I wonder how they are all feeling this morning – the morning after the International Conservation Caucus Foundation 2009 Inauguration Gala. It was a chance for people to talk about the way forwards in preserving the planet for the future, in the light of promised change in the political landscape (isn’t Hope wonderful?); it was a chance for corporate-friendly conservationists and politicians to network with each other; it was an opportunity for some of the most destructive corporations on Earth to talk up their ‘green’ credentials; it was — in short — a Greenwashing Gala.

Climate Progress takes up the story:

Q. If an inaugural gala is sponsored by ExxonMobil, can it still be green?

A. No.

The NYT reported yesterday on tonight’s two big “Green Galas”:

The first gala is being held by Al Gore, the former vice president and Nobel laureate. His event is also joined by a no-compromise crowd long frustrated with the Bush administration. Among them, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council….

The second gala is being held by the International Conservation Caucus Foundation, comprising the goliaths of international and animal wildlife conservation like the Nature Conservancy and the World Wildlife Federation.

Inexcusably, “Exxon Mobil is a prominent sponsor of the event.” The oil giant has spent millions of dollars over the years as a principal sponsor of the global warming disinformation campaign aimed at stopping efforts to conserve a livable climate — even after they said they stopped such funding. Chris Mooney has an excellent piece on ExxonMobil’s two-decade anti-scientific campaign

…

The non-green gala has other non-green elements:

Roses will be flown in from Ecuador. Marinated beef is being flown in from Texas to Virginia, where it will be grilled and then trucked to the auditorium.

Wow, that’s a two-fer — beef and air shipment!

While in general I don’t think individuals or groups should obsess about these kind of individual actions, it’s absurd for an environmental or conservation organization to flaunt unsustainability:

“We are not into symbolism,” David H. Barron, the caucus president, said unapologetically. “We are focused on a much bigger impact.”

Mr. Barron says that personal efforts to lower energy use are admirable; he himself uses low-energy LED’s at home. But more gets done to protect the environment, he says, when big corporations get involved in a committed way.

This may explain why Exxon Mobil is a prominent sponsor of the event.

Climate Progress has focused on ExxonMobil, but as you will see in my comment below the piece, virtually everyone attending — whether corporation or ‘environmental’ group — is swilling in the same trough…

What a load of stupid f*ckers. I’m not going to tone down my language [ok, I did for The Unsuitablog]: when you see not only ExxonMobil, but JPMorganChase (they invest in anything bad), AFPA (clearcutting apologists), Chevron (just as bad as ExxonMobil), Unilever (massive user of palm oil), Nestle (baby milk murderers) and a host of others doing this it just makes my teeth grate.

It’s a greenwashing beanfeast, and I have no doubt they know this. Let’s just say it’s a great opportunity to lobby and network for the next stage of the denial plan – after all, we know what has gone wrong, now we all need to be shown how corporations are going to save the world.

As for WWF; they are corporate-loving symbolists (http://www.thesietch.org/mysietch/keith/2008/01/15/wwf-buy-yourself-a-new-corporate-image-part-1/) who will feel very much at home there. The Nature Conservancy don’t even deserve a comment, this will do instead: http://thesietch.org/ mysietch/ keith/ 2008/ 04/ 19/ the-nature-conservancy-partnering-with-poisoners/

Keith

It’s worth reading the rest of the comments, too: if you think greenwashing, corporate-conservation love-ins and politicians pretending to care while keeping their pockets open (for that is what ICCF is all about) is what these things are all about, and refuse to accept them, then you are not alone.

I have a lot more time for small companies than big ones; one reason is that they do not generally conform to a corporate aspiration of global dominance (although I suppose the owner might have such dreams), they exist to serve a much smaller market and therefore are far more receptive to positive change. There is no chance of a corporation ever being sustainable, but there is every chance of a small company becoming something that can potentially be sustainable: it has to get rid of the profit motive before it can actually be sustainable in any sense.

Given that, it does make me extremely frustrated, not to say angry, when a very small business that says it is making efforts to be sustainable decides to choose only one facet of sustainability, makes a really big deal of it, and ignores the bigger picture. In effect it is choosing its ethics to suit a particular image: it is greenwashing, however innocuous that may seem.

