(This is a guest post by David McKay, environmental activist and writer)

The Greenwash presses have been running over time recently with the Copenhagen climate talks ever present in the news. Apart from the greenwash provided by the conference itself to its participants, companies have been keen to use the opportunity to claim that they, too, want to see a ‘good deal for the climate’. Apart from the very obvious nature of Hopenhagens attempt, as has been shown in previous posts on this blog, there have been some less obvious campaigns. One that caught my eye recently is ‘The Copenhagen Communiqué’, which has recently appeared as a stamp in the corner of many companies newspaper adverts and websites. Given that these companies included such luminaries as EDF energy, this stamp needed some investigation.

The Copenhagen Communiqué is a project of The Prince of Wales’s Corporate Leaders’ Group on Climate Change, a group of ‘business leaders’ the prince has got together who supposedly all care a lot about climate change, along with The University of Cambridge Programme for Sustainability Leadership. They’ve also issued a communiqué for both the Bali and Poznan conferences, so are quite an established group. For many established readers of the Unsuitablog, the concept of business leaders issuing advice on climate change might already raise a few eyebrows, especially as the many signatories include BAA, Shell, BP, Asda, Rio Tinto, Unilever, Adidas, Statoil, Nestle, Coca Cola… just about all the corporations with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo of consumerism and industrial civilisation all in one list. Here’s what they say:

This communiqué is being issued by the business leaders of over 500 global companies. It calls for an ambitious, robust and equitable global deal on climate change that responds credibly to the scale and urgency of the crises facing the world today.

Earlier this year, the world’s twenty largest economies (G20) came together and agreed an unprecedented, coordinated response to the global economic downturn. At the London Summit, the leaders of the G20 pledged to do “whatever is necessary” to restore confidence and growth to the economic system.

World leaders now need to demonstrate the same level of coordination and resolve to address climate change. Economic development will not be sustained in the longer term unless the climate is stabilised. It is critical that we exit this recession in a way that lays the foundation for low-carbon growth and avoids locking us into a high-carbon future.

Within the first few paragraphs the intention of the communiqué is already clear – that their primary goal is not to protect the victims of climate change, and the earth’s biosphere but to protect their prosperity and profits. Some might argue that as long as this helps stop climate change that this isn’t a problem, but will these corporations really support the action necessary to combat climate change, or just appear as such and take advantage?

…it will create the conditions for transformational change in our global economy and deliver the economic signals that companies need if they are to invest billions of dollars in low carbon products, services, technologies and infrastructure.

Note how these ‘leaders’ are simply asking the government to make it profitable for them to invest in these new technologies, not taking the initiative themselves. Only if the taxpayer can guarantee them profits will they do anything. But why do they care so much about these low-carbon technologies if the old dirty ones continue to be profitable?

Action at the sector level will help accelerate the large-scale deployment of clean technologies through robust funding solutions, technological transfer and capacity building. The least developed economies need additional assistance including increased and adequate financing, and expanded cooperation to help them adapt to and join the new low-carbon economy.

Here it becomes clearer. The corporations will create the new technologies if the government subsidises them, then they will sell them to the poorer nations in order for them to meet their targets, and those poorer nations will use money from western governments in order to purchase these technologies, money which no doubt they will end up paying back at a later date.

Measures to deliver a robust global greenhouse gas emissions market…

They also ask for carbon markets, which corporations could then use carbon markets as they have done with the European trading scheme, lobbying and persuading governments to issue too many permits, resulting in low carbon prices and effecting their operations very little.

Measures will be needed; to deliver a step-change in energy efficiency, to promote the rapid development, demonstration and wide deployment of low-carbon technologies and also to stimulate new markets for low-carbon goods and services. These measures will include ambitious performance and efficiency standards, bold public procurement commitments, and the development of incentives. Robust intellectual property protection as well as other enabling policies are key.

It is clear what these corporations are seeing in this text is not so much a bold statement on how to prevent dangerous climate change, but how to develop themselves new markets using taxpayer money and subsidies from government, and increase the dependence of poor nations upon them. However, this aim is neatly covered up with environmental rhetoric, with noble-sounding statements on limiting temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius, helping poorer nations adapt and limiting deforestation elsewhere in the text. But these are being used to mask the real mission behind these companies – to make money from climate change.

