Here’s a quick question: what is the most unsustainable thing you can do?

Stock car racing, maybe; or perhaps pouring a gallon of cyanide into a river. What about things that lots of people do on a regular basis? Yes, it’s obvious really, but flying is the answer — only a complete numbnuts would claim that you can zip around the world in a heavier that air machine, kept off the ground by the combustion of oil, and consider what you are doing as “sustainable”.

Yes, that world “sustainable”: it’s been horribly misused recently, to the extent that it seems that you can even have “sustainable economic growth”, which is one of the most stupid things I’ve ever heard. If you want an economy to grow, you have to get the source of that wealth from somewhere, and if it isn’t nicking it from another country (which is one way, I suppose) then it’s going to come from using resources even more intensively.

Sustainability means leaving something in the same or a better condition than it started. That’s really simple to understand; so simple that, as I said, even a complete numbnuts could fail to understand it: or lots and lots of numbnuts in lots of self-interested groups that don’t give a flying (pun intended) f*** about the state of the planet for future generations.

Which makes the phrase “Future Heathrow” (Heathrow being the biggest airport in the UK) so ironic.

Here they write about Climate Change:

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.

Well, I hate to criticise, but if you don’t have lots of airport capacity then not as many people can fly and — worse for all the tour operators, fuel companies and airport operators — you cannot achieve the economies of scale necessary to lower the cost of flying, meaning that even fewer people will be able to fly.

People, in this spoon-fed consumer culture have learnt to follow the path of least resistance: they won’t go to Frankfurt or Amsterdam, they just won’t bother flying.

What, in fact, Future Heathrow mean when they say “Supporting sustainable growth” is ensuring that the aforementioned vested interests keep on making money out of the air industry, until the oil runs out and (perhaps) people start to understand that by being rampant consumers of products, services and energy is actually a very bad thing indeed.

(And just in case there are a few typing errors, or short memories, you might want to try out www.heathrowfuture.com, www.heathrowfuture.org and www.futureheathrow.org.uk :-D )

Environmentalists like polar bears, and it’s not hard to appreciate why: not only are they extraordinary hunters, survivors and an integral part of the polar ecosystem, they are a vital marker to indicate the impact of global warming on this ice-dependent species, and they look pretty good on campaign posters too — if that’s your kind of thing.

Coca-Coca loves polar bears, and it’s not hard to appreciate why: they are a powerful symbol of survival in a isolated environment, they make great TV and they look really funny and quirky with a bottle of carbonated soft drink stuck between their paws. Since 1993, Coca Cola have made the most of the “Aah!” factor of polar bears.

It’s no surprise that the Coca Cola Corporation have a big carbon footprint: 7.4 million tonnes in 2007, according to their own carbon disclosure, which is the same as the emissions for Honduras. Along with this they have a terrible history of extracting water illegally, or otherwise taking far more than is sustainable, along with all sorts of other unacceptable social and environmental behaviour (see this damning report by War On Want for more information).

So along come WWF Canada to take Coca Cola by the hand and lead them into a better place…except it’s not WWF who are doing the leading, despite what they would like to think. Despite WWF’s clumsy attempts to suggest that by partnering with such a nefarious corporate monster, the monster can be tamed to be a good environmental steward, and even assist with the preservation of the polar bear, Coca Cola are clearly laughing on the other side of their collective face.

Yes, what else would Coca Cola do but make some fantastic commercial capital out of this partnership — or should I say, sponsorship, because that’s what it is.

Since 1993, the Coca-Cola Company has celebrated the polar bear as a symbol of holidays and togetherness. Sadly, the polar bears are now at risk from the effects of climate change. As the Arctic warms, the sea ice is melting, limiting their abilities to successfully reproduce and feed their cubs.

Deck Your Halls…

…with exclusive polar bear downloads, plush bears, holiday ornaments, and more! There’s something for you, and everyone on your holiday list.

Buy Stuff.

Who needs irony when you have WWF?