One example I came across recently (and I bet you can thing of lots of them) is a very small American retailer of baby products. I won’t name them, because they are just one of many, and there are far larger baby product retailers who do far worse things — this is just to illustrate a point. This company have, as their Unique Selling Point (USP) the use of “non-toxic” materials:

While searching for safe feeding gear, I realized how limited the information was and how few options were available. What started as a growing awareness of toxic plastics, became a mission to care for my own children and newborn nephews. A highly motivated search team grew out of my concerned family members and now we work together to find the highest quality non-toxic baby care products for our children and yours.

I then came across an item on their web site which must have been in response to the concerns of a fairly large number of people, otherwise it wouldn’t have been displayed quite so prominently. This item explained why the vast majority of their products were made in China, emphasising that the products were no less safe for that, and still remained “non toxic”. I thought about this for a bit and, basically because I realised they were digging a hole for themselves, sent them this email:

I was very interested in your statement about Chinese made products, and very disappointed indeed upon reading it. I take it from what you say, that the only factor in you stocking a product is that it is toxin free, but does that really imply that you don’t care at all about the toxins that are created in the supply chain, and the fate of the sweatshop workers in the manufacturing zones where your products are created? Are you aware of the appalling state of health amongst children whose surroundings have been blighted by the runaway expansion of industrialization in the Chinese development zones? Are you aware that 90% of China’s electricity (which makes your products) is produced using high-sulphur coal, meaning that Chinese electricity produces around 40% more carbon dioxide than American electricity and produces vast quantities of toxic ground level gas (Mexican electricity is nearly as bad, being based around coal and fuel-oil, in case you were thinking of going there for your cheap imports)?

It may seem that you can turn a blind eye by thinking “at least the end-product is safe”, but a major reason the Earth is in the perilous state it is in, is that we have learnt to conveniently ignore whatever we cannot see; globalization has made this so easy. Just keep using your “non toxic” products, so long as you forget about the people at the other end of the supply chain, dying to make them.

The response was disappointing to say the least, and underlined my concerns: they basically washed their hands of the bigger ethical concerns, blaming the USA chemical industry and globalization for everything:

While I agree with some of the statements that you’ve made about the supply chain of products made in China. It always interesting to me how much brainwashing that we employ in the US. Do you really think that the chemicals are really made overseas? Most of the toxic chemicals are actually made in the US. In fact, we are producing chemicals that have been banned by every country on the globe and can’t even export some of our products to Mexico, which most people view as a third-world country. There is zero question that a world-wide clean up in necessary and we recommend it and wholly embrace it…

Which didn’t address my concerns at all. What about slave labour? What about carbon emissions? What about China’s huge, unregulated chemical industry (does he not realise)? Sadly it comes down to that USP again: we sell “non toxic” products, that what we do, and if we have to do it at the expense of other ethical concerns then that’s not our problem!

You cannot pick and choose your ethics, however passionate you feek about something: things don’t go away if you ignore them, and often they keep getting worse.

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?

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.

My Eco Spam of the week comes from the “non profit” (more of that later) organization, Climate Counts, who have created a scoring system for companies, ostensibly to get them to buck up their ideas…

From: Ria Knapp
To: news@unsuitablog.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 4:04 PM
Subject: News from Climate Counts

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
New Widget Simplifies Consumer Action to Fight Global Warming
Climate Counts’ Widget gives Company Scores a permanent home on blogs, profiles, and desktops

November 2008
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Contact: Ria Knapp

With the end of the presidential election season, our votes are now counted. But when it comes to fighting the global climate crisis, the opportunity to cast your ballot as a consumer remains wide open. The debut of Climate Counts new desktop widget enables people to keep their election season energy – by voting with their dollars.

Just as the importance of addressing climate change and achieving energy independence garnered attention during this year’s presidential debates, the Climate Counts team is working to bring the same attention to the role that consumers can play in motivating the biggest companies in the world to offer their own climate responsibility and leadership. The new Climate Counts Widget gives individuals access to how companies rank on climate and how they compare to other companies in their industry sector. Widgets are customized applications that you can download and embed on your computer or web page.

