The Unsuitablog

I cannot say this enough: Governments and Business have no part to play in the solution to the environmental crisis. This is part of the “Eco Meme” in Time’s Up! for a very good reason – the primary role of government is to grow the economy, regardless of the consequences. This is exemplified perfectly in an article from todays Guardian, which I will reprint in full, given that it is such an indictment of the political system.

You will notice that Greenpeace have done something good: they have performed an undermining activity in exposing the machinations of the corrupt system, thus working against one of the Tools Of Disconnection – namely “Seven: Lie To Us”. For this they must be congratulated – they are using their high profile to get this information out to the widest possible audience: this is the kind of thing groups like Greenpeace should be concentrating on.

Bear in mind, anyone can file a Freedom of Information request, where the relevant laws exist; alternatively, if you are in a privileged position, or know someone who is, then you can bypass this bureaucratic system and simply leak the information…

Department for Transport civil servants repeatedly met aviation industry chiefs in advance of the decision to back a third runway at Heathrow, even though they told environmental groups that there was a blanket ban on meetings with any external bodies.

The disclosure comes in documents the civil service was directed to release to Greenpeace by the information commissioner after nearly nine months of stonewalling by civil servants.

The documents, in the form of a risk register produced by the DfT last year, also disclose that the communications directorate at the department saw it as its job to “monitor protest groups continuously and brief staff and police accordingly”.

The risk register is a document listing everything that could go wrong with the project, the likelihood of something going wrong and how much of a problem such an event would be.

Ministers regarded losing the economic and environmental arguments as “high” impact and “medium” likelihood, combining to give a “high” exposure to risk for the government. The threat of disruption was seen as one of the highest risk threats to the third runway.

The documents also disclose that at one point the department thought it would only be able to meet the noise reduction demands by introducing a congestion charge for the area.

Civil servants also advised that they continue high-level and frequent engagement with industry stakeholders, including at ministerial level, as necessary to keep abreast of developments and strategies.

At the same time an environmental organisation was being emailed by transport department civil servants: “In advance of the meeting I would like to make clear that discussion of Heathrow expansion will not be possible. This is for reasons of propriety as the consultation has now closed and ministers are considering the submissions that have been made.

“This condition applies to all meetings that the secretary of state is holding with external groups. Wider issues around aviation and the environment may, of course, be discussed with the ministers.”

The document also shows that civil servants thought it right to contact the Competition Commission so it did not create “uncertainty over BAA capacity/drive to take forward LHR expansion”.

Meanwhile, the government has indicated that BAA cannot lodge a planning application for a third runway before the next general election – an admission that ensures a Conservative government could block a new landing strip at the airport.

According to a presentation by the DfT, seen by the Guardian, BAA is not expected to seek planning permission for a third runway until 2012. The last possible date for a general election is 3 June 2010. Executives at the airport group have conceded that it will be impossible to compile the plans and data necessary by that date.

(from http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/27/heathrow-third-runway-civil-service)

I think I can truthfully say that television is the means by which greenwash, and other forms of anti-environmental propaganda, reaches people most effectively: magazines, newspapers and billboards are certainly grevious offenders, but as we subvert more and more of our lives to the great glass teat in the sitting room (the bedroom, the kitchen, the dining room, the pub, the car…) we become ever more receptive to what is coming out of it, even though we may not think we do.

Television is where the greenwashers go if they really want to get their message over to the maximum number of people in the most insidious way possible — which makes television, public television in particular, an obvious target for sabotage. You might not be able to get into peoples’ homes (although, as this article suggests, it would make a fine project) but, as this article from The Sietch Blog shows, everyone can have a go at freeing peoples’ minds…

I have had some interesting discussions with people who don’t like what I say in my book about sabotage. In a nutshell, sabotage, or probably more accurately, “undermining” is a vital activity in allowing a sizeable number of people to regain control of their lives that are otherwise being controlled by the forces that ensure we follow our current, destructive path. Sabotage of the things that control us is therefore, fundamental to creating large-scale change.