“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/

I won’t be posting for a while because of Christmas; we have people to see, fun to have and just a few presents to give – the vast majority of them either second hand or handmade, because I really can’t bear to buy new stuff any more – when you have been writing about hypocrites for so long it becomes almost a physical impossibility to be one yourself.

It wasn’t always that way, and I am not ashamed to say that I was once a consumer; I used to do Christmas shopping with relish, and take great pleasure in wrapping and stacking all sorts of fancy new stuff under the tree, and far beyond it. It took the cathartic experience of writing an article called “The Problem With…Christmas” a couple of years ago to shake me out of the consumer mindset and realise that the “need” to shop, especially in November and December, was simply a system-led exercise in corporate brainwashing, eagerly followed by the hive mind of the Behemoth Consumer. Take a look at the illustration on Hobbes seminal (but horribly flawed) work “Leviathan”, and imagine the body politik constructed of television sets, electronic games, perfume, DVDs and kitchen gadgets and you have a fairly good impression of our new “consumer politik”.

The Emma Maersk – a 45,000 tonne container ship from China, renamed the “SS Santa” in honour of its mission – arrived in the UK on 4 November 2006, loaded with thousands of shipping containers full of toys, books and computers. A Chinese Online News service managed to obtain an oddly wistful quote from an English bystander : “It’s like a dream to see such a mountain-like ship floating on the sea, and all the more incredible to learn that the ship is bringing Europeans with Christmas made mainly in China,” which sounded more like a quotation from a Chinese Government press release. 3,000 of these containers were unloaded and the toys, books and computers distributed to warehouses and then sent out on their next leg to fill the shelves of Toys ‘?’ Us, Tesco and the mysterious back rooms of Argos. On Christmas Day 2006, carefully wrapped packages were hurriedly opened by children, teenagers and parents, their paper discarded, and the keys to temporary enjoyment revealed in all their glory.

This year I am receiving emails, urging me to advertise and to buy “eco gifts”, as though somehow our consumer frenzy can be sublimated into a kinder, more caring form of consumption — as though it makes any difference; as though, somehow, by buying “green” we become better people, while still being the rabid consumers we are continually urged to be. These people are not trying to save the planet, they are just trying to make you feel better, while the consumer machine keeps grinding away, desperate that no amount of recession, resource depletion or ecological destruction will stop it.

Dear Keith,

The holiday season is too often characterized by overconsumption and waste, rather than the spirit of giving. From conception, SpaRitual has been committed to creating eco-friendly products crafted to raise environmental awareness and cater to the conscious consumer. “As a brand, we are passionate about safeguarding the environment, reducing waste and limiting the use of non-renewable resources,” says Shel Pink, creator of the SpaRitual brand.

Therefore it is only fitting that the eco-luxury brand would gift its customers with a donation to Trees for the Future, which benefits people living on threatened lands.

With each purchase of SpaRitual products, consumers are making a choice that directly and positively benefits the planet,” Pink says. “By treating ourselves with consciousness, compassion and caring, I realized that the creation of this brand could be a vehicle for extending a larger sense of caring for each other, for our communities and for the world.

Happy Holidays from the SpaRitual Team

What can you say, given all you know about the consumer machine except:

If you’re so bothered by overconsumption at Christmas why…

a) are you sending this email advertising your products at Christmas

b) are you selling this pointless stuff that no one needs at all?

Pure hypocrisy. You don’t lose the consumption yoke by trying to make your company seem ethical – you are selling product, end of.

Keith

Have a wonderful Christmas, Yule, or whatever festival you may be celebrating at this time — and please remember, it’s not what you buy, it’s what you do that matters.

You have to feel sorry…no, scrap that…Why should we feel sorry for the desperate little people thinking up their desperate little promotions in their desperate little offices for desperate companies in order to sell desperate little lives that other desperate little people will be stupid enough to want to live.

