I was having a bit of a browse yesterday looking for useful environmental groups that might help out with a project I am doing and stumbled across the World Environmental Organization. They don’t do things by halves, these guys, clearly the domain name www.world.org didn’t come cheap, and to proudly proclaim yourself as the World Environmental Organization, i.e. an organization that represents the environment of the world, must mean you have a truly global presence.

WEO don’t exactly say a lot about themselves: they seem to have just the one office, which is in Washington DC, and a board of directors that includes Jeff Gold as Chair. Jeff made lots of money from selling internet domains, particularly go.com and q.com, and he currently holds solar.org which is “A project of the World Environmental Organization”, and is also a showcase for GE Energy products. Now I don’t need to tell you what GE have done for the planet, I’ll let Corporate Watch do it for me. I wouldn’t let GE, or any of the other energy behemoths anywhere near my work.

What really pisses me off, though, is the list of sponsors which WEO shows on its site:

Like WWF, which I featured a while back, it seems that for a small stipend, and despite any history that company may have, they can be associated with an “environmental” organization (the World Environmental Organization, no less) and thus an extra layer of slippery green oil can be applied to their filthy, polluting bodies for the cost of a big corporate lunch.

And if having a list of highly dubious sponsors wasn’t enough, WEO (or rather, Jeff Gold) has gone on to trademark everything on the site: the logo, the domain and even the name; despite World Environmental Organization being a widely discussed global concept that could potentially be vital for overseeing the activities of the greenwashers that blight this planet.

As it is, WEO is a small, very worthy, East Coast USA based setup that really should learn to be a little more modest, and careful with the people it decides to do business with.

Disturbing, but not at all surprising, considering what I have been uncovering in the last few months…yes Earth Day 2008 is nearly upon us and right on time the “green” groups and “green” campaigners are cashing in on the potential bonanza. Proof, if proof be needed, that it’s money and not good intentions that runs the industrial world.

Take a look at this, from the Earth Day Canada web site:

Earth Day Canada Hats.

Bucket hats in natural colour, 100% cotton garment-washed, embroidered with the Earth Day Canada logo. Also available in natural with navy trim.

Baseball hats in natural or navy colour. One size fits all. Embroidered with the Earth Day Canada logo.

1 – 11 hats   $15.50 ea
12 – 24 hats $14.25 ea
25+ hats      $12.95 ea

Obviously they are organic, Fair Trade, and all that — no? They also sell a lovely Garden Tote Bag, a steal at $36, or if you can’t afford that then just show your support by buying a gold plated (where did this gold come from?) lapel pin for only $4.

You can have lots of fun looking around for more examples like this, some from charities and some from blatantly commercial companies, although I’m having more and more difficulty telling them apart lately.

One thing that particularly bugged me was an e-mail from a publisher pushing a book who wrote:

From: <giwilks@aol.com>
To: <keith@xxxx.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 5:43 PM
Subject: This Earth Day go green while saving the green

Green is in and protecting the environment and its natural resources has become a universal effort.  For many consumers, “going green” will not only help save Mother Earth it will help save money, too.  Greg Karp, author of Living Rich by Spending Smart: How to Get More of What You Really Want (ISBN: 978-0-13-235009-9, $17.99, February 2008) and a syndicated personal finance columnist, offers tips for consumers that will help protect the green spaces and the green in their wallets.

Well, way to go, Greg Karp; give your promoter a big pat on the back for green exploitation at its worst. I responded, of course:

This is so superficial. I don’t need to spend $18 to get a pile of money-making, pseudo-green tips: I could give you a thousand of these tips and still be no closer to a better way of life. We are not consumers, we are people: modern society has given us labels and all the time we accept those labels we are prisoners of that culture.

Strangely, I didn’t get a response. If you want to do something this Earth Day, then go ahead — but make sure it doesn’t involve screwing money out of people, otherwise you stand a good chance of being called a hypocrite.
 

(STOP PRESS: I’ve just received a kind invitation to advertise an Earth Day event taking place at Universal Studios, that well known bastion of green thinking mind-melding media behemoth. I have a funny feeling I will getting a lot more of these self-promoting bandwagon messages over the next 2 weeks.)

