Schott Solar today ceremonially inaugurated its state-of-the-art manufacturing facility for products used to generate solar power, one year after breaking-ground on the project’s first-phase. The 200,000 square-foot facility represents an initial investment of over $100 million USD in the Albuquerque region from the global Schott Solar group. Schott has created 350 jobs at the new facility, which will continue to ramp up production throughout the summer.

Federal, New Mexico, and Albuquerque dignitaries and government officials joined Schott Solar executives to dedicate the facility. Government officials praised the facility as a bright spot in the regional and national economy.

“This facility is proof that smart policy can create jobs and spur investment,” said New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. “Schott Solar has recognized the vast potential that exists for solar energy in the United States and especially New Mexico. They have taken a leadership position to manufacture technologies that can capture this limitless energy source.”

Anticipating the need to increase production of its solar power technologies as the market for renewable energy in the U.S. grows, the new site is designed to support expansion of both Schott’s photovoltaic module and solar thermal receiver lines. Long term plans call for the buildings to expand to 800,000 square feet with employment reaching 1,500 people, representing a total investment of approximately $500 million.

“Today is an extremely proud day for Schott,” said Dr. Udo Ungeheuer, Chairman of Schott’s Board of Management. “With the inauguration of this facility, Schott Solar is further demonstrating the company’s position as a global player in solar technology and our ongoing commitment to developing the North American market through strategic investment.”

Schott Solar’s manufacturing facility in Albuquerque is the first new solar manufacturing facility to open since the Federal government signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act into law. This law provides numerous incentives, including incentives for solar manufacturing, to help expand the renewable energy industry. By 2016, the U.S. solar industry is expected to support more than 440,000 permanent, full-time jobs, including many in the manufacturing and construction industries, according to Navigant Consulting. The development of solar energy has widespread support from the American public. In a study commissioned in 2008, 94% of respondents indicated it was important for the United States to develop and use solar energy.

Powerful Products from a Powerful Project

For the first phase, the Albuquerque facility will have an annual capacity of up to 85 MW (A megawatt of solar capacity provides enough electricity to power between 150 and 250 homes) of photovoltaic (PV) 225 watt polycrystalline modules, sold under the name SCHOTT Solar Poly 225. The 225 watt module is well suited for a diverse range of applications and is particularly well suited for commercial buildings and schools thanks to its size and durability. The highly-automated manufacturing process used in Albuquerque combines best practices from Schott Solar’s global manufacturing expertise to deliver an efficient, high-quality and reliable module.

In addition to manufacturing photovoltaics, Schott Solar’s Albuquerque flagship facility is the first in the U.S. to produce receivers used in parabolic trough, utility-scale, concentrated solar power plants (CSP). Initially, the two production lines will produce enough receivers to meet the demands of up to 400 MW CSP power plants per year.

Schott Solar receivers are advanced, specially coated steel absorber tubes embedded in evacuated glass envelopes. These receivers sit at the focal point of parabolic mirrors, where the sun’s thermal radiation is concentrated. A heat transfer fluid (HTF) is heated by the sun’s energy inside the receiver. The fluid then flows to a heat exchanger, which creates steam. This steam spins a turbine, creating energy with no carbon emissions.

Schott Solar designed its manufacturing process in Albuquerque to accommodate future developments for CSP receivers. Prototypes of next generation receivers were unveiled by Schott Solar during the inauguration of the Albuquerque facility. The new receivers offer new dimensions and can accommodate alternative heat transfer fluids. These changes are designed to increase the overall efficiency of CSP power plants, which will help to reduce costs for utility-scale solar energy production.

Solar: A Powerful Energy Source

In just one hour’s time, the amount of energy that the sun shines upon the earth’s surface exceeds the energy consumption of all of mankind in an entire year. The desert southwest of the United States is particularly well-suited to harness the full potential of this inexhaustible energy source.

“Investing in solar energy is the right investment for today,” said Dr. Gerald J. Fine, President and CEO of Schott North America. “We’re creating stable jobs in an industry that will benefit every American and the country as a whole.”

The opening of the Schott Solar facility in Albuquerque is symbolic of the nation’s growing appetite for renewable energy. President Obama has committed to doubling the nation’s renewable energy portfolio in three years. At the end of 2008, the United States had over 1 gigawatt of grid-tied PV and over 400 MW of CSP.

In case anyone wants to accuse me of laziness, for using the text from other peoples’ emails and for banging on about Earth Day again (not for no good reason, I hasten to add), I would like to say in my defence that I have to trawl through, read and delete all this damn stuff which comes squeezing its way through my internet pipe every day like lots of little green goo-soaked monsters.

So, given this effort, and how I still don’t seem to have got through to the inane fools sending me so much pseudo-green trivia and corporate PR-puff, here’s my Top 3 Crap Earth Day Emails, in approximate order of hypocrisy:

3. Coupon Sherpa : for uber-trivia – as though coupons are actually a major issue, the promotion of coupons that encourage people to buy more stuff, and iPhones, which are made by a near-slave workforce with virtually no environmental regulation

As Earth Day nears, Coupon Sherpa’s new iPhone application demonstrates how mobile coupons can reduce waste

[Fort Collins, CO] – Envision all the printed coupons you receive via newspapers, magazines and direct mail. Millions upon millions of Americans are bombarded by piles of paper coupons every week. Coupon Sherpa offers an alternative that is friendly to the environment, convenient for consumers and beneficial for retailers.

