The Unsuitablog

My inbox has been overflowing with love and best wishes to the planet from all sorts of people recently — one of them is no less than Tony Blair, that great peacekeeper¹, climate saviour² and lover of human rights³ is pushing his big plan (yes, another one) to return the planet to its former health. It’s called “Breaking The Climate Deadlock” and you can read the latest report here⁴.

The e-mail from Tony (well, there were three kisses at the bottom, so it must be personal) said:

TOKYO – Tony Blair today (Friday) published the first report from the ‘Breaking the Climate Deadlock’ initiative which will set out the framework for a new global deal for a low carbon future.

Mr Blair presented Prime Minister Fukuda with a copy of the report in his role as host of the G8 summit this year. The report has been drawn together with a group of recognised climate change experts, under the direction of the former British Prime Minister. It answers a series of practical questions about how the world can move to a low carbon economy.

It identifies the actions and questions that need to be resolved by political and business leaders over the next 18 months to achieve a successful outcome to the UN climate change negotiations in Copenhagen in December 2009. The report contains a warning for the world to get on this path now or face irreversible damage and much more cost later. But the report also contains a message of optimism that success is possible and the technologies, the capabilities, the resources, and the ingenuity and entrepreneurship of people around the world exists to create a new low-carbon future.

Tony Blair said this report is all about trying to unite the scientists and experts with the political leaders and decision-makers.

Interesting. Uniting who with who? Didn’t mention “businesses” did he?

So who is running Mr Blair’s show at the moment?

Tony Blair came under heavy fire today for accepting a lucrative job with a Wall Street bank.

Mr Blair, who quit as prime minister in July, is to become a part-time adviser to JPMorgan on a salary rumoured to be at least £500,000 a year. It puts him on course to become the richest former premier in recent history.

He also revealed he expected to take a “small handful” of similar jobs with other companies in the near future.

So, between his various jobs providing expert advice about how to dodge and weave your way around the political system and negotiate great deals with foreign nations, former Prime Minister Blair is intent on saving the world. So long as it’s on his terms: like ensuring he goes everywhere by private jet…

“those wishing to book him on the international lecture circuit are routinely told that providing Mr Blair with his own airliner is a non-negotiable requirement.”

Clearly a man not prepared to budge his principles, nor one who is prepared to see others budge on theirs, considering he famously stated that he didn’t think it “realistic” that people should stop flying on holiday. A dose of realism — like perhaps the Arctic ice caps being free of ice this year; or increasing regional food shortages caused by extreme weather; or the sudden drop in the ability of tropical soils to absorb carbon dioxide — seems to be in order here. But we are talking about a man that fervantly refused to ever place the UK business lobby into an uncomfortable position, preferring instead to demonstrate the power of the free market in regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

And what a dismal failure that has been. It was bound to be — he did it because Blair is a corporate man, through-and-through. Read the report I mentioned earlier, and for which the e-mail was so lovingly sent to me, and you will see the truth:

Just as there is a large body of evidence on the risks of climate change, there is also a large body of evidence on what we can do about it. There is a growing consensus that emissions can be reduced without damaging prosperity in either the developed or developing world. Reducing emissions will require a transformation of our economies, but not giving up on growth.

And there’s the rub: protecting the planet, but not at the expense of economic growth. Continued growth, which keeps the corporations happy, so they keep offering Tony his lucrative jobs; increased “prosperity” which makes people believe they are going to get a better life, despite the definition of “prosperity” having little to do with the Declaration of Human Rights, and everything to do with the acquisition of material goods. Let’s make it clear — economic growth is NOT SUSTAINABLE. It never has been, and never will be. In order to grow an economy, you need to use resources at an increasing rate.

But let’s just duck that small issue, while there is still money to be made. Just remember, Mr Blair, your cash will be of no use to you at all when you have to scrape a living from the remnants of the planet you pretended to care about. Fancy changing your mind about economic growth?

No, thought not. Moron.

1) Need I mention Iraq? Thought not.
2) Oversaw the UK actually increasing its carbon emissions despite the rhetoric of global leadership.
3) Opposed the setting up of Collective Tribal Rights under the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights
4) From The Climate Group; more about their sponsors later.

And it was going so well — The Independent and The Guardian running numerous articles about the dangers of climate change and the hypocrisy of government and business in pretending they are doing something when they aren’t. The Times, with its special green sections. The Scotsman, with it’s thoughtful analysis of environmental issues. Even The Daily Mail and The Sun have been running with a number of stories, taking the consumer culture to task in favour of planet Earth.

