This just makes me sad...

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Oct. 29 (UPI) -- Two-thirds of the plants writer Henry David Thoreau chronicled at Walden Pond in Massachusetts have disappeared due to global warming, a U.S. study contends. The Harvard University report said some of the hardest-hit plants include lilies, orchids, violets, roses and dogwoods. Plants that have thrived in the warmer temperatures include mustards, knotweeds and various non-native species.

"Some plants around Walden Pond have been quite resilient in the face of climate change, while others have fared far worse. Closely related species that are not able to adjust their flowering times in the face of rising temperatures are decreasing in abundance," Charles C. Davis, assistant professor of organismic and evolutionary biology in Harvard's Faculty of Arts and Sciences, said Monday in a news release.

The report said about 27 percent of all species Thoreau recorded in the 1850s around Walden Pond in Concord, Mass., are now locally extinct and another 36 percent are so sparse extinction may be imminent.

There are lessons for other sectors of the economy in the Wall Street chaos. For example, commonsense regulations reduce risk and protect the public. But the chemical industry today resembles nothing more than Lehman Bros. circa 1999.

Since Sept. 11, 2001, industry titans such as Dow and DuPont have lobbied against requirements that they use safer chemicals at 7,000 high-risk chemical plants identified by the Department of Homeland Security. These facilities use and store highly toxic, chemicals such as chlorine gas. A terrorist attack or accident at one of them could form a toxic cloud that could endanger people up to 25 miles away. The EPA has identified 100 plants that each put one million or more people at risk.

Based on Homeland Security risk models, a disaster at one chemical facility could also inflict as much as $100 billion in economic damages, crippling the company and the local economy for years.

These risks are, however, avoidable - through simple, inexpensive regulations requiring companies to replace dangerous chemicals with relatively harmless agents that serve the same functions, such as liquid bleach, ozone and ultraviolet light.

Chemical facilities have demonstrated how quickly and cheaply they can make the transition to these alternatives. On 9/11, the manager of Washington's water-treatment plant spent a sleepless night worrying about seven 90-ton rail cars full of chlorine gas stored near the
Pentagon. Within 90 days, the plant converted to bleach.

Since 2001, more than 220 chemical facilities have voluntarily converted to safer processes. More than 85 percent reported doing so for less than $1 million per plant. A third expect to save money.

At this rate, though, it will take more than 70 years for voluntary conversions of the more than 3,000 plants that threaten a large population.

But instead of fast-tracking such improvements, Congress, in 2006, caved in to pressure from chemical-industry lobbyists, passing an "interim" law that actually prohibits the government from requiring safer chemicals or processes. The law expires on October 4, 2009 and the chemical lobby is pushing Congress to make it permanent.

The balance of power on the issue may be changing, though. The Association of American Railroads, representing the companies required to transport these volatile chemicals, recently broke with the chemical industry, calling on it to "stop manufacturing dangerous chemicals when safer substitutes are available." They added that if the companies didn't act, Congress should pass a tougher law.

Although the railroads are legally required to accept hazardous cargo, they're also financially liable in the event of a catastrophic release. Partly due to the railroads' clout, Congress is slowly starting to address the threat. In March, the House Homeland Security Committee adopted legislation (H.R. 5577) to correct flaws in the "interim" statute.

But the new bill has languished since then with no action in the Senate. Opponents, including Senator McCain (R-AZ), in the Senate say the House standards would result in excessive "paperwork." Those are the same words the chemical lobby used in their testimony before Congress.

It's still not too late for Congress to redeem itself if they return to Washington after the election. If they wait until next year they will only have nine months to send a truly protective law to the White House.

Take a look at this rather amazing animated advertisement from everyone's favorite nuclear incompetent, Areva.

Beautiful, isn’t it? Everything's so green. Nuclear power stations aren’t grey, foreboding monsters. Oh no, they're cool science-fiction constructions that you can build in a meadow with no ill effects on the environment. It's Funky Town, y'all! Won't you take me to Funky Town?

Did you notice the cute little wind farm next to the reactor? Nuclear is as safe, cheap and clean as wind you know! Why else put them together in an industry propaganda film? There obviously wasn't time to include tiny little animated local people being told not to fish in the river.