Introduced in early April, Coupon Sherpa is an iPhone application that allows shoppers to access in-store coupons on their iPhone or iPod Touch. Approved by Apple, Coupon Sherpa (www.couponsherpa.com) is available at the iPhone App Store. There are coupons to over 100 merchants on Coupon Sherpa including Finish Line, Zales Jewelers, Coldwater Creek and Jackson-Hewitt. The coupon categories include clothing, restaurants, pet supplies, sporting goods, home & garden and entertainment.

The debut of Coupon Sherpa is timely, especially since Earth Day will be celebrated on April 22. The waste created by paper coupons is substantial. According to a report by the nonprofit group ForestEthics, “mail advertisements create 51.5 million metric tons of greenhouse gases each year.” [Ed: Mail adverts do not equate to coupons, you moron!] That number is equivalent to the emissions produced by heating about 13 million houses or mowing more than 20 billion lawns.

“We know that paper coupons will not be completely replaced, but providing consumers and retailers with an outlet for mobile coupons is a positive start towards reducing the waste created by the mountains of mail we all receive,” said Luke Knowles, who created Coupon Sherpa with his brother Jesse Knowles. “In the future, an increasing amount of coupons will be presented on mobile devices, and that will be great for the environment.”

2. Kelly Ripa and Electrolux : for being an incredible mix of greenwash and hypocrisy. This is like punching someone in the face and then saying “sorry” in a really sarcastic way.

Kelly Ripa Launches Virtual Campaign To Benefit Global Green

How Green Is This! Talk show host and eco-Mom [Ed: Eco what?! More like Hyper-Consuming Mom], Kelly Ripa launched Electrolux’s newest eco-friendly washer & dryer in limited edition “Kelly Green” just in time for Earth Day and kicked off an online campaign to encourage people to renew their commitment to living green by planting a virtual flower for a friend. For every virtual flower planted at electroluxappliances.com , Electrolux will donate $1 to Global Green USA to support their healthy green schools initiatives across America.

Kelly Ripa is paid by Electrolux

Pass me the sick bag!

1. Lexus and Alicia Keys : for leaving me open-mouthed with astonishment at the sheer level of environmental hypocrisy, coupled with a brilliantly conceived splash of student brainwashing; all for less than the cost of a single car.

To kick off Earth Month, Lexus, the top-selling luxury automaker, and multi Grammy award-winning recording artist, Alicia Keys, will honor Los Angeles’ Thomas Jefferson High School with a $10,000 Grand Prize for its environmental achievements through the “Lexus Keys to Innovation” program. The “Lexus Keys to Innovation” program is a unique way for Lexus and Alicia Keys to recognize and reward students who have successfully implemented innovative environmental programs in their schools and communities.

Through “Lexus Keys to Innovation,” Lexus and Alicia Keys presented ten schools across the country with a $2,000 donation to support existing environmental programs. Thomas Jefferson High School’s “action plan” proposed that the $10,000 Grand Prize be used to create a native “green” space on campus for the students and faculty to utilize as an interactive educational tool.

The mission of the program is to better this South LA high school and community by bringing a much needed green space to the area which is currently dominated by [huge amounts of greenhouse gases generated by vehicles such as those produced by Lexus,] concrete, meat packing plants and factories. Additionally, the space will help to improve the air quality around the campus, and will allow students at Thomas Jefferson High School and nearby Harmony Elementary School to use the Green Space as an outdoor science lab.

The Environmental club at Thomas Jefferson High School will make this project a community effort by partnering with the local Harmony Elementary School to teach the younger members of their community the importance of taking an active role to better the environment.

During a school-wide assembly [and marketing opportunity] on April 2nd, Lexus’ vice president of marketing, Dave Nordstrom, will present the Grand Prize as well as commemorative, native Californian sapling to plant in the “green” space to Thomas Jefferson High School. As an added “thank you” to the students of Thomas Jefferson, Alicia Keys has videotaped a special message that will be played at the assembly, prior to Dave’s commemorative.

Now, will you all join me in sticking two fingers up at the winners – including our special celebrities. May they all be washed away when the tide turns…

[from The Unsuitablog]

STOP PRESS! Since writing this, another email seems to have trumped the trivia of (hah!) “Coupon Sherpa”. Take at look at this one about “Earth Saving” bottled water…

(from The Unsuitablog)

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

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

They are prepared to start wars to get oil.

They are prepared to destroy ecosystems to get oil.

They are prepared to displace humans to get oil.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Like go out of business, perhaps?

Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) today asked New Jersey regulators to approve a $773-million proposal to bring the benefits of 120 megawatts of solar power directly to communities and customers throughout its service territory.

In a filing with the state’s Board of Public Utilities, PSE&G proposed a unique and comprehensive Solar 4 All Program with one segment that includes the largest pole-attached solar installation in the country. The program will result in savings to municipal and county budgets and will utilize brownfields (done before in Massachusetts see here) and other underdeveloped properties for solar generation.