The way we have been taught, especially in recent years, to view anyone interfering with the workings of civilization as “terrorists” is a travesty. Sabotage for the sake of creating something better, no less than in order to ensure humans have a future on Earth, is no more negative than growing your own food or refusing to buy new goods; and is a lot more positive an action than, say, voting, which changes nothing except the superficial appearance of the political system.

And in case you think sabotage in order to give people their minds back is going to be difficult, here’s an example of something that everyone can do easily, quickly and without getting caught – and if you do get caught then what’s the worse that can happen? “Officer, I caught this individual switching my bank of televisions off!” Clearly a capital offence.

TV-B-Gone — and I make no excuses for advertising a product, because it’s one that could really change things — switches televisions and other remote controlled screens off. Simple. And it does it brilliantly…

This turns 17 off in 2 minutes at an electronics fair:



This clip shows how to use it through windows:



And this one, which I think is the best of all, shows how to use it in places where, surely you would get caught, but are not!



You can buy TV-B-Gone directly from the www.tvbgone.com or on your local eBay site.

I’ve just ordered one, and It’ll be attached to my house keys, so it’s always there when I get the urge. Go on, you know you want to do it!

You would be amazed how many times, and in how many different places, I have used mine…

People aren’t listening: this is the season of supermarket voucher collecting in schools around the UK, and the exortations to “Collect! Collect! Collect!” are coming thick and fast, in every newsletter sent home with students, on every school website, and on posters liberally pasted and hung on the walls of a school near you.

I have tried my best to be analytical and instructive. The Unsuitablog published a series of three articles last year giving details about the operation of, the commercial incentives and the brainwashing imposed by such schemes. Here they are, in case you missed them:

http://thesietch.org/mysietch/keith/2008/10/13/school-supermarket-voucher-special-introduction/

http://thesietch.org/mysietch/keith/2008/10/15/school-supermarket-voucher-special-greenwashing-children/

http://thesietch.org/mysietch/keith/2008/10/17/school-supermarket-vouchers-special-winners-losers-and-fighting-back/

The schemes are back with a vengeance – most prominently the newly rebranded Tesco for Schools & Clubs and the Sainsbury Active Kids 2009 schemes: both designed to teach children and their parents that supermarkets are a force for social good, and not the commercial resource-sucking, community-killing, globalization machines that anyone who pauses for even a short moment would realise they really are.

In the last article I tried to suggest ways of stopping these schemes, and tried a number of them myself, to little effect – all except for one, which worked wonderfully!

All you need is a pair of these:

Take a look at the photo at the top of this article, paying particular attention to how the incidious banners — which provide supermarkets with wonderful free advertising on public land — are attached. Not very securely, are they?

Now, with your wire cutters to hand, pay a visit to any school which has one of these banners, preferably when it is dark, and with just four quiet snips, you can cut down this brainwashing tool, stuff it into a bag (why not use a Tesco or a Sainsbury’s one, for extra irony) and then put it in a bin a few streets away. It’s not illegal, by the way: you are doing a public service, and the banner was a “gift”, rather than part of a contractual arrangement.

Once you have done it once, then you’ll want to do it again: and maybe in a short while, we will have together, given the supermarkets a good kick in the balls, which is the least they deserve.

You have to hand it to the UK Government; time after time they have pretended to care about greenhouse gas emissions, world peace, deforestation, toxic dumping, overfishing, human right abuses and all sorts of other things that a truly “caring government” would normally do positive things about (ok, some of you will have spotted the contradiction in terms), and time after time they have been exposed as brutal hypocrites, slavishly obeying the wishes of their corporate masters. Yet they keep coming back with ever more extraordinary claims about how they are just doing things because “it’s the right thing to do”.