(http://www.time.com/time/video/player/0,32068,52260545001_1947480,00.html)

Alerted to this video by a correspondant, who commented:

In what might be the greatest example of dystopian irony ever imagined, entrepreneurs in Greenland are seeking to use water taken from chunks of melting glaciers and bottling it in plastic for sale. Never mind that single-use plastics are one of the reasons that CO2 levels continue to rise.

To which I would add, that the whole operation stinks of yet another creeping tendril from the industrial machine desperately grabbing whatever “resources” it can take in order to siphon off the last few dollars (or Krone) from a dying empire. This is with the full backing of the Greenlandic government. The quotation from the video that really makes my blood boil is this one:

“Nature’s own knife has sliced this historic product and sent it crashing into the ocean. Creating enormous icebergs that float elegantly into the open sea: a resource possessing fantastic potential.”

The website marketing these monstrous products refer to the water as having been “reborn after 180,000 years.” No matter that with this “rebirth” comes so many deaths. No matter that the Greenland Ice Cap has the potential to raise the world’s oceans by 7m.

No matter. That’s business.

For my Christmas present last year, I subscribed to New Scientist. It was a good present, because I like to keep up with the latest climate science and there was certainly a lot of that in 2009; most of it pretty worrying. There are also some really good articles about human psychology and more abstract ideas of existence – a few years ago I set myself the impossible task of trying to find a reasonable way of explaining the nature of the universe and whether it can indeed be infinite. Clearly I haven’t got their yet, but have been helped along the way by New Scientist.

I won’t be subscribing in 2010.

Without initially looking through the latest edition (Christmas 2009), I can confidently say that there is enough pro-corporate, anti-life rhetoric in that single issue to counterbalance everything good that the magazine does contain. Let’s take a look…

A full page advert by IG Index, promoting commodity trading (oil, gold, coffee, cocoa etc.)

In the middle: An 8-page supplement sponsored by the greenwashing Carbon Trust, called “Clean Tech Pioneers”. The term “Clean Tech” has been identified by Corporate Watch as one of the classic buzz-phrases to be avoided, because it is just a way of making profit from climate change.

This edition was pretty exceptional for not containing a lot of advertising, probably because it is the more popularist Christmas edition, so the demographic is different, but go back a week and you find:

A two-page “Blueprint for environmental research” including (again) electric vehicles, carbon capture and storage, biofuels based on GMOs and geoengineering. Just because the research is happening, doesn’t make it good research.

A review of “Storms of my Grandchildren” by James Hansen, containing the astonishing phrase: “Extraordinarily, Hansen thinks civil resistance is now the only way forward…the third reason his book is so terrifying.”

While being a sterling campaigner on the side of good climate science vs. corporate denial, New Scientist appears to have recently got itself stuck in a bizarre, self-perpetuating loop that it doesn’t seem willing to wriggle out of: in essence, New Scientist has become a cheerleader for the corporate system. This is exemplified in the large number of full page greenwashing ads it carries, with no sense of irony, for the very corporations that fund climate denial thinktanks and astroturfs: in 2009, every issue except for the Christmas one carried as least two such adverts. Furthermore, any suggestion that technology does not hold the keys to a sustainable future is either poo-pooed — as per the Hansen review mentioned above — or simply ignored, as per the series of editions entitled, “Blueprint for a Better World” which laid out a cornucopia of techo-fixes, conventional economic and political “solutions” and all sorts of hopes for future technological research.

Alright, it’s a science magazine, what else should I expect? What I should expect is a sense of balance.

The science they republish is good science; it is balanced by its nature, and thus New Scientist really has no choice but to publish what the scientific body is saying. On the other hand, a great deal of New Scientist content is opinion-based, and thus subject to bias. If they are going to be so willing to carry the greenwashing adverts of corporations among the plethora of technological guides to the future (bearing in mind that technology, as opposed to science, is not neutral), then if NS is going to be seen as balanced, then it makes sense to also carry articles that show, not only that there are no current technological-based “solutions” that fulfil the required greenhouse gas and environmental degradation reduction criteria, but that the real solutions probably have nothing whatsoever to do with technology.

