In the business world these days, it appears that just about everything is for sale. Multibillion-dollar deals are commonplace, and even venerable institutions such as the Wall Street Journal find themselves put into play. Yet companies are not the only things being acquired. This may turn out to be the year that big business bought a substantial part of the environmental movement.
That’s one way of interpreting the remarkable level of cooperation that is emerging between some prominent environmental groups and some of the world’s largest corporations. What was once an arena of fierce antagonism has become a veritable love fest as companies profess to be going green and get lavishly honored for doing so. Earlier this year, for instance, the World Resources Institute gave one of its “Courage to Lead” awards to the chief executive of General Electric.
Every day seems to bring another announcement from a large corporation that it is taking steps to protect the planet. IBM, informally known as Big Blue, launched its Project Big Green to help customers slash their data center energy usage. Newmont Mining Co., the world’s largest gold digger, endorsed a shareholder resolution calling for a review of its environmental impact. Home Depot introduced an Eco Options label for thousands of green products. General Motors and oil major ConocoPhillips joined the list of corporate giants that have come out in support of a mandatory ceiling on greenhouse gas emissions. Bank of America said it would invest $20 billion in sustainable projects over the next decade.
Many of the new initiatives are being pursued in direct collaboration with environmental groups. Wal-Mart is working closely with Conservation International on its efforts to cut energy usage and switch to renewable sources of power. McDonald’s has teamed up with Greenpeace to discourage deforestation caused by the growth of soybean farming in Brazil. When buyout firms Texas Pacific Group and KKR were negotiating the takeover of utility company TXU earlier this year, they asked Environmental Defense to join the talks so that the deal, which ended up including a rollback of plans for 11 new coal-fired plants, could be assured a green seal of approval.
Observing this trend, Business Week detects “a remarkable evolution in the dynamic between corporate executives and activists. Once fractious and antagonistic, it has moved toward accommodation and even mutual dependence.”
The question is: who is accommodating whom? Are these developments a sign that environmental campaigns have prevailed and are setting the corporate agenda? Or have enviros been duped into endorsing what my be little more than a new wave of corporate greenwash?
An Epiphany About The Environment?
The first thing to keep in mind is that Corporate America’s purported embrace of environmental principles is nothing new. Something very similar happened, for example, in early 1990 around the time of the 20th anniversary of Earth Day. Fortune announced then that “trend spotters and forward thinkers agree that the Nineties will be the Earth Decade and that environmentalism will be a movement of massive worldwide force.” Business Week published a story titled “The Greening of Corporate America.”
The magazines cited a slew of large companies that were said to be embarking on significant green initiatives, among them DuPont, General Electric, McDonald’s, 3M, Union Carbide and Procter & Gamble. Corporations such as these put on their own Earth Tech environmental technology fair on the National Mall and endorsed Earth Day events and promotions.
A difference between then and now is that there was a lot more skepticism about Corporate America’s claim of having had an epiphany about the environment. It was obvious to many that business was trying to undo the damage caused by environmental disasters such as Union Carbide’s deadly Bhopal chemical leak, the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska and the deterioration of the ozone layer. Activist groups charged that corporations were engaging in a bogus public relations effort which they branded “greenwash.” Greenpeace staged a protest at DuPont’s Earth Tech exhibit, leading to a number of arrests.
Misgivings about corporate environmentalism grew as it was discovered that many of the claims about green products were misleading, false or irrelevant. Mobil Chemical, for instance, was challenged for calling its new Hefty trash bags biodegradable, since that required extended exposure to light rather than their usual fate of being buried in landfills. Procter & Gamble was taken to task for labeling its Pampers and Luvs disposable diapers “compostable” when only a handful of facilities in the entire country were equipped to do such processing. Various companies bragged that their products in aerosol cans were now safe for the environment when all they had done was comply with a ban on the use of chlorofluorocarbons. Some of the self-proclaimed green producers found themselves being investigated by state attorneys general for false advertising and other offenses against the consumer.
