The Unsuitablog

I like to keep fit and healthy. Much of my day is spent walking, running, keeping busy around the house and, of course, eating a healthy diet. I could, if I wanted to get some exercise, drive to my nearest gym (about 2 miles away) and walk for four miles on the treadmill, then drive back again — or I could walk to the gym and walk back again without ever setting foot in the gym: both would be about equal in terms of fitness.

“But surely,” I purport to hear you cry, “it’s not environmentally friendly to drive to the gym?” That’s not the point — I only said that if I wanted to get some exercise then I could drive to the gym. True, you will find that people who live a life more connected with nature do tend to enjoy good health for longer than those who don’t, but that is confusing “health” with “environment”, as civilization likes to portray the terms. A “health food shop” is not a “green shop”, however green the signs may be and however caring the clientel are.

Holland and Barrett, the largest Health Food retail chain in the UK, as well as being big in the Netherlands and Ireland, are trying to make their customers equate the two in a most confusing way. I walked into my local store this week to buy some dried pulses and fruit for the cupboard (dried stuff lasts for a lot longer and takes a lot less energy to transport) and noticed a big poster next to the door. It was advertising Holland and Barrett’s “Plan-it Green” campaign which, on the surface seems like a set of sensible measures to lower the store’s environmental impact.

I read the poster and my face dropped. There were seven points in all, five of which had almost nothing to do with being “green” (apart from the colour of the lettering):

– No hydrogenated fats (This usually implies the use of palm oil, which is not green at all)
– No artificial colours or flavours (Many natural colours and flavours are unsustainably produced)
– No nasty E-numbers (E- numbers are simply a European classification of additives, natural or artificial. And what’s with this subjective “nasty”?)
– No over refined ingredients (This is so vague it means nothing)
– We aim to source our ingredients sustainably (“Aiming” for something does not mean it has happened)

The manager gave me the head office phone number, but then I thought, if a company has gone to such lengths to produce posters purporting to be “green” when they are nothing of the sort, why should I give them a chance to defend themselves? The posters are in hundreds of stores all round the UK, being read by tens of thousands of customers every day — that’s greenwash!
 

United Biscuits are a big snack company: they are worth at least two billion US dollars, and have huge market share in north west Europe. According to their web site:

UB owns three of the top selling five biscuit brands in the UK. McVitie’s is among the best-known brands in the UK and McVitie’s biscuits are purchased by 85% of UK households. The addition of Jacob’s brands increases UK biscuit market share to 33%.

UB is the leading manufacturer and marketer of biscuits in UK and second in France, Netherlands and Belgium. UB is number two in the UK branded savoury snacks and crisps market.

This information is repeated verbatim on the Roundtable For Sustainable Palm Oil’s web site, for United Biscuits are a member. We met the RSPO on The Unsuitablog a few weeks ago, when it became clear that they were nothing more than an industry talking shop designed to make people think that something was being done about the extraordinary amount of destruction taking place in south east Asia just to provide food oil and feedstock for biofuels.

United Biscuits were happy to talk to me over the phone for a while. I wanted to find out if I could eat McVities biscuits without contributing to deforestation. The answer was pretty clear, and I can say this without fear of comeback:

All McVities biscuits are likely to contain palm oil derived from non-sustainable sources.

Given that United Biscuits have been pushing hard to remove hydrogenated vegetable oils from their products — so that people who can’t stop eating crisps, biscuits and cookies can keep eating them without risking a coronary — UB must be using a huge amount of palm oil instead. But they wont tell me — in fact they have cut off communications. Here is the initial e-mail I received from their head of communications, Bob Brightwell:

Keith

We spoke earlier in the week re palm oil and I mentioned that we were working on a new statement that I hoped to let you have at the end of this week.

Unfortunately it is not yet ready and will probably take a week or two as we continue to explore sourcing options. On the positive side I mentioned that we had already achieved a 17% reduction in the amount of palm oil we use since 2005. As I recall you were not that impressed and said that you would have preferred a 70% saving. Well I am pleased to confirm that with the plans we have in place we expect to more than double our 17% saving by next year so will be more than half way to your 70% goal!

Have a good weekend

Bob Brightwell
United Biscuits
Hayes Park
0208 234 5104

Realising that I couldn’t judge their progress without some meaningful figures — after all, a million tonnes (or whatever) of palm oil minus 17% is still a hell of a lot of palm oil — I asked for clarification…

Dear Bob

Thanks for the update. I have just realised, however, that the percentage figure is meaningless without an indication of the volume of palm oil actually used. A 17 or 35 percent reduction for UB could equate to the total consumption for a small nation. Could you please provide me with the gross volumes for McVities and UB overall for 2005 and subsequent years, along with the projected consumption figures?

