I sometimes get the feeling I’m shooting fish in a barrel, writing this blog — not that I would ever shoot a fish — with the targets getting easier and easier to pick off. This is never so true as with the “environmental” charities that huddle up, all cosily, with business in the vain attempt to get them to play nicely.

They really don’t get it — business doesn’t want to “play nicely”, business wants to do business, and will not do business if it doesn’t make a profit. In order to make a profit the business must get more more out of a process than it puts in; and if you are a manufacturer or a producer of raw materials then that extra either comes from cheap labour or the extraction of something you didn’t have before — like oil or timber. If you are a retailer or an investment bank, the profit you gain is dependent on selling something for a greater value than you bought it — you are dependent on the manufacturer or producer of raw materials having something you can resell at a profit, so they must reduce their costs as much as possible. In order for these costs to be reduced they must cut corners, so they treat workers badly; pollute the land, water and atmosphere; use their commercial muscle to ensure they don’t have legislation to comply with…and so on. If you are an advertiser or PR company, your job is to make all these companies look good.

In short, business is unsustainable, at all levels.

If you are the Nature Conservancy, one of the largest and most respected environmental charities in the world, then it would make sense not to work with profit making businesses, especially not the most damaging of them…you know, companies like Alcoa, BP and Cargill — really, really bad companies.

Actually, if you are the Nature Conservancy, you say the following:

The Nature Conservancy works with the business community to find common ground between conservation and industry. We accept their financial and land donations, engage in cause-related marketing, foster direct conservation action, and participate in event sponsorship.

As you can see, they really think there is common ground between business and conservation, and will happily provide branding for any company that pretends they are doing good things. They are good enough to provide a list of these companies — here are some really nasty ones:

Alcoa — massive polluter and consumer of energy
American Electric Power — coal burning (73%) electricity producer
Bank of America — will invest in anything, regardless of impact
BP — oil giant and greenwasher supreme
Cargill — food giant, GMO user on massive scale
Caterpillar — provides military equipment to repressive regimes

And many more, including Monsanto, Proctor & Gamble and Georgia-Pacific. All of the nasty companies The Nature Conservancy have partnered with continue to be nasty — but look great, because of their links with TNC.

In fact the history of the Nature Conservancy shows that they were only able to grow as they did in the 1960s because of a cash injection from Ford Motors, which allowed them to employ an IBM executive as their first President. Now please humour me and read this web page about their cosy relationship with General Motors, and tell me if I am being paranoid:

http://www.nature.org/joinanddonate/corporatepartnerships/partnership/generalmotors.html

I think I need to lie down…

 

On the day China was announced as the world’s biggest emitter of carbon dioxide* (well, about as official as we can get at the moment) Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of the UK announced that he was going to focus on just one thing — and I’m not surprised considering how important this thing is:

“Next month’s University of California report warns that unless China radically changes its energy policies, its increases in greenhouse gases will be several times larger than the cuts in emissions being made by rich nations under the Kyoto Protocol.”

Sorry? Did I get that wrong? Oh, it isn’t the changing global climate — the event that now guarantees to cause irreversible ecological damage that will affect us dramatically — that Gordon Brown is focusing on; it is the economic climate. Silly me. I do forget sometimes that if we don’t all go to the shops to buy piles of crap, fly off on sunny vacations and keep using more and more natural resources to ensure that the global economy keeps on growing then we are doomed! Doomed to what, exactly?

Here’s what Gordon actually said:

“Every day that I wake up is about keeping this economy moving forward, keeping stability in the economy and keeping growth…we will do everything in our power to keep the economy moving forward”

To everyone who has an inkling of knowledge about both ecology and economics, this statement reeks of a complete disregard for climatic stability, indeed you could just substitute “global warming” for “economy” and you would get a pretty accurate rendition of what all Western governments, and those non-Western governments that have adopted the growth-lust of the West, are doing to the planet:

“The problem is that growth has to come from somewhere, and it can either come from some artificially created value, such as property prices, which could collapse at any time, or some resource, such as oil, coal, cropland, rock or metal, that is continually being used at an increasing rate. In short, if companies do not accelerate their use of resources then the global economy will not be able to carry on as it is. The economy is hell-bent on consuming the Earth’s finite resources in order to survive.”