So much for the world of marketing, which in sheer desperation is increasingly turning to bucketloads of “eco descriptors” (that’s greenwashing adjectives and adverbs) to try and convince us that we don’t have to change because they are doing the changing for us…

“Forget old luxury, welcome green luxury!” said Joel Cere, CEO of [deleted] Resorts.” [deleted] Resorts is offering eco-aware urban escapees the luxury of private island home ownership with the launch of a truly guilt-free investment: The [deleted resort], Palawan.” “In a world of homogenous, over-developed concrete destinations, disinterested developers, fake themes and over-priced mini-bars, token green gestures and disenfranchised communities, [still deleted] Resorts provide an authentic experience for the grown-up backpacker, a guilt-free option for the traveler with conscience, a breath of fresh tropical air for sophisticated urban escapees.”[You just repeated yourself]

Designed exclusively for [stop it!] Resorts by former film art director, Antonio Calvo (“Love Actually,” “Alexander”, “Pride & Prejudice”.) 60 off-plan private residences await discriminating investors, who want to own a truly chic eco-home with a conscience and investment-grade security with an option to buy, re-sell or rent.

[utterly deleted] Resorts operates a “greenprint” for operations and, with development partners [anonymous] Investments and [null] Management [Ed. actually all the same company], benefit from sustainable construction methods employed, ethical management practice observed, and ecologically responsible operations as standard. That means 100% renewable energy, and for the first time in the hospitality industry, 100% of the resort’s net operating profits will be used to support local environmental and social programs. You can now own a truly chic eco-home with a conscience and investment-grade security.

I think my highlighter just ran out! Certainly my patience has run out, though I have no doubt that a number of gullible light-green blogs will be merrily posting this “news” because they are desperate for something positive, and have no qualms about giving a lovely green company a bit of free advertising.

Yes, except…

1) The resort is designed as an investment for very rich people who want to sink their money into a second (or third) home in an island paradise, except for those who want to make lots of cash from rich globetrotters in their gap-years who wouldn’t understand the word “connection” if it didn’t have a cellphone logo attached to it.

2) The much-vaunted “100% of the resort’s net operating profits” going to social projects, is after the developers have sold the units for big money, safely (well, hopefully not) putting it away in their expanding bank acounts. The “operating” remainder will be a pittance.

3) Everyone who stays there will have flown, in most cases long-haul, making a complete mockery of the “eco” tags. While the solar panels and mini-wind turbines keep the margueritas cool, the traveller will be spewing out tons of carbon dioxide on their way to and from their “eco-home”. Offset that, you bastards!

[That’s a joke, you can’t offset flights, obviously]

4) With all this greenwashing comes the classic guilt-shedding that only truly rich people can afford…

“We are now accepting interested buyers for our guilt-free residences in South East Asia”

…but they are guilty, truly guilty of hypocrisy.

My idea of luxury is lying under a tree in the sun with a book as the breeze caresses my back and the birdsong tumbles down upon me from the branches above…but if you are selling a dream there can be no “guilt-free” luxury, they are morally and practically inconsistent: “luxury” in civilized terms means money; “luxury” in civilized terms, means environmental harm. If you have to fly half way round the world to achieve your “simple” pleasures, you are morally bankrupt, my friend.

Sometimes you don’t have to add anything to the words of a politician to show how desperately, ludicrously out of touch they are with the real world: the world that is dying as a result of the duplicity and greenwash they have been spouting ever since governments first claimed they cared a jot about the planet.

“Climate change is fundamentally important, and we have to do it in a way that is consistent with economic growth.”

(Listen to: Ed Miliband at Poznan – BBC News, Sun 13 December 2008)

Yes, Mr Ed, you’ve certainly been doing that. What a proud record the UK government have: record economic growth, record climate change.

Not so much a hypocrite as a foolish puppet…

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!

A little tardy with this one: a reader alerted me to an article on Treehugger back in August, which straight away gained some splendidly cynical comments about greenwashing. The article in question is essentially an advert for a luxury paper by a company called Smockpaper:

Smock Paper is the first company in the US to offer “printing on luxury bamboo paper.” For those of you hosting a party, getting married or just looking for something different to write home to mom on, Smock Paper offers an alternative paper made on fast-growing and pesticide free bamboo. Smock offers a product that harks back to an earlier era when artisans took care, time and attention to detail to make a good product. While the paper is made in a european mill, the paper is printed and pressed in their workshop in Syracuse, NY and this is where the magic happens.

