Thanks to Plane Stupid for this article: make your feelings about the pointless, corporate-friendly symbolism of Earth Hour wherever you can.

DON’T TURN YOUR LIGHTS OFF FOR EARTH HOUR! YOU ARE NOT PART OF THE MACHINE!

Sometimes I get sent things that really piss me off. This video (and Earth Hour) is one of them. Earth Hour, for those of you who didn’t get the memo, is a coming together of lots of people who will all turn their lights off for an hour. And then turn them back on again afterwards. Or something.



Now some of us at the coal face of climate change campaigning might choose to describe such an activity as a collosal waste of time that puts forward false solutions that tell people you can stop climate change while keeping all those existing power structures, lifestyles and consumerist nonsenses going. But while we roll our eyes and try to ignore it, the organisers go and put out videos like the one above, which seem to be saying that taking direct action is less effective than sitting in the dark for an hour.

Earth Hour: The Huge Turn Off- Alanis Morissette PSA


Of course they don’t stop there: how about the idea that you can keep flying everywhere so long as you use a freshly-bought green lightbulb? Popstrel Alanis Morrisette thinks that’s the case, and no one at the Earth Hour HQ thought it a bit weird that she’s giving her message of inaction from the inside of a plane.

Don’t get me wrong: if the organisers of Earth Hour want to pretend we can solve climate change by getting “millions of people” to turn their lights off only to turn them back on again an hour later then fine. Just stop polluting the airwaves with your ill-thought out, partisan bullshit.

Apparently, on March 28, millions of people will be turning off their lights for an hour, for Earth Hour. Yes, a whole hour when all sorts of really green places, like Las Vegas, New York and San Francisco, will be flicking off the lights in symbolic venues and, an hour later, turning them all on again, just to show that Industrial Civilization doesn’t really give a f*** about the planet, but likes a good joke: like the joke of Alanis Morrisette flicking her toenails in the tumbler of her fellow airline passenger.

Like the joke that you can be an airline passenger and, at the same time, talk about saving energy.

Like the joke that trivial, symbolic activities, such as Earth Hour do anything other than make people think they have done something worthwhile.

Stop messing about with trivia and do something real.

Earth Hour: The Huge Turn Off- Alanis Morissette PSA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’ll admit it, I signed up to the Greenpeace “Airplot” scheme, putting my name down to be a joint owner of a piece of land adjacent to London Heathrow Airport which would have to be compulsorily purchased should the airport be expanded. Make no mistake, this is a good idea and I applaud Greenpeace for doing it: one of the few good ideas they have had in the last few years (I think wasting 6 months trying to convince Woolworths to ban incandescent light bulbs might go down as one of their worst).

I mentioned the awful hypocrisy of film actress Emma Thompson speaking on behalf of Greenpeace about the need the prevent airport expansion a few days ago. For a moment, I thought that maybe Greenpeace had not briefed her properly and that her statement “This is not a campaign against flying” was just a foot-in-mouth moment.

Then it got worse…

From: Emma Thompson, Greenpeace
To: keith@theearthblog.org
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 4:15 PM
Subject: Airplot: Help us swing the vote on Heathrow

My fellow plot owners,

On Wednesday there will be a vote in parliament on a third runway at Heathrow. Ahead of this vote we urgently need your help to put pressure on Labour MPs to vote with their conscience and say NO to a third runway. We already have the support of the LibDems and Tory MPs.

Send a letter to the 57 Labour MPs who have opposed Heathrow expansion.

The government is treating us as if we’re stupid. They’re asking all of us to reduce our energy consumption while they build another runway at Heathrow. I think it’s the most egregious piece of hypocrisy I’ve seen in a long time…

I thought I’d highlight that last bit. I’m not sure what you call a hypocrite who accuses someone else of hypocrisy. Maybe a Hypocrite Squared. I responded in the only way I could.

From: Keith Farnish
Sent: 23 January 2009 16:22
To: Webteam
Subject: Re: Airplot: Help us swing the vote on Heathrow

Great, does that mean Emma Thompson isn’t going to fly any more?

