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.

So I’m browsing the Guardian web site, looking for this and that, and I come across this little nugget. Someone (I’m not sure they have really as it’s really an advert) has asked those nice people at British Gas how to save energy. “Of course!” BG cry, “We can save you money!”

“But that’s not what I wanted,” says imaginary Stewert Hancock, “I wanted to save energy.

“Look at all the money you can save, Mr Hancock. Money, money, money! Doesn’t that sound nice?”

“I only wanted to make my children happy.”

How typical of British Gas (and foolish of The Guardian’s Editors) to turn something that should be an altruistic activity into ways of saving money. This is an absolute rock-solid indication of how BG would never dent its bottom line by allowing people to question the system that ensures their shareholders are kept in profit.

If British Gas were serious about saving the planet then their bottom line would be that such energy saving actions should be carried out because the planet is being killed by our activities; but it all comes down to money. Money that ensures that, if British Gas can continue to look good enough then they can continue trading rather than having their motives questioned deeply by the public who have been made blind to the greenwash being thrown over them by energy companies.

Yes, Tesco want to make sure you are saving plastic bags, so offer you loyalty points each time to reuse your own. Well done Tesco! Now let’s see what else you can get with your Clubcard…

Superb. Not a hint of hypocrisy here. Fly, fly, fly, with Tesco.

http://www.tesco.com/clubcard/deals/product.aspx?R=236