PSE&G will invest in, own and operate the grid-connected solar energy systems and will collaborate with experienced solar developers, installers and manufacturers to develop projects. The initiative will create environmental benefits to New Jersey by providing carbon-free solar generation to all utility customers, also a lot of installation jobs.

“We designed our program to ensure that everyone has access to the benefits of solar energy,” said Ralph LaRossa, president and COO of PSE&G. “The program strongly supports New Jersey’s aggressive renewable energy and environmental goals and helps to strengthen the competitive solar industry in the state. By partnering with solar developers, we will bring solar projects online more quickly and cost effectively. We will also make solar energy available to every neighborhood in our service area, ensuring universal access.”

LaRossa said the program will encourage growth for the solar industry by providing financing and capital to build solar capacity in these difficult economic times. The investment will help New Jersey address an expected shortfall in its current solar energy requirements. It will also generate hundreds of green jobs to help stimulate New Jersey’s economy by training a pool of skilled workers who will be available for the entire solar industry.

The initiative will expand New Jersey’s solar infrastructure and will satisfy nearly 7 percent of the state’s renewable portfolio standards requirements through 2020. The 120 megawatts of solar capacity will eliminate 1.7 million tons of CO2 emissions, which is the equivalent of removing nearly 310,000 cars from the road for one year.

Each utility investment will be recovered over 15 to 20 years, but the rate impact will be offset by the value of the electricity and Solar Renewable Energy Certificates (SRECs) produced by the systems as well as federal tax credits that will flow back to utility customers. PSE&G would support a mechanism that would limit the amount of SRECs it sells via auction if the state already had enough SRECs to satisfy the solar requirement for that year.

Installation costs are expected to be $6.44 per watt of installed solar capacity. The company is proposing to recover all direct program costs, including costs related to its invested capital. The impact on a typical residential customer is forecasted to be 10 cents per month in the first full year of the program and increases up to 35 cents per month in 2013.

PSE&G’s Solar 4 All Program includes four segments:

Neighborhood Solar (40 megawatts) – $264 million investment
PSE&G will contract with solar developers selected from a competitive bidding process to design, manufacture and procure solar devices for nearly 200,000 utility poles and street lights in neighborhoods throughout PSE&G’s service territory.

Local Government Solar (43 megawatts) – $273 million investment
Working with solar developers, PSE&G will offer every municipality and public school district in its electric service territory the opportunity to install solar systems on their property. Solar developers will install roof-mounted systems on public schools as well as on municipal and county-owned buildings. An additional incentive will be offered to municipalities in Urban Enterprise Zones by providing more installed capacity. PSE&G will own and operate the systems. Local governments will receive a credit on their utility bill equal to the amount of energy generated by the system, thereby reducing costs and helping every taxpayer in towns served by PSE&G. All schools participating in the program will be provided with educational materials about solar energy.

Centralized Solar (35 megawatts) – $221 million investment
PSE&G will contract for the design and manufacture of 25 megawatts of ground- or roof-mounted solar systems on land or buildings it owns. Systems on utility-owned properties will be installed by PSE&G’s skilled workforce or contractors. In addition, the company will work with developers to install 10 megawatts of larger solar energy farms on brownfields, non-profit-owned real estate, and underdeveloped real estate to convert them to productive sites for renewable generation. These sites will use contractors for the installations.

HMFA/Affordable Housing Solar (2 megawatts) – $15 million investment
PSE&G will invest up to $15 million in roof-mounted solar systems to provide electricity at New Jersey Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency (HMFA)-financed or other affordable housing communities, resulting in savings for residents. This is the one that sounds the coolest to me, poor people need lower energy bills the most. I would love to see utilities do this all over America.

U.S. National Forests damaged by wildfires, insects and disease will be getting some much needed help thanks to Progressive car insurance customers who have chosen to receive their policy documents electronically. Not only are those customers saving trees by saving paper, they’re also getting trees planted in their honor. Progressive began offering to plant trees in 2007 to help raise awareness of its paperless program. Since then, more than 1 million customers have signed up.

“Our customers rose to the challenge and now we’re following through on our commitment” said Christine Johnson, Progressive’s customer experience general manager. “When we began the tree planting campaign we had no idea where it would end up, but we’re pleased it has led to such a significant result”

Progressive will provide funding for the 1 million trees to the Arbor Day Foundation, the country’s leading nonprofit, conservation and education organization dedicated to planting trees. The U.S. Forest Service has identified a backlog of more than 1 million acres that need to be replanted. Since 1990, the Arbor Day Foundation has helped to replant more than 13 million trees.

“Encouraging customers to go paperless is a great way for companies to help the environment, and we applaud Progressive for doing it. Progressive’s generous donation to plant 1 million trees is truly a significant gift to the environment” said John Rosenow, chief executive of the Arbor Day Foundation. “By planting trees in our nation’s forests, Progressive is making a positive impact for generations to come”

While Progressive’s tree planting campaign is wrapping up, it will continue to offer discounts where available to customers who choose to go paperless. What may not be obvious here is that this is a win win for everyone. Using less paper is great, you also cut down on co2 from the trucks that have to carry the millions of envelopes around the country, and Progressive saves a crap load of money because they can now automate everything on a computer. And on top of all that they are replacing a million trees which will suck more co2 out of the air.

