Following my little pop at General Motors yesterday, Phil Colley, an account executive at MSL Communications (take a look at their fabulous client list here) took issue with some things I said, commenting as follows:

I’m with GM and we’re sorry that you, like some in the green community, choose to attack any effort to help the environment – short-term or long-term – that doesn’t come from your pre-existing “approved” list. If you are interested in moving from rhetoric and accusations to questions or genuine dialogue about E85 and longer-term efforts, we are ready. In fact, our discussions with other E85 critics on the blogs have been beneficial for everyone involved, including us.

People are often surprised to learn that since the 1970s, GM has reduced smog-forming emissions from our vehicles by more than 99 percent. Our new vehicles are so clean today that painting a room with one gallon of water-based latex paint will generate more smog-causing emissions than driving a GMC SUV from Toronto to Vancouver and back again. Over the last three decades, the average fuel economy of our car fleet has increased 130 percent and our light truck fleet average has almost doubled. We offer more models that get 30 miles per gallon or better on the highway than any other manufacturer, and 13 of our last 15 new product launches in the U.S. have been cars or crossovers.

You can see my response right after his, but I have no intention of stopping there, because a company like General Motors deserves more than just one article on The Unsuitablog: there are so many dispicable activities to choose from (both past and present) that I only have space here for a few of them.

1. The Global Climate Coalition

The GCC was set up in 1989 as a corporate counter to the emerging strong evidence that carbon dioxide was a major factor in changing the global climate: General Motors was a founder member and major funder to this grandaddy of astroturfs. In fact, the GCC were instrumental in George Bush Jr’s 2001 decision to reject to Kyoto Protocol — GM may have left in 2000, but by that time their work was done, and they decided to get out before their public image took too much of a pasting. This is not ancient history, and General Motors have a very recent history of climate change denial funding…

2. Other Deniers

The Competitive Enterprise Institute, most famous for its “Carbon dioxide: they call it pollution, we call it life” advertisements, is a long-term, powerful AGW denial lobby group, which received funding from General Motors for many years.

Tech Central Station is a global warming denial advocacy group which, with General Motors as a major funder until 2006, was singled out by the US Senate as one group “whose public advocacy has contributed to the small but unfortunately effective climate change denial myth.”

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, of whom General Motors is a key member, have been running adverts pushing against decent fuel economy standards, in order to protect the SUV and light truck market.

This is just a sample of the groups GM has funded.

3. Environmental Lobbying

The US Government demand that lobbyists file quarterly reports of lobbying activity, details of which are available at the Lobbying Disclosure web site. General Motors spend a lot of money on lobbying…here are the details for the last four quarterly reports:

Q3 2008 (http://disclosures.house.gov/ld/pdfform.aspx?id=300102461): $2,700,000 total spend

Bills targeted include: Climate change (S.2191), CAFE (H.R.5560, S.2555), Biogenerics Legislation (S.1695 et al), Railroad Antitrust Enforcement (H.R.1650, S.772), Ban Asbestos etc. Act (H.R.3339) — for other quarters, see individual links.

Q2 2008 (http://disclosures.house.gov/ld/pdfform.aspx?id=300077983): $3,031,000 total spend

Q1 2008 (http://disclosures.house.gov/ld/pdfform.aspx?id=300044651): $4,050,000 total spend

Year End 2007 (http://disclosures.house.gov/ld/pdfform.aspx?id=300023856): $4,040,000 spend per quarter

That’s nearly $14 million just for one year’s lobbying to one government (which doesn’t include the amount spent lobbying the EU, or the amount of funding given to 3rd party lobby and PR firms).

What I really want to know, and maybe you can help me here Phil, is what representations did General Motors actually make to the Senate and the House over the bills listed above — I would love to know. My bet is that it’s not to ensure strict regulations on pollutants, safety or freedom of information, but I’m willing to be proven wrong if someone can send me the documents.

4. Other Items Of Interest

General Motors own Hummer, a company that does not disclose its emissions on its USA web site, but according to the UK government their standard model produces enough carbon dioxide to put it in the very worst emissions band there is. Hummer, for their part, really do seem to be taking caring for the planet seriously:

If you consider “caring” to mean “driving all over it”.

And finally, we have General Motors Global Vice Chairman and US Chairman, Bob Lutz, pronouncing that Global Warming is a “total crock of shit” which is not the kind of thing you really want to be saying if you are serious about the protecting the planet.

Hey, maybe everything GM say about the environment is just greenwash and they don’t give a shit about the planet at all. You decide.

