I have a lot more time for small companies than big ones; one reason is that they do not generally conform to a corporate aspiration of global dominance (although I suppose the owner might have such dreams), they exist to serve a much smaller market and therefore are far more receptive to positive change. There is no chance of a corporation ever being sustainable, but there is every chance of a small company becoming something that can potentially be sustainable: it has to get rid of the profit motive before it can actually be sustainable in any sense.

Given that, it does make me extremely frustrated, not to say angry, when a very small business that says it is making efforts to be sustainable decides to choose only one facet of sustainability, makes a really big deal of it, and ignores the bigger picture. In effect it is choosing its ethics to suit a particular image: it is greenwashing, however innocuous that may seem.

One example I came across recently (and I bet you can thing of lots of them) is a very small American retailer of baby products. I won’t name them, because they are just one of many, and there are far larger baby product retailers who do far worse things — this is just to illustrate a point. This company have, as their Unique Selling Point (USP) the use of “non-toxic” materials:

While searching for safe feeding gear, I realized how limited the information was and how few options were available. What started as a growing awareness of toxic plastics, became a mission to care for my own children and newborn nephews. A highly motivated search team grew out of my concerned family members and now we work together to find the highest quality non-toxic baby care products for our children and yours.

I then came across an item on their web site which must have been in response to the concerns of a fairly large number of people, otherwise it wouldn’t have been displayed quite so prominently. This item explained why the vast majority of their products were made in China, emphasising that the products were no less safe for that, and still remained “non toxic”. I thought about this for a bit and, basically because I realised they were digging a hole for themselves, sent them this email:

I was very interested in your statement about Chinese made products, and very disappointed indeed upon reading it. I take it from what you say, that the only factor in you stocking a product is that it is toxin free, but does that really imply that you don’t care at all about the toxins that are created in the supply chain, and the fate of the sweatshop workers in the manufacturing zones where your products are created? Are you aware of the appalling state of health amongst children whose surroundings have been blighted by the runaway expansion of industrialization in the Chinese development zones? Are you aware that 90% of China’s electricity (which makes your products) is produced using high-sulphur coal, meaning that Chinese electricity produces around 40% more carbon dioxide than American electricity and produces vast quantities of toxic ground level gas (Mexican electricity is nearly as bad, being based around coal and fuel-oil, in case you were thinking of going there for your cheap imports)?

It may seem that you can turn a blind eye by thinking “at least the end-product is safe”, but a major reason the Earth is in the perilous state it is in, is that we have learnt to conveniently ignore whatever we cannot see; globalization has made this so easy. Just keep using your “non toxic” products, so long as you forget about the people at the other end of the supply chain, dying to make them.

The response was disappointing to say the least, and underlined my concerns: they basically washed their hands of the bigger ethical concerns, blaming the USA chemical industry and globalization for everything:

While I agree with some of the statements that you’ve made about the supply chain of products made in China. It always interesting to me how much brainwashing that we employ in the US. Do you really think that the chemicals are really made overseas? Most of the toxic chemicals are actually made in the US. In fact, we are producing chemicals that have been banned by every country on the globe and can’t even export some of our products to Mexico, which most people view as a third-world country. There is zero question that a world-wide clean up in necessary and we recommend it and wholly embrace it…

Which didn’t address my concerns at all. What about slave labour? What about carbon emissions? What about China’s huge, unregulated chemical industry (does he not realise)? Sadly it comes down to that USP again: we sell “non toxic” products, that what we do, and if we have to do it at the expense of other ethical concerns then that’s not our problem!

You cannot pick and choose your ethics, however passionate you feek about something: things don’t go away if you ignore them, and often they keep getting worse.

“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/

Wow! Now here’s a challenge: you are the head of a huge oil company in a world of rising temperatures, falling profits and peak oil, and somehow you have to keep three entirely different and contrary balls in the air at the same time:

1) Your company exists to make profit; if you don’t make a profit then your shareholders will go elsewhere, your company will fail and you will be out of a job, as well as a great deal of once valuable share options – you have to be profitable;

2) The lifeblood of your industry – oil – is running out, not just a bit, but really running out, as demand increases, reserves peter out and new industrial powerful nations try to buy what is left from your rivals – you have to find oil;

3) The climate is changing and you are partly responsible, in fact you and your cohorts in the oil industry are most definitely responsible for a sizeable chunk of both the heating of the Earth and its avoidable destruction; your reputation is getting dirtier by the hour – you need to look green

Tough, isn’t it? The temptation is to say, “Oh, forget it, it’s only money, we can do things another way!” But you won’t because there is no such thing as only money: money is everything, it is what makes you what you are, it defines your place in civilization and no crap about the environment or peak oil is going to stop that!