[Screech of brakes!]

But what’s this coming towards the “Great British Public” (© every tabloid newspaper)? It’s car taxes designed to at least encourage, if not to actually make, drivers to drive less polluting vehicles. If there’s one thing you don’t do in Britain, it’s mess with drivers and their cars. Oh yes, we can all bemoan the state of the Earth; take issue with melting ice-caps; be disgusted with the Pacific trash island — but touch the British Motorist’s pride and joy and you will have the press to deal with:

9m will feel pain of road tax reforms: More than nine million motorists will lose out under controversial road tax reforms, the Government admitted. (The Independent)

Nine million car owners will be hit by tax rises – four times higher than previously estimated: Almost half of all car owners will be up to £245 worse off under plans for massive increases in road tax, the Treasury admitted yesterday. And fewer than one in five will benefit from the controversial move, which was sold as a way to cut greenhouse gas emissions. (Daily Mail)

More than nine million motorists face higher tax bills: Gordon Brown has been accused of misleading MPs after the Government admitted that more than nine million motorists would lose out under controversial road tax reforms. (The Times)

Nine million drivers face higher road tax, government admits: ALMOST nine million motorists will lose out under controversial reforms to road tax, the government admitted yesterday. Some 44 per cent of vehicles are expected to be hit under the scheme, compared to just a third who will be better off. (The Scotsman)

10 million face road tax hike: NEARLY ten million motorists will see their car tax bills soar under Labour’s war on gas-guzzlers, it was revealed yesterday. They will be up to £245 worse off when the new banded system comes into full force in 2010. (The Sun — 10 million?)

Only The Guardian has not fallen foul of the rhetoric, and has wisely ignored this non-news item.

And look at the headline language being used by all of the newspapers that had previously expressed a green agenda: “pain”, “tax bills soar”, “lose out”, “hit”, “massive increases”. Anyone would think this was a bad thing; which, of course, you will make sure it is if you want to sell newspapers.

Don’t you just love the media?

I may have covered this before but excuse me while I spit a few more feathers at watching this 30 second advert again.

“I guess it is easy being green!”

Absolutely — tell corporations you don’t need their global sickness in order to lead a good life.

(And what the hell is that metal monster doing on top of a beautiful mountain?)

Corporations, basically, run the world: what they do influences billions of people, not just in terms of the environmental impact of their activities, but in making people think that the corporate way is the best way. It’s not quite that simple — corporations are an intrinsic part of the greater cultural behemoth that is known as Industrial Civilization; they are the engines that consume the resources and the humans that are too easily taken in by their lies — and the people who say “yes” to the corporations become part of that machine, and as responsible for the ills of the Earth as anyone else.

But, corporations are still the engines, and when they say, “Do it!” then it happens. When they say they are going to set greenhouse gas targets, then they will get what they want, on their own terms, because you trust them.

A coalition of 99 companies is asking political leaders to set targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions and to establish a global carbon market.

The business leaders hope their ideas will feed through the G8 into the series of UN climate meetings that are aiming to produce a successor to the Kyoto Protocol when its current targets expire in 2012.

(from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7464517.stm)

Have you seen the list of companies, and their demands? Why not read it for yourself.

This is the crux of the policy:

The framework should respect the prerogative of national governments to employ the domestic policies best suited to their own national circumstances. It should encourage all clean technology options to be considered. It should be pragmatic and focus on the most cost-effective emissions abatement possibilities in the short run, particularly in energy efficiency and forest conservation. It should stimulate the international market for products and services that can help the economy adapt to those impacts of climate change that now cannot be avoided. It should be designed as a fair and flexible, international policy framework that can evolve and grow in the long run, stimulating ever wider and more meaningful participation by countries and industries.

It doesn’t take a genius to see the way that the real imperative to remove the sources of anthropogenic global warming and let the Earth return to a state by which it can heal itself has been thrown out in place of lily-livered demands to stimulate product demand and carry on business as usual in every way possible. Screw dealing with the cause of the problem; let’s make a whole new economy out of it!

The devil is in the detail, and the detail is very interesting…

– All major economies, including developing ones such as China and India, should be included in the post-Kyoto deal, with richer countries committing to deeper and earlier emissions reduction. (The nice, logical lead-in)

– Governments should aspire to halve global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 (Less than even the IPCC are demanding, and it’s only an “aspiration”)

– Governments and businesses should urgently explore bottom-up approaches to reducing emissions (Meaning what, exactly?)

– A global carbon trading system should be established as soon as possible (This is the real target! Corporation love trading energy. This is a massive get out from action.)