Now, producing a fancy wedding invitation is not quite in the realms of the supernatural, so I would first suggest that the term “magic” is a little excessive; what is even more excessive is the suggestion that this paper is “green”. The little picture above, crafted to “magically” bring out the texture of a bamboo plantation overlain by a map of the world has three red dots: those are the stopping off points for this product which makes its way across the world from bamboo plantation in Thailand, paper mill in Europe (no details of country, except the mill is “500 years old”, because that makes all the difference — see http://smockpaper.com/sustain/bamboo/) and printing press in New York — a trip of at least 14,000 miles!

This is not green.

The response given by the parent company, Boxcar Press, tries to justify the extravagence by talking about various efforts such as envrionmental donations (1% of earnings, wow!) and organic vegetables for staff, but the real give away is this statement:

“The nature of our paper requires us to transport our product around the globe, but we primarily use sea freight (low carbon emissions per pound), and we are doing whatever we can to reduce our energy usage and our carbon emissions from our wind-powered print shop.”

So, you are claiming your product is environmentally friendly, yet because it is “environmentally friendly” you have to transport it around the world, making a complete mockery of your claims!

I think I’ll stick to recycled paper, and not get too excited about having luxury wedding invitations, if that’s all right with you.

I could probably do about a million articles like this, given ExxonMobil’s long and nefarious history of throwing money at “educational” projects and hoping some of the contaminated information sticks in the minds of the young people they are trying to brainwash, but this one is related to another article I wrote back in June about the Science Museum in London. Just to see whether anything had changed I looked at the “The Science Of” web site, to find that the exhebition had moved to the Liberty Science Center in New Jersey.

Lo! and Behold! It is still sponsored by the same three awful corporations that were doing their best to brainwash minds in the UK:

I sent a quick note to the press office at LSC:

Dear Dina [Head of Public Relations]

I have just noticed that LSC has started hosting the corporate exhibition “The Science Of Survival”. This is not an objective exercise in encouraging children to be environmentally sustainable, it is a way to allow the sponsors and other corporations who support high technology to make a case for their own “solutions” to the environmental crisis.

I would be grateful if you were to read my article at http://thesietch.org/mysietch/keith/2008/06/03/science-museum-london-letting-corporations-control-young-minds/ which related to the very same exhibition being hosted by the Science Museum in London.

Maybe you could pass it on to whoever was responsible for putting the exhibition on, so they can consider whether it is appropriate to allow corporations to have such a free reign over young, impressionable minds.

Kind regards

Keith Farnish

It was while writing this, and checking out a few other parts of the web site, that I realised there was absolutely no chance of the Liberty Science Center doing anything about their greenwashing exhibitions: they were hosting one called “Energy Quest” sponsored by that bastion of objective and sustainable thinking — ExxonMobil.

Meeting the needs of the future

Energy is one of the greatest concerns facing humanity today. Where will it come from in the future, and what will it do to our planet? Can we balance our ever-growing need for energy with its impact on the environment? Energy Quest – the only exhibition held over from our former building – takes you on an unprecedented journey through the five major sources of Earth’s energy in search of the answers.

Help me with this, please: do you think the exhibition will be saying we need to stop using so much energy, especially the non-renewable kind? It’s a tough one.

And no wonder it’s the only exhibition held over from their former building, one member of their Board of Trustees is Vice-President of ExxonMobil’s research and engineering branch. In fact their Board of Trustees list reads like a roll call of the very people you most definitely would not want to entrust your planet to.

Too bad that there is nowhere for kids to get objective environmental information from: guess we’ll all have to start working things out for ourselves.

Following my little pop at General Motors yesterday, Phil Colley, an account executive at MSL Communications (take a look at their fabulous client list here) took issue with some things I said, commenting as follows:

I’m with GM and we’re sorry that you, like some in the green community, choose to attack any effort to help the environment – short-term or long-term – that doesn’t come from your pre-existing “approved” list. If you are interested in moving from rhetoric and accusations to questions or genuine dialogue about E85 and longer-term efforts, we are ready. In fact, our discussions with other E85 critics on the blogs have been beneficial for everyone involved, including us.