This is tragic, because when it tries, New Scientist really does manage to produce some fantastic articles. Sadly, though, because it has become so enamoured by the corporate system, what was once an excellent magazine has become something I am now ashamed to have in my house.

Now stop hoping, and get doing!

Oh, the sheer hubris is making me smile so much! Unite, the union responsible for the welfare of cabin staff at British Airways has moved well ahead with plans for a 12 day all-out strike designed to ground the majority of British Airways craft over the lucrative Christmas and New Year period; and won’t it be a corker if it goes ahead:

Bruce Carr QC, representing the airline at a packed hearing yesterday, said the union was “depriving literally millions of people of a happy Christmas”.

He added: “The apparent recognition of the deliberate timing is highlighted by the fact that Unite needed to make [the strike] 12 days of Christmas, not 10 or 14 … It knew the number has a resonance for the many passengers who are deprived of flying with BA.”

Let’s suppose that the striking workers manage to ground half of BA’s fleet from just Heathrow and Gatwick for this period. Stephen Bowler’s plane spotting website gives a good estimate of 500 flights from the two airports every day, with about 40% being long-haul (more than about 5000 miles). It’s difficult to extrapolate precisely, but assuming each an Airbus A320 emits just over 9kg per kilometre travelled that’s…

…about 45 tonnes of carbon dioxide per flight (with an average of 5000 km per flight)…

…about 22500 tonnes of carbon dioxide per day…

…about 42750 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per day, due to 1.9 multiplier from high altitude flying…

…about 256000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent prevented from being emitted over the strike period, assuming half of planes are grounded.

Wow! That’s the same as the entire Central African Republic emits in a whole year. And that’s just direct emissions. I’ve taken into account the people who would have gone to other airlines in my 50% “grounding” figure, because it could be as much as 90% grounding if the strike is solid, but there are a hell of a lot of people who would think again about flying over the Christmas / New Year period if they were to experience a season at home again. Many, many of these people are habitual fliers who can’t imagine any other way of communicating, and heaven help anyone who wants to stop them exploring the world — but the cabin crew might manage that.

In case you think I am attacking British Airways out of hand, bearing in mind that aviation accounts, at the moment, for a relatively small proportion of global emissions, then you need to see the kind of nefarious tactics that BA have been using to convince us all that flying isn’t really a problem, and they are even one of the good guys when it comes to planetary ecocide.

First, their own web site, containing the following statements about the “efforts” they have been making to cut emissions:

We have actively campaigned for aviation to be included in global carbon trading since 2000.

We were the first airline in the world to gain practical experience through participation in the UK Emissions Trading Scheme, which enabled us to reduced our UK carbon emissions by 23%.

As a direct result of our efforts, the EU carbon trading scheme is going to include the aviation industry from 2012.

Exactly how did BA reduce its emissions by 23%? They didn’t cut the number of flights — oh no — they simply purchased a load of “permits” to pollute (actually, were virtually given them by the pro-flying UK government, but that’s another story) and struck them off their carbon balance sheet. Job done. Or rather, greenwash done. With aviation in the European scheme from 2012 there will be even more opportunity for BA to sweep their emissions under someone else’s carpet.

Second, they are a key member of Future Heathrow, an organisation promoting the (deep breath) “sustainable” expansion of London Heathrow airport. This is classic greenwash from their web site:

It has been suggested that the environmental costs of Heathrow outweigh its economic benefits but if capacity at Heathrow continues to be constrained, foreign hubs such as Frankfurt, Amsterdam and Paris will grow instead. This will not provide any climate change benefits but would severely damage the UK’s global competitiveness and UK jobs.

