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

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

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

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

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

The benefit to EDF Energy is:

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

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

So, do EDF really care about reducing greenhouse gases?

What do you think?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and then say:

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

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

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

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

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

Blimey! Some good news – it’s not a company that have decided to stop greenwashing (that would surely be something significant) but it does seem that people are waking up to the sins of Greenwashing. British Gas (or BG, as they like to be known around the world) tried to convince the British people that they were selling gas that was “carbon neutral”, as well as claiming that their electricity (yes, they sell electricity too, produced mainly with gas) was the greenest around.

Wrong on both counts, really wrong…

“A TV and press ad campaign for British Gas has been banned by the advertising watchdog for making false green claims about an energy tariff. The ad regulator ruled that the TV commercial was misleading and should not be shown again in the same form.”

“A second ad – a national newspaper advertorial, for the same ‘green’ tariff – was criticised by the ASA for making the claim it was the ‘greenest domestic energy tariff’. The company admitted that the [Energywatch] website did not rank tariffs in order of “greenness” and that there was no industry-wide methodology.”

(from The Guardian)

With a history of energy exploration in the Amazon, and interests in drilling for gas in the pristine Arctic wilderness, BG (or Bad Greenwashers) have felt the first slap from the increasing number of people who won’t tolerate hypocrisy. Keep it up readers – don’t let them get away with it.

Sorry about the big image, I did my best reducing it from the broadsheet newspaper advert I stumbled upon last week, but it’s got to be big, hasn’t it? Land Rover are taking out adverts in all the newspapers, they are so concerned about the planet that they’ve decided to jack it all in: yes, it’s true, Land Rover are no longer making or selling cars. No more Freelanders, no more Range Rover Sports, no more Defenders, nothing. It’s all going on the scrap heap because they have finally realised, after years of marketing vehicles that do 18 miles per gallon (that’s just over 14 MPG in North America) or even worse, that the planet is frying and they are partly to blame. So, in deference to our only reason for existing, they are giving up the motor trade.

Great!

If only it were true.

Sadly, that’s just in my dreams. In reality, Land Rover – owned by our old friends, Ford – are just splattering the pages of newspapers and magazines around the world with the same old rubbish about carbon offsetting, sustainable vehicles, new technology and, that old favourite, supporting green projects. Good old Land Rover – masters at pretending they actually care. Good old Land Rover – masters at the greatest mass-mobilisation PR campaign we are ever likely to see in our lifetimes: the motor industry going “green”.

What a load of greenwash.

So where shall I start with Volvo? They are advertising a range of “eco friendly” cars. The last time I had heard of an “eco friendly” car it had no engine, no wheels, no chassis – in fact it wasn’t a car at all because THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN ECO FRIENDLY CAR. Do you get it, Volvo? Do you get it, Ford, owners of Volvo? A car is a polluting machine, it needs fuel, and no vehicle fuel – as far as I have been able to make out – comes with no net impact on the environment.

But they persist because, of course, they want you to feel better about driving, they want you to buy cars, and they want you to drive them so they wear out, need parts, need servicing and need replacing, and so the whole cycle comes round again without anyone having learned a single lesson except that the auto makers are compulsive liars, and the car buying public seem to have bags over their heads if they are really taken in by any of this stuff.

So what of Volvo’s “Life is better lived together” campaign? The one where suitably fit, attractive looking people slide into their vehicle together to go off on some adventure. Are they saying that all these people live together and they never, ever, drive alone? Of course not. They are saying that you can have more fun in a car rather than on a coach or a train or even, God help us, using the power of our own bodies. It’s all part of the marketing machine and the car sellers love making fools out of you.

Here’s their Australian Marketing Manager, telling it like it is:

“Marketing manager Matt Braid explained the global repositioning: ‘The traditional family structure – as we all know – is changing day by day,’ he said this week. ‘We thought targeting modern families could potentially be limiting our segment. So we’ve revised our target group to ‘modern lifers’, which focuses on a consumer’s attitude to life rather than a particular life stage they’ve gone through.’ “

Go and tell Volvo, and all the other car manufacturers where to stick their lies.

So much for the Brits, WWF-USA takes the idea of corporate love-ins to a whole new level. Go to the link yourself.

GASP at the polluters who want to look green.

SWOON at the food companies who sweep things under the carpet.

Be in SHOCK AND AWE at the financiers who run the world, and pretend to save it. On the WWF corporate partners web page lies a catalogue of the biggest names in greenwash.

Let’s look…

CARGILL : The largest grain producer and exporter on Earth. Genetically modified crops…check! Deforestation…check! Large scale agribusiness…check!

COCA-COLA : Enemy of poor rural Indians and extractor of millions of gallons of much needed water every day.