“People vote based on how closely a candidate mirrors their values,” said Climate Counts project director Wood Turner. “People should bring that same sense of purpose to how they spend their money. The companies they support should also be a reflection of their beliefs and concerns about issues like global warming.”

By typing a company name or brand into the Climate Counts widget, you receive an output message with that company’s climate score from 0 to 100 and which Climate Counts scoring tier – stuck, starting, or striding – that company falls into. The higher the score, the greater a company’s commitment to fighting climate change.

“The widget helps people understand quickly how they can fight climate change with the choices they make every day when they shop,” Turner said. “If the widget is on your desktop, your blog or personal page – you have constant and immediate access to Climate Counts company scores.”

Climate Counts is a non-profit collaborative effort to bring consumers and business together to tackle global climate change. The organization launched its first climate scores of companies in June 2007 and updates scores annually. Climate Counts evaluates companies in four key areas – whether they are measuring their climate footprint; whether they are working to reduce that footprint; whether they are supporting (or blocking) progressive climate policy; and if they are being open and transparency about their climate actions with consumers.

In addition to helping consumers make climate-conscious purchases, the ClimateCounts.org website gives consumers the opportunity to “raise their voices” by e-mailing companies directly to either show their support for companies that are striding or petition lower-scoring companies to improve their climate protection efforts.

The widget can be downloaded directly off the ClimateCount.org website at www.climatecounts.org/widget.

For Release: Dec. 2, 2008

Contact Information
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ria Knapp
PO Box 4844
Manchester, NH 03108
Phone: 603.216.3788
rknapp@climatecounts.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Before looking at the “widget”, I took a look at their website…I must say I wasn’t entirely surprised by what I found, but this was still hypocrisy of the highest order. Here’s my response to Ria:

Dear Ria

This is a joke, yes?

I’ve just looked at the page on Banking (http://www.climatecounts.org/scorecard_sectors.php?id=27) and see that one of the most destructive banks in the world is number 1! Oh, I know why – it’s because the WWF are on your advisory board, and just happen to get lots of money from HSBC! (http://thesietch.org/mysietch/keith/2008/01/15/wwf-buy-yourself-a-new-corporate-image-part-1/). Where is the Co-operative Bank or Triodos, both of whom have environmental policies that they actually act on rather than pretend to be acting on?

And what about the airlines? Surely NO airline should even be in the yellow, given that their entire business depends on the completely unsustainable and excessive production of greenhouse gases. If they fly then they pollute – that’s it. They can never be good.

And then you have Electronics (http://www.climatecounts.org/scorecard_sectors.php?id=13), the companies scored, including your “greens”, all actively push the mindless consumption of consumer goods that no one needs – but they continue to push them because their raison d’etre is to make a profit, and that means obsolescence and more sales, and more resource consumption, and more toxic pollution, and more greenhouse gases.

I don’t expect you to take this seriously, because you don’t appear to take environmental action seriously. Your funding comes from Stoneyfield Farm, who made $20 million in profit in 2007, raking in 90% of that for their shareholders; shareholders who would say goodbye if they didn’t see a healthy return on their investment. The problem is that profit equals economic growth, equals an increase in environmental damage – how can you be objective when your funding depends upon a company making a profit? (and, BTW, Gary Hirshberg has done a wonderful greenwashing job, pretending that it is possible – hmm, how much oil do his yogurt cartons use in a year; how much carbon dioxide does it take to distribute his products around the world; how much methane do his cows produce?)

When you decide to show companies up for what they really are, then let me know – but for now you are going to become the subject of the next article on The Unsuitablog, which is read by thousands of keen anti-greenwashers.

Regards

Keith Farnish
www.unsuitablog.com
www.theearthblog.org

Intentional hypocrisy or just stupidity? I’m not sure, and I can’t pass judgement until I get a response — which has not arrived after 3 days — but I do know for sure that there are an awful lot of environmentally pathological corporations getting an incredibly easy ride out of the laughably lenient scoring system that Climate counts have in place.