Progressive also sponsors the Automotive X prize, with the goal of getting a 100mpg car built. I think their next step should be offering discounts to their customers that drive less. This would lower their chances of getting in a crash, and decrease the amount of co2 produced. Drivers that drive less would also cost Progressive less because they would be crashing less. These sort of setups show that being green and making money are not incompatible.

Today’s decision is also a victory for the rule of law – with the EPA signaling that it is back to enforcing long-standing legal requirements fairly and consistently nationwide and that they’re concerned about pollution and global warming.

As the first major coal plant decision by the EPA since President Barack Obama took office, this signals that the dozens of other coal plant proposals currently in permitting processes nationwide will face a new level of federal scrutiny.

The proposed Big Stone II 500-megawatt coal plant would have emitted more than 4 million tons of global pollution annually. The Sierra Club and Clean Water Action have been working to stop the Big Stone II project and ramp up clean energy investments in for more than three years.

This decision also likely spells the end of Otter Tail Power’s Big Stone II coal plant. At a minimum, Otter Tail Power will have to go back to the drawing board and redesign the project to incorporate the best and maximum available control technology for pollution like soot and smog.

Otter Tail Power will now have to be responsible for the cost of its pollution. We hope that this increasing cost of coal will encourage Otter Tail Power, along with Governors Tim Pawlenty and Mike Rounds, to harness the clean and affordable wind resources available in the region. Minnesota and South Dakota should be leaders on the path to renewable energy independence, not laggards proposing 19th century coal plants.

We will also continue pushing the EPA to set limits for carbon dioxide, the main contributor to global warming.

With coal-fired power plants accounting for almost 30% of our nation’s carbon dioxide emissions, burning less coal and investing in clean energy such as wind and solar instead is a common sense approach to helping meet global warming pollution reduction goals.

Update: Minnesota Public Radio Story here.
And click here to go to our Compass blog to read the EPA documents.

There is another crunch going on at the moment, but it feels more like a stampede: the “environmental” (I use this word with a huge amount of irony now) pressure groups of the USA and UK have hit the Panic! button and made the decision not to try and save the planet from Industrial Civilization, but to go all out in order to appeal to the masses, and bugger the consequences.

We have seen all sorts of greenwash and weasel words emerging from the likes of the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, and the Nature Conservancy, as well as a perfect example of ultra light-green spin from Greenpeace. The signs are that the NGOs are so desperate to justify their existence that they will do anything just to look as though they are making progress.

What they are instead doing is moving us away from anything like a solution to the environmental catastrophe that we need to be heading off now.

With Greenpeace traditionally seen as one of the more radical of the NGOs, it is especially galling to hear from the inside that they have become little more than a self-justifying anachronism, hierarchically managed (with people like John Sauven of Greenpeace UK acting like CEOs of corporations, rather than guiding lights for a community of keen individuals) and conservative in the extreme.

Here’s a quote from today’s Guardian which illustrates this perfectly. With reference to the right-wing, mass-market tabloid, The Daily Mail, running a campaign against compact fluorescent light bulbs:

“The Mail is reaching middle England and it’s exactly middle England that you want to bring on board.”

What?

Essentially, and this gels exactly with how the mainstream environmental groups are now behaving, he thinks that you have to get everyone on board in order to make things better; completely ignoring the fact that the vast majority of Westerners are not willing to make anything like the changes required to reverse environmental meltdown, and that in order to bring “Middle England” on board, you would have to dilute your position so much as to make it totally ineffectual. Which is exactly what Greenpeace UK have done.

Make no mistake, the mainstream environmental movement do not have the answers: they are simply hoping like so many other people, politicians and business people, that if we do bugger all for long enough the problem will simply go away.

It will, just not in quite the way they might imagine.

Environmentalists like polar bears, and it’s not hard to appreciate why: not only are they extraordinary hunters, survivors and an integral part of the polar ecosystem, they are a vital marker to indicate the impact of global warming on this ice-dependent species, and they look pretty good on campaign posters too — if that’s your kind of thing.

Coca-Coca loves polar bears, and it’s not hard to appreciate why: they are a powerful symbol of survival in a isolated environment, they make great TV and they look really funny and quirky with a bottle of carbonated soft drink stuck between their paws. Since 1993, Coca Cola have made the most of the “Aah!” factor of polar bears.

It’s no surprise that the Coca Cola Corporation have a big carbon footprint: 7.4 million tonnes in 2007, according to their own carbon disclosure, which is the same as the emissions for Honduras. Along with this they have a terrible history of extracting water illegally, or otherwise taking far more than is sustainable, along with all sorts of other unacceptable social and environmental behaviour (see this damning report by War On Want for more information).

So along come WWF Canada to take Coca Cola by the hand and lead them into a better place…except it’s not WWF who are doing the leading, despite what they would like to think. Despite WWF’s clumsy attempts to suggest that by partnering with such a nefarious corporate monster, the monster can be tamed to be a good environmental steward, and even assist with the preservation of the polar bear, Coca Cola are clearly laughing on the other side of their collective face.