ALCOA : Aluminium giant. Producer of millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide every year, and polluter of lakes and rivers throughout the world.

TOYOTA and NISSAN NORTH AMERICA : Purveyor of SUVs and 4x4s to the masses. Get ’em while they’re belching!

TATE AND LYLE : Destroyer of native habitats worldwide. They “own” around a quarter of Mauritius.

WALT DISNEY COMPANY : Brainwashing masters. Lose your childhood to a corporate myth.

And they were just the easy ones that I didn’t have to research. If WWF are really so outrageously dumb to think that any of these companies deserves to look good and, in effect, wipe out all memory of their terrible activities, then they can go ahead, but DON’T DARE THEY SAY THEY ARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATION!

Walking home from my local town centre the other day, I spotted a large advertisement by the global bank HSBC: they were proudly announcing that for every new account opened or mortgage taken out they will donate a magnificent £2 to the WWF’s rainforest protection project in Brazil. That’ll break the bank then (every pun intended)! I did a bit of hunting around and found that HSBC were committed to decent standards in their investments as regards forestry, but here’s the catch: when I wrote to WWF-UK it turned out they had absolutely no veto over HSBC’s activities.

---

Dear xxxx 

As discussed, and with regards to http://www.wwf.org.uk/business/whoweworkwith/c_0000000018.asp, please could you let me know whether WWF would be prepared to relinquish their partnership with HSBC (which I personally find extremely uncomfortable as it is) should it turn out that as a result of HSBC’s investment activities they were causing a net (direct or indirect) damage to rainforest ecosystems and/or the tribal peoples within.

Keith Farnish

---

In response I received a statement on their principles, which included “WWF  believes  that  the  most effective and long term environmental change comes  about  through  constructive and challenging dialogue and engagement with  business,  industry  and governments…” So, no answer there. I asked again.

---

Dear xxxx

I’m afraid this does not answer my question:

…

Am I correct to assume that WWF would continue to remain a partner regardless of HSBC’s activities?

Kind regards

Keith

— ——–

Hi Keith

xxxx has passed your email to me. You are asking a hypothetical question. If there was an issue we would obviously deal with it on a case by case basis. We cannot give you a blanket answer based on a hypothetical question.

I hope you can understand our position.

Best wishes

xxxx

———-

Dear xxxx

All questions regarding the future are hypothetical. WWF are combating rainforest destruction partly because you believe that it will cause a increase in atmospheric carbon levels – and quite right, too – but it is only as definite as the science says it is (around 90%). There is a strong chance, based on past behaviour that HSBC will invest in activities that cause a net loss in forest quality or area, so I am very surprised that you do not have this scenario covered. It would make the terms of your agreement far more solid, and also ensure that HSBC are far less likely to make damaging investments or loans.

Given your position I have no option but to assume that you are not protecting against this potential situation, and will have to report this as so.

Kind regards

Keith

———-

Dear Keith

You have asked us to comment on a vague hypothetical situation, which is very unusual. To make assumptions on the basis of our inability to comment on this is irresponsible journalism. As I have already said we would make decisions on a case by case basis, depending upon the scenario or issue. I also think that making assumptions on past behaviour is short sighted to say the least.

If you are making assumptions please make this clear rather than report this as fact.

Kind regards

xxxx

---

Very interesting. So, in short, WWF have made no agreement with HSBC that they would pull out of the partnership should HSBC behave irresponsibly. PLUS, they do not judge a company based on its past behaviour; any investments in destructive activities are swept under the carpet, provided you have the money to invest. For a stipend of around £100,000 and a little bit of box ticking, you can use the WWF logo on your headed notepaper. For an investment of around £1 million, you can plaster the WWF logo all over your adverts and look greener than green.

And if you think the UK is bad, tomorrow I will be going over to the USA…
 

I’m not a fan of freesheets at the best of times: these omnipresent pups of the big newspapers line the streets of major cities around the world, especially London, which sees in excess of 1.5 million copies distributed every day. The problem is so bad that various London councils have threatened to ban their distribution if the distributors don’t clean up their act. Not happy to cut their circulation, of course, they have asked people to recycle the papers; which is about as effective as asking a city broker to forego his Christmas bonus.

To bad that the ban hasn’t happened, then we would have been spared the gross excess of what I am pretty sure is the most irresponsible travel article published in modern times, maybe ever if you take into account the potential attractiveness of the journey being hyped.

AFRICA…IN A WEEKEND

Don’t forget it is the people of the UK who are seeing this article, and we’re not talking about North Africa, we’re talking about Cape Town, South Africa – a distance of nearly 25,000 miles there and back. According to “Climate Care” (I feel sure I’ll be blogging about them soon), the flight described, for each person will emit 2.8 tonnes of carbon dioxide, which is the average annual total emissions for a person in Latin America. Here’s the strapline:

“Cape Town may be a long way away, but if you’re short on time, don’t dismiss it. With overnight flights and zero jet lag, a four-day jaunt is the perfect introduction to South Africa’s most cosmopolitan city,” writes Alistair Foster.