Kind regards

Keith Farnish

And there it stopped. Four weeks later, I am still waiting for (a) a response and (b) the palm oil statement that was meant to be ready in a week. The statement hasn’t appeared on their web site, nor has it appeared in the press. Clearly UB don’t have a clue how to get themselves out of the destructive mess they have got themselves in to, but are trying to hide behind silence for fear of revealing the truth about their contribution to deforestation.

I eagerly await a response from them…

It’s very rare for me to be able to take an image straight from a web site and use it, completely unchanged. In the case of this one from London’s famous Science Museum, it says so much, how could I make it any worse? “Your Planet Needs You” juxtaposed with “Sponsored by BASF, HSBC and NISSAN” makes me think that either the public are really stupid (possible, but probably not) or the people who arranged this exhibition are so in awe of the greenwashing lies of the corporate sponsors, and their money, that they let anything pass.

Speaking to various people at the Science Museum and the company arranging the exhibition, The Science Of…, it seems as though there is some sympathy with my concerns, yet when you look at the companies doing the sponsoring, and the jury-rigged press information, you realise that this one has been greenwashed to the hilt:

Sara Milne CEO of The Science of… said “We are delighted to be working with BASF, HSBC and Nissan. Together we are confident that launching this project, which investigates one of the biggest challenges ever faced by mankind, will have a positive impact on society. With the support of our sponsors we have developed a compelling interactive journey that delivers these messages in a highly entertaining and accessible manner. The Science of Survival cuts through the confusion of climate change concerns to provide a positive experience which shows a sustainable future really is possible if we work together.”

The three global sponsors of The Science of Survival have made a five year commitment to see the exhibition through to the end of its global tour. BASF, HSBC and Nissan. are committed to tackling the important issues addressed in the exhibition, not only through their business operations but also by their investment in education and the environment.

(http://www.scienceof.com/download.php?id=89)

Ok, nothing too surprising here — The Science Of are part of the trading arm of the Science Museum, and exist to make money which can then be funnelled back into the museum. A pity it’s dirty money, but that’s what happens when you open up public services to commerce. And that “five year commitment”; well, five years of having your company name associated with a world tour of a childrens education environmental exhibition is manna from heaven for the greenwashing corporate.

The sponsors themselves appear to be great environmental stewards:

BASF, HSBC, and Nissan all share a commitment to a more sustainable future.

BASF’s portfolio ranges from chemicals, plastics, performance products, agricultural products and fine chemicals to crude oil and natural gas. BASF develops new technologies and uses them to meet the challenges of the future. The company strives to combine economic success with environmental protection and social responsibility, thus contributing to a better future.

For HSBC, corporate responsibility means managing its business responsibly and sensitively for long-term success. HSBC lends and invests in areas such as low carbon energy, water infrastructure and sustainable forestry, sharing responsibility for the environment with governments and citizens to minimise the damaging effects of human activity — pollution of land, water and air and the depletion of resources.

Nissan’s philosophy towards the environment, “Seeking a symbiosis of people, vehicles and nature,” describes the company’s ideal for a sustainable mobile society, now and in the future. They initiated the Nissan Green Program with specific objectives to realise this vision, and are now pursuing it energetically and passionately.

(http://survival.scienceof.com/12/partners/overview.html)

Let’s see: one of the world’s largest chemical and biotech companies; one of the world’s largest commercial investment banks; one of the world’s largest motor manufacturers — all sharing “a commitment to a more sustainable future”. That would be economically sustainable wouldn’t it? I can’t think of any other type of sustainability the big players in Industrial Civilization are interested in.

But what about the kids; the real targets of the exhibition? For a start they will go away thinking that big companies are really nice friendly things trying to save the world — greenwashing for kids is big business. Not only that, there is a cast of four characters that guide the children through the exhibition; each of them has a particular characteristic, and I have to reproduce this in full so you don’t think I’m making this up:

Buz
Buz is what they call a people person. She is the one that keeps this group of friends together. Buz ‘s approach to a sustainable world is to make sure everyone’s needs are met, no matter who they are or where they live. She wants us all to agree on solutions which work for everyone, not just a few people. But sometimes keeping things equal and fair means making sacrifices that the others aren’t always happy with.

Tek
Tek really likes her technology. And she likes to talk about it too, though sometimes she is a bit hard to understand. Tek reckons that technology can come to our rescue and help us live more sustainably, conserving resources and minimising effects on the environment. Though developing new technology can take energy and resources, Tek thinks it’s well worth it.