Of course, everyone in the UK will suddenly move to Germany, Holland or France so they can fly from there. Alternatively, without the expansion there will be fewer options for the airlines to seduce people into flying, so they might just stay at home ;-) And, of course, as part of Future Heathrow’s climate change mitigation, they will also be turning to emissions trading in a big way to “offset” the increase in Heathrow’s emissions (hang on, didn’t they say that the emissions wouldn’t increase overall?)

More about Future Heathrow can be found in this Unsuitablog article.

Third, British Airways are also a key member of the pro-flying lobby group Flying Matters. Ironically, for this article, the trade union that BA are fighting against, Unite, is also a member. Among their charming comments from their Press section is this one, essentially saying that the Archbishop of Canterbury is going to hell for suggesting people should grow their food locally:

The Archbishop of Canterbury has called air-freighted food “unsustainable” and wants it to be replaced by homegrown produce from thousands of new allotments.

Dr. Williams made his comments in an interview with the Times, in which he also said that he tried to have a “flight-free year” in 2008, but didn’t manage to.

Although Dr. Williams said he wanted to avoid creating an “instant crisis” in developing countries whose economies rely on the ability to export fresh food to market, FlyingMatters Director Michelle Di Leo told The Times that “the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”

Alternatively, we could listen to Rowan Williams and not fall into the trap of thinking globalisation is what the financially poor nations of the world need – hey! Maybe they should be allowed to grow food for themselves rather than forcing them into market-led trade subservience.

British Airways, The World’s Most Hypocritical Airline.
__________

STOP PRESS: The strike has just been ruled “Illegal” by the High Court of England. That’s 256000 tonnes of carbon dioxide likely to be pouring into the atmosphere over Christmas once more…

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Press conference: 1pm CET, Frederiksholms Kanal 4, Copenhagen
Contact: Margaret Matembe, margaret.matembe@enviro-canada.ca, +45-23960186
Coverage: Click here, or click throughout press release for specific links
Videos:
     Canadian announcement (hi-res download)

     Ugandan response (hi-res download)

     Canadian retraction (hi-res download)

     Climate debt agents take responsibility (hi-res download)

More dream announcements coming soon! Come make your own or stay tuned at good-cop15.org.

Copenhagen Spoof Shames Canada; Climate Debt No Joke

African, Danish and Canadian youth join the Yes Men to demand climate justice and skewer Canadian climate policy

COPENHAGEN, Denmark – “Canada is ‘red-faced’!” (Globe and Mail) “Copenhagen spoof shames Canada!” (Guardian) "Hoax slices through Canadian spin on warming!" (The Toronto Star) “A childish prank!” (Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada)

What at first looked like the flip-flop of the century has been revealed as a sophisticated ruse by a coalition of African, North American, and European activists. The purpose: to highlight the most powerful nations’ obstruction of meaningful progress in Copenhagen, to push for just climate debt reparations, and to call out Canada in particular for its terrible climate policy.

The elaborate intercontinental operation was spearheaded by a group of concerned Canadian citizens, the “Climate Debt Agents” from ActionAid, and The Yes Men. It involved the creation of a best-case scenario in which Canadian government representatives unleashed a bold new initiative to curb emissions and spearhead a “Climate Debt Mechanism” for the developing world.

The ruse started at 2:00 PM Monday, when journalists around the world were surprised to receive a press release from “Environment Canada” (enviro-canada.com, a copy of ec.gc.ca) that claimed Canada was reversing its position on climate change.

[All links open in a new window]

I thought the dirty tricks and fake grassroots activism being pushed by the group known as Hopenhagen couldn’t get any worse, and then I hear this from Johann Hari, who is currently in Copenhagen, lending an ear and column inches to the people who will be worst affected by climate change:

Every delegate to the Copenhagen summit is being greeted by the sight of a vast fake planet dominating the city’s central square. This swirling globe is covered with corporate logos – the Coke brand is stamped over Africa, while Carlsberg appears to own Asia, and McDonald’s announces “I’m loving it!” in great red letters above. “Welcome to Hopenhagen!” it cries. It is kept in the sky by endless blasts of hot air.