Top of the list at the moment is carbon capture and storage, which is a way of ensuring we can keep burning coal — feeding the machine we have to remain tied to — while pretending all the emissions are going to be safely locked away and really won’t ever escape, no they won’t, no way, honest.

Coming up close on the heels of CCS is the unremitting desire to get genetically modified organisms into the food chain, thus satisfying the demands of many of the largest corporations on Earth: Cargill, BASF, Syngenta, Dow Chemicals and Monsanto — to name a few. The Canadian and US governments rolled over long ago, and the power of these corporations has ensured that South America is awash with GMOs, making it difficult to ensure that the food we eat isn’t contaminated in some way (Hint: grow your own). And that’s where The Independent takes up the story:

Jane Kennedy, the minister for Farming and the Environment, told The Independent yesterday that the [world food study] group’s work would include the potential for GM crops and food.

She said that she was “cautious” about allowing GM products in Britain, but added: “My own opinion is less important than what John Beddington might come up with. When the public are deeply concerned and hold strong views, they tend not to listen when ministers express a view. But they will listen to those who have the experience and knowledge to be able to offer solid advice.”

Ms Kennedy said that she would welcome GM crop trials in Britain. None is currently taking place because all projects have been vandalised by opponents but the Government may fund an experiment at a “secure” location.

The minister said another reason why the issue had to be addressed was that animal feed, such as soya, was increasingly made using GM products. “The options for those countries which want to stay GM-free are reducing, therefore the price of non-GM animal feed is going up. If that trend continues, it means meat products in countries which choose not to use GM becoming more and more expensive. There are clear implications for the UK,” she said.

Let’s get this right: the reason that the UK (and, by implication, every other nation that currently debarrs GMO growing) should embrace genetically modified crops is because it is too difficult and too expensive to avoid it. Which is like saying that the reason factories should continue to pour toxic chemicals into rivers is because it costs money to do something else with the toxins, and therefore the price of the factory’s goods would go up! Notice that she is referring only to meat, because animal feed production is by far the most profitable and powerful sector of the agricultural farming system, and to suggest we should not eat meat to reduce global food demand would be to defy her owners.

So she speaks from the mouth of the machine, like all good politicians.

Apparently, on March 28, millions of people will be turning off their lights for an hour, for Earth Hour. Yes, a whole hour when all sorts of really green places, like Las Vegas, New York and San Francisco, will be flicking off the lights in symbolic venues and, an hour later, turning them all on again, just to show that Industrial Civilization doesn’t really give a f*** about the planet, but likes a good joke: like the joke of Alanis Morrisette flicking her toenails in the tumbler of her fellow airline passenger.

Like the joke that you can be an airline passenger and, at the same time, talk about saving energy.

Like the joke that trivial, symbolic activities, such as Earth Hour do anything other than make people think they have done something worthwhile.

Stop messing about with trivia and do something real.

Earth Hour: The Huge Turn Off- Alanis Morissette PSA

I put this in because it’s a great little film, by a group of German university students, who want to make a lot of very important points in a very short time – we don’t have much left, you see.

Our Little World – The Climate Movie from Josef Buchner on Vimeo.

See how many things you can spot that have been greenwashed by corporations and politicians, and think about the number of different ways you could present this information in a skewed, twisted way to keep people brainwashed about the consumer economy…it’s quite surprising how little effort it takes. How horribly indoctrinated we have let ourselves become.

I must admit to a wry grin when I heard that UK Business Secretary (a very important minister of state) Peter Mandelson had been “slimed” with green custard prior to entering a conference in London to discuss “green” industry, on Friday 6 March. The protagonist, Leila Deen, certainly made a good shot, and not surprisingly, the incident was covered not just nationally, but internationally. The usual splits between the pro-environmental and anti-environmental press showed through, and many of the tabloids took the chance to make fun of one of the least popular British politicians of the last 20 years.