Corporations greenwash enough without others helping them do it: change it or get rid of it.

Big companies know they have to look good: that is why Corporate Social Responsibility — one of the most blatant misnomers of all time — was created. Produce a nice thick report saying all the good things you have done in the last financial year, and outlining all of the charitable giving, sustainability projects, improvements to your environmental and social impact and other great things you are planning and you have the means to pull the wool over the eyes of anyone who can’t be bothered to scrape off the surface veneer and look at what you really do as a company.

It is a truism that if a company is included in any of the major global stock indices like the Dow Jones Industrial Average or the FTSE-100 it will be unsustainable: that is, it has to have made a whacking great profit in the previous indexing period and, as such, will have to have made that profit at something else’s expense. If you want to make a profit out of oil, simply extract, refine and transport it at less than the amount someone is prepared to pay you for it — oil may be running out, but while people continue to burn it, and you have the means to produce it, you can still make a profit; if you want to make a profit out of retail, simply produce the goods and retail them at a cost less than you sell the product for — consumer goods may be selling slower, but while people still want to buy crap, and you have a million factory slaves working for you, you can still make a profit.

Basically, if you are a successful company, you will have got there by screwing either people, the planet, or more likely both.

But if you can produce some nice reports saying how responsible you are, you can still get to the top of a list of “Good Companies”, like the one published in The Observer this week.

In order to get into the Top 20, you will have to have been more than three-quarters perfect, according to the scoring system:

The idea is that the index should be helpful to investors who wish to hold shares in or deal with companies that try to make a positive contribution to society and follow good corporate governance practice.

Ethical investment is subjective – different people have different views on what they consider acceptable – and we do not make any judgment about the social usefulness or otherwise of particular industries. Some companies that would normally be excluded by ethical and green investment funds, because they operate in areas such as tobacco or arms, are included.

The maximum possible score is 100, with marks awarded on three main sets of criteria:

1 How companies report on their social and environmental risks and manage their impact – for instance, how they deal with workplace relations and environmental issues, and how well they perform in undertaking charity work. This accounts for 40 per cent of the overall score.

2 The quality of corporate governance. This includes the independence of the board, the quality of executive pay policies and the alignment of interests between executives and shareholders. This accounts for 30 per cent of the total score.

3 Sector issues – how companies address issues specific to their industry. For instance, food retailers are graded on responsible sourcing of products, labelling and sustainability; for a power company, these would include progress towards a lower-carbon portfolio. This accounts for 30 per cent of the total score.

The main source for the assessments is companies’ own reporting.

Surely this kind of system wouldn’t encourage companies to be a little flexible with the truth, would it? Take a look at the list of companies and see whether any of them strike you as rather less than good:

1 Scottish & South’n Energy 93.40
2 Kingfisher 87.05
3 BT Group 86.64
4 Mondi 85.94
5 Royal & Sun Alliance 83.00
6 Shaftesbury 82.82
7 Vodafone 81.50
8 Mouchel 81.27
9 Aviva 80.42
10 Johnson Matthey 79.89
11 Rolls-Royce 79.58
12 GKN 78.41
13 Smith & Nephew 77.28
14 BG Group 77.16
15 Hammerson 77.07
16 Tui Travel 76.89
17 Bhp Billiton 76.82
18 Marks & Spencer 76.61
19 Interserve 76.59
20 Atkins 76.41

You will probably not have heard of all of them, but I bet you have heard of, say Rolls-Royce (who produce engines for civilian and military aircraft), BG Group (whose entire business depends on people burning fossil fuels), Atkins (advisors to road builders, oil companies and the military) and our good friend BHP Billiton, who have pride of place on The Unsuitablog as uber-greenwashers.

Among the other companies are a military helicopter firm, a number of large-scale retail and business property developers, an air travel company and a company that specialise in selling cheap mass-produced goods.

Lists like this are a travesty — they seem to exist solely to pump up the appalling reputations of undeserving businesses who, in a time when the commerce boom is deflating should really be questioning their very existence. Or perhaps it’s people like us who should start learning to reject the very foundations of a society that considers a multi-billion dollar company to be “good”.