Yes, what else would Coca Cola do but make some fantastic commercial capital out of this partnership — or should I say, sponsorship, because that’s what it is.

Since 1993, the Coca-Cola Company has celebrated the polar bear as a symbol of holidays and togetherness. Sadly, the polar bears are now at risk from the effects of climate change. As the Arctic warms, the sea ice is melting, limiting their abilities to successfully reproduce and feed their cubs.

Deck Your Halls…

…with exclusive polar bear downloads, plush bears, holiday ornaments, and more! There’s something for you, and everyone on your holiday list.

Buy Stuff.

Who needs irony when you have WWF?

[Taken from The Unsuitablog]

This just in from the boys at Hummer!

Did you ever drive up dunes, go over rocks and mountains, cross a river? Is your heart beating faster at the thought of driving a HUMMER, or are you already a passionate HUMMER owner?

See you soon,
your HUMMER Driving Academy team.

And you should probably watch this…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whA12At_9_c

Yeah!

Just thought you should know what some people are doing while the planet burns.

Over the past week, The Unsuitablog has been publishing a series of articles detailing the way that supermarkets in the UK (and elsewhere) are infiltrating the education system for commercial gain. Some of the findings are truly shocking, but not entirely unexpected — perhaps the most shocking thing of all is that virtually no one is doing anything to stop this happening: parents, teachers and children welcome Supermarket Voucher Schemes with open arms, eyes and minds, completely unaware of the damage that is being caused.

There are three articles in the series, which can be read by following the links below: they are too long to publish here, but this issue is serious enough to alert The Sietch readers to, as they are some of the people who may be able to stop these schemes:

Part 1: How They Work

Part 2: Greenwashing Children

Part 3: Winners, Losers and Fighting Back

For every “reward” given to schools, the supermarkets gain between 100 and 500 times the value of that item in sales. In addition, they get free advertising inside schools; the ability to influence the curriculum and, potentially, a new generation of loyal children who will grow up to become loyal customers. Pass on the links if you can.

Wherever you are in the world, this is likely to be happening to your children: it needs to be stopped.

I am proud to profess a certain ignorance when it comes to the characters and antics of the characters in the two (and soon to be three) High School Musical movies. I think there’s one called Troy, and another called Gabriella. There might be a sassy one called Maybelline who really wants to get in touch with nature, and almost certainly a sports jock called Chuck who is a big teddy bear at heart. While I take a few moments to dry-retch into a bucket, here’s Disney’s write up on the new High School cinematic extravanganza:

Disney’s “High School Musical” phenomenon leaps onto the big screen in HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL 3: SENIOR YEAR, which finds high school seniors Troy (ZAC EFRON) and Gabriella (VANESSA HUDGENS) facing the prospect of being separated from one another as they head off in different directions to college. Joined by the rest of the Wildcats, they stage an elaborate spring musical reflecting their experiences, hopes and fears about the future…

Great! The thing is, no one in the Western world is going to be immune from the clutches of this movie and it’s throngs of fans all sporting High School Musical t-shirts, bags, coats, even underwear (yes, this is really disturbing!) While their rooms will be decked out with CDs, DVDs, posters, books and all sorts of money-spinning paraphernalia.

The key message of High School Musical is: Be Yourself.

Think about it. This is Disney, remember, founded by a man who insisted that his company would eventually become ubiquitous and the global reach of which is truly staggering: merchandising alone, in 2007, was worth $27 billion. According to Motley Fool:

Disney wants to focus on “branded quality product” to drive its growth. Customers have plenty of entertainment choices today, so it only makes sense to win them over by making the best content you possibly can. Suck the consumers into your system with a strong product like High School Musical or Pirates of the Caribbean, and that one movie ticket can turn into hundreds of dollars in branded retail goods, online advertising revenue, theme park curiosity, and all the rest.

Do this often enough with hit properties on parade, and you’re building a mighty strong company brand that translates into customer loyalty and near-automatic blockbuster hits.

Still think that High School Musical is about “being yourself”? Now, go to the website, click on “Partners”, and take a look at the other companies getting in on the act — if you are forced to watch the movie then watch out for the product placement; it’s bound to be there. Carefully selected to ensure minimum crossover while ensuring maximum lifestyle reach, we have: Sara Lee (I wonder what the characters eat), Honda (I wonder what they drive), BP (I wonder what they fill up their Honda’s with), Champion (I wonder what they wear), JCPenney (I wonder where they shop), and so on.

Get in on the act and your brand can benefit from the great High School Musical synergies too.

If you really want your kids to be themselves, then why not take them for a walk in the countryside, a swim in the river, a play on the beach, or just have a day talking with them. Whatever you choose to do, make it real.

P.S. Here’s a bigger version for your kids’ walls — just click on the thumbnail:

Hot on the heels of my recent article, Virgin Airlines “On The Brink Of Collapse”, comes a very exciting email from Virgin Atlantic’s Director Of Communications. Paul Charles – pictured above, whose shirt I have no intention of commenting on for fear of legal action – sent the following to The Sietch:

This is highly libellous. I suggest you remove this posting before we are forced to take legal action. Virgin Atlantic is a successful and profitable airline, with £600m cash in the bank, on top of profits last year. We make smaller profits than BA because we are a smaller airline. We have 38 planes in our fleet, they have 230.We operate long-haul only and not short-haul. The author sadly seems to know little about the airline industry. Sir Richard Branson was talking about XL and the BA/AA monopoly in recent days, not our own operating position.

