The Unsuitablog

Yes, people really are getting the message about greenwashing and, at least for the moment, some of it is being stamped down upon. I highlighted an appalling advertisement by Lexus in March 2008, which had been banned for claiming “High performance, Low emissions, Zero guilt”. Lexus subsequently toned down their adverts, but still implied that driving one was environmentally acceptable.

The full story is told in The Guardian:

A national press advertising campaign for a Lexus hybrid four-wheel drive car has been banned after it claimed it was “perfect for today’s climate”.

Viewers complained that the ad misleadingly implied that it caused “little or no harm” to the environment.

The press ad, for the Lexus RX 400h, made the claim: “perfect for today’s climate. (And tomorrow’s) … Driving the world’s first luxury hybrid SUV makes environmental, and economic, sense …”

Four complaints were made to the Advertising Standards Authority that the claims were misleading because “they implied that the car caused little or no harm to the environment and gave a misleading impression of the car’s CO2 emissions in comparison with other vehicles”.

Lexus said that the use of the word “climate” in the ad was meant to operate at “two levels”.

One was that in the current economic market the Lexus was offered with attractive financial packages, the other that hybrid cars were more environmentally friendly.

Lexus said that it did not claim that the vehicle caused “little or no harm” to the environment, just that it was more environmentally friendly than standard premium SUV vehicles.

But the ASA said the ad implied that the vehicle’s emission rate was low in relation to all vehicles and that readers were likely to understand that “the car caused little or no harm to the environment”.

The watchdog concluded that the ads were likely to mislead and banned the ads.

Lexus said it amended the copy after receiving the complaints.

If it only takes 4 complaints to get an advert banned, it must mean the ASA are getting pretty strict on greenwashing. If only this were the case in the rest of the world.

Picture the scene: celebrities schmoozing at a high-class champagne reception for the latest Hollywood blockbuster wrap-up — their air kisses filling the room with pretend adoration and hidden acrimony; the canapes filled with lobster and caviar and, for the vegetarians, air-freighted olives from the sun-kissed slopes of Kos; the gentle padding footsteps as another guest descends from her limousine onto the Du Pont protected red carpet and through the crystal chandeliered foyer into the warm glow of decadent luxury.

But hey, guys! Wait up! We’ve got a message to give, and we’ve gotta give it out to the world: “Love the Earth, like, all of it, not just the polar bears and stuff. Let’s give over our next fashion spreads to fabulous green-tinted clothes and organic hampers. Let’s show the world that we care too!”

The Environmental Media Association want to be the green voice of Hollywood and it’s media arms across the world, with things like this:

* A stylish Hollywood dinner party hosted by Mary-Kate Olsen where celebrity EMA Board Members ‘mentored’ the group on how to live a sustainable lifestyle. Attendees include Mischa Barton, Joshua Jackson, Jesse Metcalfe, Nicole Richie and other young celebrities. The event was covered in Teen Vogue.

* Playful yet informative PSA’s featuring Emmanuelle Chriqui, Cameron Diaz, Gwyneth Paltrow, Maroon 5, Debra Messing, Edward Norton, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Jason Ritter, Marla Sokoloff, Constance Zimmer and others. Topics range from water, air, energy and more, and have been aired nationwide on network, local and cable TV channels as well as specialized radio markets.

* EMA Board Member DJ AM spins at the first annual EMA E! Golden Green Party, ditching his gas-guzzling car for a new Lexus hybrid. TreePeople planted a tree for every party attendee including: Pink, JC Chavez, Jon Heder, Amy Smart and Sacha Baron Cohen. The event was covered by E! Entertainment Television, InStyle, USWeekly, People and more.

Can you see the power of celebrities changing the world for the better? Nope, me neither.

