The Unsuitablog

It’s always interesting to see what happens when the target of an Unsuitablog article reads that article. I know they do, and I have had a few interesting responses from companies in particular, as well as a couple from political offices. I made the decision from the outset that nothing would be exempt from this site if there was a good reason for including it: there are lots of reasons ranging from simply exposing a hypocritical company to making an organisation question their motives.

On the occasion of publishing this item I was prepared for a backlash. Some of the most stubborn personalities exist within environmental groups, and unlike businesses who take criticism as part of the job (no CEO genuinely believes they are doing business for the good of the planet), NGOs and the like really think the way they operate is for the best: or rather, the people who run the NGOs think they know what is best. I know several committed current and former NGO members who really are doing the right thing, but from all my dealings over the last umpteen years with these groups (I have taken part in more actions than I can remember), it is clear they are in the minority.

Stubbornness can be directed in a positive way, as can anger: in fact, anger and stubbornness are vital elements in ridding the world of a system that constantly seeks to brainwash and coerce individuals into thinking that the way of life it promotes is the only life you can have. When anger becomes disproportionate, and manifests itself in petty threats, though, then you realise that the perpetrator is feeling both threatened and out of control. Here are two examples:

http://thesietch.org/mysietch/keith/2008/03/07/plane-stupid-plane-pointless/#comment-304

http://thesietch.org/mysietch/keith/2008/03/07/plane-stupid-plane-pointless/#comment-309

I’m big enough to look after myself, but am not going to waste time taking up the offers: I have far more important things to do than try and convince an angry person that they are targeting their passion in the wrong direction; when they have calmed down then that will be the right time. But better than that, I believe that the person in question is genuine, and just needs to understand that their symbolic actions are fruitless – the system will not change, people have to reject the system entirely and work towards something better. How that happens is manifold, but it must happen.

There are two phrases that everyone concerned about the environment needs to be aware of – both are widely used by policy makers, and particularly those parts of society involved in environmental subterfuge.

The first is “externalities”, which is another way of saying the emissions or pollution that a company or government doesn’t directly produce, but arises because of activities they are involved in. The second is “international bunkers”, which are greenhouse gas emissions that no one country is willing to take responsibility for.

Both of these phrases should be borne in mind when reading this lengthy extract from a dynamite article in today’s Guardian:

Britain’s climate change emissions may be 12% higher than officially stated, according to a National Audit Office investigation which has strongly criticised the government for using two different carbon accounting systems. There is “insufficient consistency and coordination” in the government’s approach, the NAO said.

Using one system, which the government presents to the UN and in public, Britain emitted 656m tonnes of CO2 in 2005, and claims an improvement on 1990 figures. However, the lesser-known but more accurate data in the government’s national environmental accounts show emissions to be in the region of 733m tonnes in 2005, a NAO report says today.

“There are two different bases on which the government reports emissions: that required for the UN, and the environmental accounts prepared for the Office of National Statistics … [which are] more comprehensive as they include aviation and shipping emissions. They present UK progress in reducing emissions in a markedly different light”, says the report.

The report says there have been “no reductions in UK emissions” if measured by the national accounts method.

The figures contained in the report fly in the face of consistent government claims that it is reducing emissions. Last week the environment minister, Phil Woolas, said in a Commons written answer: “UK greenhouse gas emissions have fallen by 16.4% since 1990. We remain on course to nearly double our Kyoto Protocol target over the 2008-12 period.”

This 12 percent understating of greenhouse gas emissions is unfortunate, to say the least, and puts the lie to the UK government’s claim to be a leader in greenhouse gas management. In fact, the UN allowance for the calculation of national emissions to exclude the “international bunkers” of air and shipping, makes it pretty easy for governments to shrug off these emissions as “not our problem”, when they are quite clearly a big and growing problem that must be tackled with considerable urgency.