Yes, “Welcome to Hopenhagen”, that’s the rallying cry of the media executives who work for the corporations that will do anything to dominate the proceedings at this last-ditch attempt for politicians to show they have a desire to make things better. As Johann goes on to say: “This plastic planet is the perfect symbol for this summit.” The politicians of the Industrial world have their agendas set by the corporations, who are kindly sponsoring the efforts of the Hopenhagen organisation, which just happens to be run by the International Advertising Association.

Back in June, I said: “This raises a hell of a lot of questions: not least that if Hopenhagen is the brainchild of an industry that depends on continuous consumer spending for its existence, how could it be sustainable in any way?” As they promised, the campaign has been ramping up and up, with their billboards, their viral ads and their Facebook group, for which there are 42,000 members largely dancing to the tune of the corporate world. One person just posted the following: “The title is Hopenhagen, Let’s try to keep the comments toward the hopeful and not rant at everyone. If we all put a little effort into making small changes, we can make big changes. Peace”

To which I responded:

The IAA wants the corporations of the world to thrive otherwise it’s members would suffer: Hopenhagen is currently being promoted in Copenhagen with billboards covered in corporate logos. One of Hopenhagen’s key sponsors, DuPont was a founder member of the climate sceptic Global Climate Coalition. Coca Cola suck India and Mexico dry; Gap exploit workers for cheap clothing; BMW make overpowered gas-guzzlers; Seimens have a nice line in oil and gas exploration – all of these partners of Hopenhagen.

I have nothing more to add. But you might want to say something…

I really like peanut butter! There you go, no secret about it, and in terms of ecological footprint it’s a lot better than beef, pork or cheese, even when the peanuts have to come from thousands of miles away. However, and this is the point of this Friday afternoon bit of mental cruelty, it seems that not all peanut butters are made the same.

Step forward Whole Earth Organic Crunchy Peanut Butter, my second favourite because it’s really crunchy and tastes nice and earthy. I was also influenced by the “organic” bit, because it really is organic as far as the peanuts are concerned, but as Lierre Keith has been going on about for a while, just because it’s organic doesn’t mean it’s not destructive. Nevertheless, like for like, I would rather have organic than non-organic.

Then we have my personal favourite, and probably the favourite of most British kids, Sun Pat Original Crunchy Peanut Butter – I have no idea why it tastes so nice, but it does, so there! It doesn’t have it’s own page on the Premier Foods web site, because Premier Foods own loads of different brands, as opposed to Whole Earth, whose owners are a relatively small company, so you’ll have to take my word for the ingredients – which I have in front of me, printed on the label, on the jar:

Roasted Peanuts, Stabilizer (E471), Cane Sugar, Peanut Oil, Sea Salt.

So, just 5 ingredients, including the strange sounding E471, which turns out to be a fatty acid derived from vegetable oil, used to keep the peanuts in good condition (I phoned them up). Nothing too sinister there apart from the cane sugar, which I try to avoid normally, preferring to buy British sugar beet.

Going back to the Whole Earth peanut butter; if you click on the link above you get the list of ingredients, of which there are just four (no sugar in this one). And, as I say, it’s all organic. But look at the second ingredient: it’s Palm Oil, that ubiquitous ingredient which is found in everything from potato crisps to biscuits to hair conditioner to motor fuel. To sum up: palm oil is a disaster.

It seems that Whole Earth recognise this, and have linked to a special page which tells customers all about how nice and ethical the palm oil they use is:

we are well aware of the environmental concerns surrounding palm oil and are pleased to be able to tell you that the the palm oil in our Peanut Butters is supplied by one of the founding members of the round table for sustainable palm oil (RSPO). Their plantations are managed in such a way as to maximise long-term sustainability throughout the production process. Their methods include zero-burning policies, special planting techniques and ‘natural’ production processes which minimize pollution, reduce the use of fossil fuels and artificial fertilizers, and safeguard the environment. Equally, they follow sustainable ‘social’ policies, created to enhance the local economy and the lives of those who work on or close to their plantations. Their ethical and environmental policies relate to the environment as a whole and are in line with Sustainable criteria as defined by the RSPO, which also includes specific Orang Utang habitat as a high conservation value.