The insistence that companies actually substantiate their claims put a damper on the entire green product movement. Yet some companies continued to see advantages in being associated with environmental principles. In one of the more brazen moves, DuPont ran TV ads in the late 1990s depicting sea lions applauding a passing oil tanker (accompanied by Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy”) to take credit for the fact that its Conoco subsidiary had begun using double hulls in its ships, conveniently failing to mention that it was one of the last oil companies to take that step.
At the same time, some companies began to infiltrate the environmental movement itself by contributing to the more moderate groups and getting spots on their boards. They also joined organizations such as CERES, which encourages green groups and corporations to endorse a common set of principles. By the early 2000s, some companies sought to depict themselves as being not merely in step with the environmental movement but at the forefront of a green transformation. British Petroleum started publicizing its investments in renewable energy and saying that its initials really stood for Beyond Petroleum—all despite the fact that its operations continued to be dominated by fossil fuels.
This paved the way for General Electric’s “ecomagination” p.r. blitz, which it pursued even while dragging its feet in the cleanup of PCB contamination in New York’s Hudson River. GE was followed by Wal-Mart, which in October 2005 sought to transform its image as a leading cause of pollution-generating sprawl by announcing a program to move toward zero waste and maximum use of renewable energy. In recent months the floodgates have opened, with more and more large companies calling for federal caps on greenhouse gas emissions. In January ten major corporations—including Alcoa, Caterpillar, DuPont and General Electric—joined with the Natural Resources Defense Council and other enviro groups in forming the U.S. Climate Action Partnership. A few months later, General Motors, arguably one of the companies that has done the most to exacerbate global warming, signed on as well.
A Cause For Celebration Or Dismay?
Today the term “greenwash” is rarely uttered, and differences in positions between corporate giants and mainstream environmental groups are increasingly difficult to discern. Everywhere one looks, enviros and executives have locked arms and are marching together to save the planet. Is this a cause for celebration or dismay?
Answering this question begins with the recognition that companies do not all enter the environmental fold in the same way. Here are some of their different paths:
• Defeat. Some companies did not embrace green principles on their own—they were forced to do so after being successfully targeted by aggressive environmental campaigns. Home Depot abandoned the sale of lumber harvested in old-growth forests several years ago after being pummeled by groups such as Rainforest Action Network. Responding to similar campaign pressure, Boise Cascade also agreed to stop sourcing from endangered forests and J.P. Morgan Chase agreed to take environmental impacts into account in its international lending activities. Dell started taking computer recycling seriously only after it was pressed to do so by groups such as the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition.
• Diversion. It is apparent that Wal-Mart is using its newfound green consciousness as a means of diverting public attention away from its dismal record in other areas, especially the treatment of workers. In doing so, it hopes to peel environmentalists away from the broad anti-Wal-Mart movement. BP’s emphasis on the environment was no doubt made more urgent by the need to repair an image damaged by allegations that a 2005 refinery fire in Texas that killed 15 people was the fault of management. To varying degrees, many other companies that have jumped on the green bandwagon have sins they want to public to forget.
• Opportunism. There is so much hype these days about protecting the environment that many companies are going green simply to earn more green. There are some market moves, such as Toyota’s push on hybrids, that also appear to have some environmental legitimacy. Yet there are also instances of sheer opportunism, such as the effort by Nuclear Energy Institute to depict nukes as an environmentally desirable alternative to fossil fuels. Not to mention surreal cases such as the decision by Britain’s BAE Systems to develop environmentally friendly munitions, including low-toxin rockets and lead-free bullets.
In other words, the suggestion that the new business environmentalism flows simply from a heightened concern for the planet is far from the truth. Corporations always act in their own self-interest and one way or another are always seeking to maximize profits. It used to be that they had to hide that fact. Today they flaunt it, because there is a widespread notion that eco-friendly policies are totally consistent with cutting costs and fattening the bottom line.