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.)

I tend to rely on my instincts a lot. When I saw an advert linking Procter & Gamble with a regional water authority in the newspaper this week I was concerned. I mentioned instinct, and here’s why: the advert didn’t mention P&G, instead it talked about a product called Pur — a water purification device that is apparently saving lives all around the world and could be good for the consumer too. A quick search found the P&G link, and lots of web sites talking about the work P&G are doing in raising awareness of water borne diseases, and supplying purification packs to countries like Kenya.

“Much of their water is filled with pollutants, bacteria, parasites, and viruses. With every drink, children and adults face the risk of illnesses, such as severe diarrhea, which can result in death.

“The introduction of the Pur Purifier of Water gives hope by helping transform contaminated water into clean drinking water. Watching the Pur Purifier of Water work seems almost magical. This innovative method has dramatically reduced contaminated drinking-water-related illnesses, thereby saving the lives of many children worldwide.”

All well and good — water filtration is a potential life saver (though the poor state of water supplies in poor nations owes almost everything to human damage and mismanagement than any natural abberation) and is definitely more environmentally friendly than bottled water. But I can’t get over the idea of Proctor & Gamble as water philanthropists.

For a start, here is a roll of some of P&G’s best selling products:

Always feminine hygiene products
Ariel washing powder/liquid
Bounty paper towels
Cascade dishwasher detergent
Cheer laundry detergent
Dawn dishwashing detergent
Downy/Lenor fabric softener
Dreft laundry detergent
Head & Shoulders shampoo
Fairy dishwashing liquid
Joy dishwashing liquid
Luvs disposable diapers
Pampers disposable diapers
Tampax tampons
Tide laundry detergent 

I’m not quite sure how much of this stuff is annually put into the water supplies of the world, but to take the example of Ariel —  a “billion dollar brand” which, incidentally, is not sold in the USA due to its historically high phosphorus (brightener) content — this detergent contains benzene based brighteners, which are classified as “toxic to not harmful” (i.e. they can be toxic) to fish, algae and crustaceans. P&G confidently state “they are highly removed by wastewater treatment, which results in very low concentrations that will not adversely affect organisms in the environment.” Except, from their own data, primary wastewater treatment only removes 30-55% of toxic materials — primary wastewater treatment is a relative luxury in many parts of the world; goodness knows what is left behind in untreated sewage.

Tampax and Always are also Billion Dollar Brands, the detritus of which litters the beaches of the world providing interesting playthings for children. They are extremely common items to find in all coastal environments. Tampax applicators have been found in the maws of seabirds

The common link between sanitary protection and detergents here is that P&G seem to be depending on the good will of the public and the waste removal systems in order to reduce the impact of the products they sell in such huge numbers. Where are the totally biodegradable detergents? Where are the sanitary products that leave no traces in the water? With production comes responsibility: you cannot make billions of dollars out of a selling a heavily marketed product and then say, “It’s not our problem.” It really doesn’t seem as though Procter & Gamble are taking their responsibilities seriously.

Procter & Gamble are enthusiastic purveyors of a product that creates safe water for millions; yet they are also, and primarily, purveyors of multiple products sold to billions of people, that help turn seas, rivers and groundwater into a toxic, litter-strewn miasma.

Americans for Balanced Energy Choices: it sounds sensible enough, balancing the different kinds of energy with the need to massively reduce the amount of energy consumed. Except that ABEC is doing nothing of the sort. Like the Oregon Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Heartland Institute (notice that they are all “institutes”, a nice homely monicker, but also rather close to “institution”) before it, Americans for Balanced Energy Choices is a very public front for the coal industry.

The idea of such setups is to provide a friendly face for something that is inherently unfriendly: the coal industry in the USA is responsible for 36 percent of all national carbon emissions. This has been the same since 1990, despite the headline claims that the coal industry is getting cleaner – and that is precisely why I have changed the image above from the ABEC website to read 0.0% CLEANER rather than the absurd 70% CLEANER on the original front page. You can find out more about their claim here.