And who knew nuclear power could help people in Shanghai bars to fall in love? Another miraculous side effect of fission. Truly, nuclear is all things to all men and women.

One of the arguments most frequently employed by those who want to delay action to stop global warming – whatever their ultimate motives may be for arguing against solving the most urgent environmental crisis of our time – is that implementing the solutions will cost too much money. As gas prices soared higher and higher this argument resonated with a lot of folks, hence there was broad support for opening our coasts to more drilling – even after offshore drilling had been thoroughly discredited as a means for making us more energy independent or lowering gas prices.

The reality is that we can’t afford not to implement solutions like much higher fuel efficiency standards, strict caps on emissions, and drastically increased investment in renewable energy. These are real solutions that will be good for the whole planet, not dangerous distractions that are only good for oil companies’ bottom lines. But given the tough economic times we're living in, the "it will cost too much" argument might gain even more traction -- except that it's completely untrue. And there is new data to prove it:

California’s energy-efficiency policies created nearly 1.5 million jobs from 1977 to 2007, while eliminating fewer than 25,000, according to a study to be released Monday.

The study, conducted by David Roland-Holst, an economist at the Center for Energy, Resources and Economic Sustainability at the University of California, Berkeley, found that while the state’s policies lowered employee compensation in the electric power industry by an estimated $1.6 billion over that period, it improved compensation in the state over all by $44.6 billion.

We must do away with business as usual, and start building the green economy of the future. If we have any future as a species, this transition isn’t just necessary but downright inevitable. We simply can’t drill or mine or dig our way to a sustainable future. Sure, that means that a lot of companies that are making a killing now will either have to change their business model or become obsolete in the marketplace as the cost for them to do business outstrips what people are willing to pay for their goods and services. But it will also mean a healthy planet for future generations and a healthy, sustainable economy as well.

After all, the market turmoil we’ve experienced recently points up the drastic need for a new economic model in this country, and green has always been Wall St.’s favorite color…

Yesterday we were listening closely to Apple's announcement of their new MacBook line up - Steve definitely put a lot of emphasis on the green elements of the new MacBooks - reduced toxics, more energy efficient, less packaging. All good news, but in our campaign for greener electronics we were looking for the new MacBooks to be the first computers completely free of toxic PVC plastic and brominated flame retardants (BFRs).

A check of the full specs revealed the MacBook Pro, MacBook and MacBook Air - as well as the LED Cinema Display will now have internal cables free of PVC and will have internal components containing no BFRs. Not quite the breakthrough we were hoping for. These new MacBooks are currently on a similar level of toxics reduction to the Sony Viao laptop series on PVC, and the Lenovo Think Vision in monitors. The BFR free internal components represent an improvement from the bar set by the Vaio line.

However while most, including us, were examining the specs of the new MacBooks, Steve released a long awaited (but much less hyped) update to his May 07 Greener Apple statement made in response to our successful GreenmyApple campaign. It makes very interesting reading, here are the highlights:

Exxon is usually not known for Greenwashing.  They gave that up after the Valdez spill put their reputation in the garbage heap of history.   Instead, for years they have stuck to their guns, proudly declaring themselves an ‘oil company’, dismissing renewable energy, and spreading misinformation on global warming.

But extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures.  The wave of green awareness, spiking gas prices and increasing concern about oil dependence has Exxon publishing print ads about batteries for hybrid cars and TV ads with images of wind turbines and talk of environmental responsibility. Indeed these are strange days on planet Earth. See for yourself here.

More on Exxon’s recent advertising blitz below and more on their campaign of global warming denial on ExxonSecrets and SourceWatch. But first, a review of past Exxon Greenwashing episodes.

Op-Ads and Ad Bluster

Over 30 years ago Mobil established ‘ownership’ of a corner of the New York Times editorial page to use as they saw fit. This contract with the Times continued after the merger of Exxon and Mobil in 1999.  The Op-AD space has been the home to varieties of greenwash and energy and climate misinformation balderdash over the years, in most cases bragging about small efforts with a big pen. Ross Gelbspan’s website, Heat Is Online, offers some classic Exxon quotes from these paid op-AD pieces.    

