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:

Eco-Partners ($5,000+)

GE Energy Ford Motor Company Viking

Platinum Sponsors ($1,000+)

Bosch Southwest Windpower Xantrex Grundfos Takagi SMA America Vermont Castings Trojan Battery Company Exeltech Samlex America

 

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.)

All the time the people from Plane Stupid are planning their devastating (sic) t-shirt walk around the new Heathrow Terminal 5 on its day of opening, something far more unexpected is being ignored by the world’s media. Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam is planning a seventh runway. Campaigners opposing this move (via a personal e-mail) take up the story:

“In the Netherlands, the debate is centered on the development of a SEVENTH RUNWAY, called Kaagbaan II, at Schiphol Airport. The expansion may represent a competitive move. If a race for market share between Amsterdam vs.
Heathrow gets started, how far will they go? Amsterdam already has six runways, to Heathrow’s two.”

Even if air transport weren’t as potentially damaging as it promises to be, Schiphol Airport already has ample capacity for massive expansion in its six runways. This suggests very strongly that the motivation may be a combination of land-grabbing by the developers so they can reap the rewards of a large capital project, and a nice bit of posturing by the owners. 

Schiphol Airport is 100% owned by the Dutch national and local government. The interests in operating the airport are public only, therefore you would expect air transport to be right at the bottom of the list of a government that prides itself on being a model of environmental sustainability. Not so.

Go to the Dutch Transport Ministry web site, and you find some hopelessly conflicting statements:

“The Dutch government has set ambitious targets for improving air quality, aiming to reduce CO2 emissions in the Netherlands. The negative environmental impact of increased should be limited, by stimulating innovative solutions in road transport, shipping and aviation.” (from this page)

Just one click away from this is the following:

“As well as having a positive influence on the area surrounding airports there is no doubt that air traffic can also have a negative impact. Although airports create jobs for the local community, they are also a source of noise pollution. Municipalities have limited options for expansion because they must comply with strict regulations governing construction in the areas surrounding airports. In addition, the emission of hazardous substances has an impact on air quality.” (from this page)

Incredibly (or not, depending on how you feel) climate change is not mentioned at all. Guess why. Because, like every other Western government, the Dutch Government are scared of upsetting the companies that operate in their territory.

Money is power, and governments never upset companies that have the potential to make money if they can get away with it. If the Dutch people don’t decide to rapidly change their focus from making money to giving themselves a chance of surviving the next couple of decades before the polders flood, then their government will carry on supporting environmentally damaging projects.

I suppose the only funny thing is that Schiphol Airport is 3 metres below sea level. The flood defences won’t last much longer: what a monumental irony.

“…said representatives of the campaign group, Plane Stupid.” The words fell out of the mouth of Jeremy Paxman, the UK’s most acerbic newsreader, like a river of foul-tasting spittle. I know how he feels.

With aircraft emissions rising exponentially, promising to undo any carbon reduction measures that governments put in place because they fawn in the face of business might and the “right” of people in the industrial West to fly, you would think that a key enemy of the environmental movement would be the entire flying culture. But we see Sierra Club sending their supporters around the world by plane, government ministers and their advisers flying by their thousands to “environmental” conferences, and (I have it on good authority) leaders of mainstream environmental organisations taking holidays across the world by jet because…well, I can’t think of an acceptable excuse – can you?

Then we have Plane Stupid: the brainchild of a number Climate Camp protestors along with Greenpeace staffers, who have been in the press recently for unfurling a couple of banners on top of the Houses of Parliament, and who are now organising a “flash mob” for the grand opening of Heathrow Terminal 5 (see above, sort of ;-) ).

“Be at T5 International Arrivals at 11am to put on (or strip to reveal) your brightly coloured ‘STOP AIRPORT EXPANSION’ t-shirt: a visible presence of public opposition to the madness of airport expansion. Wander round, have a coffee, leave when you like.” (from http://t5flashmob.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/flashmobflyer2.pdf)

You may well ask me: “What’s wrong with that?” Nothing, actually, if there was any chance of any of this activity making any difference whatsoever. As I have written on The Earth Blog:

“It becomes increasingly clear – the more you look at them – that most of the campaigns fought by large environmental groups not only sit squarely in the comfort zone of that group’s supporters and leaders, but also conveniently sit in the comfort zones of the very companies and governments the campaigns are targeted at.”

Where, in any of Plane Stupid’s materials, in anything they say in the media (after all, media attention is what they crave) is a direct call for the public to stop flying NOW because if they don’t stop then the airports will keep expanding, the planes will keep flying and the Earth will keep heating? Where is the advice to keep on at your friends and relatives to stop their senseless airbound journeys? Why are the media who promote air travel not being attacked for being tools of industry?