The great thing is, there is some oil left, but it’s damn hard to get to, and horrifically dirty – easily as dirty as coal. It’s called Oil Sands, or Tar Sands (far more accurate). Uh-oh! We seem to have made a bit of a mess with our initial foray into this venture – we need a nice little euphemism to change the public’s perception…

Difficult Oil.

That sounds nicer – it’s amost as though the public need to help us with our problem; like we need some sympathy with our plight – gosh, this “Difficult Oil” is really important, can we rely on your support to get it out of the ground?

A nice video, that’s the ticket:

Click to open in new window…

[Scene: Shell Man and Journalist driving through Indonesian (?) paddy field in 4 wheel drive]

(The video then goes through a convoluted story of Shell Man and his estranged son (a nice domestic touch) leading to the discovery of bendy pipes to drill oil.)

Nice!

And we all love Shell for making sure we have oil for another generation. What a pity they don’t mention the millions of people and the countless species that will be killed in their insatiable thirst for oil and money; the irreversible global climatic change that will result from their profit greed; the twisted mess of a planet that we will end up with if Shell are allowed to carry on lying to us.

Don’t believe the bullshit: Shell are only doing it for the money!

Corporations, basically, run the world: what they do influences billions of people, not just in terms of the environmental impact of their activities, but in making people think that the corporate way is the best way. It’s not quite that simple — corporations are an intrinsic part of the greater cultural behemoth that is known as Industrial Civilization; they are the engines that consume the resources and the humans that are too easily taken in by their lies — and the people who say “yes” to the corporations become part of that machine, and as responsible for the ills of the Earth as anyone else.

But, corporations are still the engines, and when they say, “Do it!” then it happens. When they say they are going to set greenhouse gas targets, then they will get what they want, on their own terms, because you trust them.

A coalition of 99 companies is asking political leaders to set targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions and to establish a global carbon market.

The business leaders hope their ideas will feed through the G8 into the series of UN climate meetings that are aiming to produce a successor to the Kyoto Protocol when its current targets expire in 2012.

(from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7464517.stm)

Have you seen the list of companies, and their demands? Why not read it for yourself.

This is the crux of the policy:

The framework should respect the prerogative of national governments to employ the domestic policies best suited to their own national circumstances. It should encourage all clean technology options to be considered. It should be pragmatic and focus on the most cost-effective emissions abatement possibilities in the short run, particularly in energy efficiency and forest conservation. It should stimulate the international market for products and services that can help the economy adapt to those impacts of climate change that now cannot be avoided. It should be designed as a fair and flexible, international policy framework that can evolve and grow in the long run, stimulating ever wider and more meaningful participation by countries and industries.

It doesn’t take a genius to see the way that the real imperative to remove the sources of anthropogenic global warming and let the Earth return to a state by which it can heal itself has been thrown out in place of lily-livered demands to stimulate product demand and carry on business as usual in every way possible. Screw dealing with the cause of the problem; let’s make a whole new economy out of it!

The devil is in the detail, and the detail is very interesting…

– All major economies, including developing ones such as China and India, should be included in the post-Kyoto deal, with richer countries committing to deeper and earlier emissions reduction. (The nice, logical lead-in)

– Governments should aspire to halve global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 (Less than even the IPCC are demanding, and it’s only an “aspiration”)

– Governments and businesses should urgently explore bottom-up approaches to reducing emissions (Meaning what, exactly?)

– A global carbon trading system should be established as soon as possible (This is the real target! Corporation love trading energy. This is a massive get out from action.)

– Emissions caps should be applied flexibly across industry, with some sectors allowed leeway to preserve competitiveness. (What! So what exactly is the global economy competing with? This is a massive get out as well.)