[N.B. Tek is the only character on the main picture, just in case you didn’t realise what this exhibition is really trying to say…]

Dug
Dug likes tradition and would stick to the way everything used to be done, if he could. Dug reckons we don’t need new technology or approaches for us all to have a happy future. If we think about what we value, Dug thinks we can use what we already know to reduce our impact without radically changing how we live. He is thoughtful and likes to take time – a lot of time – to think about things.

Eco
Eco likes nature, man. He is always out and about doing the outdoors thing. He thinks that preserving all the natural environments on the planet and rebuilding some that humans have destroyed – is key to a sustainable future. And whilst he wants to keep us all from messing with the planet, he can be a bit annoying when he tries to show us how to do it.

Two problems here: Dug likes tradition, so why does he think we can reduce our impact without radically changing how we live? Surely if he doesn’t want technology then he would insist on getting rid of it: but then that would run counter to the needs of the sponsors, so that option is conveniently removed.

Eco is even more badly misrepresented: apparently he is “a bit annoying”, well of course he is because he doesn’t want hi-tech corporate solutions; he wants to do the obvious, most sensible thing. That’s really annoying, isn’t it.

This exhibition is an atrocity — no one should tolerate companies messing with childrens’ minds. The Science Museum should be ashamed for letting this corporate toy into their halls.

---

ADDENDUM:I received the following comment about this post on Indymedia, which shows that I am not some lone crazy on a mission…

The whole thing stinks of turning environmentalism into a brand (not that they’d be the first, but it is rather blatant here). Apparently we are “the Eco-Generation” (complete with capital letters, how special we feel now!), presumably the successors to “the Coca-Cola Generation”, and “the MTV Generation”. This is one of the most serious threats to attempts for a sustainable human way of life – the whole movement, and in particular, the more primitivist/radical/etc elements being marginalised and recuperated by big business.

Pathetic.

---

Here is the email exchange between myself and Chris Rapley, Director of the Science Museum – it’s a pity he didn’t feel able to response to my second email. You can decide for yourself why he chose not to…

Dear Chris

I have just spent a few hours chatting to various people at The Science Museum, The Science Of and their press agency about your exhibition The Science Of Survival. My main concern was the use of large corporate sponsors to fund an exhibition which is supposed to be informing children about the damage being done to the global environment (damage that is largely the fault of the selfsame large corporations), and what can be done about it.

In short, this exhibition is nothing short of a greenwashing exercise, and I am surprised that a man of your calibre could have been taken in my this kind of thing. It really does put the Science Museum in a very bad light. My findings and comments are here:

http://thesietch.org/mysietch/keith/2008/06/03/science-museum-london-letting-corporations-control-young-minds/

This article will be syndicated to a number of other blogs. I would have given notice, but considering your Does Flying Cost The Earth exhibition is sponsored by EADS (http://www.eads.com/1024/en/Homepage1024.html) and your Can Algae Change The World was sponsored by Siemens (http://www2.sea.siemens.com/Industry%20Solutions/Chemical/Biofuels/) then I really don’t think it would make any difference.

Yours sincerely

Keith Farnish

keith@theeearthblog.org

Dear Keith,

Pity – since we have the same main objective in mind – alerting humans to the serious nature of the environmental crisis and helping them (us all) find the path to a sustainable future – which we are far from following at present.

My view is that that outcome is more likely if one includes all the key players, including the corporations, especially since it is they, not government or the individual (though they have major roles to play) who will determine the true shape and character of the future. You assume that the companies involved in sponsoring the Science Museum do so in bad faith. That is not my judgement or experience. In any case, the SM retains full and absolute editorial control of the content of our exhibits, and draws on respected independent experts to ensure that the information and messages provided are as truthful and balanced as we can achieve.

I note that your website has many sections on hypocrisy; I wonder if for completeness you should add a section on your own – I assume that you eat, travel, use commodities and merchandise, all of which will have been produced by the corporations you so despise. In the meantime it is not clear what you contribute yourself. I would be more impressed by a constructive approach, rather than one which seeks to polarise and divide.

Regards,

Chris Rapley

Dear Chris

Thank you for responding.

Ultimately, and there is a very good reason for saying this, the answer lies with the individual and not governments and most certainly not corporations which are the primary reason that Industrial Civilization is so destructive. There is a great deal of information on my Earth Blog (http://www.theearthblog.org) which shows in more detail where I am coming from. In a few weeks time you will be able to read a complete and detailed analysis of the causes of and the solutions to the global environmental crisis when my book is release, for free at www.amatterofscale.com.

As for my apparent hypocrisy, I have been undergoing a continual distancing from corporations for many years and would suffer far less than most should every corporation disappear from the face of the Earth. I think it would be rather foolhardy of me to run an anti-hypocrisy web site if that were not so.

