Helping the financial, social and physical wellbeing of older people in the UK is something that Help The Aged do pretty well. Some could accuse them of being a little blinkered in the way they work, but most charities are like that – they choose a campaign and that’s what they focus on.

Strange then that I should receive an e-mail announcing a prize draw:

Win a brand new Nokia mobile phone
 
Do you have an unwanted mobile phone sitting at home? Recycle your old phone with us during January and February and you can enter a free draw to win a brand new Nokia fashion phone.

Recycle your old phone now

I didn’t know Help The Aged had a recycling campaign on, but it appears they do. Actually the recycling seems to be an afterthought: the reason they are encouraging it is to raise funds, not reduce the amount of toxins going into the waste stream. It would have been nice to mention that, but they then go on to tell you how much more you could help if your donation was bigger.

The real winner for me, though, was the promise of a New Nokia Fashion Phone for the winner of the “recycling” prize. Recycle and then win something new. Is that how it works then? Recycling as a way of clearing things out so you can buy something else. It does seem to be.

Yet again Friends Of The Earth are asking their members (I don’t know why they keep sending me these, I’m not a member) to carry out world-changing actions on their behalf. I say this with a hint of sarcasm, because both you and I know that Friends Of The Earth have not achieved anything significant in their history and, in fact, may well have slowed down the pace of environmental action. It is well known that wherever there are established “environmental” organisations, individuals tend to delegate responsibility for action to these organisations. They give money, they write letters, they sign petitions – and they assume that the organisation will get the job done. This places a lot of pressure on the organisation to make the changes happen, but then again, why purport to be a membership organisation if you aren’t prepared to act for your members.

Unions call for strikes because they know that withdrawing labour is an effective means of forcing change. When was the last time Friends Of The Earth orchestrated a mass withdrawal of cooperation from their members: refusing to pay electricity bills unless the electric companies switched to all renewables (one of their big campaigns) would be a start, yet you will never see this happen because it may upset the status quo.

To show you what FoE mean by “action”, here is part of the e-mail I received this morning:

“What is your MPs new year’s resolution?…Let’s make sure it’s taking action on climate change.”

“After massive progress, 2008 is the year the Climate Change Bill becomes law. We’ve come a long way but we still need to ensure MPs will vote for the changes we need to make it tough enough.”

“Whether or not you’ve already contacted your MP, there’s a new and urgent action we’d like you to take. Please email your MP – to ask them to sign a new parliamentary petition demonstrating their commitment to a strong Bill.”

Let’s break this down.

1) “Taking action on climate change”. What is this action exactly? I have a quote from Tony Juniper saying that a 30% reductions in carbon emissions is sufficient to halt climate change. Whether this is by 2050, 2030 or even 2020, it is totally inadequate, so even if FoE achieve their aims, climate change will continue.

2) “After massive progress”. What progress? Greenhouse gas emissions are up, and still climbing, even in the UK where this campaign is based. Claiming progress requires tangible evidence – unless you can demonstrate that your actions have altered the level of emissions, or whatever you want to achieve, then you cannot claim you have made progress.

3) “Sign a new parliamentary petition”. Oh great! Another petition. Another hopeful document that will go the same way as all the rest. Don’t they get it? Symbolic actions change nothing – they make things worse by keeping up the pretence that something is happening when nothing really is.

Please, don’t trust your future to Friends Of The Earth, or any other symbolic organisation. Make the changes yourself : try these for a start.

So much for the Brits, WWF-USA takes the idea of corporate love-ins to a whole new level. Go to the link yourself.

GASP at the polluters who want to look green.

SWOON at the food companies who sweep things under the carpet.

Be in SHOCK AND AWE at the financiers who run the world, and pretend to save it. On the WWF corporate partners web page lies a catalogue of the biggest names in greenwash.

Let’s look…

CARGILL : The largest grain producer and exporter on Earth. Genetically modified crops…check! Deforestation…check! Large scale agribusiness…check!

COCA-COLA : Enemy of poor rural Indians and extractor of millions of gallons of much needed water every day.

ALCOA : Aluminium giant. Producer of millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide every year, and polluter of lakes and rivers throughout the world.

TOYOTA and NISSAN NORTH AMERICA : Purveyor of SUVs and 4x4s to the masses. Get ’em while they’re belching!

TATE AND LYLE : Destroyer of native habitats worldwide. They “own” around a quarter of Mauritius.

WALT DISNEY COMPANY : Brainwashing masters. Lose your childhood to a corporate myth.

And they were just the easy ones that I didn’t have to research. If WWF are really so outrageously dumb to think that any of these companies deserves to look good and, in effect, wipe out all memory of their terrible activities, then they can go ahead, but DON’T DARE THEY SAY THEY ARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATION!

Walking home from my local town centre the other day, I spotted a large advertisement by the global bank HSBC: they were proudly announcing that for every new account opened or mortgage taken out they will donate a magnificent £2 to the WWF’s rainforest protection project in Brazil. That’ll break the bank then (every pun intended)! I did a bit of hunting around and found that HSBC were committed to decent standards in their investments as regards forestry, but here’s the catch: when I wrote to WWF-UK it turned out they had absolutely no veto over HSBC’s activities.