But it’s no surprise when you read the names of the corporations on the Steering Board:

Alain J. P. Belda, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Alcoa, USA (Metals)
Martin J. Sullivan, President and Chief Executive Officer, American International Group (AIG), USA (Finance)
Michael R. Splinter, President and Chief Executive Officer, Applied Materials, USA (Manufacturing)
Oleg V. Deripaska, Chairman, Supervisory Board, Basic Element Company, Russian Federation (Energy, Metals, Construction, Aviation)
Willie Walsh, Chief Executive Officer, British Airways Plc, United Kingdom (Aviation)
Josef Ackermann, Chief Executive Officer, Deutsche Bank AG, Germany (Finance)
James E. Rogers, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Duke Energy Corporation, USA (Energy Generation)
Pierre Gadonneix, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Electricité de France, France (Energy Generation)
Phirwa Jacob Maroga, Chief Executive, Eskom, South Africa (Energy Generation)
Vyatcheslav Sinyugin, Chief Executive Officer, JCS RusHydro, Russian Federation (Energy Generation)
José Sergio Gabrielli de Azevedo, President and Chief Executive Officer, Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobras, Brazil (Oil)
Jeroen Van der Veer, Chief Executive Officer, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Netherlands (Oil)
Solomon D. Trujillo, Chief Executive Officer, Telstra Corporation, Australia (Telecommunications)
Peter Bakker, Chief Executive Officer, TNT NV, Netherlands (Global Distribution)
Tsunehisa Katsumata, President, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), Japan (Energy Generation)
Lars G. Josefsson, President and Chief Executive Officer, Vattenfall AB, Sweden (Energy Generation)

All but two of these companies have a huge amount to gain from carbon trading, but most importantly, they are setting the agenda before anyone else gets a look in. As I said, the corporations always get what they want, and this will be no exception.

It’s a good thing we can see through it all, and are doing our best to bring down Industrial Civilization: aren’t we?

Here’s one for everyone who works for a company: that’ll be just about everyone who’s reading this, I guess (and, while possibly stating the obvious, the last year since leaving the corporate machine has been the best year of my life).

No doubt you will have heard about your company driving forwards with Corporate Social Responsibility, Environmental Policies, Green Certification and any other mixture of one or more “green” word along with a “serious” word to suggest how serious the company is. I want you to take a long, hard look at the policies that your company has produced, and see if you notice anything odd about them. Here’s my guess:

Not one of the policies will, in any way, try to undercut that company’s bottom line.

Ok, it seems pretty obvious that companies exist to make money — more than that, they exist to make a profit, and keep growing so that the shareholders or owners can get richer. In short, company “environmental” policies are not worth the paper they are written on, or the bytes they occupy, because the company is a business: it exists to consume resources at an ever increasing rate; whether those resources are coal, oil, fish, metal, land, trees, water, people…whatever the company uses to ensure its continued growth.

Here are a few examples:

ExxonMobil

It is our policy to conduct our business in a manner that is compatible with the balanced environmental and economic needs of the communities in which we operate. We are committed to continuous efforts to improve environmental performance throughout our operations worldwide.

(from http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/community_ccr_envpolicy.aspx)

JP Morgan

This is a big policy, but you can get an idea from this…

Private equity investments

Our private equity divisions conduct an environmental review as part of their investment decision process for direct investments in companies in environmentally sensitive industries. The review process analyses our prospective portfolio companies’ compliance with applicable environmental laws, regulations and international norms. The environmental review process is an integral part of our private equity area’s thorough due diligence review of companies and their management.

Once an investment is made, through their membership on a portfolio company’s board of directors, our private equity divisions monitor their portfolio company’s operations with respect to environmental compliance issues.

(from http://www.jpmorgan.com/pages/jpmc/community/env/policy/risk)

EDF Energy

We think continual environmental improvement is as important as any other business objective. We’ve implemented ISO 14001 Environmental Management Systems in many of our power plants to help achieve this.

As we use coal and gas to produce electricity in this country, any changes we make will make a big difference to the UK’s carbon footprint. We know that millions depend on us to provide reliable, affordable energy. For this we need a diverse range of energy sources, including renewables and nuclear power. We also provide ways for our customers to play their part too. Using energy more efficiently is the surest way to reduce costs to our customers and to the planet.

