I have a confession to make: about 18 months ago, when I was still part of the economic machine, I spent some time calculating the carbon footprint of the company I worked for. To help me, I used the guides provided by the Carbon Trust a, what I thought then, fairly reliable and objective agency of the UK Government working for, I thought at the time, reducing the overall carbon emissions of the UK.

How stupid was I?

In these times of economic downturn and the promise that the runaway consumer culture may be on a crash course in all sorts of ways (hooray!) this apparently earnest organisation turns out to be nothing more than a cheerleader for business growth. Take a look at the advert above or, if you dare, some of the other promotions. Superficially you might think that what they are saying is that, by reducing your energy consumption, you will improve the profitability of your existing business. In actual fact they are pushing something very bad indeed: business growth as an incentive for reducing emissions. A display advert of theirs says:

“Last year consumers bought £4.3bn worth of low carbon goods in the UK alone. Good news if you’re in the market for new customers”

Do you see what they’ve done? In effect they are not cutting emissions at all because all that is being done is allowing more wriggle-room for business to boom, while increasing the carbon intensity of the business – less carbon per monetary unit, but no less carbon overall.

You might think that this is a good thing: after all if business keeps growing then it’s better to reduce their impact. But that’s not the point at all – why should businesses grow at all? Profit is simply the result of excess consumption, which feeds further growth which leads to further consumption – profit drives the capital economy which actively discourages (nay, suppresses) any attempt to merely sustain or reduce consumption.

In March 2008, The Carbon Trust joined hands with HSBC, one of the largest banks in the world, to provide funds for renewable energy projects in the public sector; in other words a bank was allowed, through a government agency, to start driving funding for public sector projects while at the same time making themselves look like they were doing good. HSBC were given a great deal of power over public policy for a pittance (£18m).

It was so obvious that HSBC were greenwashing but stupid is as stupid does – I remember one great thinker saying (ha!) – which would explain why Greenpeace grabbed the bait with both hands and immediately clarified their position on private interference in public life:

“This is an excellent example of private finance delivering real emissions reductions through innovative partnerships. It also demonstrates that significant cost effective renewable energy potential exists at all levels rather than simply in industrial scale wind power, and that a viable business case can be made for this investment. Within the context of the UK’s demanding emissions reductions targets, we sincerely hope this is a sign of things to come.”

“Industrial”, “Hope”, “Innovative partnerships”, “Demanding emissions reduction targets”? Welcome to the corporate world of Greenpeace: and perhaps goodbye to a few Greenpeace subscription renewals…

Imagine the scene: you walk into a bar and someone immediately faces you up, brandishing their fists, red with pent-up aggression clearly eager to send you on to the floor or worse. He screams into your face, spittle flecks flying across your nose and lips, “Prove to me that you deserve not to be punched repeatedly in the face!”

Doesn’t sound very reasonable, does it? Especially considering that you have never met the person and, to your knowledge, haven’t done anything except mind your own business and just get on with the job of living for most of your life. Yet, here is a situation where the aggressor is asking you to explain to them why they should not hit you. Surely, in all that is logical and moral, it should be the aggressor explaining the reasons for wanting to hit you.

And yet, the aggressor seemingly now has the moral upper hand as far as the UK Government are concerned. In an interview with the Sunday Telegraph, Environment Minister Phil Woolas made the following extraordinary response to Prince Charles regarding the use of genetically modified crops:

“It’s easy for those of us with plentiful food supplies to ignore the issue, but we have a responsibility to use science to help the less well off where we can. I’m asking to see the evidence. If it has been a disaster, then please provide the evidence.”

Prince Charles, for his part had stated that the current use of genetically modified crops had been an environmental disaster which, if you have any concern for the irreversible genetic changes seeping into wild plant varieties or the green deserts that accompany the large scale planting of GMOs, or even the completely unknown congenital effects of inserting alien genes into a natural organism, you couldn’t reasonably argue with. In fact Prince Charles is being extremely far-sighted: he knows the power that corporations have over governments, a power that is far in excess of any power previously known since the dawn of humanity, so is right to predict a future in which any pretence of environmental concern by the greenwashing business lobby will be completely washed away by their irrepressible hunger for more and more money.

The logical about face by the UK government does not reflect genuine concern for world hunger; it reflects a massive business opportunity for the GMO companies in finally getting the big break they have lobbied for over the last 20 years. As with the Canadian and Russian submarines currently cruising the widening Arctic waters to protect their potential oil and gas reserves, the GMO corporations are cruising the government lobbies of the world as the people of the world become ever more addicted to a meat rich diet that requires an inordinate amount of grain to sustain, an oil rich life that is cutting into global food supplies and a changing climate that is catching farmers around the world by surprise.