Many of us who have worked with computers have heard the phrase (usually applied to a heavily-tweaked, but underlyingly bad piece of software), “there’s no point varnishing a turd!” What we have here is a group of people who are trying to assuage their guilt — and they should be damn guilty, after spending most of their working lives selling us a planet-stripping,, synthetic dream —
through an appallingly superficial piece of greenwashing.

I honestly can’t say anything good about an organisation who write the following, with reference to engaging corporations in becoming “green”:

EMA has been at the forefront in working closely with the corporate world to move the environmental agenda forward. By supporting companies that incorporate environmental business practices and offer sustainable products, we not only put a spotlight on their products, but also encourage their competitors to follow suit. EMA’s credo: We can all change the world through shopping!

For f*ck sake! Is this real or is it a cover up for a cover up for a cover up of something that is aiming to actually make the world a worse place? I’m guessing that the organisers think it’s real, but in fact they have been duped, through their own obvious ignorance into creating the latter, and here’s why…

They have a Corporate Board, which if the other organisations I have covered are anything to go by, hold a great deal of sway over the message being given out. Apart from the gaggle of “eco-businesses” (yes, it’s a contradiction), notice the following less than ethical members:

BP America Inc. – Cindy Wymore (oil, gas, tar sands…)
Modern Traveler Magazine – Robert McElwee (long haul flights to everywhere)
New Pacific Realty Corporation – David P. Margulies (developer of vast malls and complexes)
Office Depot – Yalmaz Siddiqui, Tom Fernandez (clear felling, tropical hardwoods)
Southern California Edison – Hal Conklin (coal fired power stations)
Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. – Ed LaRocque, Mary Nickerson (hey, it’s a Prius! Oh, and lots of SUVs)
Yahoo! – Amy Iorio (friends of Chinese censorship)

Putting celebrity lifestyle and “green” together is bad enough, but when you let these kinds of companies into the room then you may as well say goodbye to any semblence of credibility you were striving for.

I’ve been getting some really transparent, awfully sad examples of greenwash lately, which suggests that the bandwagon is full and those that didn’t jump on in time are running after it in desperation. The big boys like BP, Ford, Exxon and DuPont have greenwashing off to a fine art, which is why articles like How To Spot Greenwash are so popular – people suspect and just want to check.

On the other hand, it’s very amusing to see the pathetic examples I’m sent, if only because it gives me a chance to knock their press release back into their faces with interest. Here’s a really awful one I got only today…

GO GREEN TO MANHATTAN WITH NEW YORK OVERNIGHT

New Transcontinental Package Service Pledges Carbon Offsets;

Outperforms Majors on Price, Offers LATE Pickups

www.nyovernight.com

Los Angeles, CA, September 17th, 2008 — New York Overnight today announces a new green shipping service!! Entertainment and production industry moguls have always enjoyed the best airline service from Los Angeles to New York. However, these valuable customers’ overnight deliveries still get the same old treatment from traditional shippers such as FedEx and UPS while their fuel surcharges have gone sky-high. A new yet experienced player promises to change the landscape of overnight delivery: New York Overnight. New York Overnight combines value, convenience and–in a first for the industry-a greener footprint as well with carbon-neutral, 100% offset emissions.

New York Overnight, through an agreement with industry-leading Climate Clean, whose clients include Nike, Veev and the Environmental Media Association [must look them up – Ed.], is now offsetting 100% of the emissions for its Los Angeles-New York to Los Angeles shipments.

Of course, overnight shipping with a conscience doesn’t come cheap. It comes cheaper–MUCH cheaper. In fact, a one-pound package shipped from Los Angeles to New York via New York Overnight cost only $14.21 while FedEx charges $42.31 (with a 20% discount) and UPS charges $43.66 (with a 20% discount). That’s a 67% savings over its two biggest competitors. Further, New York Overnight will guarantee their Los Angeles-New York prices for at least one year.

Finally, while other shippers’ customers engage in the daily scramble to make deadlines, or worse, make it to the airport, New York Overnight makes office pickups as late as 7:00PM.