(from http://www.edfenergy.com/about-us/energy-generation/environmental-policy/index.shtml)

And here’s a cracker, from Weyerhaeuser:

It is Weyerhaeuser’s core policy to be responsible stewards of the environment wherever we do business. We will practice sustainable forestry, set and meet goals to reduce pollution, conserve natural resources and energy, and continually improve our environmental performance.

All employees and leaders worldwide are accountable for managing and operating our businesses to:

– Comply with all applicable environmental laws.
– Follow company environmental standards.
– Meet other external requirements to which the company commits.

Business activities will be conducted to:

– Employ environmental management systems to achieve company expectations.
– Manage the environmental impacts of our business activities and products, including innovative and advanced technology solutions.
– Promote environmental laws, policies and regulations that are based on sound science and that incorporate incentive-based approaches to improve environmental performance.
– Adopt company standards to protect the environment.
– Manage forestlands for the sustainable production of wood while protecting water quality; fish and wildlife habitat; soil productivity; and cultural, historical and aesthetic values.
– Audit compliance with environmental laws, policies, regulations and company requirements.
– Resolve noncompliance conditions promptly, including curtailing operations when necessary to protect human health and the environment.
– Track and publicly report on our environmental performance.

(from http://www.weyerhaeuser.com/Sustainability/EnvironmentalPolicy)

What do you think? On the surface, they suggest the companies are committed to being good global stewards, but read again and it is clear that this is just business as usual:

– A company that commits to abide by environmental regulations is just saying that it doesn’t fancy breaking the law — even though it is the companies themselves that are responsible for shaping most of the laws through their lobbying work.

– A company that says they are “working towards” something can say this forever, and still look good.

– A company that talks about “sustainability” is actually referring to balancing economic and environmental requirements in their own terms. The only true definition of sustainability (leaving things in no worse a state than they were when you started) is not enshrined in any law or any company policy.

– A company that advises others on their environmental impact does not have to take responsibility for outcome of their advice: it is a way of passing the buck.

– A company that says that economic and environmental needs can be balanced is on suicide watch.

Feel free to add your own, and let me know what kinds of Policy Greenwashing your company is taking part in by contacting news@unsuitablog.com — so long as you ask then I won’t say where I got the information from.

The largest mining company in the world isn’t, by definition, ever going to be a cosy environmental partner; more of a partner who regularly stabs you in the face with a sharp instrument to remind you that they are, indeed, the daddy, and you are just a lowly human. BHP Billiton turned over $47.5 billion in 2007, and made a profit in excess of $13 billion – more than enough, you would think, to take a serious look at their activities and use their money (a la Stern) to replant, say, the entire Amazon Rainforest.

But no, as a company they really are the essence of corporate destructiveness: for example, having exposed thousands of indigenous tripal people in Papua New Guinea to thousands of tonnes of polluted “tailings” (mine waste, to you and me) they tried to cut and run, despite admitting that the output of the Ok Ted mine was an environmental disaster. Their destructive operations are spread around the world, and where BHP Billiton go, they leave a trail of toxic waste, along with diseased humans and degraded habitats in their wake.

Like all destructive companies, BHP Billiton are engaging in some striking greenwash: in fact they have just agreed a new Climate Change Policy, which is not surprising considering their operations emit nearly 52 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent into the atmosphere every year (that’s about the same as Denmark – yes, the entire country!) It’s a pity they have entirely failed to commit to any reductions in greenhouse gases at all. Exactly what kind of Climate Change Policy is this? One that ensures the climate will change, I suppose.

And now, BHP Billiton are proudly sponsoring the Beijing Olympics. This is one olympic games that, as I have written, is threatening to become the most notorious in history, and with BHP Billiton as a key sponsor of the Olympic Organizing Committee, it will only get worse.

I wonder why a mining company would want to be part of a global event taking part in a country that uses more coal and concrete than any other nation on Earth. I wonder.

When an energy company, especially one that also generates electricity, urges its customers to use less of its product then my heckles are immediately up. One or two energy companies – the small ones, mind – see being environmentally friendlier as good sense, not just from a business point of view; but it’s the big ones, Duke Energy, RWE Group, BG, EDF Energy, who really make me suspicious when they talk of “saving energy”.