Eco Spam of the week goes to the National Ethanol Vehicles Coalition, as promoted by that true friend of the planet General Motors. Here’s the email, with a few salient points picked out…

Keith,

As your readers make their annual snowbird trek to warmer climates, let them know that their trip could help kick our nation’s dependence on foreign oil.

Snowbirds traveling along the I-65 Biofuels Corridor, the first national, cross-country corridor of E85 ethanol stations, can drive from the shores of Lake Michigan in Indiana all the way to the Gulf Coast in Alabama and be at least a quarter of a tank from an E85 pump. New stations along this stretch of highway have opened over the past year in Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee and Alabama giving consumers the option to refuel with E85. Flex-fuel vehicle owners can refuel with ethanol to help reduce the nation’s dependence on petroleum and reduce carbon emissions.

Your readers can find stations along their route by visiting the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition’s (NEVC) website -http://www.e85refueling.com/.

If you’re interested in learning more, please let me know. I’d be happy to provide additional information about the I-65 Biofuels Corridor and GM’s efforts to pursue alternative fuel solutions.

Best,

Bethany Ciampa
Mullen for General Motors

Ok, so what do we have here? First is the incredible assumption that “my readers” (who she assumes are all based in the USA of course – as people like this do) like to take annual trips south to their second homes, clocking up thousands of miles in the process and emitting tons of carbon dioxide as they go. In her defence — if there is any — she actually sent it to Green Seniors, which I help run, but still completely ignored the fact that “my readers” aren’t so dumb to be taken in by the oily words of one of the world’s largest (for the time being) corporations.

Second, that E85 — a mix of ethanol and petrol — actually has any environmental benefits. In the first instance, corn based ethanol is very energy inefficient to produce so even though it is plant-based, it is almost always heavily fertilized, processed, blasted with heat to distil it…all of which produce a great deal of greenhouse gas. If that weren’t bad enough, this is a classic case of Business As Usual Ethics making people think that because something is “greener” then they can carry on using it to their hearts content, without thinking of the repercussions of their continued high-consumption way of life: this is what the corporations want, and this is why they greenwash.

Finally, GM itself has as its (thankfully shrinking) core business, huge investment in the kind of trucks and SUVs seen in the photo: by showing an interest in E85 and making their gas-guzzlers able to take this fuel, they can carry on selling them, without having to compromise their abhorrant business in any significant way. The vehicle in the photo does a combined 17MPG!

Here was my response:

Bethany

General Motors, environmentally friendly? Don’t make me laugh!

Remind me at what point GM decided to stop marketing gas-guzzling SUVs and pickups to the general public, and what marvellous strides GM have made to bring the USA’s emissions down by the required 90% by 2030? Sorry, I must have missed that among all your other efforts to screw up the planet.

http://stopgreenwash.org/casestudy_gm

Regards

Keith

P.S. For your greenwashing efforts, you have just booked yourself a spot on The Unsuitablog (www.unsuitablog.com)

I strongly recommend you follow the link, and find out what GM are really all about.

Big companies know they have to look good: that is why Corporate Social Responsibility — one of the most blatant misnomers of all time — was created. Produce a nice thick report saying all the good things you have done in the last financial year, and outlining all of the charitable giving, sustainability projects, improvements to your environmental and social impact and other great things you are planning and you have the means to pull the wool over the eyes of anyone who can’t be bothered to scrape off the surface veneer and look at what you really do as a company.

It is a truism that if a company is included in any of the major global stock indices like the Dow Jones Industrial Average or the FTSE-100 it will be unsustainable: that is, it has to have made a whacking great profit in the previous indexing period and, as such, will have to have made that profit at something else’s expense. If you want to make a profit out of oil, simply extract, refine and transport it at less than the amount someone is prepared to pay you for it — oil may be running out, but while people continue to burn it, and you have the means to produce it, you can still make a profit; if you want to make a profit out of retail, simply produce the goods and retail them at a cost less than you sell the product for — consumer goods may be selling slower, but while people still want to buy crap, and you have a million factory slaves working for you, you can still make a profit.

Basically, if you are a successful company, you will have got there by screwing either people, the planet, or more likely both.

But if you can produce some nice reports saying how responsible you are, you can still get to the top of a list of “Good Companies”, like the one published in The Observer this week.

In order to get into the Top 20, you will have to have been more than three-quarters perfect, according to the scoring system:

The idea is that the index should be helpful to investors who wish to hold shares in or deal with companies that try to make a positive contribution to society and follow good corporate governance practice.