Oldies but Goodies

We also have a few old Exxon and Mobil TV ads that show the history, thanks to fantastic YouTube fanatics transferring old VHS tapes.

One UK ad from Exxon’s Esso brand shows the famous Exxon tiger running down a pristine beach.  The image makes you feel what?  Power, freedom, strength, majesty?  This might be contrasted with the horrific and criminal beach and rock washing the company did after the catastrophic Exxon Valdez spill in 1989.  Captain Hazelwood’s drunken incompetence spewed 11 million gallons of crude over 1,700 miles of Alaskan shoreline.  This was a mess that was honestly never going to come clean no matter how hard they scrubbed at the oil. Yet Exxon deployed a massive effort to wash the rocky shoreline; scrubbing, steaming, and rinsing away the oil on the surface of the rocks, driving it deeper and deeper into the beach and killing any organisms struggling to survive within the hot water.  This debacle was featured in the 2006 film Out of Balance by filmmaker Tom Jackson. SourceWatch explains more about this episode of greenwash.

Another ad from 1980s shows off the company’s endeavors to drill in the Arctic Ocean, an idea later executed by BP at the Northstar project (and strongly protested by Greenpeace and native Alaskans in the 1990s). The idea of drilling to the ends of the earth is back in vogue and Exxon’s current ad campaign looks and sounds very familiar. Once again the company is misleading consumers into thinking that its efforts to exploit the arctic are heroic and is bragging about its bravery and skill at drilling deeper, farther, and better. You can watch and compare their old and new ads.

 

Summer 2008 campaign

Exxon continues to struggle to reform its image in the hearts and minds of the American people.  Its most recent ad campaign clearly targets the broad distrust of the oil industry over oil prices and environmental responsibility.  It stresses the company’s technological prowess, appealing to the techno-optimist in all of us.  Exxon also knows that there is a pitched battle right now on energy and climate policy.

On June 17th, Russell Gold of the Wall St Journal wrote the first analysis of the new Exxon ad campaign that launched June 1st.  Gold wrote:

“Chief executive Rex Tillerson appears in one of the ads, which began running earlier this month, discussing the company's goal of caring for the environment as it provides energy to the world.”

 

And “Exxon's ads are part of a growing effort by the industry to counter a political backlash against rising oil prices and global-warming worries.”

Ad spending rises with the geyser of profits the oilies are bathing in.  Again the Journal reports:

“As gasoline prices have risen, so has industry spending on its image. The companies and their industry associations spent $52.5 million on advertisements in the first quarter, up 18% from the same period a year earlier, according to tracking firm TNS Media Intelligence. This spending is expected to jump in the second quarter on the back of Exxon's campaign, which has included print advertisements in the New York Times and a weeklong series of two-page ads in The Wall Street Journal.” 

Clearly, Exxon has money to burn and the newspapers are plenty glad for the revenue.  A two-page color spread in the New York Times, Washington Post or Wall St. Journal could cost upwards of $300,000, depending on the placement and day.

Clearly image is a problem for the entire oil industry, the Wall St. Journal reports that “An API public-perception poll in late 2006 found the public ranked the oil industry below even the tobacco industry.”

To counter this new low in public opinion, Exxon must portray itself  “as a company filled with technology whiz kids working to secure the world's energy future. Earlier this month, Exxon also began sponsoring Nova – a public-broadcasting science program.”

The new ads can be viewed here.

These Exxon TV ads hit most of our key Greenwashing criteria:

Dirty Business

The core business of Exxon, oil, is still a major source of global pollution, “when used as directed”.  In addition, refineries, drilling operations, and the risk of supertanker oil spills make the oil biz one of the dirtiest on earth.

The company can talk about better batteries, better engines, efficiency and caring for the world all it wants, but in the end, the more oil we use the more money the company makes and it is not inclined to sell LESS. Right now Exxon is spending tens of billions on new oil exploration, driven by record value per barrel of oil.  In its most recent annual report, Exxon listed 15 major projects that it has undertaken since 2007, and all of them revolve around more drilling, more pipelines and more carbon emissions [1].  There’s no mention of investment in wind, solar or other alternative energy sources.