To put things in a nutshell, some companies are being forced to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions as part of energy trading schemes the countries they operate in have signed up to. Trading greenhouse gases is not something I advocate – it just pushes the pollution somewhere else, and merely incorporates something that should be a global right – namely the right not to have your environment destroyed. The same companies also have to be seen to be doing the “right thing”, after all, who wants to be seen as a big polluter in a dying world?

But the trick is not to actually do anything useful, but instead merely to seem to be doing something useful. Like encouraging your customers to save energy. In the case of EDF Energy, the vast majority of their UK electricity comes from coal, despite what they imply on their web site. They have two 2GW coal-fired stations here and here. They also have a scheme which is apparently intended to encourage customers to reduce their emissions. Here’s how it works:

1) Use EDF Energy’s products for a year and record your energy usage through billing.
2) Whoops, first you have to be a Nectar Card holder. Nectar is a reward card, that allows participating companies to know everything about your buying habits.
3) When your year has finished, you stay with EDF Energy for another year and record your energy use through billing.
4) After that year, if you have reduced your energy consumption at all, even by just one unit, then you get lots of Nectar Points.
5) If you reduce your energy consumption by 50% then you get no more rewards than if you hardly reduce your consumption at all.

The benefit to the customer is…hmm! not really sure here. Oh, yes, 1000 Nectar Points. I tried to find out what you can get for 1000 Nectar Points, and really struggled – even The Da Vinci Code costs 1,700 points. I think you get £5 off at Sainsburys for all your hard work. Well done!

The benefit to EDF Energy is:

1) They have a guaranteed customer for 2 years, which is vital in a dynamic market.
2) They don’t lose on energy costs because the customer only has to reduce consumption by 1 unit
3) They get to sell information about you to 3rd parties. I’m not lying, this is in their terms and conditions:

“By registering and accepting these Rules, you are also agreeing to allow EDF Energy to use, disclose and share with other relevant companies (including LMUK) all information relating to you which is reasonably required for the purposes of registering you, managing and properly operating this Scheme” (from https://www.edfenergy.com/readreducereward/showTermsAndConditions.do)

So, do EDF really care about reducing greenhouse gases?

What do you think?

I think by now everyone in the UK has heard of the £1.99 whole chicken being sold in Tesco, the largest supermarket chain in Europe. In fact I would be surprised if the news hasn’t spread elsewhere; such is the disgust being shown by many people who previously (had it not been for the likes of Jamie Oliver – see this article) would not have given a fig. In fact there are still many people who don’t give a fig that chickens are being bred in brutal conditions and sold as a bargain bin line; like this person who wrote to a London newspaper:

“I don’t give a fig about the welfare of chickens and I’m tired of well-heeled liberal bores in expensive areas of the South-East telling me what I should eat and how much I should pay for it.”

That is so obviously wrong on so many levels, but I would just like to ask the writer whether they are happy growing and killing their own food. If so, then you just carry on eating…somehow, though, I think the answer might be “No”.

There are others who do give a fig (there are lots of figs flying about), such as this person in the same paper:

“I’m on a tight budget, but I’d rather feed my kids vegetables than substandard, poor-quality chicken.”

Not quite a welfare evangelist, but sensible, all the same. Tesco, on the other hand, don’t have a leg to stand on. They say, in a press release:

“Tesco today announced it has doubled its order for premium chicken – which means there will be far more Free Range, Willow Farm, Finest and organic chicken available for shoppers.”

and then say:

“Tesco is also cutting the price of standard whole birds from £3.30 to £1.99 to ensure shoppers on a budget also benefit. This lower price will mean families can sit down to roast chicken and all the trimmings for less than £1.00 per person.”

Hang on! So what proportion of their chickens are “higher welfare”?

“This will bring the proportion of higher welfare chicken Tesco sells up to around 30 per cent of total chicken sales, an increase of 70 per cent compared to this time last year.”

Which means that 70% of their chicken is, to be quite frank, crappy welfare. They say as much themselves.

I’ll stick to nut roast if you don’t mind.

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.

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 ;-)