All of these changes have been initiated by corporations and their slavishly obedient government servants. The slavishly obedient government servants only have to change the way we think about evidence, and the GM experiment will finally be rolled out to the farms of the world. An unstoppable, irreversible cancer that was allowed to happen all because we trusted politicians.

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.

Their blueprint for tackling climate change is being handed to Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda ahead of next month’s G8 summit in Japan.

Companies involved include Alcoa, British Airways (BA), Deutsche Bank, EDF, Petrobras, Shell and Vattenfall.

They argue that cutting emissions must be made to carry economic advantages.

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?

“Ok, guys, we’ve spent billions of dollars clearing out anyone who might have got in your way — just as you asked. We couldn’t really afford it but the arms guys needed a big battle to clear out the warehouses, and we know how persuasive they can be — if you know what I mean. The police are nearly trained up and if it wasn’t for all those big bombs going up in the towns we could pretend everything was alright. Trust us, the oil fields are protected.”

“What do you mean you want more help? Ok, we know which side our bread’s buttered — tell us what you want us to do…”

A group of American advisers led by a small State Department team played an integral part in drawing up contracts between the Iraqi government and five major Western oil companies to develop some of the largest fields in Iraq, American officials say.

The disclosure, coming on the eve of the contracts’ announcement, is the first confirmation of direct involvement by the Bush administration in deals to open Iraq’s oil to commercial development and is likely to stoke criticism.

In their role as advisers to the Iraqi Oil Ministry, American government lawyers and private-sector consultants provided template contracts and detailed suggestions on drafting the contracts, advisers and a senior State Department official said. [link]

“No, we’re not going to do your greenwashing for you: you’ve shown how good you are at that already — even Exxon are making out they’re saving the world. If I didn’t know how many shades of bullshit makes up your logos I might even have been taken in.”

At a time of spiraling oil prices, the no-bid contracts, in a country with some of the world’s largest untapped fields and potential for vast profits, are a rare prize to the industry. The contracts are expected to be awarded Monday to Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP, Total and Chevron, as well as to several smaller oil companies. [link]

“Give it a rest, guys, we’re working as fast as we can. You’ve got your profits; we’ve got a nice little earner going — hell, the voters still think they’re going to change things: where do you think Mugabe got all his best tricks from? I know you think Canada are doing a better job, but how were we to know they would try and f*ck up the entire planet themselves digging sand out of the ground?”

“Ok, just one more, and that’s it. Two years, alright? We’ll send you a map of Tehran when we’ve finished bombing the shit out of it.”

Tim Henman, erstwhile British tennis hero, is on the rampage, as only a tiger can be (ok, I’m stretching the truth slightly) — but something must be up when a former mild-mannered sports personality takes to the streets protesting about a development. In fact these developments, all ten of them in the final list, are supposed to be the very kinds of things that we should have been protesting to have more of. As the UK Government web site states:

At the beginning of the 21st Century our greatest environmental challenge is from climate change. As housing accounts for 27 per cent of carbon emissions, we need to substantially cut emissions from new homes and work towards zero carbon housing and development.

It also says:

We have seen strong support across the private sector, local government and local communities for building more affordable homes alongside higher environmental standards. Now we want local areas to come forward with ideas on how to put these principles and ambitions into practice – with a new generation of eco-towns.

Now why, I wonder, would the strongest support have come from the private sector? Tristram Hunt of The Guardian, takes up the story:

All too predictably, Britain’s leading developers are using the eco-town template to dust off long-rejected proposals and re-submit shoddy housing schemes. It is up to housing minister Caroline Flint to save this Brownite policy from descending into another predictable fight between Nimbys and developers.

Unfortunately, the response of the housebuilding industry has been a series of cunning attempts to revive planning permission for previously rejected projects. In Micheldever, Eagle Star Insurance has been trying to develop a London-Basingstoke commuter settlement since the mid-1970s. But with a sprinkling of “sustainable development” and “carbon-neutral” buzzwords, the bog-standard scheme for 12,500 homes on a pristine, greenfield site has magically transformed itself into an “eco-town”.

The private companies get their developments, the government gets their eco-credentials, and the councils — who ultimately make sure everything is done in the right way — get a few nice back-handers, just as all councils have done since time immemorial.

It’s not looking good for anyone who actually wants to find a better place to live, according to The Daily Telegraph:

An official report on eco-towns will today find that only “two or three will have real eco credentials” and most of the 15 proposals are “just housing estates in the countryside with a green label attached”.