Ad Bluster

Wait a second, rewind…did I see a wind turbine?  Does Exxon have anything to do with wind power?  Sure enough on one of these ads, with CEO Tillerson floating in front of long math formulas and images, all of a sudden an image of a wind turbine and other alternative energy sources scroll by.  Tillerson is muttering something about needing to explore all types of energy, but the implication is that Exxon IS investing in renewables.  It is not.  In fact, the only mention of renewable energy in its annual report relates to its contributions to Standford's Global Climate and Energy Project - a multimilllio-dollar black box R and D program, where money goes in and no ideas come out [2].  Exxon will continue to push this program as evidence of its environmental leadership, when in fact the program has little to show for all the millions of investment. The University has taken some heat over the controversial partnership, but continues to ignore protests by alumni and donors, who don’t have as much cash to offer as Exxon.

Political Spin

It’s no secret that Exxon is buying friends in Congress and elsewhere to fight environmental regulations on its behalf.  As evidence, last year Exxon spent $17M lobbying congress and lining up troops to push against various elements of the Clean Air Act and climate bills, while also pushing to open sensitive wilderness to drilling and other dirty operations.  Altogether the oil industry spent a whopping $84M lobbying in 2007, Exxon alone accounted for over 20% of that. 

At the same time, Exxon is also a heavy hitter when it comes to campaign contributions, providing over $850,000 to candidates, most of that to republicans who support the company’s drill-more, emit-more agenda.  Exxon doesn’t stop there though, the company is also trying to influence voters, as evidenced by its leads sponsorship of many political telecasts, including presidential debates. CNN has been one of the company’s best friends, providing it with hours of airtime throughout the campaign season.

[1] ExxonMobil, 2007 Summary Annual Report
[2] ExxonMobil, 2007 Summary Annual Report, pg. 14

Ethical Corporation’s “Greenwasher,” is a monthly column dedicated to pointing out inaccuracies in the seemingly environmental practices / actions of companies and corporations, has chosen to highlight tissue-giant Kimberly-Clark, makers of products such as Kleenex, Scott, Huggies, Kotex, and Depends, for the second time this year.

According to their website, Kimberly-Clark (K-C) “emphasizes sustainability and sound environmental practices as cornerstones of doing business…”  The irony lies in that K-C’s recycled tissue boxes hold tissues that are not recycled.  How could they let this happen?  How can the box that holds their tissue be the only part of the product that is recycled?

To further add to the greenwasher theme, K-C has released a sustainability report that states the wood fiber K-C receives from the Boreal Forest in Ontario, Canada, is “sawdust and chips – or leftovers.”  

There are two reasons that the above statement is ironic and a false environmental-advertisement.  First, the Kenogami Forest in northern Ontario has been completely destroyed and habitat has been lost due to K-C’s more than 70-year occupation.  Really, there is nothing “leftover” for K-C to log in the Kenogami.

In addition, a woodpile—enough to fill 7000 truckloads—was recently found in northern Ontario in the Ogoki forest, northwest of the Kenogami Forest.  These logs—rotting in the forest—were earmarked for a mill whose largest customer is Kimberly-Clark.  This is a direct consequence of poor forest management.  Is this the “leftovers” K-C describes in their sustainability report?

Tell Kimberly-Clark to stop talking about “sustainability practices” and actually put them into action.
 

Until the ancient forests are protected,

Andrea

Fishing Villages

It is very difficult for people to get an understanding of what happens to an entire village in Alaska that is dependent upon fishing for their economy.

It is said that for every fishing boat, most fishing boats in villages are under 55 feet in length, there are at least 10 jobs crated to support that boat. First, of course, is the crew. Usually on a boat this size, and depending upon what species of fish or crab they are fishing for, there is a crew of 5 people: the skipper and four deck hands. Then you have the fuel handlers, gear shops, grocery stores, and transportation industry. So you can see that in a village of 500 people, a lot of jobs in the support industry is created the more fishing boats there are in the village. Now, imagine that same scenario when we are talking about a billion-dollar a year industry such as there is in the pollock fishery. Together, in both the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea, that billion-dollar fishing industry harvests approximately 3,000,000,000 pounds of fish. Three billions. Imagine, if you will, the amount of jobs created in a village when that amount of fish has to be caught, delivered and processed, then shipped to the markets. The amount of people and expense to do this is staggering. Now imagine what happens to that village if the total allowable catch is severely lowered by the fishery managers and then if that fishery collapses. Imagine what happens to that village. Worse yet, imagine what happens to the environment, the ecosystem if such a scenario were to materialize.