Paul Charles, Director of Communications, Virgin Atlantic.

This has to, of course, be taken in context, so it’s only fair that I reprint the article that Paul objected so strongly to:

It was more than three months ago, with the collapse of the luxury business airline Silverjet, that the rumble started. As fuel prices peaked in the early summer of 2008, it was clear that the first businesses to suffer would be those with minimal backing and low profit margins – unless passengers were prepared to pay proportionally more for their flights then the flights simply would not run. In August, the inevitable happened, and the first component of what will be known as the “budget house of cards” fell: Zoom, the Anglo-Canadian budget flyer went into administration, stranding thousands of passengers in various locations either side of the Atlantic.

Then things started to go very wrong. On Friday 12 September, XL Group, the third largest holiday firm in the UK went bankrupt, leaving 90,000 passengers with no return flights, and hundreds of thousands of bookings in jeopardy. Proving that this was no British disease, the New York Times, along with dozens of other news sources were reporting on 14 September that Alitalia, the de facto national airline of Italy were experiencing difficulties guaranteeing their fuel supply. The financial disaster was all but confirmed by the Observer on the same day, which reported:

“Italy’s flag-carrier airline broke the news after an apparently fruitless meeting between its bankruptcy commissioner and trade union leaders, which was aimed at saving the debt-laden airline from collapse.”

And this is where it starts to get interesting.

In the same article, Virgin Group Chairman, Sir Richard Branson was quoted as saying:

“a new set of procedures should be brought in allowing a collapsed company’s fleet to continue to fly under the watch of the aviation regulator.”

Although ostensibly related to the “rescue” of passengers from collapsed airlines, the sense in the industry is that no airline is safe from collapse, not even the relatively buoyant Virgin Atlantic. In fact, it turns out that the last posted annual profit of £60m ($107m) was less than 10% that of arch-rival British Airways, and only 15% of that posted by budget carrier Ryanair for the same period. Ryanair have recently been forced to withdraw their least efficient aircraft in order to weather the ongoing market conditions. Virgin Atlantic cannot afford any slip-ups, nor can they afford another rise in fuel costs. Branson knows this, and and has known this for some time, as evidenced by his aggresive stance towards the proposed link-up between BA and American Airlines.

In an article in the Daily Telegraph, just over a week ago, he stated:

“It is ironic that the UK’s Competition Commission last month called for the break-up of one monopoly, in the form of airport owner BAA, yet British Airways is trying to create another one, with American [Airlines]. It wants to gain permission to collude with American, something that would normally be illegal, and fix ticket prices and schedules on US and European routes…this proposed alliance would impact Virgin Atlantic’s ability to compete fairly on these routes.”

There is more than a touch of unease in these words, but even I didn’t realise the significance of his recent behaviour until I spoke to an industry source. The individual who, not surprisingly didn’t want to be named, said: “This behaviour suggests something more than market positioning. This looks like a company on the brink of collapse.”

Whether Virgin Atlantic, and their sister companies Virgin America and Virgin Blue can ride out the storm depends on many factors, but at the moment things are not looking good for the former wunderkind of British industry. The “budget house of cards” won’t stop toppling for some time yet.

Paul, himself, found time to comment on the article, as follows:

It must be BA putting rumours around that Virgin Atlantic is on the brink of collapse! What a load of rubbish from our rival that loses more passenger bags than any other airline in Europe. Virgin Atlantic is in strong shape. In anticipation of the global downturn, we took action two years ago. We deferred aircraft deliveries, examined our cost base, ensured our fuel hedging was in the right place, and started building up cash. We have over £600m (over $1 billion) cash in the bank. We have a very strong management team that has been through downturns in the industry before. Virgin Atlantic is 25 years old next year – it’s in a strong position to ensure it remains one of the fittest airlines around.

Paul Charles
Director of Communications
Virgin Atlantic

My response must have been the one which caused the threatening email at the top of this article:

So why is RB sounding so edgy, Paul? He’s a clever man, and may even have seen “Black Monday” coming – with Lehman Brothers out, and Merrill Lynch fatally wounded, hedging fuel is becoming a very dodgy business. I don’t believe any business is safe, not least a business that relies on people having disposable income they are willing to spend on things that they don’t actually need.

Keith

P.S. I have nothing to do with BA, but I did spend 10 years working in the finance industry predicting events accurately.

I never did get a response to my question, but I did find an interesting article to back up my apparent ignorance, as I “know little about the airline industry”, on the BBC web site, which includes the following:

Analysts said other airlines that rely heavily on the UK market for business would face similar challenges.

“We view the deteriorating outlook as UK-led and consequently see ramifications for our Easyjet and British Airways forecasts,” NCB analyst Neil Glynn wrote in a note.