So what was the point of this? Superficially, Leila Deen, acting on behalf of the campaign group Plane Stupid, was making the point that they do not welcome the current pro-business stance of the UK government, in particular the decision to build a 3rd runway at London Heathrow Airport. At a slightly deeper level, it was a reflection on the state of politics in general – as Leila states:

Peter Mandelson epitomises all that is wrong with our democratic system. His CV is a reason for us to give up on democracy and take direct action. After several disgraces and resignations, Mandelson is back from exile in Europe to be shoe-horned into government as an unelected minister, via an archaic loophole which allows the Prime Minister to create peers and place them in power for his own political ends. This is what democracy in the UK looks like.

So the incident leaves a clear message that Mandelson and his ilk are not safe from environmental protestors and the watchfulness of the public in general — or does it? I’m not convinced: despite my immediate glee, the feeling I get from this is one of superficiality. The action, which Plane Stupid will accept was symbolic in all sorts of ways, went as well as it could possibly have done, yet all that is being discussed in the media now is the incident itself, not the reason for it. This is not surprising: the press are notoriously fickle about what makes a good story, and the nefarious goings-on between the UK Government and various industry lobbyists is not news, sadly. So we are left with a story about a woman who threw green custard at a government minister and is now on police bail. Furthermore, such opportunities for mischief-making — potentially a very effective thing, if you are able to make a public figure genuinely look bad — will now be curtailed even further because of this incident.

The lesson here is: don’t expect the media to do your work for you; you must keep on pushing and pushing, exposing the catalogue of corruption and never letting go on your key message. More important, though, it would be far better to concentrate your efforts on getting at the real villains of the piece: the lobbyists and the PR people themselves, without whom such corruption would be far less likely to take place. Target the PR machine and the channels though which the lobbyists are able to brainwash not just governments, but the public in general, and you can get away with a lot more than just an opportunistic custard lob: you can do some serious sabotage without anyone being any the wiser.

Which do you think is the more effective action?

Thanks to The Reality Blog for this superb link to a CNN item that showed how much horseshit the coal industry is spewing. Note: I am not the kind of “environmentalist” who supports carbon capture and storage or carbon trading in any way, shape or form…

Joe Lucas, the spokesman for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) was just interviewed for a piece exploring the myth of “clean” coal. (You may remember ACCCE as the folks who spent over $10.5 million on energy lobbying.)

It seems that the spokesman who represents the industry that puts out more than one third of our CO2 emissions — the leading cause of global warming — is having some trouble grasping reality.

(full video at http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2009/03/04/am.acosta.clean.coal.cnn)

Transcript of Lucas bit:

Still the industry refuses to say its plants contribute to global warming.
[Question:] Can you just answer that yes or no? If you believe that burning coal causes global warming?
[Joe Lucas:] I don’t know, I’m not a scientist.

You don’t have to be a scientist to know that burning coal is a leading source of global warming pollution. (”GHG Emissions and Sinks 1990–2006,” US EPA 2008.)

But it certainly is hard to believe that while the industry has spent $10.5 million on lobbying, their spokesman isn’t better informed.

Now, open your minds and allow this extraordinary piece of propaganda to enter your psyche: you know you want to believe…

Do you enjoy your place in the machine?

Advertising is one of the main methods by which people are encouraged to continue feeding the global economic machine; it is a Tool Of Disconnection, a tool to ensure humans are kept tied to civilization and away from the kinds of connections that really matter. Advertising is pernicious; it changes the way people think; it implants cultural ideas and concepts in people of all ages, and it makes people do things that they otherwise would not do. Advertising is brainwashing, and it works…for the system.

