Oh, where to start on the horrors of oil sands extraction, as both a local and a global destroyer of environments? 155,000 barrels of oil a day, according to Shell’s proud boast. A filthy fuel source that requires twice as much water to steam off the oil, as the oil itself. An industrial process that is guaranteed to leach and creep tarry residues into the soil, the rivers, the skins of animals, human and non-human alike. A momentous drive to make Canada the second largest producer of oil in the world, simply to ensure that north America can continue driving up carbon dioxide levels in sustaining a “lifestyle”.

This is all fact. Now for the fiction.

“For us, as a company, the scientific debate about climate change is over. The debate now is about what we can do about it. Businesses, like ours, should turn CO2 management into a business opportunity and lead the search for responsible ways to manage CO2, use energy more efficiently and provide the extra energy the world needs to grow. But that also requires concerted action by governments to create the long-term, market-based policies needed to make it worthwhile to invest in energy efficiency, CO2 mitigation and lower carbon fuels. With fossil fuel use and CO2 levels continuing to grow fast, there is no time to lose.”

This quote by Jeroen van der Veer, Shell’s global Chief Executive is bullshit of the highest order. Shell’s raison d’etre, as a corporation, is to make money, and it does that by selling oil. It convinces people that selling oil is necessary by using phrases like “provide the extra energy the world needs to grow”. Excuse me? Exactly how is filling the biosphere and the atmosphere with pollutants going to help the world “grow”?

Oh, I see! You mean, help the pockets and the bank balances of the already rich and powerful grow, for the mere inconvenience of extinguishing life on Earth.

I have left the most extraordinary quote until the end, though. This comes from Shell Canada’s web site. It says: “Environmentally, in 2004 the AOSP became the first oil sands operation to have its environmental management system certified under ISO 14001.” Well done, Shell. You have succeeded in making ISO 14001 the most irresponsible, hypocritical international standard in existance.

You can be sure of Shell.

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

Dear Live Earth Press Room

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

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

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

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

Yours

Keith Farnish
www.theearthblog.org

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

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

PHILIPS : Major electronics manufacturer.

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

ABSOLUT : Vodka giant, and advertising masters.

ESURANCE : Motor insurance company.

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

I just don’t understand it. National Geographic Magazine has some fantastic environmental articles, and its environmental credentials as regards to editorial objectiveness and openness are second to none. It’s just a shame that no one at NG told the advertising department this.

Open any edition of National Geographic and you will find a host of advertisements promoting big cars, big trucks, airlines and long-haul holidays. This is a magazine that pushes carbon consumption harder that any other.

And then you go to their web site and find this:

 “From saving forest canopies to forging elephant corridors, the [National Geographic] Conservation Trust is dedicated to preservation around the globe.”

Very good. And this is just one of their many initiatives. They have many more initiatives on the advertising side, proudly boasting in their Sales Kit:

“National Geographic magazine enjoys an intensely loyal readership with some of the most influential consumers in the world. As opinion leaders, they are affluent, well educated, and professional – and have discretionary income to purchase quality products and services.” (my emphasis)

So, National Geographic readers, you are loyal, you are powerful and you are rich, and that’s why you will put up with and respond to hoards of adverts for products that are destroying the Earth. Well, here’s one former reader who won’t be buying National Geographic again. Good riddance.

So I’m browsing the Guardian web site, looking for this and that, and I come across this little nugget. Someone (I’m not sure they have really as it’s really an advert) has asked those nice people at British Gas how to save energy. “Of course!” BG cry, “We can save you money!”

“But that’s not what I wanted,” says imaginary Stewert Hancock, “I wanted to save energy.

“Look at all the money you can save, Mr Hancock. Money, money, money! Doesn’t that sound nice?”

“I only wanted to make my children happy.”

How typical of British Gas (and foolish of The Guardian’s Editors) to turn something that should be an altruistic activity into ways of saving money. This is an absolute rock-solid indication of how BG would never dent its bottom line by allowing people to question the system that ensures their shareholders are kept in profit.

If British Gas were serious about saving the planet then their bottom line would be that such energy saving actions should be carried out because the planet is being killed by our activities; but it all comes down to money. Money that ensures that, if British Gas can continue to look good enough then they can continue trading rather than having their motives questioned deeply by the public who have been made blind to the greenwash being thrown over them by energy companies.

Youngs, a huge producer of seafood, are asking people to make fish their Christmas dinner. They want to look like a sustainable company too. Their policy on emissions goes like this:

“We are acutely aware of wider environmental concerns, most particularly the impact of emissions which contribute to global warming. We have therefore begun a detailed programme of initiatives designed to drive down the direct CO2 footprint of our business, as well as making this a priority throughout our supply chain, and with our business partners.”

So, The Unsuitablog congratulates them on managing to produce an item of food caught near to the UK, and getting to UK shops 17,000 miles later:

The whole story can be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7150834.stm. Thanks BBC!

How can Youngs say it is more environmentally friendly to eat up so many food miles? Pay people in Thailand crap wages to peel prawns by hand, that’s how. Of course you wouldn’t catch them asking people in the UK to do things by hand, would you ;-)

Yes, Tesco want to make sure you are saving plastic bags, so offer you loyalty points each time to reuse your own. Well done Tesco! Now let’s see what else you can get with your Clubcard…

Superb. Not a hint of hypocrisy here. Fly, fly, fly, with Tesco.

http://www.tesco.com/clubcard/deals/product.aspx?R=236