The other side of this picture is people living in villages who are not a part of this economic activity and way of life. They are, as was labeled by politicians several years ago, the silent majority. They are the people who work everyday in local jobs created by the State and Federal governments, the health care system, the municipal government and some by private business not necessarily related to the fishing industry. Often, the fishing industry is only a seasonal economy, as in the Bering Sea crab fishery, or the Bristol Bay salmon fishery.  These silent majorities work day in and day out, searching, hoping and planning on some semblance of the great American dream, that of being able to afford a Christmas tree, and all that that dream encompasses.

The silent majority of people in our villages supplement their incomes with cultural and ancestral activities. We go hunting, fishing and gathering for our foods. We go to the same places on the beach our ancestors have done for hundreds and thousands of years. We go, looking, searching and hoping for that sea lion, fur seal, walrus, duck, and other foods we grew up eating with our parents and grandparents, knowing of that security and the goodness of that life. We go to the familiar places to search for our spirit. We hear the voices of people long gone. We smile at the wisdom taught at this place, by people long revered. We are in a familiar place where life truly is lived. It is said that a gay person has no choice about their sexuality. The same is true about a person or people who live in that familiar place. We have no choice. It is a calling. It is life. It is, not a way to live, but simply life, such lived, above the noise of choices.

Fishery managers do not consider this life. Their only mission is to ensure that an industry has enough resource to continue. Here is where that mission, it seems to me with the problems of the pollock fishery, fails. Fishery managers rely on what they call best available science. Not sound science, but science that is best available to provide answers. What is that?

If the pollock fishery collapses, as the surveys done by National Marine Fisheries Service has shown, it will be because the fishery managers were wrong. Their best available science did not take into account the reality of what is on the ground. If and when this happens, it means entire ecosystems are in trouble, is suffering a stroke, or worst yet, a heart attack. We cannot call 911 for help. It does not work that way.

Now, consider this. If, because of this best available science, one community, one human spirit is killed, not only have we committed a crime against the environment, but worse, against another human being. We have snuffed out a spirit. We have committed cultural genocide, a holocaust. Where is the best available science, best available medicine, best available intentions, that’s going to repair that? As a friend of mine said: “Man is a spiritual being.” Best available person.

Today, Guardian writer Ed Pilkington took a fresh swat at Governor Sarah Palin's use and defense of Exxon-funded junk science on polar bears in the State of Alaska's attempts to to kill the listing of the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act.

We have covered the evolution of this story on ExxonSecrets for over a year here and here with links to articles and documents of interest.

Much has been made of Palin's denial of global warming since she was nominated as the GOP Veep candidate, but no one has questioned her credibility for using 'research' that was funded by ExxonMobil, American Petroleum Institute and Charles Koch Foundation.

We are wondering if Gwen Ifill of PBS will ask Ms. Palin a pointed question tomorrow? or if Senator Biden has read the Guardian story?

Tom Kizza at the Anchorage Daily News has followed this story the best, filing two good articles earlier in the year here and here.

This classic ExxonSecrets map of the junk science authors from the Dyck, Soon, et al article shows once again the tentacles of the Denial Machine (see page 9 for acknowledgement of funding from Exxon and friends).  Palin's goon squad cited the Dyck, Soon paper 6 times and even attached a copy of the article (pre-publication) to their 49 page submission to the Department of Interior.

All the background documents can be found on Greenpeace Investigations:

• Exxon funded junk science
• rebuttal by real polar bear scientists
• Alaska's submissions to Department of Interior

No reporters have questioned Exxon or API about funding this research and no one has gotten the scientists themselves on the record as to how much money they got from Exxon and friends and the marching orders attached to that funding.