I’ll tell you why.

It’s because organisations like Plane Stupid / Greenpeace, Friends Of The Earth, Sierra Club, WWF are scared of alienating their audience, their friends in the media and, most of all, their own people who still can’t bear to admit that they are as much a part of the machine as big business. I know people who have been sacked from and ostracised by these organisations for daring to suggest that protests, petitions, banners and marches don’t work. They don’t, and neither do Flash Mobs.

And the sad thing is, the organisations know it – but still won’t admit that they have wasted decades trying to do things the nice way.

The Unsuitablog having a go at Greenpeace? That can’t be right, can it?

Yes it can. Since its formation in 1971, Greenpeace have been right at the heart of the modern environmental campaigning movement: amongst their many victories have been putting the protection of whales on a global footing…

Well, that’s all I can think of. I admit to having considerable empathy with the fearless anti-logging campaigners in South America, and the work of some of their more underground activists who rarely get much credit in the PR-ridden world that has become “Nu-Green Campaigning”, but I have more than a little antagonism for the people running the campaigns in the rich countries which contain most of Greenpeace’s member base.

The list of crimes is too many to go into detail here: needless to say, numerous battles have been lost due to their recent practice of kow-towing to the consumer culture. In a nutshell, there is no-one in a position of power at Greenpeace who is prepared to say, “This civilisation sucks, we should be bringing it down.” Let’s face it – the world is run by wealthy individuals in government and especially in business who are driving us down the road to self-annihilation.

What do Greenpeace do in the UK? Spend most of their time pushing for people to have solar panels and wind-turbines in their towns. Everything will be fine if we just take our energy from renewables, and ignore those nasty people who keep selling us stuff; brainwashing us into thinking this is the life; making laws to control us according to the wishes of corporations; pretending they can be trusted to save the planet when they just want to squeeze every last drop of resource out of it.

Here’s the spiel from the UK web site:

“EfficienCity is a virtual town, but pioneering, real world communities around the UK are using similar systems. As a result, they’re enjoying lower greenhouse gas emissions, a more secure energy supply, cheaper electricity and heating bills and a whole new attitude towards energy.”

“While our government promotes the fallacy that we need coal and nuclear to keep the lights on, innovative councils, businesses and individuals are taking the leap into a cleaner, greener future with decentralised energy.”

Cheaper electricity! Innovative councils and businesses! Talk about being in hock to the market economy. For goodness sake, Greenpeace, do you really not have a clue why this planet is being killed?

Yet again Friends Of The Earth are asking their members (I don’t know why they keep sending me these, I’m not a member) to carry out world-changing actions on their behalf. I say this with a hint of sarcasm, because both you and I know that Friends Of The Earth have not achieved anything significant in their history and, in fact, may well have slowed down the pace of environmental action. It is well known that wherever there are established “environmental” organisations, individuals tend to delegate responsibility for action to these organisations. They give money, they write letters, they sign petitions – and they assume that the organisation will get the job done. This places a lot of pressure on the organisation to make the changes happen, but then again, why purport to be a membership organisation if you aren’t prepared to act for your members.

Unions call for strikes because they know that withdrawing labour is an effective means of forcing change. When was the last time Friends Of The Earth orchestrated a mass withdrawal of cooperation from their members: refusing to pay electricity bills unless the electric companies switched to all renewables (one of their big campaigns) would be a start, yet you will never see this happen because it may upset the status quo.

To show you what FoE mean by “action”, here is part of the e-mail I received this morning:

“What is your MPs new year’s resolution?…Let’s make sure it’s taking action on climate change.”

“After massive progress, 2008 is the year the Climate Change Bill becomes law. We’ve come a long way but we still need to ensure MPs will vote for the changes we need to make it tough enough.”

“Whether or not you’ve already contacted your MP, there’s a new and urgent action we’d like you to take. Please email your MP – to ask them to sign a new parliamentary petition demonstrating their commitment to a strong Bill.”

Let’s break this down.

1) “Taking action on climate change”. What is this action exactly? I have a quote from Tony Juniper saying that a 30% reductions in carbon emissions is sufficient to halt climate change. Whether this is by 2050, 2030 or even 2020, it is totally inadequate, so even if FoE achieve their aims, climate change will continue.