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.

I honestly don’t like it when a website writes a good article and I see an advert right next to it advertising something which contradicts the article. In a previous post, I suggested that The Independent needed to keep an eye on their automated adverts, but in the case of this week’s Guardian, the advert was actually being run by The Guardian themselves.

Here’s an extract from the article that the advert ran alongside:

“Sadly, not all consumer goods manufacturers are suddenly going to roll out proactive leasing schemes, given they have a vested interest in selling more and faster, as in the case of the global $23.4bn power-tool industry. But given that the average power drill is used for just four minutes every year – a slothful work rate matched by many other garden and DIY tools – it makes sense as a consumer to join a tool-sharing scheme, or even to start one.”

So, I wonder how often the average family uses the ice cream maker that they bought one hot August afternoon when the kids were pining for something cold and tasty? Patio washers, fence painters, leaf blowers — all things guaranteed to make me fume, even when they aren’t bought new. But when someone does buy something new, like the aforementioned ice cream maker, rather than buy an ice cream from a shop, or from an ice cream van — yes, that’s an example of shared use — I have a little moment of dispair.

Which makes it ever so galling that The Guardian proudly sell such items on the same page that is warning against exactly that kind of thing.

Here’s an enigma: you come across an environmental campaign which, on the surface, looks well meaning, but on closer inspection is so weak in its “solutions” and so diluted in its ambitions that you actually start to question the motivation of the people running it. We Can Solve It (or “we” for short) has both of these attributes, and looks extremely polished to boot…all the hallmarks of an Astroturf. Could it be that “We Can Solve It” are a front for an industry lobby group?

No, in fact it’s worse than that.

We Can Solve It is:

“a project of The Alliance for Climate Protection — a nonprofit, nonpartisan effort founded by Nobel laureate and former Vice President Al Gore. The goal of the Alliance is to build a movement that creates the political will to solve the climate crisis — in part through repowering America with 100 percent of its electricity from clean energy sources within 10 years. Our economy, national security, and climate can’t afford to wait.”

So, it’s an Al Gore project, or rather a project run by people who slavishly follow the Al Gore principles, basically meaning that they will always push for “solutions” that sit firmly within the orthodoxy — lots of local “campaigning lite”, no civil disopedience, no sabotage, no radical life changes, politicians and businesses being politely asked to change and being heartily applauded for shuffling in their seats a bit…that sort of thing.

What makes it even worse (if that’s possible), is the list of “successes“, proudly displayed on their own page. Here’s a sample:

– We Members Forward National Dialogue with Letters to the Editor
– Thousands Urge the Press to Ask Questions on Global Warming
– Stunning Response to Calls for a Global Treaty
– State Department Feels Public Pressure in Run-up to Climate Conference
– How a Climate-conscious County Official Is Helping Arlington County
– Florida Governor Taking on Climate Change
– Colorado Voters Pass Renewable Energy Standards; Governor Doubles Them!
– Ceramic Tile: A Handcrafted Art Form Drives an Eco-revolution
– Trucking Goes Green!
– Pennsylvania Entrepreneur Follows Her Passion for Solar Power
– Wind Energy Is Replacing a History of Oil in One Texas Town
– US-Based Company Helps Denmark and Israel Get Behind the Wheel of Electric Cars

They range from the utterly symbolic (letter writing and “questions”) to the trivial (someone deciding to go into the solar energy business) to the superficially interesting, but ultimately disappointing (“Florida Governor Taking On Climate Change” – actually a piddling 40% cut by 2025, which I managed in a year in my house!) These are the kinds of changes that are apparently saving the world; yet the vast majority of them are (as I said) simply kow-towing to politics and big business.

Moreover, this kind of thing is exactly what I wrote about in A Matter Of Scale, and which seems to be getting worse:

What we are seeing in a so-called age of Environmental Enlightenment is actually a set of basic ideas about the way we need to act and the reasons for acting, being mutated out of existence in the cacophony of competing ideas, which no one can seem to agree upon. This is in part due to the presence of the powerful commercially-funded body of sceptics; but made worse by a huge range of environmental groups that are each trying to compete for a slice of the “we helped save the world” pie. The ideas and messages are changing so often that there is currently little chance of a genuinely effective idea dealing with the competition.