The problem with such a hands-off attitude is that there is no ownership of these international bunkers. Just like a corporation that takes no responsibility for the pollution caused by the use of its products, governments can “externalise” with aplomb and pretend they are doing a better job than they really are. This must not be allowed to continue: whenever you see government statistics for greenhouse gas emissions, ask the authors whether they are really true, or not…

The largest mining company in the world isn’t, by definition, ever going to be a cosy environmental partner; more of a partner who regularly stabs you in the face with a sharp instrument to remind you that they are, indeed, the daddy, and you are just a lowly human. BHP Billiton turned over $47.5 billion in 2007, and made a profit in excess of $13 billion – more than enough, you would think, to take a serious look at their activities and use their money (a la Stern) to replant, say, the entire Amazon Rainforest.

But no, as a company they really are the essence of corporate destructiveness: for example, having exposed thousands of indigenous tripal people in Papua New Guinea to thousands of tonnes of polluted “tailings” (mine waste, to you and me) they tried to cut and run, despite admitting that the output of the Ok Ted mine was an environmental disaster. Their destructive operations are spread around the world, and where BHP Billiton go, they leave a trail of toxic waste, along with diseased humans and degraded habitats in their wake.

Like all destructive companies, BHP Billiton are engaging in some striking greenwash: in fact they have just agreed a new Climate Change Policy, which is not surprising considering their operations emit nearly 52 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent into the atmosphere every year (that’s about the same as Denmark – yes, the entire country!) It’s a pity they have entirely failed to commit to any reductions in greenhouse gases at all. Exactly what kind of Climate Change Policy is this? One that ensures the climate will change, I suppose.

And now, BHP Billiton are proudly sponsoring the Beijing Olympics. This is one olympic games that, as I have written, is threatening to become the most notorious in history, and with BHP Billiton as a key sponsor of the Olympic Organizing Committee, it will only get worse.

I wonder why a mining company would want to be part of a global event taking part in a country that uses more coal and concrete than any other nation on Earth. I wonder.

One advertisement that infuriated me more than almost any other in the last year (and there are SO many to choose from), was that for the Lexus RX Hybrid. At the time I first saw it, green was not the colour in my mind — more a sort of splashy, angry red — and I decided to write about it.

Now, with the advert having been unceremoniously banned for — quite frankly — lying, Lexus have turned to Saatchi & Saatchi, the ailing but global ad agency, who have decided that a world without “h” is a terrible world. Obviously this needs explaining, so here’s the official guff:

“The TV commercial presents a glimpse into a world without h.  The h is missing from key landmarks, computer keyboards and the alphabet in schools.  The viewer begins to wonder where the h has gone.  Then they see, it has moved to a better place, a world with the Lexus hybrid—a place that looks forward and believes in change.  There is no better place for an h to be than on the rear badging of a Lexus hybrid vehicle.”

Run that past me again. Lexus have stolen all the “h”s, screwing the world’s keyboards and schools because they want to look good. Talk about honesty in advertising!

Perhaps this isn’t quite what they meant to get over, but hey, that’s what you get for trying to be clever.

At the same time Lexus have launched something called Lexus Living which is, quite frankly, hilarious. They have a big list of tips to make you a more hybridized greener person. Some of them just have to be listed (with a comment or two):

– Install a tankless hot water heater, and you’ll never run out of hot water (great, we can burn gas forever)

– Set your sprinklers to water at night. This saves water because there is less evaporation (or maybe, not use sprinklers)

– Keep a canvas bag in your car so you’ll have it handy when you go grocery shopping (making sure you always drive to the shops)

– Dimmer switches use less electricity, and the light is often more flattering (no they don’t. Dimmer switches are transformers, and they prevent the use of low energy lightbulbs)

etc…

What they are really saying is that rich people can carry on their rich lifestyle (they suggest you tell your gardener to use a broom rather than a hose : what, to stick up his arse and do a dance for you?) and still feel good while they are screwing the planet.

Lexus, The Unsuitablog salutes your utter load of b******s!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just one click away from this is the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’ll tell you why.

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

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

Before someone decides to prevent me ever writing for any newspaper ever again (and by God, I’ve burnt a few bridges already!) I will say that I actually like The Independent. Of all the national newspapers in the UK it is by far the best for giving environmental issues a high profile, and saying what it thinks.