I was brought up to believe that if someone jumps down your throat when you make a statement, then perhaps that statement has touched a nerve and, by implication, is pretty close to the truth. You can make up your mind whether you think Virgin have jumped down mine…

It was more than three months ago, with the collapse of the luxury business airline Silverjet, that the rumble started. As fuel prices peaked in the early summer of 2008, it was clear that the first businesses to suffer would be those with minimal backing and low profit margins – unless passengers were prepared to pay proportionally more for their flights then the flights simply would not run. In August, the inevitable happened, and the first component of what will be known as the “budget house of cards” fell: Zoom, the Anglo-Canadian budget flyer went into administration, stranding thousands of passengers in various locations either side of the Atlantic.

Then things started to go very wrong. On Friday 12 September, XL Group, the third largest holiday firm in the UK went bankrupt, leaving 90,000 passengers with no return flights, and hundreds of thousands of bookings in jeopardy. Proving that this was no British disease, the New York Times, along with dozens of other news sources were reporting on 14 September that Alitalia, the de facto national airline of Italy were experiencing difficulties guaranteeing their fuel supply. The financial disaster was all but confirmed by the Observer on the same day, which reported:

Italy’s flag-carrier airline broke the news after an apparently fruitless meeting between its bankruptcy commissioner and trade union leaders, which was aimed at saving the debt-laden airline from collapse.

And this is where it starts to get interesting.

In the same article, Virgin Group Chairman, Sir Richard Branson was quoted as saying:

a new set of procedures should be brought in allowing a collapsed company’s fleet to continue to fly under the watch of the aviation regulator.

Although ostensibly related to the “rescue” of passengers from collapsed airlines, the sense in the industry is that no airline is safe from collapse, not even the relatively buoyant Virgin Atlantic. In fact, it turns out that the last posted annual profit of £60m ($107m) was less than 10% that of arch-rival British Airways, and only 15% of that posted by budget carrier Ryanair for the same period. Ryanair have recently been forced to withdraw their least efficient aircraft in order to weather the ongoing market conditions. Virgin Atlantic cannot afford any slip-ups, nor can they afford another rise in fuel costs. Branson knows this, and and has known this for some time, as evidenced by his aggresive stance towards the proposed link-up between BA and American Airlines.

In an article in the Daily Telegraph, just over a week ago, he stated:

It is ironic that the UK’s Competition Commission last month called for the break-up of one monopoly, in the form of airport owner BAA, yet British Airways is trying to create another one, with American [Airlines]. It wants to gain permission to collude with American, something that would normally be illegal, and fix ticket prices and schedules on US and European routes…this proposed alliance would impact Virgin Atlantic’s ability to compete fairly on these routes.

There is more than a touch of unease in these words, but even I didn’t realise the significance of his recent behaviour until I spoke to an industry source. The individual who, not surprisingly didn’t want to be named, said: “This behaviour suggests something more than market positioning. This looks like a company on the brink of collapse.”

Whether Virgin Atlantic, and their sister companies Virgin America and Virgin Blue can ride out the storm depends on many factors, but at the moment things are not looking good for the former wunderkind of British industry. The “budget house of cards” won’t stop toppling for some time yet.

I feel like a cyclist with my mouth open sometimes — keep moving forwards and the flies will just pop in from time to time. Some of those flies will be big and nasty…like this one I received from a PR company this morning:

Hello Keith,

One of the ironies of the modern era is that computers haven’t helped us to use less paper. Instead we are using vastly more than ever before. This is absolute disaster for the environment. One fifth of all wood harvested ends up as paper. Pulp and paper is the fifth largest consumer of energy and in the US paper accounts for 40 percent of all solid waste.

So why do computers cause us to use so much paper?

To be sure it’s easy to print documents out and paper is portable. Another major reason is that we are still using antiquated paper and pen to sign and execute contracts. DocuSign is helping to change that with its end-to-end contract execution service that lets companies process and sign documents on the Web.

Now Fidelity Investments has jumped on board with DocuSign and will be rolling out the company’s e-signature and electronic contract execution services to thousands of independent advisors. Not only does this save time and money for the advisors while improving security, it also greatly reduces the need to print, fax and use overnight delivery services to hand-deliver documents. Instead, documents are sent, signed and processed over the Web.

We see Fidelity’s adoption of e-signatures as a major advancement in the way that financial institutions work and a sign that there is a greener future ahead. Can I arrange for you to speak with executives from Fidelity Investments and DocuSign, as well as a customer, to give you their impression of how this service works industry works.

Please let me know if you have questions or need more information.

Brian Edwards
McKenzie Worldwide PR
(503) 863-2002
briane@mckenzieworldwide.com

Well, of course I’m going to speak to a load of corporate executives and give them some free advertising — after all that’s what The Unsuitablog does all the time, isn’t it? How stupid does a person have to be to send such an e-mail to this web site? I suppose as stupid as they have to be to think that people are going believe a company like Fidelity Investments actually care about the planet.