---

Dear xxxx 

As discussed, and with regards to http://www.wwf.org.uk/business/whoweworkwith/c_0000000018.asp, please could you let me know whether WWF would be prepared to relinquish their partnership with HSBC (which I personally find extremely uncomfortable as it is) should it turn out that as a result of HSBC’s investment activities they were causing a net (direct or indirect) damage to rainforest ecosystems and/or the tribal peoples within.

Keith Farnish

---

In response I received a statement on their principles, which included “WWF  believes  that  the  most effective and long term environmental change comes  about  through  constructive and challenging dialogue and engagement with  business,  industry  and governments…” So, no answer there. I asked again.

---

Dear xxxx

I’m afraid this does not answer my question:

…

Am I correct to assume that WWF would continue to remain a partner regardless of HSBC’s activities?

Kind regards

Keith

— ——–

Hi Keith

xxxx has passed your email to me. You are asking a hypothetical question. If there was an issue we would obviously deal with it on a case by case basis. We cannot give you a blanket answer based on a hypothetical question.

I hope you can understand our position.

Best wishes

xxxx

———-

Dear xxxx

All questions regarding the future are hypothetical. WWF are combating rainforest destruction partly because you believe that it will cause a increase in atmospheric carbon levels – and quite right, too – but it is only as definite as the science says it is (around 90%). There is a strong chance, based on past behaviour that HSBC will invest in activities that cause a net loss in forest quality or area, so I am very surprised that you do not have this scenario covered. It would make the terms of your agreement far more solid, and also ensure that HSBC are far less likely to make damaging investments or loans.

Given your position I have no option but to assume that you are not protecting against this potential situation, and will have to report this as so.

Kind regards

Keith

———-

Dear Keith

You have asked us to comment on a vague hypothetical situation, which is very unusual. To make assumptions on the basis of our inability to comment on this is irresponsible journalism. As I have already said we would make decisions on a case by case basis, depending upon the scenario or issue. I also think that making assumptions on past behaviour is short sighted to say the least.

If you are making assumptions please make this clear rather than report this as fact.

Kind regards

xxxx

---

Very interesting. So, in short, WWF have made no agreement with HSBC that they would pull out of the partnership should HSBC behave irresponsibly. PLUS, they do not judge a company based on its past behaviour; any investments in destructive activities are swept under the carpet, provided you have the money to invest. For a stipend of around £100,000 and a little bit of box ticking, you can use the WWF logo on your headed notepaper. For an investment of around £1 million, you can plaster the WWF logo all over your adverts and look greener than green.

And if you think the UK is bad, tomorrow I will be going over to the USA…
 

You know when an “environmental” organisation has lost the plot when they start doing something so obviously hypocritical, so rancidly damaging, that there is no way on Earth that they cannot see the harm they are doing. The Sierra Club is a much-loved institution of American life. Sometimes vilified by the far-right, but generally accepted by the public as a symbol of great effort for the common good. And they have done some good, although you would be hard-pressed to identify much that has recently made much difference to the state of the planet.

And despite this light green tinge to their activities, despite their fairly fluffy persona, you really couldn’t imagine them promoting long haul flights, could you? Long haul flights, with extra air transfers thrown in? Long haul flights with extra air transfers and long distance 4×4 road trips?

Oh yes they do. And they promote them big time: not just a few, but hundreds and hundreds of options to fly around the world, spewing out tonnes of planet burning carbon dioxide as they go. Tempted? Take at look at this page.

Some of the trips have to be seen to be believed: you can go to Antarctica, by plane and icebreaker; you can fly to Estonia and go skiing; you can fly to the Galapagos Islands – that one needs four flights in all. Need I go on? I wrote to various tour leaders, expecting a hearty rebuttal of my points – here is one example:

Dear xxxxx 

Just been perusing some of the trips on the Sierra Club’s pages. Cruising The Galapagos Islands : 4 flights. That doesn’t sound very environmentally friendly does it?

Are you sure the Sierra Club are an environmental organisation, or are they just a club for rich people who want to pretend they are doing good. I know what I think, but as Mr Pope doesn’t recognise the latter – he is in some kind of world where flying is ok so long as it’s done by the “right kind of people” – then Sierra Club can carry on pulling the wool over people’s eyes, pretending that they are saving the world, while they are really burning it up.

Please consider what you are helping to happen when you encourage people to fly: however much the traveller may learn from the experience you are helping to heat the same planet that my children are hoping is still habitable when they grow up. The truth is, the vast majority of people on these trips will *never* do enough to make up for that extra 10 tons of carbon dioxide they have produced.

Regards

Keith Farnish

Out of a dozen e-mails I had one response, and he basically told me not to be so rude, going on to defend “eco tourism” as something that is better than other types of holidays. It didn’t strike him that not flying at all might be an option too.

So hats off to the Sierra Club; still in a tailspin over how to protect the planet.