Except you can’t, because they don’t justify the “70% cleaner” claim in any way: maybe it’s sulphur dioxide, maybe it’s sooty ash, maybe it’s something else – it most certainly isn’t carbon dioxide, the pollutant that really matters!

So, who are these Americans who want “balanced energy choices”. Do I have to spell it out?

AMEREN Corporation, American Electric Power, Arch Coal, Inc., Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation, Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc., Basin Electric Power Cooperative, BHP Billiton, Buckeye Industrial Mining Co., Buckeye Power, Inc.,Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp., CONSOL Energy Inc., CSX Corp., Detroit Edison, Duke Energy, First Energy Corporation, Foundation Coal Corp., Hoosier Energy, Norfolk Southern Co., Peabody Energy Corp., Southern Co. , Tri-state Generation & Transmission Assn. Inc., Union Pacific Railroad, Western Farmers Electric Cooperative.

Hmmm, wonder what all of these companies have in common?

ABEC is what is known as an “Astroturf”:

Campaigns & Elections magazine defines astroturf as a “grassroots program that involves the instant manufacturing of public support for a point of view in which either uninformed activists are recruited or means of deception are used to recruit them.” Journalist William Greider has coined his own term to describe corporate grassroots organizing. He calls it “democracy for hire.”

(from Sourcewatch)

I urge you to explore these Astroturfs when you find them: you can have great fun working out what they don’t say. As for ABEC — they are downright dangerous, and deserve every bad-mouthing they get.

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…

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

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

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

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

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

One advertisement that infuriated me more than almost any other in the last year (and there are SO many to choose from), was that for the Lexus RX Hybrid. At the time I first saw it, green was not the colour in my mind — more a sort of splashy, angry red — and I decided to write about it.

Now, with the advert having been unceremoniously banned for — quite frankly — lying, Lexus have turned to Saatchi & Saatchi, the ailing but global ad agency, who have decided that a world without “h” is a terrible world. Obviously this needs explaining, so here’s the official guff:

“The TV commercial presents a glimpse into a world without h.  The h is missing from key landmarks, computer keyboards and the alphabet in schools.  The viewer begins to wonder where the h has gone.  Then they see, it has moved to a better place, a world with the Lexus hybrid—a place that looks forward and believes in change.  There is no better place for an h to be than on the rear badging of a Lexus hybrid vehicle.”

Run that past me again. Lexus have stolen all the “h”s, screwing the world’s keyboards and schools because they want to look good. Talk about honesty in advertising!

Perhaps this isn’t quite what they meant to get over, but hey, that’s what you get for trying to be clever.

At the same time Lexus have launched something called Lexus Living which is, quite frankly, hilarious. They have a big list of tips to make you a more hybridized greener person. Some of them just have to be listed (with a comment or two):

– Install a tankless hot water heater, and you’ll never run out of hot water (great, we can burn gas forever)

– Set your sprinklers to water at night. This saves water because there is less evaporation (or maybe, not use sprinklers)

– Keep a canvas bag in your car so you’ll have it handy when you go grocery shopping (making sure you always drive to the shops)

– Dimmer switches use less electricity, and the light is often more flattering (no they don’t. Dimmer switches are transformers, and they prevent the use of low energy lightbulbs)

etc…

What they are really saying is that rich people can carry on their rich lifestyle (they suggest you tell your gardener to use a broom rather than a hose : what, to stick up his arse and do a dance for you?) and still feel good while they are screwing the planet.

Lexus, The Unsuitablog salutes your utter load of b******s!

Before someone decides to prevent me ever writing for any newspaper ever again (and by God, I’ve burnt a few bridges already!) I will say that I actually like The Independent. Of all the national newspapers in the UK it is by far the best for giving environmental issues a high profile, and saying what it thinks.

The paper recently ran an excellent article on the Open Skies Agreement, which will ensure the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by transatlantic aircraft goes well over what the smug naysayers in the air industry are claiming. This was backed up a Leader, which stated:

As this newspaper has long argued, the best way to do this is to start taxing the aviation industry fairly and properly. It is time that the price of air travel corresponded more closely with its environmental costs. The fact that airlines, by international convention, have never been subject to fuel tax or VAT has amounted to a vast hidden subsidy to this method of transport and one that urgently needs to be removed.