It just shreaks of “rich guy doesn’t give a toss about the planet” doesn’t it? But of course the author has a Get Out Of Jail Free card, simply by writing “I know it’s not eco-friendly to go so far in such a short time, but it’s the only long-haul trip I’ll do all year.” Try telling that to the Puerto Rican who has just realised that his entire annual emissions have been equalled by your quick trip to a cosmopolitan place. And what about that “only long-haul trip”? Poor Mr Foster, only one long-haul trip! Ah well, you can have another next year, along with your (implied) 2 or 3 other return flights closer to home: maybe that’ll put you nearer the Mexican emissions average on flights alone.

I was assuming that the publisher of the London Lite, in which this grotesque article appeared, would have something to say; but all I got was “It’s a travel article”, from a reporter, and “We don’t have a published environmental policy” from the Legal office of Daily Mail Ltd, the parent company.  So, not quite hypocrisy, but wait…the suggested tour operator (the one that paid for the flights in question) is none other that Virgin Holidays. Yes, that Virgin, the one owned by our beloved Richard Branson, who is apparently quite the eco-hero in corporate circles…

Something about the use of Kermit the Frog pulled me in to explore Ford’s concept ethanol high-powered luxury saloon (adjective overload, sorry) – the Lincoln MKR. That’s one problem with cars, there are so many different ways of describing them, you start run out of space – so, here’s an easy way of describing them: polluters. It’s a car, it pollutes, get over it.

How ever much Ford try to dress this monster saloon up as green in design (gee, it has recycled wood and chrome free leather up front, that’ll make it a “green” car then), green in fuel  (it uses 85% ethanol, which means your food is now going to be turned into fuel) or green in, well just green-ness, they will never escape the fundamental problem that building and selling cars is a totally unsustainable activity, and if they want to go green then they should go out of business. But here’s where the brainwashing starts: “GUILT FREE”.

Yahoo!

I couldn’t contain myself there, I’m just so excited that I can now buy a car which, despite the fact that it does a measly 27 miles per gallon, is just so brilliant that I need feel no guilt at all. If you drive a Lincoln, then you must really empathise with this quote, from Ford’s Executive Director of Design, in an article called “Guilt Free Luxury with the Lincoln MKR” :

“The Lincoln driver wants to spend money and enjoy it, but not at the expense of other people or the environment”

Yeah, right. The Lincoln driver who decided that a big luxurious car was the best way of caring for other people and the environment. But you still have my sympathy; after all, who told you luxury could be “guilt free” but the hypocritical idiots who sold you the car in the first place.

Oh, where to start on the horrors of oil sands extraction, as both a local and a global destroyer of environments? 155,000 barrels of oil a day, according to Shell’s proud boast. A filthy fuel source that requires twice as much water to steam off the oil, as the oil itself. An industrial process that is guaranteed to leach and creep tarry residues into the soil, the rivers, the skins of animals, human and non-human alike. A momentous drive to make Canada the second largest producer of oil in the world, simply to ensure that north America can continue driving up carbon dioxide levels in sustaining a “lifestyle”.

This is all fact. Now for the fiction.

“For us, as a company, the scientific debate about climate change is over. The debate now is about what we can do about it. Businesses, like ours, should turn CO2 management into a business opportunity and lead the search for responsible ways to manage CO2, use energy more efficiently and provide the extra energy the world needs to grow. But that also requires concerted action by governments to create the long-term, market-based policies needed to make it worthwhile to invest in energy efficiency, CO2 mitigation and lower carbon fuels. With fossil fuel use and CO2 levels continuing to grow fast, there is no time to lose.”

This quote by Jeroen van der Veer, Shell’s global Chief Executive is bullshit of the highest order. Shell’s raison d’etre, as a corporation, is to make money, and it does that by selling oil. It convinces people that selling oil is necessary by using phrases like “provide the extra energy the world needs to grow”. Excuse me? Exactly how is filling the biosphere and the atmosphere with pollutants going to help the world “grow”?

Oh, I see! You mean, help the pockets and the bank balances of the already rich and powerful grow, for the mere inconvenience of extinguishing life on Earth.

I have left the most extraordinary quote until the end, though. This comes from Shell Canada’s web site. It says: “Environmentally, in 2004 the AOSP became the first oil sands operation to have its environmental management system certified under ISO 14001.” Well done, Shell. You have succeeded in making ISO 14001 the most irresponsible, hypocritical international standard in existance.

You can be sure of Shell.