Ethical investment is subjective – different people have different views on what they consider acceptable – and we do not make any judgment about the social usefulness or otherwise of particular industries. Some companies that would normally be excluded by ethical and green investment funds, because they operate in areas such as tobacco or arms, are included.

The maximum possible score is 100, with marks awarded on three main sets of criteria:

1 How companies report on their social and environmental risks and manage their impact – for instance, how they deal with workplace relations and environmental issues, and how well they perform in undertaking charity work. This accounts for 40 per cent of the overall score.

2 The quality of corporate governance. This includes the independence of the board, the quality of executive pay policies and the alignment of interests between executives and shareholders. This accounts for 30 per cent of the total score.

3 Sector issues – how companies address issues specific to their industry. For instance, food retailers are graded on responsible sourcing of products, labelling and sustainability; for a power company, these would include progress towards a lower-carbon portfolio. This accounts for 30 per cent of the total score.

The main source for the assessments is companies’ own reporting.

Surely this kind of system wouldn’t encourage companies to be a little flexible with the truth, would it? Take a look at the list of companies and see whether any of them strike you as rather less than good:

1 Scottish & South’n Energy 93.40
2 Kingfisher 87.05
3 BT Group 86.64
4 Mondi 85.94
5 Royal & Sun Alliance 83.00
6 Shaftesbury 82.82
7 Vodafone 81.50
8 Mouchel 81.27
9 Aviva 80.42
10 Johnson Matthey 79.89
11 Rolls-Royce 79.58
12 GKN 78.41
13 Smith & Nephew 77.28
14 BG Group 77.16
15 Hammerson 77.07
16 Tui Travel 76.89
17 Bhp Billiton 76.82
18 Marks & Spencer 76.61
19 Interserve 76.59
20 Atkins 76.41

You will probably not have heard of all of them, but I bet you have heard of, say Rolls-Royce (who produce engines for civilian and military aircraft), BG Group (whose entire business depends on people burning fossil fuels), Atkins (advisors to road builders, oil companies and the military) and our good friend BHP Billiton, who have pride of place on The Unsuitablog as uber-greenwashers.

Among the other companies are a military helicopter firm, a number of large-scale retail and business property developers, an air travel company and a company that specialise in selling cheap mass-produced goods.

Lists like this are a travesty — they seem to exist solely to pump up the appalling reputations of undeserving businesses who, in a time when the commerce boom is deflating should really be questioning their very existence. Or perhaps it’s people like us who should start learning to reject the very foundations of a society that considers a multi-billion dollar company to be “good”.

Short of cash in this time of economic downturn? Want to be environmentally and socially responsible?

Well, why not forget about buying people lots of crap for Christmas and instead offer to help them out with something they couldn’t do on their own; or perhaps make something yourself; or maybe give them something you have grown; or, perchance, forego the seasonal rush for pointless gifts and just spend a bit of time with your family and friends enjoying each other’s company.

What would Jesus have done?

According to overstock.com, he would probably have bought a Chinese Lacquered Altar Cabinet for $875…

Dear Editor,

Kill two birds with one stone — or rather save them by buying green gifts this season — You can provide your loved ones with unique gifts and at the same time preserve our eco system and give back globally to those in need. Overstock.com offers a lush selection of green and eco-friendly goods.

Choose from a vast selection eco-friendly bamboo home decor gift items, as well as, gifts and handmade jewelry from Worldstock, Overstock.com’s socially responsible division, which supports underprivileged artisans from around the globe– therefore sustaining cultures and helping to end world poverty.

Everyone is counting their pennies this Christmas due to the downward economy, but it doesn’t mean holiday gifting has to be compromised. Overstock has been able to acquire more inventory than usual this season due to brick and mortar woes’ and the overflow from cancellations on their orders.

…

Powerstrip Productions
Public Relations
Contact:
Lea Yannetti: Melissa Miller:
lea@powerstripproductions.com melissa@powerstripproductions.com
(917) 463-3692

Yes, my eco-spam of the week comes courtesy of a company which made $32m in profit during the last financial quarter, and is reaping the rewards of the economic crunch by buying all the stuff that other stores couldn’t sell, at cutdown prices. On the other hand, they are apparently “helping to end world poverty” and helping “preserve our eco system” — which is a bit odd coming from a company which stocks 300 different types of MP3 player; 500 types of digital camera; 300 different televisions, including 30 with a screen size of more than 50 inches; 500 types of laptop; even 200 different snowboards!