Whole Earth are setting great stall by the policies of the RSPO, but as I exposed on The Unsuitablog in April 2008, the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil cannot be trusted to look after habitats, and they certainly aren’t the kind of body you would want to use to rubberstamp your environmental credentials:

1) As a group of big businesses whose primary interest is to ensure the expansion of the lucrative palm oil industry – retailers, traders, processors, growers, investors; that sort of thing — set up a shell organisation that claims it is going to make the industry “sustainable”.

2) Call in some gullible (yes, I said “gullible”) NGOs and environmentalists and say that they can have a seat on this august, influential body if they allow business to continue as before — but they will be allowed to suggest changes to the industry providing it doesn’t affect the business model.

3) Repeatedly announce to the world, through member companies such as Sainsburys and Unilever, that agreements are being reached and work is moving on swiftly to make plantations sustainable, but that we have to give them time because this is a tough job, and there are so many products that contain this oil it is just “impossible” to do this any other way.

4) Do almost nothing for years while counting the massive profit that has been made from cheap oil being grown on recently deforested land using cheap labour.

5) After a few years say that the there are so many plantations that no more deforestation has to take place. Meanwhile the South East Asian rainforest has ceased to exist, carbon levels through wood and peat burning have boosted the greenhouse effect, and people have still not realised they have been well and truly greenwashed.

So, with that in mind, I called up Whole Earth, who answer the phone as “Callow Foods” and tried to find out why they thought their palm oil was sustainable. Here is the recording:

Whole Earth Foods talk about Palm Oil

Columbian palm oil, “certified” by the RSPO. Hmm, I think I’ll stick to Sun Pat for the time being…

“It isn’t.”

Ok, that was a bit short, but it’s true. The Copenhagen conference is an irrelevance, unless you are one of those kinds of people who like watching thousands of politicians rub shoulders and exchange platitudes, after which they attend a variety of meetings out of which will come precisely nothing that will have the slightest bearing on the future of the planet.

So here’s my promise:

If a watertight deal comes out of the two week conference that promises at least a net reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (including deforestation), based on 1990 levels, by 2015; and a net global reduction, again on 1990 levels, of at least 60% by 2030 — then, and only then, will I shut down The Unsuitablog.

These figures are not just finger-in-the-air stuff; they are derived from the work of some of the finest climate scientists working today — those that care about the quality of their work rather than whatever funding they might receive from Corporation X. Funnily enough, it’s just those figures that will spell the end of the Industrial Machine because, except through some fundamental change in the entire global system of energy production and resource consumption, these cuts require the global economy to contract by the same amount.

No one attending COP15 Copenhagen would ever dare entertain the idea of a shrinking economy: there’s no profit in it, and who the hell would vote for it when we have all been told the most important thing we can have is a healthy fiscal system? More importantly, the corporations that run the industrial world will simply not allow it to happen; so it won’t.

My offer still stands. Who’s going to start the ball rolling?

Cast your minds back to 2006, when the UK Conservative Party (actually, still the Conservative and Unionist Party, for completists) snuffed out their “hand holding torch” logo, and switched to the “Green Tree” logo. It was to be a new dawn for the new green Conservative Party; an age of environmental respect and a new found compassion for the natural world, where all was once soaked in the ooze of corporate loving Tory malfeasance. The ecology was to be given (at least) equal billing with the economy; something that was drummed into the British public’s heads with the party’s press releases, and David Cameron’s rhetoric:

I believe that tackling climate change is a key part of my ambition for the Conservative Party to lead a new green revolution. Above all today, I want to recapture climate change from the pessimists. Of course it presents huge challenges. Of course the issues are complex. Of course it will require us to change. But when I think about climate change and our response to it, I don’t think of doom and gloom, costs and sacrifice.

I think of a cleaner, greener world for our children to enjoy and inherit.