When GE’s “ecomagination” campaign was launched, CEO Jeffrey Immelt insisted “it’s no longer a zero-sum game—things that are good for the environment are also good for business.” This was echoed by Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott, who said in a speech announcing his company’s green initiative that “being a good steward of the environment and in our communities, and being an efficient and profitable business, are not mutually exclusive. In fact they are one in the same.” That’s probably because Scott sees environmentalism as merely an extension of the company’s legendary penny-pinching, as glorified efficiency measures.
Chevron Wants To Lead
Many environmental activists seem to welcome the notion of a convergence of business interests and green interests, but it all seems too good to be true. If eco-friendly policies are entirely “win-win,” then why did corporations resist them for so long? It is hard to believe that the conflict between profit maximization and environmental protection, which characterized the entire history of the ecological movement, has suddenly evaporated.
Either corporations are fooling themselves, in which case they will eventually realize there is no environmental free lunch and renege on their green promises. Or they are fooling us and are perpetrating a massive public relations hoax. A third interpretation is that companies are taking voluntary steps that are genuine but inadequate to solve the problems at hand and are mainly meant to prevent stricter, enforceable regulation.
In any event, it would behoove enviros to be more skeptical of corporate green claims and less eager to jump into bed with business. It certainly makes sense to seek specific concessions from corporations and to offer moderate praise when they comply, but activists should maintain an arm’s-length relationship to business and not see themselves as partners. After all, the real purpose of the environmental movement is not simply to make technical adjustments to the way business operates (that’s the job of consultants) but rather to push for fundamental and systemic changes.
Moreover, there is a risk that the heightened level of collaboration will undermine the justification for an independent environmental movement. Why pay dues to a green group if its agenda is virtually identical to that of GE and DuPont? Already there are hints that business views itself, not activist groups, as the real green vanguard. Chevron, for instance, has been running a series of environmental ads with the tagline “Will you join us?”
Join them? Wasn’t it Chevron and the other oil giants that played a major role in creating global warming? Wasn’t it Chevron that used the repressive regime in Nigeria to protect its environmentally destructive operations in the Niger Delta? Wasn’t it Chevron’s Texaco unit that dumped more than 18 billion gallons of toxic waste in Ecuador? And wasn’t it Chevron that was accused of systematically underpaying royalties to the federal government for natural gas extracted from the Gulf of Mexico? That is not the kind of track record that confers the mantle of environmental leadership.
In fact, we shouldn’t be joining any company’s environmental initiative. Human activists should be leading the effort to clean up the planet, and corporations should be made to follow our lead.
Philip Mattera heads the Corporate Research Project, an affiliate of Good Jobs First.
2007 TomPaine.com
Co-opt: to take into a group; to absorb, assimilate.
Corporate America has decided to co-opt the green movement just as it has worked to co-opt the socially liberal movements of the recent past (youth, gay, feminist, etc…). Watch out.
Progressives should never accept corporate America as an ally, as progressives should be committed to the long-term welfare of the entire human race and that is completely inconsistent with the short-term profits of America’s corporations.
Continued increased consumption is the source of profit for corporations and the basis of our economy. Humans must consume less if the Earth is to survive as we know it. If we do not reign in our consumption, we are doomed no matter how much the Earth may or may not warm. In the scheme of things, it matters little if what you are consuming is “green” - even something as basic as water. If you consume too much and/or waste it, it puts a great stress on the planet and its ecosystems. The current corporate model is not sustainable no matter how “green” it is because continued increased consumption is not sustainable. Environmental groups who believe we can sustain our current path if we only do it “greener” are fooling themselves and us. Controlling population and consumption must be top priorities - and these two are not compatible with corporate profits.
“Greenwashing” is proliferating at an alarming rate. While constructing our new LEED library facility, our engineering architect educated us about the myriad products being hawked as “green.” Corporations hoping to cash in on “green” notoriety, are causing an explosion of “greenwashed” products that are at best inferior and possibly the only green in the product is actually the ink printed on the label. I know this is a stretch, but there are currently no rigid requirements for labeling a product “green.”