People are often surprised to learn that since the 1970s, GM has reduced smog-forming emissions from our vehicles by more than 99 percent. Our new vehicles are so clean today that painting a room with one gallon of water-based latex paint will generate more smog-causing emissions than driving a GMC SUV from Toronto to Vancouver and back again. Over the last three decades, the average fuel economy of our car fleet has increased 130 percent and our light truck fleet average has almost doubled. We offer more models that get 30 miles per gallon or better on the highway than any other manufacturer, and 13 of our last 15 new product launches in the U.S. have been cars or crossovers.

You can see my response right after his, but I have no intention of stopping there, because a company like General Motors deserves more than just one article on The Unsuitablog: there are so many dispicable activities to choose from (both past and present) that I only have space here for a few of them.

1. The Global Climate Coalition

The GCC was set up in 1989 as a corporate counter to the emerging strong evidence that carbon dioxide was a major factor in changing the global climate: General Motors was a founder member and major funder to this grandaddy of astroturfs. In fact, the GCC were instrumental in George Bush Jr’s 2001 decision to reject to Kyoto Protocol — GM may have left in 2000, but by that time their work was done, and they decided to get out before their public image took too much of a pasting. This is not ancient history, and General Motors have a very recent history of climate change denial funding…

2. Other Deniers

The Competitive Enterprise Institute, most famous for its “Carbon dioxide: they call it pollution, we call it life” advertisements, is a long-term, powerful AGW denial lobby group, which received funding from General Motors for many years.

Tech Central Station is a global warming denial advocacy group which, with General Motors as a major funder until 2006, was singled out by the US Senate as one group “whose public advocacy has contributed to the small but unfortunately effective climate change denial myth.”

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, of whom General Motors is a key member, have been running adverts pushing against decent fuel economy standards, in order to protect the SUV and light truck market.

This is just a sample of the groups GM has funded.

3. Environmental Lobbying

The US Government demand that lobbyists file quarterly reports of lobbying activity, details of which are available at the Lobbying Disclosure web site. General Motors spend a lot of money on lobbying…here are the details for the last four quarterly reports:

Q3 2008 (http://disclosures.house.gov/ld/pdfform.aspx?id=300102461): $2,700,000 total spend

Bills targeted include: Climate change (S.2191), CAFE (H.R.5560, S.2555), Biogenerics Legislation (S.1695 et al), Railroad Antitrust Enforcement (H.R.1650, S.772), Ban Asbestos etc. Act (H.R.3339) — for other quarters, see individual links.

Q2 2008 (http://disclosures.house.gov/ld/pdfform.aspx?id=300077983): $3,031,000 total spend

Q1 2008 (http://disclosures.house.gov/ld/pdfform.aspx?id=300044651): $4,050,000 total spend

Year End 2007 (http://disclosures.house.gov/ld/pdfform.aspx?id=300023856): $4,040,000 spend per quarter

That’s nearly $14 million just for one year’s lobbying to one government (which doesn’t include the amount spent lobbying the EU, or the amount of funding given to 3rd party lobby and PR firms).

What I really want to know, and maybe you can help me here Phil, is what representations did General Motors actually make to the Senate and the House over the bills listed above — I would love to know. My bet is that it’s not to ensure strict regulations on pollutants, safety or freedom of information, but I’m willing to be proven wrong if someone can send me the documents.

4. Other Items Of Interest

General Motors own Hummer, a company that does not disclose its emissions on its USA web site, but according to the UK government their standard model produces enough carbon dioxide to put it in the very worst emissions band there is. Hummer, for their part, really do seem to be taking caring for the planet seriously:

If you consider “caring” to mean “driving all over it”.

And finally, we have General Motors Global Vice Chairman and US Chairman, Bob Lutz, pronouncing that Global Warming is a “total crock of shit” which is not the kind of thing you really want to be saying if you are serious about the protecting the planet.

Hey, maybe everything GM say about the environment is just greenwash and they don’t give a shit about the planet at all. You decide.