(from http://earth-blog.bravejournal.com/entry/17630)

Next time you hear Gordon Brown mention the environment, climate change or anything else vaguely green, just ignore him: he is just another cretin who thinks that money is more important than life.

---

*This is what I said in 2006: “China has overtaken the USA in absolute numbers of televisions and refrigerators, but with a population 4 times higher, the per capita use is still well below that of the USA for these, pretty representative, items. China’s total carbon emissions have just exceeded (as of 2006) those of the USA.”

I was having a bit of a browse yesterday looking for useful environmental groups that might help out with a project I am doing and stumbled across the World Environmental Organization. They don’t do things by halves, these guys, clearly the domain name www.world.org didn’t come cheap, and to proudly proclaim yourself as the World Environmental Organization, i.e. an organization that represents the environment of the world, must mean you have a truly global presence.

WEO don’t exactly say a lot about themselves: they seem to have just the one office, which is in Washington DC, and a board of directors that includes Jeff Gold as Chair. Jeff made lots of money from selling internet domains, particularly go.com and q.com, and he currently holds solar.org which is “A project of the World Environmental Organization”, and is also a showcase for GE Energy products. Now I don’t need to tell you what GE have done for the planet, I’ll let Corporate Watch do it for me. I wouldn’t let GE, or any of the other energy behemoths anywhere near my work.

What really pisses me off, though, is the list of sponsors which WEO shows on its site:

Eco-Partners ($5,000+)

GE Energy Ford Motor Company Viking

Platinum Sponsors ($1,000+)

Bosch Southwest Windpower Xantrex Grundfos Takagi SMA America Vermont Castings Trojan Battery Company Exeltech Samlex America

 

Like WWF, which I featured a while back, it seems that for a small stipend, and despite any history that company may have, they can be associated with an “environmental” organization (the World Environmental Organization, no less) and thus an extra layer of slippery green oil can be applied to their filthy, polluting bodies for the cost of a big corporate lunch.

And if having a list of highly dubious sponsors wasn’t enough, WEO (or rather, Jeff Gold) has gone on to trademark everything on the site: the logo, the domain and even the name; despite World Environmental Organization being a widely discussed global concept that could potentially be vital for overseeing the activities of the greenwashers that blight this planet.

As it is, WEO is a small, very worthy, East Coast USA based setup that really should learn to be a little more modest, and careful with the people it decides to do business with.

 

Bad Unsuitablog, having a go at the glorious reich, sorry US Air Force. I’m sure there are some good people in there, but it’s leadership that counts, so what is the leadership of the USAF saying about climate change:

“The Air Force will meet the law’s requirements”. That’s Air Force Assistant Secretary William Anderson actually pretending that the Air Force are subject to the law. It’s not exactly a glorious history — observing national, or international law isn’t exactly high on their list of strategic aims — and if you know anything about US law then you will know that the US military are exempt from all clean air legislation. And, anyway, what laws exist in the USA to prevent greenhouse gas emissions?

But I digress, the big thing here is that the US Air Force are planning to convert coal into jet fuel to stave off the need to import oil:

Air Force officials said the plants could help neutralize a national security threat by tapping into the country’s abundant coal reserves. And by offering itself as a partner in the Malmstrom plant, the Air Force hopes to prod Wall Street investors — nervous over coal’s role in climate change — to sink money into similar plants nationwide. “We’re going to be burning fossil fuels for a long time, and there’s three times as much coal in the ground as there are oil reserves,” said Air Force Assistant Secretary William Anderson. “Guess what? We’re going to burn coal.”

(from http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080322/ap_on_bi_ge/military_coal)

This, frankly, ludicrous suggestion would be more at home in The Onion, but as with all good satire it’s dangerously close to the truth, despite the best efforts of various scientists and Representatives to make a mockery of it. Bear in mind also that even if coal were used — along with its sky high cost in greenhouse gas emissions — it is going to start to tail off in the next couple of decades.

So what are the US Air Force going to be doing with all that lovely coal-based jet fuel? Probably patrolling the USA shooting at anyone who dares break the marshal law that will be in place when all the fuel runs out…

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.)

If I’m not here tomorrow, do not weep, I will have been struck down — in my disrespect — by Ching Hai, Supreme Master, and self-styled “God’s Direct Contact”. A mere lightning bolt will not be sufficient: I expect a plague of SUVs.

A few days ago I received an e-mail from Shaam Ven, presumably a follower of GDC (well, if the leader of the industrial West is GOP, then why not?) and a believer that any message of concern is a good message:

Hi.