Corporations are also good at touting new and better technologies sure to save the environment. People will buy into the gadgets and bells and whistles when true “green” building practices are really about basics such as the building envelope, placement of windows, smaller mechanicals and the three Rs - reuse, reclaim and recycle. Simple words to live by.
I fear corporations are turning a noble movement into the flavor of the day and a quickly bored public will tire of the hype and revert back to their same old selfish habits.
Well….for what it’s worth….I was at Home Depot a couple of days ago…looking for human-powered, reel lawn mowers. A clerk walked me to the only model they carried. Hmmm….looked pretty much like the one we used back in the ’50’s. I asked the clerk if he sold many of them…and he replied, “Yes, in fact, I ENCOURAGE people to buy them because they’re non-polluting, better for the environment, provide exercise, and are inexpensive.” Wow! I was pretty surprised that he wasn’t encouraging me to steer clear of the reel mower and go for a he-man, gasoline-powered grass wacker!
…If we consumers DEMAND green products…then that’s what corporate America will be forced to supply…. Our money $peak$ volume$…
My 2-cents worth…
P.S…..
B.ring
U.S.
S.oldiers
H.ome!
Mainstream corporations, mainstream media, and mainstream politicians first priority is one thing, the almighty dollar.
Until mainstream society places justice, human rights, sustainable living as their priority, the greenwash will continue unabated with companies calling themselves green while the only green they care about is color of money.
If you were to look at Pacific Lumber/Maxxam’s website, a lumber company here in Northern California (a redwood tree harvester), you would think that they were the most progressive green company. Yet, they have clearcut most of their holdings to the point that they have recently declared bankruptcy. Of course, they blame the environmentalists because they couldn’t get every old growth redwood, or log clear down to every stream. Presdient Charles Hurwitz is crying all the way to bank with his millions of dollars that he took out of our community.
I’m doubtful about a corporation’s claim to be green, just like I’m doubtful about the democratic party’s claim to be against the war.
peace and justice
AG
The reason corporations were fighting the environmental movement during the nineties was because expensive systems and infrastructures needed to be created in order to be able go green. Now companies have realized that innovation in their production line, that is, more efficient production, goes hand in hand with becoming environmentally friendly. There were success stories which emboldens corporations to invest in more earth friendly technologies. Though they are still angry about certain victories the greens have won over them, for the most part they have embraced the fact that working with the environment creates wealth.
I do agree though, as progressives, we should fight the good fight against these corporate monsters which have usurped so much freedom from our lives, always working to make us consume more. Our victory will come when corporations are made to be servants to the people and no longer money hungry profiteers.
Another perspective would say that since the world’s environment has already been destroyed, it is quite easy to say that new breakthroughs in technology are green and good for the environment, it is just an obvious evolution after 100 years of raping the earth. It is simply difficult not to come up with greener processes in industry.
And yes, then there are the two-faced people who bribe their way through everything in order to look like environmental saviors while they create housing developments which contaminate all of the wetlands around them, then they go and trumpet their great protectionism of the environment. These two faced people should be exposed at every turn, people like Dan Roulier in northern Connecticut or the above mentioned President Charles Hurwitz.
The only way I know how to starve the beast is to eat fresh, locally produced, organic food.
The consequences of this are huge, as a lot of land and water pollution comes from big ag. And consumer society is all about wants, not needs
i am so sick of public relations firms prostituting for corporate america and their elected servants. think tanks whose only purpose is to deceive……….and in the most underhanded way.
the same people are now running the (public airwaves) corporate media and the lines are so blurred that truth is difficult to ascertain even when the facts are presented.
the lincoln group, rendon group, and others even have defense contracts to “deceive” our enemies, apparently they did such a good job on u.s. citizens they were hired to work abroad.