– Emissions caps should be applied flexibly across industry, with some sectors allowed leeway to preserve competitiveness. (What! So what exactly is the global economy competing with? This is a massive get out as well.)

But it’s no surprise when you read the names of the corporations on the Steering Board:

Alain J. P. Belda, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Alcoa, USA (Metals)
Martin J. Sullivan, President and Chief Executive Officer, American International Group (AIG), USA (Finance)
Michael R. Splinter, President and Chief Executive Officer, Applied Materials, USA (Manufacturing)
Oleg V. Deripaska, Chairman, Supervisory Board, Basic Element Company, Russian Federation (Energy, Metals, Construction, Aviation)
Willie Walsh, Chief Executive Officer, British Airways Plc, United Kingdom (Aviation)
Josef Ackermann, Chief Executive Officer, Deutsche Bank AG, Germany (Finance)
James E. Rogers, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Duke Energy Corporation, USA (Energy Generation)
Pierre Gadonneix, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Electricité de France, France (Energy Generation)
Phirwa Jacob Maroga, Chief Executive, Eskom, South Africa (Energy Generation)
Vyatcheslav Sinyugin, Chief Executive Officer, JCS RusHydro, Russian Federation (Energy Generation)
José Sergio Gabrielli de Azevedo, President and Chief Executive Officer, Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobras, Brazil (Oil)
Jeroen Van der Veer, Chief Executive Officer, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Netherlands (Oil)
Solomon D. Trujillo, Chief Executive Officer, Telstra Corporation, Australia (Telecommunications)
Peter Bakker, Chief Executive Officer, TNT NV, Netherlands (Global Distribution)
Tsunehisa Katsumata, President, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), Japan (Energy Generation)
Lars G. Josefsson, President and Chief Executive Officer, Vattenfall AB, Sweden (Energy Generation)

All but two of these companies have a huge amount to gain from carbon trading, but most importantly, they are setting the agenda before anyone else gets a look in. As I said, the corporations always get what they want, and this will be no exception.

It’s a good thing we can see through it all, and are doing our best to bring down Industrial Civilization: aren’t we?

“Ok, guys, we’ve spent billions of dollars clearing out anyone who might have got in your way — just as you asked. We couldn’t really afford it but the arms guys needed a big battle to clear out the warehouses, and we know how persuasive they can be — if you know what I mean. The police are nearly trained up and if it wasn’t for all those big bombs going up in the towns we could pretend everything was alright. Trust us, the oil fields are protected.”

“What do you mean you want more help? Ok, we know which side our bread’s buttered — tell us what you want us to do…”

A group of American advisers led by a small State Department team played an integral part in drawing up contracts between the Iraqi government and five major Western oil companies to develop some of the largest fields in Iraq, American officials say.

In their role as advisers to the Iraqi Oil Ministry, American government lawyers and private-sector consultants provided template contracts and detailed suggestions on drafting the contracts, advisers and a senior State Department official said. [link]

“No, we’re not going to do your greenwashing for you: you’ve shown how good you are at that already — even Exxon are making out they’re saving the world. If I didn’t know how many shades of bullshit makes up your logos I might even have been taken in.”

At a time of spiraling oil prices, the no-bid contracts, in a country with some of the world’s largest untapped fields and potential for vast profits, are a rare prize to the industry. The contracts are expected to be awarded Monday to Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP, Total and Chevron, as well as to several smaller oil companies. [link]

“Give it a rest, guys, we’re working as fast as we can. You’ve got your profits; we’ve got a nice little earner going — hell, the voters still think they’re going to change things: where do you think Mugabe got all his best tricks from? I know you think Canada are doing a better job, but how were we to know they would try and f*ck up the entire planet themselves digging sand out of the ground?”

“Ok, just one more, and that’s it. Two years, alright? We’ll send you a map of Tehran when we’ve finished bombing the shit out of it.”

Tim Henman, erstwhile British tennis hero, is on the rampage, as only a tiger can be (ok, I’m stretching the truth slightly) — but something must be up when a former mild-mannered sports personality takes to the streets protesting about a development. In fact these developments, all ten of them in the final list, are supposed to be the very kinds of things that we should have been protesting to have more of. As the UK Government web site states:

At the beginning of the 21st Century our greatest environmental challenge is from climate change. As housing accounts for 27 per cent of carbon emissions, we need to substantially cut emissions from new homes and work towards zero carbon housing and development.