Keith

Well, you would, wouldn’t you? This astonishing reply came back:

From: info
To: Keith Farnish
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 3:45 PM
Subject: RE: Airplot: Help us swing the vote on Heathrow

Dear Keith,

Thank you for your email.

We are not campaigning to stop people from flying altogether, but we do want to prevent the number of flights from growing to dangerous levels – the growth in aviation is ruining our chances of stopping dangerous climate change.

This campaign is against airport expansion, and if you would like to find out more please do visit the following pages of our website:

www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/does-economic-case-third-runway-stack-20090114
www.greenpeace.org.uk/media/reports/the-case-against-heathrow-expansion-a-briefing
www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/10-reasons-to-stop-heathrow-expansion

Many thanks for your support and best wishes,

Donna

Donna Hayter
Supporter Services
Greenpeace UK

www.greenpeace.org.uk

Very polite, but horribly naive, and possibly the most concrete evidence so far that the environmental mainstream are not trying to save the Earth or the future of humanity, they are merely trying to salvage Industrial Civilization, whatever hypocrisy it takes, and however pointless and fruitless the task.

My response was hardly worth it, given the incredible denial Greenpeace are now swimming around in, but I made it nonetheless, because if there is a chance that Donna might understand, then she might get out of Greenpeace and do something tangible.

Dear Donna

Flying, and carbon emissions in general are already at dangerous levels; massive reductions in excess of 90% by 2030 are needed to prevent runaway climate change. Are Greenpeace saying that we can leave global carbon levels at 385ppm and still be safe?

If the campaign is not against flying then how are you going to prevent airport expansion – or are Greenpeace staff still flying around the world, as they were when I was a volunteer?

Regards

Keith

I did not get a response.

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

Climate Progress takes up the story:

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

A. No.

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

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

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

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

…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keith

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deck Your Halls…

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

Buy Stuff.

Who needs irony when you have WWF?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is it that Monsanto say on their website?

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

They forgot to add, “of Monsanto executives.”

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

My Eco Spam of the week comes from the “non profit” (more of that later) organization, Climate Counts, who have created a scoring system for companies, ostensibly to get them to buck up their ideas…

From: Ria Knapp
To: news@unsuitablog.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 4:04 PM
Subject: News from Climate Counts

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
New Widget Simplifies Consumer Action to Fight Global Warming
Climate Counts’ Widget gives Company Scores a permanent home on blogs, profiles, and desktops

November 2008
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Contact: Ria Knapp

With the end of the presidential election season, our votes are now counted. But when it comes to fighting the global climate crisis, the opportunity to cast your ballot as a consumer remains wide open. The debut of Climate Counts new desktop widget enables people to keep their election season energy – by voting with their dollars.

Just as the importance of addressing climate change and achieving energy independence garnered attention during this year’s presidential debates, the Climate Counts team is working to bring the same attention to the role that consumers can play in motivating the biggest companies in the world to offer their own climate responsibility and leadership. The new Climate Counts Widget gives individuals access to how companies rank on climate and how they compare to other companies in their industry sector. Widgets are customized applications that you can download and embed on your computer or web page.

“People vote based on how closely a candidate mirrors their values,” said Climate Counts project director Wood Turner. “People should bring that same sense of purpose to how they spend their money. The companies they support should also be a reflection of their beliefs and concerns about issues like global warming.”

By typing a company name or brand into the Climate Counts widget, you receive an output message with that company’s climate score from 0 to 100 and which Climate Counts scoring tier – stuck, starting, or striding – that company falls into. The higher the score, the greater a company’s commitment to fighting climate change.

“The widget helps people understand quickly how they can fight climate change with the choices they make every day when they shop,” Turner said. “If the widget is on your desktop, your blog or personal page – you have constant and immediate access to Climate Counts company scores.”

Climate Counts is a non-profit collaborative effort to bring consumers and business together to tackle global climate change. The organization launched its first climate scores of companies in June 2007 and updates scores annually. Climate Counts evaluates companies in four key areas – whether they are measuring their climate footprint; whether they are working to reduce that footprint; whether they are supporting (or blocking) progressive climate policy; and if they are being open and transparency about their climate actions with consumers.