Now, I think if you have to buy something, and you cannot get it from somewhere local, then fairly traded goods are the next best option and, to be fair, Overstock do have lots of these kind of items; but “preserving our eco system”? I don’t think so — not when the vast majority of their goods are mass consumer, mass produced, luxury goods of dubious origin. Worse still, if you look closely you find that many of those which are “fairly traded” (not that we should necessarily take their word for it) use materials which are likely to have been unsustainably logged:

Mahogany Wooden Table from China
Rosewood Stand from China
Mahogany Cabinet from China

Here’s my tip: just because a company says they are good, doesn’t mean they are good — especially when they send you emails trying to bang that point home.

What can you say about an advert that fills an entire page of a broadsheet newspaper, containing a title (“The Triangle Of Peace Foundation”), a heavy duty strapline (“The birth of Philanthropical Capitalism, a new global responsibility.”), an address in New York (“Triangle of Peace, 420 Lexington Ave, Suite 518, New York, NY 10170 USA”) and a section of some kind of stylised monolith, all tastefully decked out in black and white?

My instincts say, “What the hell is this?”

I am writing this article completely cold, and I want you to come with me, because everything about this advert says “sinister”; it says “hypocrisy”; it says “cover up”; it says “business as usual”. It says lots of things and none – because you are only meant to wonder. There is no telephone number; there is no web site.

It is aimed at big business, and my bet is that it is the start of a new club in which the remaining “masters of the universe” reposition themselves as the saviours of the human race.

Let’s see if I am right.

Google search: “the triangle of peace foundation” = no hits.

Google search: “triangle of peace” = 59,000 hits.

A quick browse finds www.triangleofpeace.tv and a video which puts the United Arab Emirates in the driving seat:

http://www.triangleofpeace.tv/?bcpid=1827892797&bclid=1825927544&bctid=1840665880

“Peace and stability through trade”. What do you think of that? Trade is ultimately the cause of all anthropogenic global warming, and a leading cause of social hardship (think slavery, sweatshops and urban deprivation). Is this The Triangle Of Peace Foundation?

There is an Invitation to a star-studded Reception Dinner, based at Jumeirah Essex House, New York. Let’s find the address of this hotel…

…it’s at NY 10019, so not far away from the address given above. But this looks too similar to the sense of the print advert, so let’s find out more. Back to the Google search…

Bingo! It is launch day, today, in the UAE, according to Cityscape Intelligence. The article says:

The Triangle of Peace initiative has been launched by a collective led by Sheikh Nahyan bin Zayed Al-Nahyan.

Dhabian Holdings and the World Trade Centers Association and the World Trade Centers Management Company are all behind the $3.2 billion proposal which is hoping to provide a programme which will help build sustainable communities.

More than one million corporations are to be involved in the project when it is officially launched in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on November 10th.

Guy Tozzoli, president of World Trade Centers Association, said: “The Triangle of Peace Initiatives are essentially three programs for building new and restoring and rejuvenating existing cities.”

They offer a higher quality of life as well as a variety of social and economic benefits united by a vision of peace brought about by trade, he added.

On September 23rd the project was officially announced in New York and enrolled in the United Nations’ Global Partnerships programme.

There is so much wrong with this whole concept, I don’t know where to start, but I do know that we have found the source of the advert, and also that the following organisations are involved:

– The government of the United Arab Emirates (an oil-rich dictatorship, dependent on global trade)

– Many, many corporations (which would obviously define trade as being the most important thing…ever)

– The Clinton Global Initiative (members only global projects body)

– World Trade Centers Association (a organization dedicated to expanding world trade, strapline “Peace and Stability Through Trade” – where have we seen that before?!)

– United Nations Global Partnership Program (I can’t find any official reference to this, but as an example of the kinds of bodies enrolled in this Program, take a look at this one, which offers courses in everything you need to f*ck up the planet!)

What is particularly significant, but not surprising given the level of stupidity practiced by many people in the public eye, is the level of support this work is garnering outside of the commercial arena (or at least being shown as support); especially as this does indeed appear to derive simply from one, very small, very rich playground: Dubai. So sad, yet so symptomatic of how dumb civilization can be.

Given that information, I’ve decided to add the rather unsavoury, but accurate subtitle, “Shitting On Us All” to this article.

Ok, so where now? Well, it’s clear that The Triangle Of Peace Foundation is a front for expanding global trade, under the pretence of peace and sustainability, but far more than that, it appears to be both fronting a number of massive development projects to enrich the bank accounts of its members (see this press release to see the level of glee one real estate web site expresses over the idea), and also acting as a focus for many of the worlds richest and most powerful people to make themselves richer and more powerful.