It surprises me tremendously that you should have such a pro-corporate viewpoint (at least from the tone of your message), given your background — it is not a question of “bad faith” on the parts of the sponsors as simply “business as usual”: they exist to make money and if the Science Museum can provide them with a tinge of green, or whatever tinge they require, then they will have no hesitation in stepping into whatever breach is presented.

On a separate note, the BAS has always, in my eyes, been a bastion of straight-talking, agenda-free science: it would be wonderful if the Science Museum could become similarly distanced from outside influence.

Yours sincerely

Keith Farnish

We’re all going on a summer holiday,
No more working for a week or two,
Fun and laughter on a summer holiday,
It’s free of carbon, so don’t be blue,
Can it really be true?

Oh, gosh! Leafing through the Travel supplement in this week’s Saturday Guardian, my wife saw something so bizarrely stupid it hardly qualifies as greenwash. “Unsuitablog!” she shouted out, as the supplement landed in my lap. And so it was — beginning with the words, “Make your sand footprint the only one that matters with these trips”.

Well, I really must check what kind of holiday (we’re talking about vacations here, not seasonal breaks) has no carbon footprint…

Ponta D’Ouro, Mozambique

Ponta D’Ouro has been earmarked by the government “to receive utmost priority for new developments”. Luckily, some want to protect rather than profit from this precious ecosystem, already under serious threat from tourism. Stay in beach huts and join marine zoologist Dr Almeida Guissamulo on a volunteering holiday, monitoring dolphins, turtles and coral reef degradation. This is hands-on conservation, not just an excuse for a diving holiday.

· People and Places (08700 460 479, travel-peopleandplaces.co.uk), £1,695 for four weeks, including accommodation and food. Kenya Airways flies from Heathrow to Maputo (kenya-airways.com). From £630 rtn.

So you can spend over $3000 on a month’s conservation work (someone has lots of time and money on their hands), and don’t mention the odd 5 or 10 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent getting their and back. It’s ok, because you’re doing conservation work.

Here’s another one…

La Cienaga Coral Lagoon, Venezuela

The last leg of the journey to this turquoise lagoon is 15 minutes by boat to a wooden eco-lodge right on its shores. Tucked between the mountains of Henri Pittier’s National Park, the lodge and the community’s eco policy is to combat coral degradation, reduction of fish stocks and waste. They have installed noticeboards providing environmental information, arranged with local boatmen to retrieve rubbish and are monitoring illegal fishing. All you have to do to support these efforts is walk from your beach cabin to the reef, dive in and see the beauties they are trying to protect.

· Responsibletravel.com (00 44 1273 600030). From $135 pp for two days in the eco-lodge. Air France flies from London to Caracas (0870 142 4343, airfrance.co.uk) from £390 return.

Just two days in the eco-lodge, so that means you’re going to be doing lots of other hard-core conservation work for the rest of the time to make your long-haul flight worthwhile, aren’t you…but read it again: “All you have to do to support these efforts is walk from your beach cabin to the reef, dive in and see the beauties they are trying to protect.”

Exactly how is living in the lap of bounteous luxury on a tropical reef an “eco holiday”? The other three are just as bad — long-haul flights, superficial conservation work or none at all.

I am willing to bet that the holiday / flight companies mentioned all paid for a nice slot in a popular weekend supplement — how else could they get such good advertising. Why else would The Guardian be promoting such carbon soaked vacations?

Here’s an idea for an “eco” holiday: go for a walk, take the bike out, do some gardening, enjoy the area around you. Don’t fly.

Questioning and exposing the greenwashing activities of corporations, in particular, is something that the seasoned cynic makes light of; but sometimes our job is made more difficult, not so much by the quality of the greenwashing being used, but by the sheer weight of apparent “public” opinion supporting the views of the corporations.

For many years, corporations employed IT-savvy PR companies specifically to post items on newsgroups, chatrooms and bulletin boards, putting a positive spin on whatever company line was being trotted out. Much of this was simple global warming sceptic fare, the kind you still see repeated (usually using stock phrases, uncannily similar IP address ranges and men full of straw) in the comment lists of blogs and newspaper web sites.

But corporations don’t stop at that — they have plenty of money, markets to crack and worlds (well, one world) to change. This is why the Astroturf was born. Astroturf is the green plastic stuff that is made of nylon but looks a bit like grass; but it’s still synthetic, still articificial, and no sane person would think of laying it in their front garden if they wanted a lush, natural lawn. From a distance, though, astroturf can look pretty convincing, and an Astroturf can look just like a genuine grassroots organization if you don’t look that carefully.

