green” credentials. This shifted the emphasis from public rallying to put pressure on politicians and policy makers, to predominantly innocuous and symbolic events. Large scale, interconnected mobilizations were out. Decentralized photo-ops were in. The unfortunate result was, most activists began to ignore Earth Day.

Which is why I will be doing nothing different today. In fact, what I will be doing is what I have been doing every day for years — trying to make my own life as sustainable as possible, while also trying to generate change at all levels.

---

I said I would probably get more self-promoting bandwagon e-mails between my last article and today, and so I did. Here is a choice selection, with the pertinant points highlighted. Bear in mind that these are from people who purport to be “green” but somehow can’t help selling stuff:

Why You Need a Plastic Bag Ball

OSSINING, N.Y. (April 15, 2008)-Boredom has lent itself to building balls of rubber bands, and street fairs across America have begged the question, “Can you guess how many jellybeans are in this jar?” As we near Earth Day on April 22, Eco-Bags Products, Inc. is asking green-minded citizens to collect 1,000 plastic bags and build PLASTIC BAG BALLS, to visualize and understand the impact on our planet. Earth Day celebrators are encouraged to document their ball builds and submit photos or video to the community blog My Greenest Hour. Up to ten participants who demonstrate the most environmental prowess will receive one ECOBAG® to carry along on their next grocery trip.

(The full e-mail contained 9 separate mentions of their registered trademarked, incorporated product)

GREENOPIA COMES TO NEW YORK!

New York, NY (April 21, 2008) – A must-have on the West Coast has finally arrived in New York just in time for Earth Day:  Welcome the first edition of Greenopia New York City, a guidebook to green businesses in all five boroughs – from car services and hotels, to nail salons and burial services.  Hitting bookshelves this week, Greenopia New York City makes living an eco-friendly life in the Big Apple easier than ever! 

Featuring more than 1,300 listings of local green businesses and resources, Greenopia New York City is sold online at Greenopia.com, as well as at Barnes & Noble, Whole Foods, Macy’s and other area bookstores and specialty retailers. 

The book’s suggested retail price is $17.95.

(Just blatant marketing)

Low Carbon Diet Takes Bite out of Global Warming: Earth Day event and online calculator lower carbon footprint of America’s favorite foods

Experts available:

* Chefs on Bon Appétit’s low carbon eating strategy, from menus to operations management. Celebrity chefs also available.
* Spokespersons from company headquarters, local cafes, and the sustainable food movement

Where:        

* Bon Appétit Management Company cafes in 28 states and major metro areas including: Chicago, San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles, Austin, Cleveland, Minneapolis, Washington D.C., Portland, Seattle, and Boston. 
* Visit a cafe in your area on April 22nd to report on the action on Low Carbon Diet day’s low carbon meals, educational activities, and diners’ reactions to the event.

(I wonder why they are asking you to visit their cafes?)

---

So have fun this Earth Day. See how much more hypocrisy and marketing you can spot. Sent it to news@theunsuitablog.com and I reckon there is a good chance it’ll be published!

Disturbing, but not at all surprising, considering what I have been uncovering in the last few months…yes Earth Day 2008 is nearly upon us and right on time the “green” groups and “green” campaigners are cashing in on the potential bonanza. Proof, if proof be needed, that it’s money and not good intentions that runs the industrial world.

Take a look at this, from the Earth Day Canada web site:

Earth Day Canada Hats.

Bucket hats in natural colour, 100% cotton garment-washed, embroidered with the Earth Day Canada logo. Also available in natural with navy trim.

Baseball hats in natural or navy colour. One size fits all. Embroidered with the Earth Day Canada logo.

1 – 11 hats   $15.50 ea
12 – 24 hats $14.25 ea
25+ hats      $12.95 ea

Obviously they are organic, Fair Trade, and all that — no? They also sell a lovely Garden Tote Bag, a steal at $36, or if you can’t afford that then just show your support by buying a gold plated (where did this gold come from?) lapel pin for only $4.

You can have lots of fun looking around for more examples like this, some from charities and some from blatantly commercial companies, although I’m having more and more difficulty telling them apart lately.

One thing that particularly bugged me was an e-mail from a publisher pushing a book who wrote:

From: <giwilks@aol.com>
To: <keith@xxxx.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 5:43 PM
Subject: This Earth Day go green while saving the green

Green is in and protecting the environment and its natural resources has become a universal effort.  For many consumers, “going green” will not only help save Mother Earth it will help save money, too.  Greg Karp, author of Living Rich by Spending Smart: How to Get More of What You Really Want (ISBN: 978-0-13-235009-9, $17.99, February 2008) and a syndicated personal finance columnist, offers tips for consumers that will help protect the green spaces and the green in their wallets.

Well, way to go, Greg Karp; give your promoter a big pat on the back for green exploitation at its worst. I responded, of course:

This is so superficial. I don’t need to spend $18 to get a pile of money-making, pseudo-green tips: I could give you a thousand of these tips and still be no closer to a better way of life. We are not consumers, we are people: modern society has given us labels and all the time we accept those labels we are prisoners of that culture.

Strangely, I didn’t get a response. If you want to do something this Earth Day, then go ahead — but make sure it doesn’t involve screwing money out of people, otherwise you stand a good chance of being called a hypocrite.
 

(STOP PRESS: I’ve just received a kind invitation to advertise an Earth Day event taking place at Universal Studios, that well known bastion of green thinking mind-melding media behemoth. I have a funny feeling I will getting a lot more of these self-promoting bandwagon messages over the next 2 weeks.)

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.

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

Dear Live Earth Press Room

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

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

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

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

Yours

Keith Farnish
www.theearthblog.org

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

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

PHILIPS : Major electronics manufacturer.

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

ABSOLUT : Vodka giant, and advertising masters.

ESURANCE : Motor insurance company.

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