It is a sorry comment on even sorrier times that I have to preface my comments on last night's Ch4 'Great Green Smokescreen' with the caution that it is a) a supposed 'news' item b) on TV and c) on Ch 4.
These are the guys who brought us another 'Great..' not so long ago. So who knows what is true?
For what it's worth, a lot did ring pretty close to what I have stumbled across and/or feel and/or has been shared by me and others on this blog.
You only have to go back a few posts to find a few eyebrows being cocked at the PR and ad onslaughts by such as HSBC, SKY and BP, who rather crudely seem to have managed to make 3/4 of a million out of 2,500 (cars, that is), and all from a few acres of pig poo under a very dodgy looking tarp. Editing for effect? Well, if the 'disclaimers' were anything to go by - 'Oops! Got us in one. We'll take that claim off right away. Byeeee!". Plus almost BBCesque fudges on how tricky the facts are to get right. Are they scientists or what? I bet if it was finding a barrel of oil at 30,000 feet they'd have the numbers down to a decimal place.
Then we get straight into the meat of the piece: the guys who sit in deckchairs flogging trendies (individual and company variety) tracts of 'land' with 'trees' (no mention of the deforestation of mature areas being a much better option) to assuage liberal guilt that does not quite extend to cutting back. £10 gets you off a flight, as in off on the next one so long as you are rich... and either very dumb or very blinkered. Along with some authority figures I'd say, as from what I saw the Forestry Commission (hold that word in mind each time you hear of guys who sell you stuff to pollute some more) was using whose money to subsidise these guys to flog whose trees?
Cut to commercial. Vauxhall ecoflex, since you didn't ask. It's a car, by the way. I think. One of those with a leaf in the exhaust. But I'm sure it's so green you can go an extra few miles on the same amount. And hence you probably will. Ok, a better than nothing, but I have a drawer bulging with car ads which really are pushing my greenwash tolerance to the limit.
Thing is, it seems no one can agree on these footprints anyway (er, why?) so they are all pretty much making it up. What next? A two for one deal? The explanations and/or mitigations offered by the offwithhisheadsetters were all less than convincing. Especially the one who offered two prices; one direct and one via their client BA. Guess which one was lower? It's all about multipliers, apparently. And so, because 'we' don't know, yet, what they are, we don't allow for them. Works for me. Well, actually, when it comes to the future of my kids' planet, it really, really doesn't guys.
It was at this point the reporter admitted to being confused and unsure who to trust. Well, there's a surprise.
Speaking of trusting the media (Neat link, huh?), there was a good case of actual facts being used, assuming, of course they were true. Some Bulgarian project or other. Claim and counter claim of whether it made any darn difference bounced around until we ended up at the bank. And when it comes to money, they don't lie. And the bank says 'no'. So yet another pot into which a load of green got consummately p*ssed away. After commission.
SKY (a CH 4 competitor, mind) didn't come out too well, if only in making big claims that didn't seem to add up. I recall them being major speakers at the Guardian Climate Change Summit, and while the vast commitments made were mentioned all right, what was not was how the regular reviews of their 12.5% investment wasn't looking too solid on enviROI. I wonder what these guys with CSR Director or Eco Advisor as titles actually do all day?
Cue next ad... for a racing car!
Then we get back to the ways to make a big difference, in London at least, with... wait for it... a Carbon Neutral (the term has been shown to be less than helpful by now - in fact DEFRA was quoted as saying companies really shouldn't call themselves that) variety show!
That'll do it!
Or... food miles on a pack of crisps. Sorted!
There was, apparently, no real comment from the Carbon Trust. There are those two words again. Only this time together.
The conclusion was that there was no real harm to it all, but the question was asked if it was a dangerous diversion. I'd rather say that if it is a dangerous diversion there is a lot of potential harm.
Seeing some London luvvie called Fanny, who rejoices in the title 'Head of Policy' for an outfit called Global Cool, lob up in a Chauffeured Prius, to share such dazzling insights as not flushing the loo hardly inspired me.
And to those of more modest means it simply made the whole thing look like a silly little fad.
Do all these things for heavens sake, but get the info for free. Why do you need to pay money to rich folk to show you care about your kids and their futures?
ADDENDUM _ just came across a note I jotted in the lounge as I watched the Ch4 news preceding this. Joan Ruddock, Minister for Climate Change (didn't even, until now, know we had one), was being challenged by Jon Snow on what the government was doing to clear all this up. Apparently they are 'working towards' a solution. Well that's it all sorted then. Now I see why they get the big bucks. Meantime, for the poor consumer's sake, let's be hoping that major multinationals have no more 'website malfunctions' to... misle.. er... 'confuse' us.
Guardian - Last night's TV: Dispatches: The Great Green Smoke Screen - I like my review better. And I didn't even snipe about the 4x4, as the Ch4 guy wasn't really preaching. As some do.
Indy - Raft of flaws found in popular carbon offsetting schemes - It's like they watched the same programme! Oh, they did. Interesting that no one (else) is at least pointing out the provenance of the story, which tends to suggest these carbon offset schemes have a lot of explaining to do. As have any sloppy corporates who saw/see green as a quick way to look green with no real thought going into the substance.
2 comments:
At the risk of appearing repetitious, here's a re:post (mostly) of what I commented on your original "worth a watch?" post.
So what is the goverment doing to control and monitor carbon offsetting?
First we had from DEFRA, the Carbon Offsetting Guidelines (Feb 13,2007).
Now we have DEFRA's Carbon Offsetting Code of Best Practice, launched 16/7/07 by 'Waste Joan Ruddock' (well, that's how I first read it in the article), supported by 'the offsetting industry, business, environment NGOs (I'm going off the idea already) and others'.
Oh, the code will be voluntary -"offsetting providers or companies that sell offsets alongside their goods and services will be able to choose whether they want to seek accreditation for some or all of their products."
So anything that's a bit dodgy offest-wise then can still be done, but just won't get accreditation?
That'll really sort the beneficial carbon offset providers from the carbcon merchants then!
Never worry about a good repeat. There's gold in them thar archives!
But, dear, oh dear, am I having such a bad effect on you, Dave?
Nope, I think it is pretty much as worthless as you indicate.
Until you pointed it out, I hadn't appreciated how toothless it will be.
And while I am sure many a 'one kay a day' (£1k perpersonperday) summit will get inspired to discuss it all (in Bali), and simply oddles of boxes will get ticked, who is going to sit down and allow that the consumer doesn't have the time or inclination to figure all this out, even if they had the carbonic wherewithal to do so.
Considering the amounts involved, and theoretical benefits to the planet taboot, would it really hurt not to have (in the UK at least) some form of official mandatory validation that if you really must offset your guilt, it is not simply disappearing down a green hole?
Heck, I'd even support a few more assessors on the country payroll to do it, so long as it's for my kids' futures. And they have a clue what is worth it, and not just worthy.
Post a Comment