The paper recently ran an excellent article on the Open Skies Agreement, which will ensure the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by transatlantic aircraft goes well over what the smug naysayers in the air industry are claiming. This was backed up a Leader, which stated:

As this newspaper has long argued, the best way to do this is to start taxing the aviation industry fairly and properly. It is time that the price of air travel corresponded more closely with its environmental costs. The fact that airlines, by international convention, have never been subject to fuel tax or VAT has amounted to a vast hidden subsidy to this method of transport and one that urgently needs to be removed.

So why, in all that is sacred, are they running adverts that make them look like hypocrites? The picture above is a perfect example. A decent article about the dangers of air transport expansion nicely juxtaposed with an advert for long-haul flight behemoths, Emirates. And not just any old advert: one with interactive features to allow you to see the luxury inside one of their specially fitted-out Boeing or Airbus aircraft. Way to go, web designers!

In case the editors were wondering how bad Emirates is, according to their annual report for 2006-2007, the average Emirates passenger flew 4,400km, which produces about 0.62 tonnes of carbon dioxide. They carried 17.5 million passengers, which means that, in 2006/7, Emirates Airlines emitted around 10.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide: about the same as the whole of Jamaica emitted in the same year.

Not the best company to give space to in your Climate Change section.

Can we really put the blame on UPS for having it’s own airport terminals, having a fleet of jumbo jets, and using air as the standard method of transporting packages around the world? Don’t decide yet; wait until the end of this little article.

Ok, here’s a quote from the UPS web site:

“Our comprehensive hub-and-spoke network provides you with access to key transportation centers across the U.S. and beyond. Our all-points international air hub is located in Louisville, KY, with other regional hubs located in strategic cities across the U.S. We cover the rest of the world, as well, by operating international air hubs in Miami, Hamilton, Cologne, Taipei, and the Philippines.”

And here’s another:

“On Monday, February 1, 1988, UPS operated the first two flights under its own aircraft operating certificate. Now, every hour of the day, 365 days a year, a UPS aircraft is flying somewhere in the world – moving packages and freight.”

Surely this is just part of the way things are. Watching Tom Hanks being the perfect courier, taking pride in his company’s performance in the movie “Castaway” (ok, so FedEx sponsored it, but you get the picture) warms the cockles of even the most cold-hearted sceptic. This is what UPS do, and have been doing at a faster and faster rate for 101 years.

Here are the hard facts:

1) UPS claim to be an environmentally responsible company. They have their own Sustainability pages and say:

“We conduct our business and operations with consideration for their environmental impact. Our responsibility for the environment ranges from the construction, maintenance, and operation of our facilities, to the maintenance and operation of our vehicles and aircraft, to the conservation of resources.”

2) UPS operate the world’s 9th (or possibly 8th) largest airline, comprising 268 owned aircraft and another 311 chartered, ranging from Boeing 727s to 747s in size.

3) In 2006 UPS’s USA freight emissions produced (according to UPS) 7.37 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (includes other greenhouse gases). This is about the same as the entire annual emissions for Honduras.

4) UPS do not publish their global aircraft emissions figures, instead they show the carbon intensity (the figure that companies and governments use when their overall emissions are going up). It is currently 0.81 kg of some kind of emissions – it doesn’t say what, but we have to assume it’s carbon dioxide – per tonne of cargo.

5) Extrapolating the figures from UPS’s own Worldwide Facts list; if you take the 1.8 million parcels and documents per day, average the weight at 500g (I’m being very conservative here), multiply by 365, you get 330,000 tonnes of air freight. This means that UPS produce an extra…hang on! This doesn’t make sense!

Dig a bit deeper, and you find that the carbon intensity figure is a complete fudge.