Here is an extract from A Matter Of Scale:

On 1 April 2007, the Brazilian city of São Paolo officially became billboard free. The tide of advertising that had swamped every physical dimension of the city had become intolerable, even to the local authorities; such was the scale of the problem. The law that demanded the removal of all billboards was – incredibly – passed by a huge majority, with the only “no” voter being an advertising executive on the council. People are happy, except the advertisers, who made their position clear after the law was proposed:

Border, the Brazilian Association of Advertisers, was up in arms over the move. In a statement released on 2 October, the date on which law PL 379/06 was formally approved by the city council, Border called the new laws “unreal, ineffective and fascist”. It pointed to the tens of thousands of small businesses that would have to bear the burden of altering their shop fronts under regulations “unknown in their virulence in any other city in the world”.

We’re all smart enough to see through the rhetoric of these comments: “unreal, ineffective and fascist” are perfect descriptors for the synthetic, disconnected, material world that advertising has forced upon humanity – a world that is swamped with branding, corporate “messages”, sponsorship, flyers, free sheets, popups and numerous other forms of corporate propaganda. São Paolo may have lost its billboards, but the advertisers can still feed their messages to the public through newspapers, magazines, television, radio; even schools, into which corporations don’t so much sneak advertising, as blatantly trumpet the goodness of their products and services.

Almost every school in the UK collects Tesco and Sainsburys supermarket tokens, through which they can acquire computers and books. Every token handed over by every child is a graphic advertisement for competing brands that want their cut of the family shopping budget, and the future loyalty of the children who carry these little pieces of paper into the classroom. North America has it far worse: “It is never enough to tag the schools with a few logos. Having gained a foothold, the brand managers are now doing what they have done in music, sports and journalism outside the schools: trying to overwhelm their host. They are fighting for their brands to become not the add-on but the subject of education.” As you have seen, the individual is not offered real choice in this culture of consumption – simply “Conchoice”. The real choice has already been lost in favour of corporations that have sold entire populations down the commercial river: the individual’s ultimate dream is no longer a response to “what can I achieve in my life?” but “what can I buy?”

When I receive an email suggesting that there is such a thing as “Eco Billboards” then my blood starts to boil: which “Eco Billboards” are these that advertise cars, shopping malls, luxury holidays, political parties, energy companies? Tell me about your brave plan:

Hi Keith,

The outdoor advertising industry is getting an “eco” makeover! From now on major billboard companies like Clear Channel Outdoor will only accept ECO-posters created with polyethylene, the most commonly-recycled plastic in the world.

ECO-posters are 100% recyclable and better for the environment – the previous 30-sheet posters contributed about 150 million pounds annually to the nation’s landfills. ECO-posters also maintain their visible integrity longer, 90 days as opposed to 30 days with the previous posters. Other benefits include:

· No flagging or peeling with these single-sheet executions
· No more glue and paper – the new posters attach directly to the structure
· Visual quality is comparable to vinyl executions
· Unaffected by weather

I’d be happy to arrange a time for you to speak with an executive from Clear Channel Outdoor to discuss why they are making this change, as well how it will help the environment, if you’re interested.

Kind regards,
Sharon
________________________________________


Sharon Oh
Account Executive – Public Relations
Brainerd Communicators, Inc.
521 Fifth Avenue, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10175
Tel: 212-986-6667
Fax: 212-986-8302
oh@braincomm.com

Visit our website at http://www.braincomm.com

Tell me, Sharon, do you feel morally justified in calling this an “eco” makeover, or are you just greenwashing? What does your heart tell you?

Now this is what should happen to billboards: preferably through the actions of the public, rather than any political party. Removing advertising is freeing people’s minds: the only ecological billboard is one that contains no advertising.

Enjoy this story:

Oil companies want you to use their products, and despite what they may appear to say, they really want you to use oil. I will repeat this: oil companies want you to use oil. That seems obvious, but you would be forgiven for thinking otherwise – I really would forgive you.

In fact, it would be fair to say that, given the raison d’etre of any oil company is to make money from selling oil, they will consider anything that does not allow them to make a profit from selling oil as commercial suicide. Nevertheless – and this is why I would forgive you – they are doing an incredible job convincing us that they are actually benign, even beneficial, entities. The public at large are very much aware that oil companies trade in death; not only through their greenhouse gas emitting activities, but through their politically smokescreened desire to expand their global reach, whatever the environmental or social cost.