Jim Hoggan, founder of DeSmogBlog wrote a good case study of the Astroturf, Friends of Science, in which he explains how they function:

We have an organization that presents itself as grassroots while concealing its corporate connections. We have an overlapping group of experts who have proved themselves willing to take money from one of the most compromised industries in the world (tobacco), as well as from big oil. We have “scientists” who publish almost nothing in the peer-reviewed press, but who contribute frequently to the nation’s opinion pages and who conduct barnstorming tours of the country, urging everyone from newspaper editors to groups of retirees to fight against good climate change policy.

In a previous Unsuitablog article, I introduced a game called “Follow the Links”, explaining how, with just one link to follow, it is possible to open up a whole web of misrepresentation, self-interest and outright denial from just a single individual or group. PRWatch have an ongoing roll of such groups and webs — I recommend you keep an eye on their pages.

How To Spot An Astroturf

You can easily spot Astroturfs by just checking for two or more of the following:

1. Are they making claims that fly in the face of orthodoxy, and would corporations benefit financially from these claims being true?

2. Does the web site look extremely professional, slick and “corporate”, yet does not display name any specific corporations as sponsors or backers?

3. Does the web site / information pack use “false authority”, with corporate-type logos, formal high-level job titles (President, Vice-President), quotes from well-known authority figures and other ways of pumping up its immediate credibility?

4. Is the name composed of a feel-good and/or geographical part, and an “institutional” part like “Foundation”, “Institute”, “Trust” or “Centre / Center”, e.g. Coalition for Clean Coal, American Choice Foundation, Clear Air Trust?

5. Do the people in the Advisory or VP roles work for other Astroturfs or groups with similar roles, or have they been exposed recently as being funded by corporations?

6. When you contact the group, do you have difficulty speaking directly to the authors of articles / opinion pieces in a technical manner; do they have to get someone to make a statement, or arrange a specific interview slot?

7. Has the group’s entry on Wikipedia been edited by a corporation — you can find out by using the Wiki Scanner?

Other information that you may be able to find out, but not without some effort:

8. Is the group run by a skeleton staff, despite appearing to be a large organization?

9. Does the web site / mail server use the same IP address range, or the telephone system use the same number range as that of a known corporation?

10. Is the group completely absent of genuine volunteers (as opposed to work experience positions)?

Once you have found an Astroturf, or a group you strongly suspect to be an Astroturf then make your findings public: make or edit an entry on Wikipedia and SourceWatch; e-mail news blogs and newspapers; add relevant comments to any blogs or articles that mention the Astroturf…make a nuisance of yourself you may be able to get them shut down!

It’s no surprise that India is becoming a hotbed of greenwashing, with the market-friendly government and some of the richest people on Earth starting to understand the power and wealth that can be gained by brainwashing a population of a billion people into the way of industrial civilization.

For alerting me to the blatant Astroturf that is the CSCCC I have Manu Sharma to thank:

Two days ago (Apr 1, 2008) Hindustan Times carried an article titled Climate change not as big a problem: report. Lest anyone should think it as an April Fool’s joke, it was a completely serious piece based on real events. Today (Apr 3, 2008), the same correspondent published a report titled: ‘Sun too causes global warming.’

Both articles are highly misleading, contain factual inaccuracies and at the very least deliberately hide widely known facts that counter its argument to paint a biased picture. In the following paragraphs, I will attempt to highlight the key issues raised by each of the stories.

Climate change not as big a problem: report [1]
by Chetan Chauhan | Page 14, HT New Delhi, Apr 1, 2008 | 353 words

Opening excerpt:

“An international civil society report has debunked the claims of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, saying there is no evidence available to show loss of human life directly due to climate change.
The report of the Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change [CSCCC], to be released in India on Tuesday, says there is no evidence to suggest climate change has caused an increase in diseases.”

Highly Misleading

By pitting CSCCC directly against IPCC, the article creates the impression that both organisations are of similar stature. Nothing could be further from the truth. IPCC is a Noble prize winning United Nations body made up of hundreds of scientists and governmental representatives while CSCCC is merely a coalition of so-called global “think tanks” – corporate lobbyists funded by big oil corporations, the likes of ExxonMobil, to further their interests.

The HT article makes no mention of the background of CSCCC – who comprises the coalition and how are they funded. Unlike IPCC, which was formed two decades ago, CSCCC was only organised a little more than an year back [4] by International Policy Network (IPN) which is a well known recipient of Exxon funding. IPN has received $390,000 from Exxon. Several other members of the coalition have also been a beneficiary.