2) “After massive progress”. What progress? Greenhouse gas emissions are up, and still climbing, even in the UK where this campaign is based. Claiming progress requires tangible evidence – unless you can demonstrate that your actions have altered the level of emissions, or whatever you want to achieve, then you cannot claim you have made progress.

3) “Sign a new parliamentary petition”. Oh great! Another petition. Another hopeful document that will go the same way as all the rest. Don’t they get it? Symbolic actions change nothing – they make things worse by keeping up the pretence that something is happening when nothing really is.

Please, don’t trust your future to Friends Of The Earth, or any other symbolic organisation. Make the changes yourself : try these for a start.

Those guys at Treehugger.com, what a bunch of great guys! They love a joke, don’t they?

“In spite of all the bad news about first-generation biofuels, it’s still a thrill to hear that Virgin Atlantic announced yesterday a 747 flown on a mixture of about 20 percent biofuel and the rest kerosene will lift off for a test flight in February, many months earlier than planned.

“The passengerless Virgin flight from London to Amsterdam will be a Boeing 747-400 and will fly the approximately 1.5-hour flight on the alternative fuel, which Virgin spokesman Paul Charles wouldn’t identify but said is from a “sustainable” source that doesn’t compete with food or freshwater supplies.”

Anyone would think they are really supporting flying – good thing it’s just some crazy April Fools joke. What? It’s not a joke?! My source tells me that they really did write an article that said it was “a thrill” to hear about a 20% biofuel plane.

A Thrill?!

Do they really think that making any form of flying more respectable will do anything to make this planet a greener place? 20% biofuels, so that means 80% kerosene, so let’s just suppose that it’s a 20% cut in fossil fuel emissions. Now let’s look at the source of the biofuel.

A “sustainable” source would mean no net transport emissions, no use of fertilisers, no loss of habitat, no reduction in photosythesis…are you getting this?

And let’s just suppose (we’re really stretching the imagination now) that this “sustainable” source is better than kerosene in terms of overall emissions. How many people will stop flying now if they think that it is ok to carry on doing it because their flights are now a little bit greener? How many people who previously refused to fly because of the horrific greenhouse gas growth will now think again, and maybe take the odd Virgin flight?

If flying was truly sustainable then I would be on the first plane to New Zealand to see the glaciers before they all melted away; but it never will be sustainable, and I’m not going. Treehugger, you really have sold out on this one.

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…
 

You know when an “environmental” organisation has lost the plot when they start doing something so obviously hypocritical, so rancidly damaging, that there is no way on Earth that they cannot see the harm they are doing. The Sierra Club is a much-loved institution of American life. Sometimes vilified by the far-right, but generally accepted by the public as a symbol of great effort for the common good. And they have done some good, although you would be hard-pressed to identify much that has recently made much difference to the state of the planet.

And despite this light green tinge to their activities, despite their fairly fluffy persona, you really couldn’t imagine them promoting long haul flights, could you? Long haul flights, with extra air transfers thrown in? Long haul flights with extra air transfers and long distance 4×4 road trips?

Oh yes they do. And they promote them big time: not just a few, but hundreds and hundreds of options to fly around the world, spewing out tonnes of planet burning carbon dioxide as they go. Tempted? Take at look at this page.

Some of the trips have to be seen to be believed: you can go to Antarctica, by plane and icebreaker; you can fly to Estonia and go skiing; you can fly to the Galapagos Islands – that one needs four flights in all. Need I go on? I wrote to various tour leaders, expecting a hearty rebuttal of my points – here is one example:

Dear xxxxx 

Just been perusing some of the trips on the Sierra Club’s pages. Cruising The Galapagos Islands : 4 flights. That doesn’t sound very environmentally friendly does it?

Are you sure the Sierra Club are an environmental organisation, or are they just a club for rich people who want to pretend they are doing good. I know what I think, but as Mr Pope doesn’t recognise the latter – he is in some kind of world where flying is ok so long as it’s done by the “right kind of people” – then Sierra Club can carry on pulling the wool over people’s eyes, pretending that they are saving the world, while they are really burning it up.

Please consider what you are helping to happen when you encourage people to fly: however much the traveller may learn from the experience you are helping to heat the same planet that my children are hoping is still habitable when they grow up. The truth is, the vast majority of people on these trips will *never* do enough to make up for that extra 10 tons of carbon dioxide they have produced.

Regards

Keith Farnish

Out of a dozen e-mails I had one response, and he basically told me not to be so rude, going on to defend “eco tourism” as something that is better than other types of holidays. It didn’t strike him that not flying at all might be an option too.

So hats off to the Sierra Club; still in a tailspin over how to protect the planet.