Compromises with the beast capital are a proven waste of resources. The environment will benefit naturally from the people’s final victory against the beast in the “mother of all battles” - the class war. The way to final victory is simply for each individual to stop feeding the mouth that bites.
This should be what every environmentalist dreams of. The corporations respond to the market and the market is demanding green products.
Have they suddenly become honorable saints who will lead the way to paradise? I doubt it. It’s just the natural behavior of a successful business. Keep holding them to high standards, write and praise those companies that do well in your eyes, write and criticize those who don’t.
As for The People being fickle and environmentalism being a trend? That’s the nature of humans. Be glad for the influence it will have on the children of today because trends now will influence them all their lives.
Of all of these blogs there is only one that cut right to the root of the matter. Janl wrote….Controlling population and consumption must be top priorities - and these two are not compatible with corporate profits.
Until people understand this and take action, all of this blogging is just pious jabber. It is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Over population and over consumption are show stoppers. I don’t believe that most people want to deal with it, they understand it is the end of life as we know it. They dance all around the issue, they ignore the twin eight-hundred pound gorillas riding in the car with us.
Corporations are addressing the demand for greener products by changing the definition of “organic” to include GM, chemically and radioactively treated food:
http://v.mercola.com/blogs/public_blog/More-Deception-by-Wal-Mart-With-Organic-Foods-15099.aspx
Greg the Great - that overpopulation argument is bogus. The world is nowhere near overpopulated. The problem is the wastefulness of the population, not the size of the population. A vegetarian requires an acre to support his or her diet. A meat eater requires 17 acres. Starvation on this planet is caused by feeding people’s food to animals; 90% is lost in waste when people are fed that way. If meat eaters would acquire some ethics, there would be no starvation and no overpopulation.
“Green”, like “organic” becomes another justification for raising prices and increasing profits, whether the terms have any meaning or not, as ezeflyer notes.
Perception is reality for the corporate mind.
kivals introduced the operative concept: co-optation.
On the other hand, there is no reason to question the legitimate concern of these corporations because they have a lot to lose particularly if the concerned consumer is not convinced they are concerned.
Home Depot can profit nicely in a post-hurricane environment and still be perceived as anti-global warming.
Corporations do not lead, they are at their best in the subtle arts of seduction and co-optation.
The crux of the matter is not the corporate perception game, or whether activists groups are being co-opted, it is the failure of the people’s government.
It has no power to effectively regulate or police the behavior of these wiley corporations. For that matter it has no power to regulate or police the behavior of the military, which is the most dangerous enemy of the global environment.
The corporation by definition is an attention whore with the bottom line as its guiding principle. The raison d’etre of the military is its own invincibility, no matter the cost.
Our government by definition is supposed to govern, which means to impose guiding principles and standards of behavior.
We have no such government. We are “privatized”, which is a synonym for “fucked”.
Population factoids:
Pregnancy Numbers
3/23/2007
Of the six million pregnancies that occur among American women each year, nearly half are unintended. As a result, American women experience 1.4 million unplanned births and 1.3 million abortions annually.
Source: Guttmacher Institute
Endangered Species
11/28/2006
Did you know that the “IUCN Red List of Threatened Species,” which is put together by the World Conservation Union (IUCN), lists 7,725 animal species as vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered?
Source: World Conservation Union (IUCN)
World Population Stats
10/17/2006
World Population
2006: 6.5 billion
1967: 3.5 billion
1915: 1.8 billion
Source: U.S. Census Department
300 Million Stats
10/4/2006
The U.S. adds about 2.8 million people a year, for a growth rate of less than 1 percent.
Source: U.S. Census
Greenhouse Emissions
8/7/2006
Urban areas are responsible for more than 75 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions, making reduced energy crucial in the effort to slow the pace of global warming.
Source: Reuters
Fishing and Enviro
8/6/2006
Over 60 percent of what is currently caught in the global shrimp fishery is discarded, making it among the most environmentally damaging in the world.