“We’re pleased to enhance our service offering with carbon neutrality,” says New York Overnight founder, Inna Waary. “Our clients in the entertainment, banking, apparel and pharmaceuticals industries have long relied on us. We’ve built a reputation for quality, service value and above all, complete reliability. Now we can offer a little something extra-a contribution to our future. That doesn’t come overnight-it comes over a lifetime.”

Hilary Morse * PMG
8265 Sunset, Suite 106 * Los Angeles CA 90046
W) 323 337 9042 * C) 310 717 9592

My response was short and to the point…

Alternatively, Hilary, you could just stop being in one of the most polluting industries in the world that has built up expectations of the possibility of ultra-quick delivery and ended up having no alternative but to offset (for all the good that is). If Americans didn’t expect to be able to get goods from one side of the country to another overnight then they would be able to use overland transport – preferably rail, a mode of transport that has been killed off by the air industry. As it is, you are trying to greenwash us with something that isn’t even necessary to greenwash; just do it a different way.

Keith Farnish
www.unsuitablog.com

As we all know, offsetting was only invented to allow the consumer culture to carry on as normal, with less guilt. Of course, the lack of guilt is an illusion – like everything else in the Culture Of Maximum Harm – you should feel guilty if you want to get a parcel from LA to New York overnight! They are not talking about replacement kidneys here, they are talking about DVDs, sneakers, advertising proofs and all that really important (ha!) stuff.

Get a grip people!

This video is from MTV, and is basically about the evils of green washing. If you want to know all about green washing you should check out The Unsuitablog, Keith does a fantastic idea of pointing out the hypocrisy of many of the worst offenders.

But this has got to be one of the most ironic, perplexing video’s ever. MTV purveyor of all things over the top, all things gluttony, all things bling, and all things more more more, telling us to be green. I like how they mention not to trust people who put a slick ad campaign filled with celebrities over their bad behavior…

This is not just ironic, this is ironic irony, or meta irony. This kind of irony requires a whole new kind of math, and special computers, and a chart to figure out. Sorry MTV good try, but so long as you have Pimp My Ride, and shows about silly rich kids buying everything under the sun, and endless stories about this or that rich celebrity buying this or that you will not be green.

[from The Sietch Blog]

Thanks to The Sietch, The Unsuitablog was given a home, and for that I am eternally grateful. Cheers, Naib.

Everyone loves carbon offsetting, don’t they? The environmental campaigner trying to green their lifestyle; the holiday maker cancelling out their flight emissions; the large corporation pretending that it is dramatically cutting its emissions…offset and the atmosphere is your oyster — everyone’s happy!

I’m kidding, of course.

Carbon offsetting is, well I don’t need to tell you what happens if you have a storage problem in your house and you build a big shed — it fills with crap, doesn’t it? If you’re producing thousands of tonnes of carbon dioxide the metaphorical “shed” is a mixture of all the nice projects you’re sponsoring to build wind turbines, plant trees, send energy saving lightbulbs to the poor people and maybe throw a few tonnes of carbon dioxide underground for good measure. But it can’t happen properly unless you have some standards, and a nice catchy name, and a serious logo…as long as you are still running the show.

The Voluntary Carbon Standard is big industry’s answer to the age-old problem of keeping the economy growing by shifting the problem elsewhere. Short of bagging up all the CO2 thrown out by manufacturers, energy producers, deforesters, miners and countless other greenhouse gas producing activities, the VCS has allowed corporations to throw a massive cloak over their activities, all garnished with some lovely official ribbon:

“The Voluntary Carbon Standard Program (VCS Program) includes the standard (VCS 2007) and the Program Guidelines 2007. VCS Version 1 (v1) was released on 28 March 2006. VCS Version 2 (v2) was released on 16 October 2006 as a consultation document and did not replace VCS v1 as the applicable standard for project developers and validators and verifiers. The VCS v2 consultation document has been withdrawn. This is the VCS 2007 that replaces VCS v1 as the applicable standard. Additional guidance related to the VCS 2007 is included in the Program Guidelines 2007.”