The rhetoric hasn’t changed, at least from Tory Central Office – hell, you can buy a Green Tree Keyring, if you really want – but look more closely at Cameron’s speech even back in 2006 and you will see a few things that throw a dirty grey veil over the shiny green promises. The role of the market, is one such thing…

we understand the power of markets, and how they work. We know that markets will have a crucial part to play – internationally and nationally – in driving down carbon emissions and creating green, sustainable growth.

and then…

We have to liberate ourselves from the myth that we have to choose between protecting the environment and promoting prosperity…There’s a direct connection between environmental protection and wealth creation…We have to make it clear that we want, we need – and crucially, that we have the ability to achieve – economic growth and a sustainable environment; indeed that one supports the other.

Economic growth compatible with with environmental protection and sustainability; now where have we hard that before?

Miliband Poznan BBC Sun 13 December 2008

Ah yes, a prominent member of the party that David Cameron hopes to usurp. All reading from the same hymn sheet and preaching the Holy Gospel of Market Capitalism. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: you cannot have a growing material economy without degrading the natural capital that sustains all life on Earth. Failure to recognise this is why it is so easy for politicians to push the growth agenda, proliferating the view that we can spend our way out of this mess.

Spend our way into oblivion, is more like it.

But all the time the corporations make deals behind the scenes — deals that will decide who benefits most from a Conservative government –The Conservatives continue to wax lyrical about their commitment to environmental care:

A Conservative Government will make Britain greener by tackling climate change and enhancing our environment.

We believe quality of life and environmental issues must be at the heart of politics – which is why we have pledged to improve Britain’s environment by reversing the decline in our biodiversity, improving urban green spaces, providing incentives to recycle and working towards zero waste.

Well, I say “wax lyrical”, but read on and you see that the agenda is dominated by waste and recycling, not reducing consumption or bringing people back into a deep connection with the real world (heaven forbid!). There is also a bit of that traditional Conservative colonialism creeping in, with the ominous phrases “our fish stocks” and “our marine habitats”, as though humans (or rather civilised, political humans) own the oceans.

Not to let personal agendas get in the way of doing work for the people is Shadow Environment and Rural Affairs Minister, Nick Herbert, a former director of the British BloodField Sports Society, and founder member of the Countryside Alliance, who suggested that “Lord Stern’s call for people to give up eating meat [to reduce greenhouse gas emissions] was totally irresponsible and damaging to our livestock industry”. Although, to give him his due, it seems that he is not in a political minority, as shown by Labour MP Jane Kennedy, who said: “In British sausage week we celebrate a varied diet. If it is a proposal that vegetarianism should save the world then I’m not sure it’s a world I want to live in.”

Well, stick a skewer up my arse and call me a kebab! I guess I’m in a living hell, then.

Further truths about Conservative Greenwashing have recently emerged, with the unsurprising revelation that prominent Tory members and writers are climate change sceptics

David Cameron is facing a growing challenge to his authority from senior members of his own party who say they have doubts about the Conservatives’ stance on global warming.

Leading figures including Peter Lilley, the former cabinet minister, Andrew Tyrie and Ann Widdecombe are openly questioning the political consensus on climate change.

And today David Davis, the former shadow Home Secretary, warns in The Independent that the policy of tough targets to cut carbon emissions, supported by Mr Cameron, is “destined to collapse”. He criticises “the fixation of the green movement with setting ever tougher targets, in the face of failure to meet earlier promises”. He adds: “The ferocious determination to impose hair-shirt policies on the public – taxes on holiday flights, or covering our beautiful countryside with wind turbines that look like props from War of the Worlds – is bound to cause a reaction in any democratic country.”

Some Tory frontbenchers are also said to have private doubts about climate change. John Maples, the deputy Tory chairman, told the Commons last year that he no longer accepted the consensus on the issue. “I do not believe that the science is anything like as settled as the proponents of the [Climate Change] Bill are making out,” he said. He declined to comment yesterday.

Backbenchers were happy to speak out. Philip Davies, Tory MP for Shipley, admitted he did not share Mr Cameron’s views on the subject, and warned that a Tory government would harm the economy if it took unilateral action to cut emissions.

Well, at least Philip Davies got one thing right: dealing with climate change will hurt the economy. Oh yes!

And it’s pretty obvious what the Conservatives will support if they have to make a choice between the Economy and the Ecology…

_____

N.B. The author does not vote any more