In addition to helping consumers make climate-conscious purchases, the ClimateCounts.org website gives consumers the opportunity to “raise their voices” by e-mailing companies directly to either show their support for companies that are striding or petition lower-scoring companies to improve their climate protection efforts.

The widget can be downloaded directly off the ClimateCount.org website at www.climatecounts.org/widget.

For Release: Dec. 2, 2008

Contact Information
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ria Knapp
PO Box 4844
Manchester, NH 03108
Phone: 603.216.3788
rknapp@climatecounts.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Before looking at the “widget”, I took a look at their website…I must say I wasn’t entirely surprised by what I found, but this was still hypocrisy of the highest order. Here’s my response to Ria:

Dear Ria

This is a joke, yes?

I’ve just looked at the page on Banking (http://www.climatecounts.org/scorecard_sectors.php?id=27) and see that one of the most destructive banks in the world is number 1! Oh, I know why – it’s because the WWF are on your advisory board, and just happen to get lots of money from HSBC! (http://thesietch.org/mysietch/keith/2008/01/15/wwf-buy-yourself-a-new-corporate-image-part-1/). Where is the Co-operative Bank or Triodos, both of whom have environmental policies that they actually act on rather than pretend to be acting on?

And what about the airlines? Surely NO airline should even be in the yellow, given that their entire business depends on the completely unsustainable and excessive production of greenhouse gases. If they fly then they pollute – that’s it. They can never be good.

And then you have Electronics (http://www.climatecounts.org/scorecard_sectors.php?id=13), the companies scored, including your “greens”, all actively push the mindless consumption of consumer goods that no one needs – but they continue to push them because their raison d’etre is to make a profit, and that means obsolescence and more sales, and more resource consumption, and more toxic pollution, and more greenhouse gases.

I don’t expect you to take this seriously, because you don’t appear to take environmental action seriously. Your funding comes from Stoneyfield Farm, who made $20 million in profit in 2007, raking in 90% of that for their shareholders; shareholders who would say goodbye if they didn’t see a healthy return on their investment. The problem is that profit equals economic growth, equals an increase in environmental damage – how can you be objective when your funding depends upon a company making a profit? (and, BTW, Gary Hirshberg has done a wonderful greenwashing job, pretending that it is possible – hmm, how much oil do his yogurt cartons use in a year; how much carbon dioxide does it take to distribute his products around the world; how much methane do his cows produce?)

When you decide to show companies up for what they really are, then let me know – but for now you are going to become the subject of the next article on The Unsuitablog, which is read by thousands of keen anti-greenwashers.

Regards

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

Intentional hypocrisy or just stupidity? I’m not sure, and I can’t pass judgement until I get a response — which has not arrived after 3 days — but I do know for sure that there are an awful lot of environmentally pathological corporations getting an incredibly easy ride out of the laughably lenient scoring system that Climate counts have in place.

Corporations greenwash enough without others helping them do it: change it or get rid of it.

In a surprise move today, Andy Atkins, Executive Director of Friends Of The Earth UK, announced that the former environmental pressure group are to become an agency of the UK Government, working within the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Although not explicitly giving details of the move, Atkins (47) speaking to The Guardian newspaper stated:

“You could argue about where it starts – people taking action or government taking action,” he said. “You need both. Friends of the Earth is putting its weight behind government taking the right action that then makes it easier for people to do the right thing.”

The merger with DEFRA was hinted at in a press release put out on the announcement of Atkins’ appointment at Executive Director,

Under Andy’s leadership, Friends of the Earth will continue to push for political action to tackle global environmental challenges.

although no one outside of the charity’s leadership could have predicted such a radical change in structure.

This acceptance of the need for independent environmental charities to work in government in order to create policies that drive public activity makes a mockery of the ideas of more hard-core environmental campaigners, including existing members of FoE, that say governments ultimately work for the benefit of the economy and their corporate masters. With this single action, Friends Of The Earth have made it clear that the future should be defined by government policies rather than individual or community action that may, unfortunately, fall foul of the laws that have been put in place to protect the economy environment.