They are prepared to start wars to get oil.

They are prepared to destroy ecosystems to get oil.

They are prepared to displace humans to get oil.

They are prepared to do anything it takes to ensure that they profit from the business of extracting, refining, distributing and selling oil. But looking like a monster isn’t a good thing in these marginally more environmentally conscious days (if only from the point of view of the public), so it is vital to look and sound like the Jolly Green Giant – and the less you look like a giant at all, the more likely you are to convince us all that oil isn’t such a bad thing, and neither is economic growth, mass consumption, ceaseless driving and hyperexploitation of disappearing habitats.

We’re all in this together, aren’t we? Chevron want you to Join Them: “Will You Join Us” they plaintively ask, “we care too.”

One of the most critical environmental challenges facing the world today is reducing long-term growth in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The use of fossil fuels to meet the world’s energy needs has contributed to an increase in GHGs—mainly carbon dioxide and methane—in the earth’s atmosphere. Many think this increase is leading to climate change, with potentially adverse effects on people, economies, and the environment—from coastal flooding, to droughts, to changes in ecosystems and biodiversity. Many governments and businesses agree on the importance of addressing the risk of climate change. The challenge is to do so while still providing the energy required to meet the demands of growing populations and economies.

Time to deconstruct this statement, and see what they really think:

“One of the most critical” It is easily the most critical environmental “challenge”, and unlike almost any other change, is irreversible in the medium term due to the presence of a host of positive feedback loops. They are purposely downplaying the climate crisis because it would not pay to scare the consuming public.

“long-term growth” What about short- and medium-term growth? This is not something Chevron would want to address, because that will mean taking immediate action – they only want to appear to want to change, which is easy to do when you have long-term targets to satisfy.

“to meet the world’s energy needs” This essentially means that the need has to be met; our fundamental consumer industrial behaviour cannot change because this is commercially damaging, therefore, by inserting a baseline proposition (“the world’s energy needs”) we are presented with no possibility of fundamental change.

“Many think this increase is leading to climate change” Notice the lack of any concensus being presented: it must be made clear that there is uncertainty, rather than almost total agreement within the scientific body of evidence, for with uncertainly remains the ability to keep moving the goalposts. This is a very dangerous contention that Chevron are making; but it is no different to that of any other major corporation.

“Many governments and businesses agree” This is clever: by juxtaposing the far more sceptical governments and businesses with the scientific body of evidence, using the same phrasing, Chevron have managed to imply that governments and businesses are doing (or will do) exactly what is required to deal with climate change. The statement “Many governments and businesses agree” is actually true: it is the context that is so misleading.

“while still providing the energy required to meet the demands of growing populations and economies.” This is essentially a repeat of the opener, but in more strident terms, and with a twist: by bringing population into it, you actually reveal the “inevitability” view that corporations have to maintain. The “inevitable” growth of population and the economy is what corporations need to maintain their business, and by presenting this as a fait accompli, we are led to think there is nothing we can do about them; which is a blatant lie.

I was led to this horrible, cynical campaign by an emailer, whose comments, I think sum the campaign up rather well:

In train stations, at bus stops, online, even on our coffee cups, Chevron ads are trying to convince us that the key to ending our energy crisis is individual action. Over pictures of everyday Americans, taglines from Chevron’s “Will You Join Us” ad campaign read:

“I will leave the car at home more.”
“I will take my golf clubs out of the trunk.”
“I will replace 3 light bulbs with CFLs.”
“I will finally get a programmable thermostat.”
“I will consider buying a hybrid.”

All good ideas, certainly, but no matter how many clubs they’re carrying in their golf bags, no matter how many light bulbs they change, no matter how hard they consider that hybrid, the folks at Chevron could probably do a little more.

Like go out of business, perhaps?