It also says:

We have seen strong support across the private sector, local government and local communities for building more affordable homes alongside higher environmental standards. Now we want local areas to come forward with ideas on how to put these principles and ambitions into practice – with a new generation of eco-towns.

Now why, I wonder, would the strongest support have come from the private sector? Tristram Hunt of The Guardian, takes up the story:

All too predictably, Britain’s leading developers are using the eco-town template to dust off long-rejected proposals and re-submit shoddy housing schemes. It is up to housing minister Caroline Flint to save this Brownite policy from descending into another predictable fight between Nimbys and developers.

Unfortunately, the response of the housebuilding industry has been a series of cunning attempts to revive planning permission for previously rejected projects. In Micheldever, Eagle Star Insurance has been trying to develop a London-Basingstoke commuter settlement since the mid-1970s. But with a sprinkling of “sustainable development” and “carbon-neutral” buzzwords, the bog-standard scheme for 12,500 homes on a pristine, greenfield site has magically transformed itself into an “eco-town”.

The private companies get their developments, the government gets their eco-credentials, and the councils — who ultimately make sure everything is done in the right way — get a few nice back-handers, just as all councils have done since time immemorial.

It’s not looking good for anyone who actually wants to find a better place to live, according to The Daily Telegraph:

An official report on eco-towns will today find that only “two or three will have real eco credentials” and most of the 15 proposals are “just housing estates in the countryside with a green label attached”.

The report by a panel of leading experts in town planning, house building, transport and environment issues will send most of the proposals back to planners with a “must do better note”.

A source on the panel told The Daily Telegraph: “No more than two or three will really be eco-towns. But pressure from ministers will demand 10 [be built] even if some do not meet the environmentally friendly criteria.”

Why do we need “eco towns” anyways? Here’s a list of things the development enthusiasts in governments, private companies and councils of the world will never contemplate, because there’s nothing in it to fill their pockets:

1) Refurbishment of existing housing stock — refurbishment has far lower “embodied energy” simply because new construction materials aren’t required. Construction materials in new homes take decades of “zero carbon” occupation to offset.

2) Redevelopment of unwanted or obsolete commercial buildings — again, lower embodied energy, and also a far greater potential for communal / community living.

3) Opting out of conventional housing completely — whether it’s in a roundhouse, a yurt or something else off-grid and rewilded, this requires a reconnection with the real world: something civilization simply will not tolerate.

Despite being nearly two years old, this is an excellent article about the lengths oil companies (and not just ExxonMobil) will go to keep people buying oil.

Original link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at0T7Fi5l_I

The new ExxonMobil advertising campaign purports to care about its impact on the global environment, yet ExxonMobil continues to lobby hard in order to continue its wantonly destructive activities, while coating it all in a green sheen that people are still being fooled by. If an oil company says it is concerned about the environment, then ask yourslef, “Why is it still pumping oil, then?”

Simple answer: Because it is greenwashing.

First prize for the most infuriating and patronising e-mail of the year so far goes to American Express for this hideous gem:

Good Afternoon,

Adam
212-373-6106

Just a few points I’d like to pick AMEX up on here:

1) “My Readers” can do whatever they damn well like with their time, and have far better things to do than post ideas that will ultimately lead to AMEX looking really good.

2) The $2.5m “Members Project” is just one project for the year — that’s it. $2.5m is less than 0.01% of the annual revenue of this global corporate giant. Not exactly a generous piece of philanthropy, is it?

3) American Express is probably the largest travel company on Earth, selling flights to millions of people every year, warming the Earth up just that bit more.

4) With anything between 50 and 100 million card holders, Amex is responsible for a considerable proportion of the global credit market; credit is one of the key drivers of the global economy — if people do not have credit then they are far less likely to buy goods. It is the acquisition of consumer goods and services that ensures that the planet will continue to be degraded.

Actually, this is far too polite. Here was my response to Adam (who I don’t know from Adam, and had spammed me…):

Adam

Keith Farnish

To which he responded:

Keith,

Adam

To which I respond: if it wasn’t for the degradation of the global environment and the increasing drive for resource extraction, and the greed driven corruption (greed for the trappings of the industrial economy), all of which are hitting Africa incredibly hard, causing conflict, disease and famine; then those 3.5 million people — a lot more in fact — would not need your piddling bit of help.

In fact, why do we need Amex to fund clean water, when that $2.5m could come from the defense budgets of the world’s industrial nations: about the cost of a couple of ground-to-air missiles, if I’m not much mistaken?

No Amex, you’re not fooling anyone with your philanthropy promotions…

Here’s one for everyone who works for a company: that’ll be just about everyone who’s reading this, I guess (and, while possibly stating the obvious, the last year since leaving the corporate machine has been the best year of my life).