Paul Reiter, the expert cited in the article, for example, sits on the “Scientific and Economic Advisory Council” of an organization called the “Annapolis Centre.” What is Annapolis Centre? It’s a US based “think tank” that has pocketed $793,575 from ExxonMobil and has been very active in playing down the human contribution to global warming.

Reiter doesn’t have anything too substantiative in his research papers published in scientific peer reviewed journals to back his claims of lack of relationship between disease and climate change. It’s unclear how many other claims of CSCCC report are backed by research in peer reviewed journals.

Yet, here’s a newspaper that reaches out to a country of one billion, publishing unsubstantiated “research” of corporate lobbyists that have a direct financial interest in sensationalising their so-called findings; and pits them against a neutral, highly conservative group of scientists and government representatives whose work is completely based on pure scientific research published in peer-reviewed journals…

I strongly recommend you read the rest of this well-researched article here.

Astroturfs are not new, of course, and they are such powerful tools of business that I have a separate category for them on The Unsuitablog. The CSCC is notable, though, for purporting to be a truly international body, representative of “46 member organisations from 35 countries”. When you did down a little you find that these “46 member organisations” are also astroturfs or even more obvious corporate lobby bodies, making the CSCCC a Super Astroturf.

Time For A Game

There’s a fun game you can play, trying to find out why they are members of CSCCC — it’s called “follow the links“.

I picked the very first body on the list, the Alabama Policy Institute.

Go to http://www.alabamapolicy.org/ for the main site, then click on “About Us“. Nothing particularly exciting, except some stuff about wanting to bring religion into politics. Click on “Press and Media” instead, to find out that their President is Gary Palmer. Click on his biography and you find:

“Gary co-founded the Alabama Policy Institute, formerly known as the Alabama Family Alliance, in 1989. Gary was previously employed by Rust International in cost analysis, and prior to that with Combustion Engineering in the environmental systems division.”

A man of business clearly, and also someone who is very fond of religious censorship. But Gary isn’t our main man, it is Vice President Michael Ciamarra :

“a widely published columnist and a member of the American Legislative Exchange Council’s National Task Force on Tax Policy and The Heritage Foundation Resource Bank. He is an advisor to the National Center for Health Transformation.”

Let’s go to the American Legislative Exchange Council at http://www.alec.org. Here you will find, under ALEC Initiative > Internation Relations :

“Free trade is central to ALEC’s vision of the way nation states should relate to each other. In order to fully realize a broad and deep free market that reaches across the Atlantic, we need to mobilize strong leadership from legislators on both sides, as well as our business communities. Now, more than ever, conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic need to continue their challenge to over-taxing, over-borrowing and over-governing.”

Hmmm, wonder why preventing climate change would be a worry to ALEC then? What about the Heritage Foundation Resource Bank?

With a little digging around…bingo! Here’s a brilliant (well, crap) piece of straw man thinking:

http://theheritagefoundry.org/2008/05/19/the-polar-bears-are-coming/

And there are many more: have a look at this lot.

And finally, the National Center for Health Transformation. Take a look at their members! Clearly it’s the public whose concern is foremost in CHT’s mind — surely nothing to do with ensuring the market economy is vibrant and all powerful.

It’s a great game that all the family can play, and I think I’ll be playing it a lot more in the future.

This month at your local news stand, and in supermarkets up and down the Western world, you will find National Geographic Magazine devoting an entire issue to the realities of climate change. It’s their “Changing Climate” edition. It’s not the first time National Geographic has featured on The Unsuitablog: last time they were filling their regular editions with car adverts, showing that their primary motivation is to make money.

But, a whole edition on climate change, surely they wouldn’t stoop so low as to place unsuitable adverts, would they? I didn’t need to read the text to know that it would contain the usual superficial sycophantic articles about issues that need to be given the acid rather than the warm flannel treatment — we are talking about global catastrophe here, guys! I also didn’t need to read the Solutions section to know that the only solutions presented would be straight out of Ikea and Walmart, and nothing to do with actually changing the way humans live.

I didn’t have to read the text, but I did — and I was right on both counts. But one thing that struck me was the apparent absence of adverts throughout the magazine; a pleasant surprise, I may add, considering the normal consumer rush that readers are subjected to each month.

And then I looked inside the front cover:

ConocoPhillips. A full page advert telling us that they are funding university courses, brainwashing the minds of tomorrow into the ways of the oilman. Yes, ConocoPhillips, major stakeholder in the Syncrude partnership, extracting millions of barrels of thick, carbon-intensive oil from the tar sands of Canada. ConocoPhillips, major supporter of the hopelessly polluting coal to ethanol technology, and all round destroyer of ecosystems across the globe.