That little snippet from http://www.v-c-s.org/docs/VCS%202007.pdf all sounds very formal and above board, and that’s because the companies involved in creating the documents do this kind of thing all the time in audits, accounts, projects and so on. As long as they stick to standards, no one can accuse them of trying to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes.

But that sort of misses the point entirely. VCS is about offsets, not reducing emissions.

VCS was set up by The Climate Group (I mentioned their work here) and another “Astroturf” known as the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, which I will attack fervently in a future post, along with IETA, who basically provide the tools so that businesses can trade carbon (i.e. spend their way out of guilt).

It gets even more sinister when you look at the people who put the standards together:

The VCS Steering Committee volunteered long weeks of their company and personal time over a two year period to develop the VCS. The following people participated on the Committee:

* Jan-Willem Bode, Ecofys
* Derik Broekhoff, World Resources Institute
* Mike Burnett, Climate Trust
* Robert Dornau, SGS
* Steve Drummond, CantorCO2e
* Mitchell Feierstein, Cheyne Capital
* Yoshito Izumi (Observer), Taiheiyo Cement
* Mark Kenber, The Climate Group (co-chair)
* Adam Kirkman, WBCSD
* Andrei Marcu, International Emissions Trading Association (co-chair)
* Erin Meezan, Interface
* Ken Newcombe, Goldman Sachs
* Mark Proegler, BP
* Robert Routliffe, Invista
* Richard Samans, World Economic Forum
* Marc Stuart, Ecosecurities
* Einar Telnes, DNV
* Bill Townsend, Blue Source
* Diane Wittenberg, Californian Climate Action Registry

Just to the take the first 5 in the list (it’s in alphabetical order, and there’s no way of telling how much each person contributed):

Ecofys

Business sector energy advisors

World Resources Institute

Think tank that promotes economic growth as a “solution” to climate change

Climate Trust

Large scale offsets seller

SGS

Business certification consultancy

CantorCO2e

Emissions trading platform provider

Can you see a pattern emerging here. Try looking at the others in the list, too: it’s all about business as usual, and we’re not fooled.

For more information on the folly of offsets, go to http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/10/19/selling-indulgences/

Incredible, a nation acting in the best interests of the planet. Ok, it’s Norway, and they do have lots of gas and oil, but even so, a snub of this magnitude deserves to be highlighted, especially when it involves one of the most destructive corporations on Earth:

The Norwegian government has launched an unprecedented attack on the UK mining giant Rio Tinto, selling a £500m holding in the company after accusing it of “grossly unethical conduct” relating to environmental damage.

The Norwegian Ministry of Finance released a statement yesterday saying it had “decided to exclude the company Rio Tinto from the Government Pension Fund – Global, due to a risk of contributing to severe environmental damage”.

The government has blocked its $375bn (£213bn) sovereign wealth fund, known worldwide as its “oil fund”, from investing in Rio over its mining operations in Indonesia, in a move that could drive other investors to review their holdings in the group.

(from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/ethical-investors-attack-rio-tinto-924661.html)

The bloody struggle between native West Papuans whose land was stolen from them by the Indonesian government in the 1960s has been well documented, and it is such a stark example of corporate / government injustice that I made a point of highlighting it in A Matter Of Scale:

The tribal people of West Papua live in a manner that is entirely alien to most of modern humanity. According to Bernard Nietschmann: “The people of West Papua are different in all respects from their rulers in [Indonesia]: language, religions, identity, histories, systems of land ownership and resource use, cultures and allegiance.” Imagine, for a moment, living in such a way that you had no concept of outside rules, beliefs and culture; when, suddenly, the land you have nurtured for centuries with delicate care is ripped away from you to be handed to a corporation intent on mining it for metals, leaving the land in tatters and thousands of tonnes of toxic spoil leaching poison into the ground. This is precisely what happened in the years following 1967 under the despotic leadership of President Suharto of Indonesia (who also forcibly took control of the country following a military coup in 1965). Two large mining companies from “democratic” nations; Freeport, based in the USA, and Rio Tinto Zinc, a UK / Australian conglomerate; were handed the mineral rights for a large part of West Papua in return for generous donations to the Suharto regime. Despite Suharto’s bloodthirsty behaviour across his empire, including responsibility for the slaughter of half a million Indonesians in 1965, the CEO of Freeport, James Roberts, called Suharto, “a compassionate man.”

The native West Papuans have never had the land returned to them, primarily because there is no profit to be made in giving a peaceful, nature respecting people stewardship of a region under which there are rich mineral resources to be plundered.

Now go back to the article in The Independent, and read the responses of the Rio Tinto PR machine:

A Rio spokesman said the company felt “surprise and disappointment” at the decision, adding it had come out of the blue after the company had held meetings with the ministry.

Rio countered the claims [of the Norwegian government] in a written statement to the government that it “maintains the highest environmental standards at all its operations wherever they are located, and it contributes technical support to its joint venture partners to ensure that the most appropriate solutions are identified and implemented”.

No mention of human rights abuses, of course — they are totally undefendable — and the “highest environmental standards” must be referring to the industry’s own definition, in which case this is a combination of both an absurd reframing of what environmental protection means, and a phenomenally large pile of greenwash.

Norway, for today The Unsuitablog salutes you!

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.

A few videos, just in case you find a celebrity lecturing you, the fan, the viewer, the average jo(e) about your environmental performance. Some of this hypocrisy is on a corporate scale, yet no one forced these people to live a certain lifestyle – they made their choices and chose a certain way of life.

And there’s a nice summary here of some of the worst offenders.

No decent examples since 2007, so maybe they have learnt to shut their mouths. Any more contributions are very welcome here…

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!

A very thoughtful comment by Unsuitablog reader Matt Fontaine, has made me realise that if so many companies are bad, this leaves people in a very difficult position…or so it would seem. In other words, “What companies should we buy from?”

Readers of my Earth Blog, and those who have reached Chapter 16 of A Matter Of Scale (read the rest before you get there, please) will already know what I am going to say: in essence, before you even ask the question, “Where can I buy this thing?” you should ask the question, “Should I buy this thing at all?” For the people who espouse the wonders of “green” consumption, or “Greensumption” I say to you: “Do you really care about our future, or are you just trying to assuage your guilt?”

This brilliant video says it all:

As for the formal advice that Matt asked for, I can only reiterate what I said in the article “The New Shopping Order“:

There is a colossal battle to be won, against virtually every commercial interest on Earth, that relies almost entirely on people choosing to buy new and replace existing items that they have at a rate that is increasing at currently 5 times the speed of global population growth.

In short, we need to have a completely new attitude to shopping, where reality and conscience takes precedence over the open mouthed acceptance by the public of new goods, and where the people of Earth are prepared to stop for a moment and think about the effect that every single new item that they purchase is having on this planet.

There needs to be a New Shopping Order. Being part of it is simple : next time you want to buy some new trainers, a new lawnmower, computer, digital decoder, anything at all, ask yourself the following questions, in this order:

1) Do I need to buy this thing at all?

2) Can I repair or refurbish this thing, or have somebody do it for me?

3) Can I buy or obtain this thing, or something similar, pre-owned?

4) Can I buy this thing in a more ethical way?

As for point 4, which sort of addresses Matt’s immediate question, if you have to buy something new, which is obviously the case with food and some other goods that can only be used once, like most toiletries, then I recommend:

– buying from a small company or individual producer
– buying as locally as possible
– buying those products which are the least polluting.

That’s what most of the “greensumption” web sites can advise on…but remember, it’s still consumption.