I  read  about  your  website.  I  wanted  to  email  you  immediately  about  Supreme  Master  Ching  Hai’s  efforts  to  halt  global  warming.  Supreme  Master  Ching  Hai  is  a  God-Realized,  living,  enlightened  Master,  who  initiates  Truth  Seekers  into  the  Quan  Yin  meditation.  To  learn  more  about  Master  and  the  Quan  Yin  meditation,  please  go  to  www.godsdirectcontact.org  or  www.godsdirectcontact.com. 

Master’s  message  is  simple:  if  we  human  beings  don’t  take  steps  to  halt  global  warming  within  the  next  two  years,  after  that,  it  will  be  too  late  and  we  could  see  all  of  life  vanish  from  this  planet  by  the  year  2012.

The  fastest  way  to  stop  global  warming  is  to  become  a  vegan.  It  is  not  difficult  to  do  considering  all  the  veggie  food  out  there  that  tastes,  looks,  and  smells  exactly like  meat  and  seafood. 

Please  consider  going  to  one  of  the  above  websites,  click  on  the  red  SOS  link,  and  read  the  flyer  and  if  you  are  so  inclined,  please  put  this  flyer  on  your  website  or  a  link  to  one  of   the  above  websites.  Thank  you.

Shaam

As a vegetarian, and one of the first people to point out the above point about veganism — maybe Supreme Master read my article — then I’m all for this kind of message, regardless of the source. With my Greenwash Radar on, though, I scanned the site and it didn’t take long before I found some words worthy of Shell or Ford at their most hypocritical. Immediately I wrote back:

Dear Shaam

Thank you for this information. It is good to see the increased uptake of the most vital message for humanity – in pragmatic terms – by religious groups; that humans are changing the planet in a dangerous and potentially irreversible way.

This statement on your web site ensures that things will continue to get worse (http://godsdirectcontact.us/sm21/enews/www/123/pw3.htm):

“The more we develop this world, the more Heavens there will be. We will create a new Heaven. It is just like when we go to a very deserted land with no water or trees, and we begin to dig wells, and we plant trees, vegetables, etc. We make a useless wasteland become a fertile, green, beautiful place. Then we create a new park, a new garden or new living quarters that otherwise had not been there. It did not exist before we came. And from a lousy place, with all kinds of shrubs and thorny bushes growing all over, we make living quarters, a small paradise.”

“That’s how we better the world. Similarly, we will do it on a greater or larger scale. As we move along spiritually, we will move along in helping the world, in beautifying the environment and helping with the poor and the needy. We have to help the whole world, not only one nation. And that is our vision of the future.”

In other words, “The changes humans make to the world are better than those which nature bestows on the planet.”

I find the use of the phrases “useless wasteland” and “lousy place” abhorrent.

The mixture of sensible science (meat production produces excessive greenhouse gases), and bizarre unfounded statements (“if we poison our systems with intoxicating things or impure foods such as meat or animal products, then the cells of the body and the brain will also become contaminated and confused”) ensures that any followers of your ideas will remain in a confused state.

Regards

Keith Farnish

Surprisingly I have yet to receive a response, so I have to assume that it came as a bit of a surprise :-)

And what about that picture of her glowing Supreme Master-ness? Did God put those highlights in (she was originally dark haired) to make her look even more ethereal? Were they done at the heavenly hairdressers? I demand answers.

As I reported back in February, the Government of Alberta, Canada, have gone to great pains to pretend they are making progress on greenhouse gas emissions they try to demonstrate by using the completely discredited Carbon / Greenhouse Gas Intensity statistic. They still are. A simple analysis showed that Alberta’s emissions were going through the roof, and now this rise has been officially confirmed in an e-mail from Environment Minister, Rob Renner which I reproduce in full here*:

Premier Ed Stelmach has forwarded a copy of your recent letter regarding Alberta’s greenhouse gas intensity.  I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Government of Alberta (GoA).

Alberta has been using emissions intensity as a standard of measurement for a number of years.  Overall emissions in Alberta are rising, partly as a result of increasing development in the oil sands and partly as a result of increasing demand worldwide for petroleum products.  Emissions intensity shows that while our economy continues to rise, the emissions per unit of economic output are decreasing.  This demonstrates that production is becoming more efficient.