No doubt you will have heard about your company driving forwards with Corporate Social Responsibility, Environmental Policies, Green Certification and any other mixture of one or more “green” word along with a “serious” word to suggest how serious the company is. I want you to take a long, hard look at the policies that your company has produced, and see if you notice anything odd about them. Here’s my guess:

Not one of the policies will, in any way, try to undercut that company’s bottom line.

Ok, it seems pretty obvious that companies exist to make money — more than that, they exist to make a profit, and keep growing so that the shareholders or owners can get richer. In short, company “environmental” policies are not worth the paper they are written on, or the bytes they occupy, because the company is a business: it exists to consume resources at an ever increasing rate; whether those resources are coal, oil, fish, metal, land, trees, water, people…whatever the company uses to ensure its continued growth.

Here are a few examples:

ExxonMobil

It is our policy to conduct our business in a manner that is compatible with the balanced environmental and economic needs of the communities in which we operate. We are committed to continuous efforts to improve environmental performance throughout our operations worldwide.

(from http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/community_ccr_envpolicy.aspx)

JP Morgan

This is a big policy, but you can get an idea from this…

Private equity investments

Our private equity divisions conduct an environmental review as part of their investment decision process for direct investments in companies in environmentally sensitive industries. The review process analyses our prospective portfolio companies’ compliance with applicable environmental laws, regulations and international norms. The environmental review process is an integral part of our private equity area’s thorough due diligence review of companies and their management.

Once an investment is made, through their membership on a portfolio company’s board of directors, our private equity divisions monitor their portfolio company’s operations with respect to environmental compliance issues.

(from http://www.jpmorgan.com/pages/jpmc/community/env/policy/risk)

EDF Energy

We think continual environmental improvement is as important as any other business objective. We’ve implemented ISO 14001 Environmental Management Systems in many of our power plants to help achieve this.

As we use coal and gas to produce electricity in this country, any changes we make will make a big difference to the UK’s carbon footprint. We know that millions depend on us to provide reliable, affordable energy. For this we need a diverse range of energy sources, including renewables and nuclear power. We also provide ways for our customers to play their part too. Using energy more efficiently is the surest way to reduce costs to our customers and to the planet.

(from http://www.edfenergy.com/about-us/energy-generation/environmental-policy/index.shtml)

And here’s a cracker, from Weyerhaeuser:

It is Weyerhaeuser’s core policy to be responsible stewards of the environment wherever we do business. We will practice sustainable forestry, set and meet goals to reduce pollution, conserve natural resources and energy, and continually improve our environmental performance.

All employees and leaders worldwide are accountable for managing and operating our businesses to:

– Comply with all applicable environmental laws.
– Follow company environmental standards.
– Meet other external requirements to which the company commits.

Business activities will be conducted to:

– Employ environmental management systems to achieve company expectations.
– Manage the environmental impacts of our business activities and products, including innovative and advanced technology solutions.
– Promote environmental laws, policies and regulations that are based on sound science and that incorporate incentive-based approaches to improve environmental performance.
– Adopt company standards to protect the environment.
– Manage forestlands for the sustainable production of wood while protecting water quality; fish and wildlife habitat; soil productivity; and cultural, historical and aesthetic values.
– Audit compliance with environmental laws, policies, regulations and company requirements.
– Resolve noncompliance conditions promptly, including curtailing operations when necessary to protect human health and the environment.
– Track and publicly report on our environmental performance.

(from http://www.weyerhaeuser.com/Sustainability/EnvironmentalPolicy)

What do you think? On the surface, they suggest the companies are committed to being good global stewards, but read again and it is clear that this is just business as usual:

– A company that commits to abide by environmental regulations is just saying that it doesn’t fancy breaking the law — even though it is the companies themselves that are responsible for shaping most of the laws through their lobbying work.

– A company that says they are “working towards” something can say this forever, and still look good.

– A company that talks about “sustainability” is actually referring to balancing economic and environmental requirements in their own terms. The only true definition of sustainability (leaving things in no worse a state than they were when you started) is not enshrined in any law or any company policy.

– A company that advises others on their environmental impact does not have to take responsibility for outcome of their advice: it is a way of passing the buck.

– A company that says that economic and environmental needs can be balanced is on suicide watch.

Feel free to add your own, and let me know what kinds of Policy Greenwashing your company is taking part in by contacting news@unsuitablog.com — so long as you ask then I won’t say where I got the information from.

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

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