I was right.

Open your eyes.

I’m going to make a prediction, and you can hold me to this: within a year of taking office, Barack Obama will seem like just another President of the United States. I feel sorry for him because — having an instinct for these things — I think he really does want to make change happen, at least in a social context, yet he has but one choice: toe the line or face the consequences.

A few months ago I wrote a highly contentious article called “Obama Or McCain: Who Cares?” which said the following:

Sorry to upset your political sensibilities — if you feel that party politics is a big deal — but it makes no difference at all who becomes president; and here is why.

It has always been the foreign policy of all civilized nations to maximise the amount of resources it can obtain, whether that be fossil fuels, metals, farmland, fish or slaves — like the people who make most of our clothes and consumer goods. Civilization requires natural resources and labor in order to keep it running: failure to secure these is economic and political suicide. The USA is no different: neither Obama nor McCain will change that policy, because one of them will become head of the most powerful civilized nation on Earth. Their raison d’etre will be to ensure the continued success of that nation on the world stage, and so their primary objective will be to secure resources — that’s the way it has always been; that’s why all civilizations have sought to create empires.

Don’t get me wrong, the man in office may want to change, but his head will be on the block from Day One. Should he choose to make sweeping changes to the healthcare system that are detrimental to the income of the pharmaceutical industry, those changes will be watered down or canned via the House or the Senate (whichever has the ear of that industry); should he choose to implement tough new emissions regulations on vehicles (detrimental to the motor and oil industry), those changes will be watered down or canned; should he choose to impose strict rules on employee exploitation, which hurt the bottom line of retailers, those changes will be watered down or canned; should he choose to ban all logging and toxic releases in protected areas, and expand these protected areas, those changes will be watered down or canned.

Should he try and defy the powers that be, he will put himself in serious danger. There is a precedent for this.

Worse still, none of the changes described above will actually make a significant difference to the net impact of civilization upon the lives of people, and the environment which we all depend on: the President operates within a context of continuing to expand Industrial Civilization. The President has no choice but to work with the system. The President will do the bidding of the system because he represents the system, in all its toxic glory.

That is why Barack Obama will become a greenwasher — it’s his job, whether he likes it or not.

Let’s suppose you have a global brand that you know full well is responsible for mass ecological and social damage, not only directly through the consumption of water, energy, metals and land, along with annual greenhouse gas emissions of 3.8 million tonnes (the same emissions as the whole of Paraguay); but also indirectly through the huge commercial infrastructure that exists to produce, distribute, promote, sell and dispose of your products; and not least the great efforts you spend trying to homogenise entire cultures in order that you can sell as much of your product as humanly possible.

So, given that — and the fact that your company group also does the same, and worse, through its other products, including a vast array of snack food and, through contractual guarantees, gains incredible marketing presence via some of the largest junk food outlets in the world — you might just want to improve your image a bit in a market that, at least commercially, values being “green” as increasingly a good thing.

What you don’t want to do is send a press release out to an anti-greenwashing web site extolling the commercial advantages of such a move; especially as the web site is likely to print the press release in full to show how utterly hypocritical you are, with the more important points show in bold:

Pepsi, today, is launching not one, but two Web sites trumpeting its eco-friendly efforts [1]. PepsiEcoChallenge.com and Pepsirecycling.com both spotlight Pepsi-Cola North America’s slew of sustainability programs.

Pepsi spent $11 million online last year [7] and $9 million for the first seven months of 2008, per TNS Media Intelligence.

A few comments from the above:

[1] Why “trumpeting”, surely just doing it is what matters – if you are an “eco friendly” company, then you don’t have to tell everyone about it, do you?
[2] Yes, what about a Smart Car, that’ll make the customer feel better and, more importantly, make them think the prize giver is a real swell company.
[3] I wonder why they haven’t talked about just doing craft for the sake of it? Could it be they want you to buy some 12 pack cartons?
[4] Well, of course it’s a brochure, because we are talking about corporate marketing here.
[5] Here’s the big “reveal”: because it’s what “consumers demand”, then it would be commercial suicide not to appear “eco friendly”
[6] Slightly sinister, this: by showing “decision makers” what they are doing, it prevents “decision makers” from making laws and policies that might force Pepsi to make significant changes. This is a self-protection mechanism.
[7] Why on Earth would this be relevant, unless it was aimed at those who want to also gain commercially from Pepsi’s efforts – maybe by getting Pepsi to advertise on their “eco” web sites. Hmm!