The GoA recognizes that global climate change is real and that progressive, immediate action is required to effectively respond to this important issue.  The GoA remains committed to doing our fair share to reduce emissions while at the same time ensuring that our efforts are practical, achievable and allow for continued economic prosperity in the province.

Alberta was the first jurisdiction in Canada to develop a comprehensive plan to address climate change and the first Province to pass climate change specific legislation, which requires large industrial emitters to reduce their emissions.

Developed after extensive consultations with Albertans, Alberta’s 2008 Climate Change Strategy outlines the framework that ensures the GoA remains at the forefront of this issue, focusing our efforts on those opportunities that can deliver real, meaningful reductions.  Our strategy will achieve real reductions that will be achieved over the short (2010), medium (2020) and long-terms (2050). The reductions will be realized through actions in the areas of carbon capture and storage [Ed: 70% of the total], conserving and using energy efficiently and greening energy production.

The GoA recognizes there is a need to reduce emissions; however, we cannot immediately stop emissions without severe disruption to our economy, which is also a major driver for national growth.  The GoA believe the long-term nature of the strategy is the key to its success. By beginning now to reduce the rate of emissions, we will ensure that significant and lasting reductions will occur.  The plan is focused on being practical and achievable, as well as encouraging innovation in Alberta industry.  The strategy also commits us to develop a more specific climate change adaptation strategy to ensure that we minimize our risks to the real impacts of a changing climate.  This is a realistic approach for our province.

The GoA is on a path to ensuring meaningful reductions through fundamental shifts in how we develop and use Alberta’s energy resources in ways that respond to the full range of needs of our customers across North America.  The GoA will continue to work with our partners in industry, with other governments, including coordination with federal efforts, and all stakeholders, to put in place the technologies that will reduce emissions in ways that maintain the quality of life Albertans enjoy.

If you would like further information on the strategy, I encourage you to visit the GoA’s website at: www.alberta.ca.

Sincerely,

Rob Renner
Minister of Environment

c.c. Hon. Ed Stelmach
Premier

After some reflection about the complete lack of conviction in Alberta’s desire to reduce its global emissions contribution, I sent this reply which, again, I reproduce in full:

Dear Rob

I’m afraid this is the kind of response that makes me understand why governments are not to be trusted to deal with the climate crisis –  I presume you have seen the latest news about the West Antarctic ice sheet; or perhaps you were distracted by the promise of new economic “opportunities” when the ice is all gone?

“The GoA recognizes there is a need to reduce emissions; however, we cannot immediately stop emissions without severe disruption to our economy, which is also a major driver for national growth.” No one is asking for an immediate cessation of emissions – this is what is known as a “straw man” argument: making an absurd suggestion in the face of a reasonable one in order to divert the attention from the reasonable suggestion. I wouldn’t expect anything else from a politician.

The reasonable suggestion is a year-on-year 10% reduction in emissions, in concert with a movement away from the hierarchical growth-driven economy that guarantees environmental catastrophe.

I think you will find this helpful:

http://earth-blog.bravejournal.com/entry/17630 [link to now defunct article]

Kind regards

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

Remember, if it smells like hypocrisy, it probably is.

(*The disclaimer reads: “If you are not the named  addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.” I was the named addressee.)

I tend to rely on my instincts a lot. When I saw an advert linking Procter & Gamble with a regional water authority in the newspaper this week I was concerned. I mentioned instinct, and here’s why: the advert didn’t mention P&G, instead it talked about a product called Pur — a water purification device that is apparently saving lives all around the world and could be good for the consumer too. A quick search found the P&G link, and lots of web sites talking about the work P&G are doing in raising awareness of water borne diseases, and supplying purification packs to countries like Kenya.

“Much of their water is filled with pollutants, bacteria, parasites, and viruses. With every drink, children and adults face the risk of illnesses, such as severe diarrhea, which can result in death.

“The introduction of the Pur Purifier of Water gives hope by helping transform contaminated water into clean drinking water. Watching the Pur Purifier of Water work seems almost magical. This innovative method has dramatically reduced contaminated drinking-water-related illnesses, thereby saving the lives of many children worldwide.”

All well and good — water filtration is a potential life saver (though the poor state of water supplies in poor nations owes almost everything to human damage and mismanagement than any natural abberation) and is definitely more environmentally friendly than bottled water. But I can’t get over the idea of Proctor & Gamble as water philanthropists.