As I put the magazine back on the shelf, I glanced at the back cover. There, staring at me, bathed in the verdant, lush glow of a forest canopy, proudly sitting on a rough dirt track, was a Chevy Tahoe Hybrid. “Green Vehicle Of The Year” despite notching up a piss-poor 21 MPG fuel economy. Chevy, makers of a sizable chunk of the most polluting cars in the USA and recent stars of The Unsuitablog.

Thank you for this eye-opener, National Geographic Magazine: three great greenwashers all coming together in a symphony of shit. I bet you are so proud of yourselves!

 

Not everything on The Unsuitablog is greenwashing, sometimes it is about organisations that are just being foolish or aren’t informed enough to realise they are being hypocritical; sometimes it is about stuff that is just plain bad, and is featured because it is bad enough that everyone should know about. But the vast majority of stuff here is Greenwash. If you are a regular reader (for which I am very grateful) then you will already know how to spot greenwash. But just spotting it won’t stop it happening; we need to know more about the various tools companies, authorities, NGOs and other areas of life use to pull the leaves over our eyes.

The first one in this small series is Advertising.

The first time most people, including me, come across greenwashing is in the form of an advertisement. Adverts are, by their nature, commercial tools: they exist to encourage people to spend money. Straight away we can see a problem here, because the act of spending money — in the vast majority of cases — is unsustainable, regardless of the product being purchased. If you buy something new (when was the last time you saw an advert for something pre-owned?) then you are almost certain to be using non-renewable materials; and also non-renewable energy that was used to produce, transport, market and retail the item.

There are many different types of advertisement, ranging from press adverts in your local, small-circulation freesheet, national newspaper and magazine adverts, radio and television adverts (again these could be local or national), cinema adverts, billboards and the various forms of moving and placed adverts in a huge number of different items — bus tickets, schoolbooks, taxicabs etc.

In general, the glossier, bigger and larger circulation the advertisement, the more money that has been spent on it — and, therefore, the more money the advertiser is hoping to recoup from the sale of the item. For instance, a full-page adverts in National Geographic, Time or the Washington Post will cost tens of thousands of Dollars / Euros / Pounds etc. A 30 second spot in the middle of a major sporting event can cost millions.

If you see “green” claims in these, high-cost adverts, then you can be sure that you are looking at a piece of clever, slick greenwash. These people pay advertising agencies a hell of a lot of money to ensure their messages get across — the messages that the advertiser wants the public to see, and nothing else. Compare this to a local radio or newspaper advert, that might make environmental claims: if greenwashing, they are far more likely to be clumsy and opaque; but greenwashing is rare in such adverts. The high-cost advertisement is the home of much of the very worst greenwashing.

The public, sadly, have very short memories: this is not the fault of the public; it is the fault of the advertisers who continually pump a stream of digital sewage into our brains — who can blame people for forgetting the slip-ups of the past. And here is another key point: the greenwasher with money can afford to take a chance that they will be exposed, because if they do manage to pull off the perfect greenwash, they will have pulled it off in front of millions of potential consumers, many of whom are looking for products that are that bit greener. If they do get found out; well, there will be another advert, another slogan, another logo along in a short while ready to wipe out the memory of the greenwash.

The key message here, then, is be vigilant, be smart, and never forget.

Oh, and forget the “greensumption”: it’s just a con.

It’s 2008. Chevy have broken the mould and built a big SUV that is also a hybrid! Aren’t they fantastic?

The Hybrid Taken To Its Logical Extreme

The 2008 Chevy Tahoe already has best-in-class fuel economy. So why mess with a good thing? To make it better, of course. Seems the Green Car Journal agrees — they’ve named the 2008 Chevy Tahoe Hybrid the Green Car of the Year.

This is from the Chevy web site. There are a few notes attached to the statement, which you might find interesting. Shall we read it again?

The Hybrid Taken To Its Logical Extreme

The 2008 Chevy Tahoe already has best-in-class fuel economy. (1) So why mess with a good thing? To make it better, of course. Seems the Green Car Journal agrees — they’ve named the 2008 Chevy Tahoe Hybrid (2) the Green Car of the Year.(3)

(1) Based on 2007 GM Large Utility segment and 2008 EPA estimates. Tahoe 2WD with available 5.3L V8 has EPA est. MPG 14 city/20 hwy.

(2) Limited availability starting January 2008.

(3) For more information, visit GreenCar.com.

So, let’s get this right: (1) It is Best In Class compared to GM’s other f*** off SUV monsters — not other manfacturers’ SUVs, just those made by GM. (2) There will be hardly any of them (actually, that’s got to be a good thing). (3) Green Car magazine is run by a guy who loves cars — the “environment” (as they define it) is a selling point.

