It’s common knowledge that given a choice of two tasks, of varying impact, most people in the civilized world will choose to do the easiest, even if the outcome is of little or no importance. Given the choice of walking a mile to your destination, or getting in the car and driving a mile – regardless of the environmental and social impact of cars – most people will choose to drive. Or rather, “choose” to drive.

I put the word “choose” in quotes because it’s not really a choice at all; civilized society conspires to make the option that is of most benefit to the capital economy the most favourable “choice”, even if it means that the “choice” runs counter to what most people would do given a genuine freedom and an absence of persuasive factors (e.g. advertising, social engineering, lack of alternatives) that steer the individual in the direction of the best choice for the economy. Recycling is a serious offender, not because there is anything intrinsically bad about recycling most materials, but because it is presented by society as an environmental “choice”: you can choose to recycle and be “green” or you can choose not to recycle and not be green.

What other choice is there? What about choosing to do any number of things that are substantially more important than recycling; like reducing your primary consumption of goods, repairing what you already have, reusing what others have no need of, bartering or exchanging goods and services, or just giving stuff away because it means the recipients will buy less of that stuff new. And then there is not filling the skies with toxic gases; not pouring millions of gallons of effluent into seas and rivers; not garnishing the biosphere with a cocktail of persistent chemicals then leaving others to sort out the mess later.

The last three are the hallmark of one of the largest industrial sectors in the world: a sector that provides civilized humans with everything from computer screens to astroturf; plastic packaging to car interiors; printing ink to artificial sweetners; mercury to formaldehyde; titanium oxide to napalm; chlorine to glyphosate. The chemical industry provides the raw materials for the products of Industrial Civilization. It is a monster that needs a phenomenal amount of public relations to look good.

In general, the governments of the world’s industrial nations provide that PR, and for those nasty bits left behind, the private PR companies provide the nice words to smooth over the leaking cracks:

Over eleven billion dollars are spent each year by the business of chemistry to reduce emissions and protect the environment. Federal and State regulations for virtually every piece of our plant operations are in place and more rules are in the pipeline. End-of-pipe control programs have been implemented throughout the industry and the focus of environmental protection is now shifting to addressing any remaining risks that are deemed unacceptable. Continued improvement in environmental performance should focus on spending resources only on those policy decisions that will deliver the most improvement to reducing human health and environmental risks.

Allow me to translate:

“Over eleven billion dollars are spent each year by the chemical industry to ensure it does not kill too many people or destroy so much of the natural world that it becomes impossible to cover it up. Federal and State regulations, which we have fought against in the past and continue to fight against now are being implemented because we have no choice, although we have done our best to drag the process out for as long as possible. Systems that bring the amount of toxic crap being poured into the environment down to the legal maximum (and anything else we can get away with) have had to be put in place; but because our industry produces more waste than we can deal with, and the public are (literally) sick of it, we’ve had to pretend we’re doing something about all the other bad stuff we do. If we’re going to have to spend any more money, then were going to make sure it’s as visible as possible, even if it doesn’t make a damn bit of difference.”

Does that sound more realistic? You can read more of this sanitised bullshit over at the American Chemistry Council’s web site. Bear in mind that the ACC represents just about every chemical company you can name, and lots more you have never heard of (and which I would strongly recommend you look into), and it is pretty obvious that they are not doing any of this out of the goodness of their hearts. Anything they can do to look good, they will: and what better thing than our old friend Recycling:

Beginning on April 21st, 2009, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) will host a blog summit to explore recycling efforts and trends in the United States – focusing on barriers to recycling and innovative programs to increase recycling, particularly of plastic. The blog summit is intended to be a dynamic online conversation; it is open to the public. Among those participating will be independent thought leaders with plastics or recycling expertise, industry executives and established bloggers all of whom will be volunteering their time and knowledge.

Why are we doing this?

Across the country and around the world, significant efforts are underway to decrease litter in all environments specifically near our oceans, rivers and streams. Many of the materials that end up on roadways and waterways are readily recyclable. Yet, recycling rates, particularly in the U.S., remain low. The American Chemistry Council and its member companies continue to work with state and city governments, non-profits and other stakeholders to improve the recycling infrastructure, increase access to recycling and create a culture of recycling for future generations.

Excellent. I hope you’re all feeling the warmth from the last 4 weeks of recycling goodness that the ACC have blessed you with.

No?

You’re a cynical bunch, aren’t you?

Life imitates art in the most absurd way imaginable; or could it be headline writers desperate to find a “green” angle on anything; or perhaps this is a genuine case of the writer cocking a snook at the amount of greenwashing going on.

Here’s the article, from The Independent:

You could, perhaps, call it the “military-ecological complex”. For the world’s most powerful armies are going green, trying to kickstart an environmental-technological revolution in civvy street in the process. Nearly half a century after the outgoing US president, former general Dwight Eisenhower, warned that a proliferating “military-industrial complex” threatened to drive the world towards destruction, defence establishments are beginning to try to help to save it instead. And they have found that green initiatives can preserve lives on the battlefield too.

The Pentagon – which gave the world the gas-guzzling, 68 ton M1 Abrams tank, which does just over half a mile to the gallon – is leading the charge. But Britain’s own Ministry of Defence, responsible for 70 per cent of all the government’s carbon dioxide emissions, is not far behind. And the prestigious Royal United Services Institute is to hold a conference this year on what other Nato countries are doing.

The US military – the country’s largest single energy consumer – has embarked on a drive to save fuel, and thus lives. Half of its wartime casualties are sustained by convoys, which are mostly carrying fuel and are a favoured target for enemies. It estimates that every 1 per cent of fuel saved means 6,444 soldiers do not have to travel in a vulnerable convoy.