Something also struck me, while I was browsing the Carbon Disclosure information about PepsiCo. The following statement makes very clear that the Earth Institute at Columbia University is nothing more than a commercially funded set of projects designed to benefit monied corporations — I will be following up on this later…

As for PepsiCo — they are just another corporation desperately trying to look good in order to take a bigger slice of the market.

Following on from my series about supermarkets in schools, here is something that has been irritating me for a while: British Gas are part of a huge energy company known as Centrica, which operates in energy markets across the world. For many years now BG have been losing out to other energy companies in the domestic market due to the deregulation of the energy industry; they have managed to diversify into electricity, but are nothing like the force they were before the 1990s in the UK.

So what have they decided to do? Get into the business of education, subtly but incidiously. Here is the advert for their Generation Green campaign…

Like the supermarket campaigns, schools can get rewards for collecting vouchers, or “leaves” (love the green tinge already!). I have no idea how many leaves are required for a solar panel, so it would be foolish for me to suggest that it would be an extraordinary amount, but it might be – that’s all I’m saying.

More importantly for British Gas, there is a huge amount of subtle marketing going on:

– To get 200 leaves, a school can download a lesson plan which contains lots of information about saving energy, but also has a British Gas logo on every page. The lesson plans are particularly interesting in that when they discuss the causes of climate change they highlight how bad coal is, but completely neglect to mention natural gas as also being a source of both carbon dioxide and methane. Interesting.

– To get 150 leaves, a parent can complete a British Gas “Energy Saver’s Report“. I started to fill one out, honestly, and at Step 6 was asked what my main heating fuel was – it is wood, but this is not an option. I carried on, using gas as my source, and when I got to this page things got even stranger – I could not say that I only heat my home in the evening, and I could not say that my thermostat was set to 15C. The minimum allowed was 19 degrees centigrade – very hot for us. I completed the plan, and was offered some nice services and goods that could be supplied by British Gas, and that I had only earned 100 leaves!

This entire operation has light green platitudes stamped all over it, just like the supermarket greenwashing I wrote about last week. The changes suggested are not bad, but they are insufficient and completely within the comfort zone of a commercial organisation.

It also, like the supermarket vouchers, allows a large commercial entity to worm its way into a so-called place of education, via the teachers and students using the lesson plans, and the parents of the students filling out surveys in order to earn the schools more leaves.

Now watch the advert again and see how good you feel about British Gas.

(although I love the idea of shutting down the lights at the supermarket – go on kids, you know it makes sense!)

Michelin sell tyres. Lots and lots of them: in 2006 Michelin sold about 220 million tyres, and tyre sales account for nearly 90% of all Michelin’s business. If it were not for tyres, Michelin would not exist. In fact, if it were not for replacement tyres, which account for 75% of all Michelin’s tyre sales, then Michelin would be but a small husk of its current behemothic self.

Michelin needs people to replace their tyres, which is why Michelin have begun a massive greenwashing campaign.

The advert above, if clicked upon takes the web user to a handy calculator. I tried it out on my rarely used car, a medium sized diesel estate which manages 40MPG (about 32MPG in the USA). Apparently, over the lifetime of a new set of Michelin replacement tyres, I could prevent 202kg of carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere.

Fab! So, let’s look at this a little closer; first, pausing for another commercial break…

You see, I don’t even have to leave my car at home to be environmentally friendly – according to the wording of the advert, it is just as good to drive. Really?

That 202kg of carbon dioxide needs looking at carefully. According to the UK Vehicle Licencing Office my car emits about 170 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre, so that means that Michelin tyres allow me to drive for an extra 1200km (720 miles) without emitting any carbon dioxide. But go to the “REDUCE CO2 EMISSIONS” page, and you find that the per kilometre reduction in emissions is only 4%, which implies (a) the tyres last for 30,000km (that is utterly incredible) and (b) in order to get that 202kg saving I have to drive for 30,000km.

Let’s put that another way: Michelin are effectively saying — and are being pretty explicit about this — that it is environmentally fine to drive 30,000km in order to save the equivalent of only 1,200km of carbon emissions. That means that the remaining 28,800km (or 4.8 tonnes of carbon dioxide) has, in Michelin’s world, disappeared!

“Now you don’t have to leave your car at home to save fuel!”

There is almost nothing I can say to make this acceptable: that isn’t just greenwashing, it is a blatant lie! Maybe Michelin would care to explain how this remarkable advert ever came to see the light of day.

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.