How about some solutions that really will make a difference; the kinds that stick two fingers up at the bodies that caused all the problems in the first place, placing the ability to make decisions in the hands of the people who actually want this planet to be survivable in a couple of generations? You won’t find them in the mainstream, and you certainly won’t find them at We Can Solve It!

Children should get out more; they need to discover the world for themselves, connect with this world and understand that life does not exist in a bubble of technology or commerce. In fact, under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, article 31 states:

1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to rest and leisure, to engage in play and recreational activities appropriate to the age of the child and to participate freely in cultural life and the arts.

2. States Parties shall respect and promote the right of the child to participate fully in cultural and artistic life and shall encourage the provision of appropriate and equal opportunities for cultural, artistic, recreational and leisure activity.

Pretty unequivocal. In the UK (for this is the focus of this article), a charity called Playday, also have this to say:

– All children need opportunities to take their own risks when playing; they need and want challenge, excitement and uncertainty in play.
– Through play, children can learn how to manage challenge and risk for themselves in everyday situations.
– Opportunities for children to take risks while playing are reducing, as increasingly health and safety considerations are impacting on children’s play.
– Adults should provide for children and young people to have adventurous play opportunities.

Which reinforces the UN Convention in a very positive way. In short, children should be playing as much as possible, without interference.

Interestingly, Article 32 of the UN Convention says the following:

1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to be protected from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child’s education, or to be harmful to the child’s health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development.

For a while now Persil, or rather the manufacturer of this detergent, Unilever, have been running a campaign called “Dirt Is Good”, the implication being that it doesn’t matter how much mess kids get into, it’s all part of being a child. Of course, by running a campaign that links such a positive message with what is — if we are being perfectly honest here — a bunch of cleaning chemicals, Unilever get big kudos for their positive attitude but, more importantly for them, get big sales.

Is this child exploitation? According to the UN Convention Article 32 any such exploitation would be completely unacceptable — and while this is bread and butter to a huge corporation, a charity like Playday really should know better than to let commercial interests get in the way of good clean fun.

Then there is this list…

Pentasodium Triphosphate Builder
Sodium Silicoaluminate Builder
Sodium Carbonate Peroxide Oxidising Agent
Sodium Dodecylbenzenesulfonate Surfactant
Aqua Bulking Agent
Sodium Carbonate Buffering Agent
C12-15 Pareth-7 Surfactant
Sodium Acetate Tablet Disintegrant
Tetraacetyl Ethylene Diamine Oxidising Agent
Sodium Silicate Builder
Sodium Sulfate Bulking Agent
Sodium Stearate Surfactant
Ethylene Diamine Tetra Methylene Phosphonic Acid Ca/Na salt Sequestrant
Maize Starch Bulking Agent
Parfum Fragrance
Citric Acid Builder
Cellulose Gum Anti-redeposition Agent
Dimorpholinopyridazinone Optical Brightener
PVP Dye Transfer Inhibitor
Sodium Acrylic Acid/MA Copolymer Structurant
Simethicone Antifoaming Agent
Sodium Chloride Bulking Agent
Sodium Bentonite Softness Extender
Sodium Polyacrylate Structurant
Glyceryl Stearate Emulsifier
Protease Enzyme
Sodium Polyaryl Sulfonate Surfactant
Amylase Enzyme
Lipase Enzyme
CI 74160 Colourant

That is the full ingredient list for the best selling form of Persil, the biological liquid. I’m not going to go into the chemistry of this list, but it would be fair to say that to blindly go into a trusting relationship with this product, containing all of these substances — whether as a parent, charity or most importantly, a child who usually has no choice over what their clothes are washed in and what substances pour into the waste water system and eventually into rivers, lakes and seas — is pure folly.

Persil is a commercial product; it exists to make money for business. Never forget that.