Just in case you missed it, the 2008 Chevy Tahoe Hybrid does 20MPG on the highway (that’s 25MPG if you are not in North America). Quite frankly, that is s***. It’s a huge lump of metal, tweaked by some engineers to make GM look green, which, even compared to other SUVs is just another gas-guzzler.

Time to learn a lesson: the auto industry want to sell cars. They will say anything to sell cars. They will destroy the planet if it means they can sell more cars. Don’t believe a word they say.

End of lesson.

A golden rule I have on The Unsuitablog is, regardless of the target of an item, I will not shy away from saying what I think — and I will also ensure this is backed up by facts on the ground, in the air, water, wherever.

When a company, authority, charity etc. tries to pull the wool over my eyes, I will make sure I find out the truth, and not pull any punches with my opinions. If a company etc. is honest with me (after 25 years of buying and selling stuff, It’s easy to tell) I will just lay down the facts, and go easy on the opinion.

So, in this case, my only comment is: “Who are they trying to kid?”

---

On Saturday I received an e-mail from Kristin, representing a group of Honda dealers in California:

Hi Keith,

I am interested in speaking with you about the editorial content of your blog. We are the PR/Marketing agency representing the So Cal Honda Dealers Association, who has launched a new initiative for the Honda Helpful campaign, Honda Blue Goes Green. This new initiative goes hand in hand with this month’s environmental theme and would be a great fit with your website!

Please find attached the press release on the initiative. This new eco-friendly initiative is one of the many ways the So Cal Honda Dealers are unexpectedly helping the local residents, whether they’re handing out waters, hand wipes, helping people with their purchases or walking people to their cars with umbrellas on a rainy day. The community has responded really well to the Helpful teams and is always pleasantly surprised by their unexpected helpfulness. Again, we think this initiative is a perfect fit with your website!

I’d love to speak with you further about this great new initiative helping local residents become more eco-friendly! Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information. Feel free to email me or call!

Best,
Kristin Baker

I responded:

Dear Kristen

This is greenwash of the highest order. All of the examples you mention are encouraging people to drive more: exactly how is this “eco-friendly”?!

I’m sure your Tote Bag hasn’t got a Honda advert on it, has it?

And what about those wonderfully environmentally friendly vehicles you are selling. I picked out the first one on the web site’s list: the Odyssey (http://automobiles.honda.com/odyssey/specifications.aspx?group=epa). 20 miles per gallon: that is a complete pile of excrement. But it’s ok, because you are helping people plant trees — and, of course, telling people not to drive…no?

You’ve never read my web site, have you? Try this, and see if it fits with your plan: http://earth-blog.bravejournal.com/entry/24053. So, of course I will featuring your campaign with pleasure — on The Unsuitablog:
www.unsuitablog.com

Best wishes
Keith

Maybe I’m getting grumpy and cynical in my old age (well, there’s no “maybe” about it) but she did say it would be, “a perfect fit with your website”. Just not the one she was thinking of. To give her credit, she was polite in return:

Dear Keith,

I’m sorry if you misunderstood the message behind the Hobda [sic.] Helpful campaign. The Helpful teams are out in the field helping the local community in unexpected ways, not asking people to buy Honda vehicles.

The same goes for the Honda Blue Goes Green campaign. The Guys and Girls in Blue hand out reusable grocery totes at recycling centers, grocery stores and farmer’s markets to all customers, not just people with Hondas! And, with each reusable tote So Cal Honda Dealers Association will plant a tree in the recipients name for free, without asking them to buy a car but help replenish acres of forest land destroyed by fires.

I understand if you don’t feel the campaign is  right for your blog, but I’d appreciate the chance to explain the message behind the Helpful campaign a bit further, before you post it as unsuitable.

Thank you for your time.

Best,
Kristin Baker

I didn’t misunderstand the message, but I thought I’d give her a chance:

Ok, just three questions:

1) Do the Tote Bags have “Honda” or a Honda logo on them?

2) Do the people being helped out know that the helpers are employed by Honda dealers?

3) Why did you want me to mention your current campaign on my blog?

Regards
Keith

I even chased her up last night for a response, so I could get the full picture. Here it is:

Hello Keith,

In answer to your question, when the Guys and Girls in Blue approach customers, they initially ask if they would like to receive a reusable grocery bag, and when the recipient says “Yes. Thank you” the teams respond with “You’re welcome; It’s our job to be helpful at Honda!”

I have attached an image of the tote bags for your reference.

And finally, we contacted you to see if you were interested in posting items that let readers know about the different ways businesses are encouraging local communities to become environmentally friendly.

Please let me know if you have any other questions or need anything else!

Best,
Kristin Baker

Thank you Kristin; no more questions.