For a start, here is a roll of some of P&G’s best selling products:

Always feminine hygiene products
Ariel washing powder/liquid
Bounty paper towels
Cascade dishwasher detergent
Cheer laundry detergent
Dawn dishwashing detergent
Downy/Lenor fabric softener
Dreft laundry detergent
Head & Shoulders shampoo
Fairy dishwashing liquid
Joy dishwashing liquid
Luvs disposable diapers
Pampers disposable diapers
Tampax tampons
Tide laundry detergent 

I’m not quite sure how much of this stuff is annually put into the water supplies of the world, but to take the example of Ariel —  a “billion dollar brand” which, incidentally, is not sold in the USA due to its historically high phosphorus (brightener) content — this detergent contains benzene based brighteners, which are classified as “toxic to not harmful” (i.e. they can be toxic) to fish, algae and crustaceans. P&G confidently state “they are highly removed by wastewater treatment, which results in very low concentrations that will not adversely affect organisms in the environment.” Except, from their own data, primary wastewater treatment only removes 30-55% of toxic materials — primary wastewater treatment is a relative luxury in many parts of the world; goodness knows what is left behind in untreated sewage.

Tampax and Always are also Billion Dollar Brands, the detritus of which litters the beaches of the world providing interesting playthings for children. They are extremely common items to find in all coastal environments. Tampax applicators have been found in the maws of seabirds

The common link between sanitary protection and detergents here is that P&G seem to be depending on the good will of the public and the waste removal systems in order to reduce the impact of the products they sell in such huge numbers. Where are the totally biodegradable detergents? Where are the sanitary products that leave no traces in the water? With production comes responsibility: you cannot make billions of dollars out of a selling a heavily marketed product and then say, “It’s not our problem.” It really doesn’t seem as though Procter & Gamble are taking their responsibilities seriously.

Procter & Gamble are enthusiastic purveyors of a product that creates safe water for millions; yet they are also, and primarily, purveyors of multiple products sold to billions of people, that help turn seas, rivers and groundwater into a toxic, litter-strewn miasma.

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.

Americans for Balanced Energy Choices: it sounds sensible enough, balancing the different kinds of energy with the need to massively reduce the amount of energy consumed. Except that ABEC is doing nothing of the sort. Like the Oregon Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Heartland Institute (notice that they are all “institutes”, a nice homely monicker, but also rather close to “institution”) before it, Americans for Balanced Energy Choices is a very public front for the coal industry.

The idea of such setups is to provide a friendly face for something that is inherently unfriendly: the coal industry in the USA is responsible for 36 percent of all national carbon emissions. This has been the same since 1990, despite the headline claims that the coal industry is getting cleaner – and that is precisely why I have changed the image above from the ABEC website to read 0.0% CLEANER rather than the absurd 70% CLEANER on the original front page. You can find out more about their claim here.

Except you can’t, because they don’t justify the “70% cleaner” claim in any way: maybe it’s sulphur dioxide, maybe it’s sooty ash, maybe it’s something else – it most certainly isn’t carbon dioxide, the pollutant that really matters!

So, who are these Americans who want “balanced energy choices”. Do I have to spell it out?

AMEREN Corporation, American Electric Power, Arch Coal, Inc., Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation, Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc., Basin Electric Power Cooperative, BHP Billiton, Buckeye Industrial Mining Co., Buckeye Power, Inc.,Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp., CONSOL Energy Inc., CSX Corp., Detroit Edison, Duke Energy, First Energy Corporation, Foundation Coal Corp., Hoosier Energy, Norfolk Southern Co., Peabody Energy Corp., Southern Co. , Tri-state Generation & Transmission Assn. Inc., Union Pacific Railroad, Western Farmers Electric Cooperative.

Hmmm, wonder what all of these companies have in common?

ABEC is what is known as an “Astroturf”:

Campaigns & Elections magazine defines astroturf as a “grassroots program that involves the instant manufacturing of public support for a point of view in which either uninformed activists are recruited or means of deception are used to recruit them.” Journalist William Greider has coined his own term to describe corporate grassroots organizing. He calls it “democracy for hire.”

(from Sourcewatch)

I urge you to explore these Astroturfs when you find them: you can have great fun working out what they don’t say. As for ABEC — they are downright dangerous, and deserve every bad-mouthing they get.