Monique Barbut, head of the UN’s Global Environment Facility
Unplanned Pregnancies
7/28/2006
An unplanned pregnancy occurs every 10.5 seconds in the United States, this is equal to about three million unplanned pregnancies a year.
Source: Center for Reproductive Health
Global Warming
6/6/2006
If global warming continues, we can expect catastrophic consequences.
# Global sea levels could rise by more than 20 feet with the loss of shelf ice in Greenland and Antarctica, devastating coastal areas worldwide.
# More than a million species worldwide could be driven to extinction by 2050.
Source: AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH (the Movie)
School Buses and Pollutants
1/6/2006
Every year, U.S. school buses emit 3,000 tons of toxic soot, 95,000 tons of smog-forming pollutants, and 11 million tons of global warming gases.
Source: Union of Concerned Scientists
Population and Energy
10/31/2005
The more developed world uses over five times the energy per capita used by the less developed world. North America uses over eight times as much energy per person as does Latin America.
Source: Population Reference Bureau
Teen and Contraception
10/12/2005
Less than half of primary physicians routinely discuss sex, condoms, STIs, contraception and sexual orientation with their adolescent patients.
-Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health
Women and Contraception Need
9/26/2005
Without contraception, the average woman would bear between 12 and 15 children in her lifetime.
Source: Science magazine
Women and Poverty
9/14/2005
Women make up 70 percent of the world
mining
4/26/2004
40 percent of the world’s undeveloped forests are currently threatened by mining.
Source: Sierra Magazine
asthma
2/20/2004
In the U.S., the number of asthma sufferers grew by 75 percent between 1980 and 1994.
Source: Grist Magazine
health insurance
2/9/2004
In the first two years of the Bush Administration, the number of Americans without health insurance increased by more than 9%, to 43.6 million.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
take-out
2/5/2004
The average American ate 118 take-out restaurant meals in 2002.
Source: Time Magazine
sleep deprivation
1/28/2004
70 million Americans are sleep deprived, leading to more accidents, worsening health, and lower test scores.
Source: Time Magazine
meat consumption
1/14/2004
Even if the average American eats 20 percent less meat in 2050 than in 2000, total meat consumption in the U.S. will be roughly 5 million tons greater in 2050 due to population growth alone.
Source: State of the World, 2004, Worldwatch Institute
stabilization
12/29/2003
By 2050, three of every four developing nations will probably have stabilized their populations.
Source: Boston Globe
pollution
12/24/2003
Since 2001, when Bush took office, the pollution-control industry has seen its sales plummet more than 80 percent.
Source: Mother Jones
old moms
12/19/2003
The average age at which U.S. women are having their first child has climbed to an all-time high of 25.1.
Source: CDC
UN pop estimates
12/9/2003
U.N. medium-range population estimates for 2050 are down from 9.4 billion to 8.9 billion. The U.N. estimates population might stabilize at 9 billion by 2300.
Source: U.N. Population Division
maternal death
12/3/2003
95 percent of the estimated 529,000 maternal deaths in 2000 occurred in Africa and Asia.
Source: Popline
abortion providers
11/24/2003
86 percent of all U.S. counties and 94 percent of all rural U.S. counties have no abortion provider.
Source: American Medical Women’s Association
teen births
11/18/2003
18 percent of current 15-year-old girls in the United States will give birth before age 20.
Source: Child Trends
schooling
11/14/2003
Each additional year of schooling beyond 4th grade results in up to a 20 percent increase in wages for women.
Source: Women’s Edge Coalition
economic slump
11/12/2003
During the current economic slump in the U.S., jobs shrank by 1.8 percent, while the working age population grew by 3.4 percent. Had job growth kept up with working age population growth over that period, 6.9 million more payroll jobs would have been filled in October 2003.
Source: TomPaine.com
india
11/4/2003
India, growing at nearly 2 percent a year, is projected to reach 1.5 billion people by 2050, adding 515 million people in just 50 years.