“UPS’s (U.S.) absolute CO2 emissions increased by 1% from 2003 to 2004.
However, UPS’s CO2 efficiency improved 2.8 percent. We produced .06 metric tonnes (60 kilograms)less CO2 emissions per 1,000 packages delivered than we did in 2003.” (http://www.cdproject.net/download.asp?file=CDP3_UPS_AQ_3453.pdf)

This means that, assuming the UPS figures are correct, 0.81 on their chart actually means 2.4 tonnes per 1000 packages. We can now use that figure to show that the 657 million international packages per year produces another 1.3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide.

Quite why UPS are so cagey about this figure I have no idea, but it suggests they are not quite so comfortable about their emissions as their environmental pages suggest. But, can we pin the blame on UPS for producing all these emissions?

Not quite. Businesses and increasingly individuals are demanding rapid transportation of goods around the world, and the companies that offer the quickest service are the companies who will get the lion’s share of the custom. UPS are responding to a global demand for rapid transport, and as a consequence of their size they have a lot of aircraft, a lot of trucks and a lot of vans. So, it appears that the businesses who want things NOW have driven the growth of UPS rapid transportation, which has driven the growth of the emissions from freight transport.

However, isn’t it UPS’s CEO who says: “The global trends…are creating compelling growth opportunities for UPS.”

UPS are loving their position in the market, and they will continue to transport things faster and faster, producing more and more emissions because it is good for business – their business.

Just to conclude, I had to include this little snippet, from the Carbon Disclosure Project:

“What renewable energy and energy efficiency activities are you undertaking to manage your emissions? ”

“Solar power provides 70 percent of the power needs at our Palm Springs, Calif., sorting facility. Since its deployment in July 2003, the 100 kilowatt solar panel initiative has produced over 523,000 kilowatt hours of energy, reducing our CO2 output by 1 million pounds. This is the equivalent of removing 99 passenger cars from the road for a year.”

Wow! 1 millions pounds, or 500 tonnes, or 0.0002% of their total USA emissions per year! Possibly the most pathetic statistic I have so far read in 2008.

If you are one of the most successful retailers in an economically rich country then, when you say you are going to become environmentally friendly, that can only really mean one thing: going out of business. Retailers won’t admit that, of course, which is why they insist that “going green” is just a case of lowering their environmental impact, but being able to carry on selling loads of unnecessary products to people who have been brainwashed into thinking they need them by the adverts those same retailers keep running in the media.

Marks and Spencer, a very large and very well thought of UK retailer, is doing more than most, admittedly. In January 2007 they launched Plan A, the inference being that there was “no Plan B”. Plan A, according to M&S, is doing everything necessary to protect the planet, because we only have one. Plan A is also about preventing Plan B from becoming necessary because, although they won’t admit it, Plan B is commercial suicide. Plan B is admitting we don’t need to go shopping.

This week — with huge fanfare — M&S promised to massively reduce their customers’ use of plastic bags. By giving away 280 million less bags a year (a 70% reduction), through charging for them, M&S would save 3,400 tonnes of plastic from being produced. I then had a little search and found this in an M&S business report:

Of the 100,000 tonnes of packaging we use a year, some 79,000 tonnes relates to food packaging.

Hang on! If plastic bags only account 4,800 tonnes of plastic at M&S, then that is only 5% of the packaging that they produce. So why are M&S making such a big deal about plastic bags?

The reason is that the public have been made to think that they can really make a big difference to their environmental footprint by not using plastic bags. This costs the retailers nothing, in fact they save money, and can even make a little on the side by getting customers to pay for reusable advertisements bags.

In the meantime, the public keep shopping: the goods keep getting made, transported and thrown away, and the economy keeps rolling on, using up more and more resources as it goes.

M&S Chief Executive, Stuart Rose is jubilant: 

We’ve made good progress on Plan A. We’ve a lot more to do, but we remain committed to delivering the goals we’ve set. More and more of our employees and suppliers see Plan A as a way of helping us all innovate and do things differently. For example, we originally began working with our suppliers to open three ‘eco’ factories. Now we have plans for several more, including our first in China.

Oh yes! Factories in China. That’s most definitely in the spirit of Plan A.

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s the spiel from the UK web site:

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

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

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