The report by a panel of leading experts in town planning, house building, transport and environment issues will send most of the proposals back to planners with a “must do better note”.

A source on the panel told The Daily Telegraph: “No more than two or three will really be eco-towns. But pressure from ministers will demand 10 [be built] even if some do not meet the environmentally friendly criteria.”

Why do we need “eco towns” anyways? Here’s a list of things the development enthusiasts in governments, private companies and councils of the world will never contemplate, because there’s nothing in it to fill their pockets:

1) Refurbishment of existing housing stock — refurbishment has far lower “embodied energy” simply because new construction materials aren’t required. Construction materials in new homes take decades of “zero carbon” occupation to offset.

2) Redevelopment of unwanted or obsolete commercial buildings — again, lower embodied energy, and also a far greater potential for communal / community living.

3) Opting out of conventional housing completely — whether it’s in a roundhouse, a yurt or something else off-grid and rewilded, this requires a reconnection with the real world: something civilization simply will not tolerate.

Wasn’t it only six short days ago that President Bush stood before the nation and called for the halt of greenhouse gas emissions by 2025? Then why is the federal government, led by the Department of Energy (DOE) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM), planning to power Western cities with a new utility grid that bypasses renewable energy and that incentivizes more coal, oil and natural gas production? 

Called the West-Wide Energy Corridors Process, the reality of this plan is that it’s little more than a scheme to build nearly 6,000 miles of “corridors” through nearly 3 million acres of public lands, including national parks and national monuments. Averaging over 2/3 a mile wide and capable of holding up to 35 natural gas pipelines, these corridors will have massive and long-term effects on public lands.

During a congressional hearing last week, energy experts and county, state, and tribal officials testified against the plan and criticized the DOE for not consulting with local stakeholders when designating the corridors. Representative Raúl Grijalva said that on a map the corridors looked like “giant extension cords to existing coal sources.”

How can we realistically lower greenhouse emissions if we continue to burn coal and other fossil fuels? Lowering emissions requires a serious commitment to the development and sustainability of renewable energy, but the proposed corridors leave renewables without access to the grid. The feds needs to go back and consult with local and tribal officials, provide access to renewable energy and protect our public lands.

This guest article was written for The Unsuitablog by James Navarro of the Wilderness Society.

 

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.”

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.)

There are two phrases that everyone concerned about the environment needs to be aware of – both are widely used by policy makers, and particularly those parts of society involved in environmental subterfuge.

The first is “externalities”, which is another way of saying the emissions or pollution that a company or government doesn’t directly produce, but arises because of activities they are involved in. The second is “international bunkers”, which are greenhouse gas emissions that no one country is willing to take responsibility for.

Both of these phrases should be borne in mind when reading this lengthy extract from a dynamite article in today’s Guardian:

Britain’s climate change emissions may be 12% higher than officially stated, according to a National Audit Office investigation which has strongly criticised the government for using two different carbon accounting systems. There is “insufficient consistency and coordination” in the government’s approach, the NAO said.

Using one system, which the government presents to the UN and in public, Britain emitted 656m tonnes of CO2 in 2005, and claims an improvement on 1990 figures. However, the lesser-known but more accurate data in the government’s national environmental accounts show emissions to be in the region of 733m tonnes in 2005, a NAO report says today.

“There are two different bases on which the government reports emissions: that required for the UN, and the environmental accounts prepared for the Office of National Statistics … [which are] more comprehensive as they include aviation and shipping emissions. They present UK progress in reducing emissions in a markedly different light”, says the report.

The report says there have been “no reductions in UK emissions” if measured by the national accounts method.

The figures contained in the report fly in the face of consistent government claims that it is reducing emissions. Last week the environment minister, Phil Woolas, said in a Commons written answer: “UK greenhouse gas emissions have fallen by 16.4% since 1990. We remain on course to nearly double our Kyoto Protocol target over the 2008-12 period.”

This 12 percent understating of greenhouse gas emissions is unfortunate, to say the least, and puts the lie to the UK government’s claim to be a leader in greenhouse gas management. In fact, the UN allowance for the calculation of national emissions to exclude the “international bunkers” of air and shipping, makes it pretty easy for governments to shrug off these emissions as “not our problem”, when they are quite clearly a big and growing problem that must be tackled with considerable urgency.

The problem with such a hands-off attitude is that there is no ownership of these international bunkers. Just like a corporation that takes no responsibility for the pollution caused by the use of its products, governments can “externalise” with aplomb and pretend they are doing a better job than they really are. This must not be allowed to continue: whenever you see government statistics for greenhouse gas emissions, ask the authors whether they are really true, or not…