Source: Plan B, Lester Brown
childless women
10/24/2003
In June 2002, more than two out of five women of childbearing years had no children, a steady increase during the last seven years and a significant jump since 1976 when roughly a third of women did not have children.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
mud floor
10/22/2003
One child of every three [in the developing world] lives in a dwelling with more than five people per room, or with a mud floor.
Source: Unicef
AIDS
10/14/2003
Every minute, 5 people under age 25 are infected with HIV.
Source: Environmental Change and Security Project, WWICS
slums
10/7/2003
About a sixth of the world’s population — nearly 1 billion people — live in slums, and that number could double by 2030.
Source: Reuters
health care
9/30/2003
The number of U.S. residents who lack health insurance climbed by 5.7 percent in 2002, to 43.6 million, the largest single increase in a decade.
Source: The Washington Post
fertilizer
9/26/2003
The average U.S. citizen uses ten times the chemical fertilizer and pesticides on a lawn than the average farmer does on crops.
Source: the reporter, Fall 2003
family planning since ‘65
9/17/2003
Since 1965, the use of modern family planning methods in the developing world has quadrupled from less than ten percent of couples to 39 percent.
Source: USAID
tax cuts
9/15/2003
The share of income Americans pay in taxes has been flat since Richard Nixon was president.
Source: The New York Times, September 14th, 2003
pneumonia
9/9/2003
In the United States, pneumonia patients receive just 39 percent of recommended care. Nearly 10,000 deaths from pneumonia could be prevented annually through vaccinations.
Source: Rand Review, Summer 2003
more Earths
9/5/2003
If everyone in the world consumed like the average U.S. citizen, we would need at least four more planet Earths.
Source: Purchasing Power, World Watch Paper 166
Bangladesh
9/2/2003
Children born in Bangladesh have an 8 percent chance of having their birth attended by trained health personnel.
Source: Population Reference Bureau
London’s hot
8/29/2003
On Aug. 10, the temperature in London reached 100 degrees Fahrenheit — the first triple-digit reading on record in the U.K.
Source: Eco-Economy Update, Aug. 27, 2003
continued here:
http://www.populationconnection.org/
i agree with the point about co-opting opportunists, as it came to mind for me as well while reading this piece. the other point, and which i think is the more serious problem, is that co-opt or not, it looks like companies really do want to go green (you know, for whatever reason anyone wants to argue about).
now, the problem arises in the fact that allowing corporations to go green is to accept their continued dominance in the world. going green is actually a rational action for them since it appears they are starting to understand that a) they will be looked over in favor of competing green companies that offer people what they want; and b) environmental sustainability of enterprise is the key to indefinite rule.
i’ve always thought that the one thing that might expose the illegitimacy of capitalism would be the environmental movement. but here’s the roadblock: when i was in college i tried working with green party members, yet all of them were locked in this corporate sustainability trance, unwilling to recognize the basic oppressive nature of capitalism. the good people i met with would only say over and over again that their goal was to protect the environment by making corporations earn profit in a sustainable way (thus allowing capitalism to survive forever).
going green is just the next step in continued (and stabilized) corporate control of the political and economic spheres. any person who calls themselves a conservative ought to be appalled that environmentalists are applauding the tyrants.
PatriotisVeritas wrote: “these corporate monsters which have usurped so much freedom from our lives, always working to make us consume more.”
I don’t like the corporates any more then you, but we need to take responsibility for our own actions if we are ever to progress. We have volunteered for this slavery. How many bumper stickers have you seen that read “I owe I owe so off to work I go.” We are not forced to consume to the point of excess. We choose for ourselves. We must decide both individually as well as a society to ignore the marketing scheems that try to create the illusion of need, and to consume less. Our happiness depends on it. Our very existance depends on it.
The G8 group is saying that they’ve agreed to significantly reduce greenhouse gases by 2050 (40+ years from now) and that the agreement is “NON-BINDING” couldn’t be more absurd.