So why, in all that is sacred, are they running adverts that make them look like hypocrites? The picture above is a perfect example. A decent article about the dangers of air transport expansion nicely juxtaposed with an advert for long-haul flight behemoths, Emirates. And not just any old advert: one with interactive features to allow you to see the luxury inside one of their specially fitted-out Boeing or Airbus aircraft. Way to go, web designers!

In case the editors were wondering how bad Emirates is, according to their annual report for 2006-2007, the average Emirates passenger flew 4,400km, which produces about 0.62 tonnes of carbon dioxide. They carried 17.5 million passengers, which means that, in 2006/7, Emirates Airlines emitted around 10.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide: about the same as the whole of Jamaica emitted in the same year.

Not the best company to give space to in your Climate Change section.

Some more reportage from those brilliant people at www.unmadeinchina.org. This time its the sponsors they are having a go at. In a way it’s difficult to accuse a company as crassly destructive as Coca Cola or BHPBilliton of hypocrisy in sponsoring the Oppression Olympics (I think that’s what I’ll call them from now on), but as all of the non-Chinese companies purport to be ethical in some way, then it is vital that their names are made public.

If you click on the names you will be able to send a mail to them.

Worldwide (Permanent) Olympic Partners*: 

Coca Cola (j.brock@cokecce.com)
Atos Origin (more-info@atosorigin.com)
General Electric (jeffery.immelt@ge.com)
Johnson & Johnson (wweldon@jnj.com)
Kodak (antonio.perez@kodak.com)
IBM (trading as Lenovo) (ameliow@us.lenovo.com)
Manulife (dominic_d’alessandro@manulife.com)
McDonalds (james.skinner@mcd.com)
Omega Watches (nicolas.hayek@swatchgroup.com)
Panasonic (taylorj@us.panasonic.com)
Samsung (klee@sta.samsung.com)
Visa (hmorris@visa.com)

(* These companies are able to influence Olympic policy)

Non-Chinese Beijing 2008 Partners:

Volkswagen
Adidas

Sponsors:

UPS
Haier
Budweiser
BHPBilliton

Exclusive Suppliers:

UPS
Snickers
Technogym
Staples
Aggreko
Schenker

(Full lists at http://en.beijing2008.cn/bocog/sponsors/sponsors/)

As for every Olympic game, the Beijing 2008 sponsorship is organized in tiers:

• The TOP sponsors (who usually sponsor more than one edition of the Games)
• The Sponsors
• The Suppliers (both exclusive-and not).

How many are there? As Mr. Gerhard Heiberg, Chairman of the Marketing Commission of the International Olympic Committee proudly states “since the marketing program for the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games was launched on September 1, 2003, a total of 54 enterprises have become Games partners, sponsors and suppliers.”

Is “54 enterprises” a big number? In other words: what is this “marketing program” really worth, at the economic level?

Official numbers are not yet available, but we can take a look at http://www.olympic.org/uk/organisation/facts/revenue/index_uk.asp the official result of the previous 4-year period (2001-2004). We learn that “Olympic Movement generated a total of more than $4,000 million USD in revenue during the most recent Olympic quadrennium.”

That’s more than 4 billion dollars revenue for marketing. That is, minimal costs to be subtracted.

That was in the far 200-2004, now we are talking of Beijing 2008, “the Games which the world has never seen before” (again, quotes from Mr. Heiberg).

Quite a lot of money, isn’t it? Imagine the campaign… But, wait, there’s not that much advertising of the Olympics (compared to the marketing budget)… Why is that? Once again, the very same Mr. Heiberg comes to our aid: “We are aware that over-commercialization is detrimental to the Olympic Movement and all our sponsors, our partners understand it and accept it”.

Yes, Mr. Heiberg, let’s not make it evident what the Olympics really are, it could be detrimental…

Nice business strategy! What kind of “Olympic spirit” is that?

(from http://www.unmadeinchina.org/contStd.asp?lang=en&idPag=63)