Let’s take a look at the kind of investments this new, ethical Fidelity are offering today…

Powershares Aerospace & Defense Portfolio

The top ten holdings of this investment fund which focusses on the tools of war are as follows:

Honeywell International, Inc. (”defence” technology manufacture)
Lockheed Martin Corporation (primary arms manufacture)
Boeing Company (”defense” airplane manufacture)
United Technologies (”defense” airplane manufacture)
General Dynamics (”defense” shipping manufacture)
Raytheon Company (primary arms manufacture)
Northrop Grumman Corporation (primary arms manufacture)
ITT Corporation (”defence” technology manufacture)
Textron, Inc. (”defence” equipment manufacture)
L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. (”defence” technology manufacture)

Claymore/SWM Canadian Energy Income

Primarily invests in oil sands (the most polluting form of energy) and other heavily polluting energies. Top ten are:

Oilsands Quest, Inc. (oil sands)
Canadian Oil Sands Trust Trust Unit (oil sands)
Penn West Energy Trust Trust Unit (oil and gas)
Suncor Energy, Inc. (oil and gas)
Baytex Energy Trust Trust Unit (oil sands)
Imperial Oil (oil sands)
OPTI Canada Inc. (oil sands)
UTS Energy Corp (oil sands)
Enerplus Resources Fund Trust Unit (oil and gas)
Canadian Natural Resources, Ltd. (oil sands)

Market Vectors Global Agribusiness ETF

This is a big one – $1.6billion worth, in companies resposible for changing the way nature works or just destroying it. Top ten are:

Syngenta AG ADR (GMOs)
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, Inc. (fertilizer mining)
Deere & Company (deforestation)
The Mosaic Company (fertilizer mining)
Monsanto Company (GMOs)
Archer Daniels Midland Corporation (GM soybean processing)
Wilmar International Ltd (palm oil production)
IOI (palm oil production)
Yara Int’l (fertilizer manufacturer)
Agrium, Inc. (fertilizer supplier)

This is just a small sample of the kinds of products you can buy from Fidelity — the company that are promising “a greener future ahead” — out of many more that contain every awful company that you can imagine. In short, Fidelity offer investments in all of the least ethical companies on Earth, and by implication that makes Fidelity a completely unethical company, and thus by further implication, by linking themselves in a press release with Fidelity, that makes Docusign a completely unethical company as well. And finally, by sending out this e-mail, supporting both Fidelity and Docusign, that makes the company who sent it to me — McKenzie Worldwide PR — a completely unethical company too.

(Oh, and by the way, the reason companies use so much paper is to churn out endless amounts of crap telling us why we need them…)

[From The Unsuitablog]

I’m really, really sorry. I had no idea at all that I was living a terrible life, but it took those folks at BP to pull me back into the real world. According to their Greencurve there’s so much more I could be doing to make my life greener. Look at the graph (sorry “curve”) above and you can see I’m nowhere near “Aspire!” — whatever that means. I must be re-educated by BP.

Here’s what they say I should do to be greener (and my feelings):

“Try to travel when other people aren’t. This keeps you from wasting gas starting and stopping and can cut down your energy use considerably.”

(But I almost never drive — there was no option for going everywhere by foot, bus or train.)

“Wash your car at a car wash. 85% of car washes’ water is reclaimed and their systems are much more efficient than ours.”

(I never wash my car; the rain does it for me. It uses no energy and wastes no water.)

“For outdoor lighting, use solar. It’s easier to find than you might think (on most home and garden furnishings websites, do a search for “solar lighting”)”

(But…but…I don’t have any lights in my garden.)

“Start a recycling program in your neighborhood, local community center or school — anywhere a lot of paper is used.”

(Please sir, my council already do collect my recycling, and I don’t produce much waste anyway. And what about everything apart from paper?)

Gosh, how castigated I am feeling.

This is what is known as “conchoice” — consumer choice with the emphasis on the “con”. As I write in A Matter Of Scale:

Consumer choice would be far better entitled “Conchoice”, a term describing the true level of choice that individuals are provided with, should they find themselves within the consumer culture. Benjamin R. Barber puts it like this: “The apparent widening of individual consumer choices actually shrinks the field of social choices…For example, the American’s freedom to choose among scores of automobile brands was secured by sacrificing the liberty to choose between private and public transportation. This politics of commodity…offers the feel of freedom while diminishing the range of options and the power to affect the larger world.” The individual is being conned: there is no choice.

Look at the way you are currently living: you can “choose” between plasma, LCD, cathode ray tube or Internet TV, but not having a television is inconceivable to most people in the consumer culture; you can “choose” between shopping at Walmart, Aldi, Tesco, Carrefour or any other supermarket, but not using a supermarket is impossible for hundreds of millions of people who need to buy food and have no way of growing it themselves.

How much of your life was simply picked off the shelves of the Conchoice Mall, and how much of it came out of a conscious decision to live in that particular way?

I recommend you try out the Greencurve yourself, and have a think about the “choices” BP are presenting to you. This is not BP’s world, it is your world, and you can make your own choices, regardless of what a polluting oil giant might think. Tell them where to stick their “Greencurve”.

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.

Their blueprint for tackling climate change is being handed to Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda ahead of next month’s G8 summit in Japan.

Companies involved include Alcoa, British Airways (BA), Deutsche Bank, EDF, Petrobras, Shell and Vattenfall.

They argue that cutting emissions must be made to carry economic advantages.

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…

[Read the rest at The Unsuitablog]

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.

[Read the rest at The Unsuitablog...]

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…

[Read the rest at The Unsuitablog]

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.

[Read the rest at The Unsuitablog...]

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?”

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?

 [Read the rest at The Unsuitablog...]