Such leadership is below the level of what you’d expect from a bunch of apes.
Their behavior is simply unacceptable.
It’s organized crime.
Lead-free bullets - what a boon!
Optodegrading plastic bags - ingenious!
Let’s make sure BlackWater becomes ‘GreenWater’…
Lobby their CEO now, ensure all Iraqi deaths are lead-free and their corpses responsibly disposed of using light-phobic body bags.
Scotty, beam me off this surreal rock.
Perhaps, we now see the reason that the Green Party is not a choice for us on the ballot.
RE: COOPTATION AS PERSUADING THE ELECTORATE THAT IT IS NOT IN AN ADVERSARIAL RELATIONSHIP W/CORPORATIONS; AND THAT, THEREFORE, PEOPLE NEED NOT LEGISLATE CORPORATE CONDUCT
cruxpuppy June 7th, 2007 10:02 pm
“The crux of the matter is not…whether activists groups are being co-opted, it is the failure of the people’s government….It has no power to effectively regulate or police the behavior of these wiley corporations.”
Yes. On the one hand, as the article and posters have noted, corporatations that represent themselves as ‘green’ - promoting or adhering to ecologically friendly practices - do so for marketing reasons.
But the deeper purpose of representing themselves as environmental friendly may be this: to represent actions that they have been forced to take by the political process as voluntary; and, thereby, to avoid acknowledging the proper role of the political process in controlling corporations.
Thus, the deeper meaning of “cooptation” may be persuading people that they and corporations are on the same side, and that there is no reason to formulate goals and drive though legislation through the political process. Because, hey, we’re all working to make things better together, eh?
One poster compared this to the cooptation of other social movements - I would compare it to the cooptation of labor/unions by persuading them that they are not really in an adversarial relationship.
The litmus test for environment-friendly corporations should be not their willingness to comply, but their willingness to use their lobby power to support legislation binding them to comply with democratically formulated laws controlling them.
Ron wrote…overpopulation argument is bogus. A vegetarian requires an acre to support his or her diet. A meat eater requires 17 acres. If meat eaters would acquire some ethics, there would be no starvation and no overpopulation.
Overpopulation is not simply a question of food supply. It is a function of non-renewable resource depletion, destruction of ecosystems, extinction of plant and animal species, and generating more pollution than the planet can absorb.
Our current population of 6.5 billion is only sustainable because we are living off billions of years of resource accumulation. We have already exhausted much of that inherited resource base in the last hundred years, much of it non-renewable. As a result, some environmental scientists have estimated that the long-term carrying capacity of the planet is only about 1 to 1 1/2 billion people.
As for it being an ethical issue, I think the carnivores among us will take issue with your self-righteous stance.
Gregory the Great got it right. My concern for overpopulation is not about starving people. I was speaking more of the damage the human population does to the Earth and other species, etc. I am a vegan, but I honestly think there is more than enough food for humans on this planet. Biologically, it is impossible for a species to continue to expand unless there is enough food for it to do so. Food distribution is more of the problem than not enough food. Just as other resources are unjustly distributed on this planet - so is food. People around the world want to live like Americans do - and this is simply not sustainable.
When I think of resource availability, I think about resources for all species, not just humans. It’s a question of resource justice, so to speak, for all living things on this planet. Humans continue to act like they are the only species on the planet who deserves to live and as long as they keep living everything is OK. The more people we have on this planet, the more we are going to consume. If we all cut our consumption, what does it matter if there will be billions more to consume what we are not. Humanity needs a good dose of humility.
Zimmerman wrote: “Perhaps, we now see the reason that the Green Party is not a choice for us on the ballot.”
Choice is in the eye of the beholder. Rest assured, if the current crop of garbage running for President in the Democratic Party (with the exception of Kucinich) gets the nomination, not only will I vote Green or for an Independent, I will do so with a clear conscience. It makes you wonder if the guy even read the article.