One simple innovation – insulating tents in Iraq and Afghanistan with a layer of hard foam, reducing the need to heat and cool them – has saved 100,000 gallons of fuel a day. The Pentagon aims to get a quarter of its energy from renewable sources by 2025. It is to buy 4,000 electric cars (the world’s largest single order) for use on its bases, and is developing hybrid armoured vehicles for the battlefield.

It has saved fuel by cutting the weight of aircraft – removing floor mats, redundant tools, loading thick manuals on to laptops, and using lighter paint – and within seven years plans to fly them on a 50/50 blend of ordinary fuel and biofuel, probably made from algae.

Killing to save the planet!

Of course, The Onion got there first…

In The Know: How Can We Make The War In Iraq More Eco-Friendly?

No comment needed.

In a surprise move today, Andy Atkins, Executive Director of Friends Of The Earth UK, announced that the former environmental pressure group are to become an agency of the UK Government, working within the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Although not explicitly giving details of the move, Atkins (47) speaking to The Guardian newspaper stated:

“You could argue about where it starts – people taking action or government taking action,” he said. “You need both. Friends of the Earth is putting its weight behind government taking the right action that then makes it easier for people to do the right thing.”

The merger with DEFRA was hinted at in a press release put out on the announcement of Atkins’ appointment at Executive Director,

Under Andy’s leadership, Friends of the Earth will continue to push for political action to tackle global environmental challenges.

although no one outside of the charity’s leadership could have predicted such a radical change in structure.

This acceptance of the need for independent environmental charities to work in government in order to create policies that drive public activity makes a mockery of the ideas of more hard-core environmental campaigners, including existing members of FoE, that say governments ultimately work for the benefit of the economy and their corporate masters. With this single action, Friends Of The Earth have made it clear that the future should be defined by government policies rather than individual or community action that may, unfortunately, fall foul of the laws that have been put in place to protect the economy environment.

Here’s something nice from a group that brainstormed an idea at the 2008 UK Climate Camp; EV-EON. EON want to build the first of a whole raft of coal-fired power stations in the UK, so these guys decided – and I’m guessing there are a few graphic designers and web bods involved – to make a spoof, which works well.

But, as with so many ideas like this, it falls down on the back story and the “solutions”. The introduction starts like this:

We are people just like you. We have no logo, no board of directors, no political agenda. We aren’t long-haired neo-luddites dreaming of a return to some grubby medieval society. We have jobs, in London, that we like.

Now, excuse me for interrupting, but my friends at various road protest and other camps are already fed up with the calls of “Get a bath!” and “Get a haircut!” and, especially, “Get a job!” so would rather the idea that it’s ok to have these feelings is not promulgated. Anyway, so what if they shower a bit less than the hygiene-frenzied middle classes (they are still healthy) and, so what if some of them have long hair and, so what if many of them would rather not be work slaves and instead spend their time trying to take us to a world where wages and product aren’t the be-all and end-all.

I don’t like that statement, s’all I’m saying.

The “solutions” could also be a lot better:

Help expose the carbon capture and storage myth by forwarding this site to a friend and talking about it to everyone you know.
[Fair enough, that’s what I’m doing]

Come along to the August 2008 Camp for Climate Action that is being held at Kingsnorth, the site of E.on’s proposed new coal fired power station and make yourself count.
[Sorry, that’s finished]

Demand a public enquiry. Say no to new coal. It only takes a minute. Its worth it in the long term!
[Solutions bound to the system and the law: what is it the system wants more than anything?]

Switch to an energy provider that doesn’t use fossil fuels, such as Good Energy, or urge your energy provider to support renewable energy (check out your provider’s fuel mix).
[Already do the former – sod the other providers, they don’t deserve your money]

Discover the alternatives to coal and the pathway to a Zero Carbon Britain by 2027.
[Ok, at last we’re talking about reducing consumption – which is the only option. Why isn’t this at the top? In fact Zero Carbon Britain is still entrenched in civilization, so is doomed to failure]

I understand that the people who set this site up want to remain civilized and would love to see a world where they can carry on living in the same way but with no impact. Anyone who knows about economics, commerce and politics knows that this is impossible; I recommend a certain online book – maybe starting with Chapter 11 to save time – they are busy people with jobs in London that they love, after all.

Still, nice bit of subvertising.

“When you hear about an oil spill that’s killing thousands of birds…think of deer laying in a field — in slow motion. Look, dolphins!”

Download it and pass it on at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLIbIdgrIaE.

I might be able to take some kind of credit for this, but whether The Unsuitablog was the catalyst or not, there is now a new web site called The Alliance for Burning Every Chunk of Coal (ABECC) which looks suspiciously like the ABEC web site (which I won’t link to).

As you know, The Unsuitablog loves subvertising, especially when it’s done well. Here’s the sales pitch:

“The Alliance for Burning Every Chunk of Coal (ABECC) was formed on April 1, 2008, to provide a much-needed voice to coal industry leaders, interested shareholders and others who fervently believe the only way to meet 21st century energy needs is through 19th century technology. Since its inception, ABECC has attracted literally dozens of supporters, from coal CEOs all the way down to coal plant junior VPs. Our members are united by a clear and compelling belief that, through coal-based energy, we can continue to improve the lives of all Americans with a large financial stake in the coal industry.

“In a word . . . we believe in power. Power that comes from coal.

“As America debates its energy future in Congress and our state legislatures, you can rely on ABECC and other altruists — like our allies at Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC) — to ensure that our shouts will be loud and well-funded enough to drown out all dissenting voices.”

Big credit to the Natural Resources Defense Council for some sterling work. And a huge two-fingered salute to the coal industry for being a bunch of Earth ripping filth-heads.