The Corporate Money Behind McKibben’s Divestment Tour
by CORY MORNINGSTAR

Industrialized capitalism is destructive, by its very nature, to all life on Earth. This is even more so when wedded to investment capital. Every living thing on the planet is now on its way to being commodified – including people, who are now considered “human capital” in 21st century parlance. [1]

A recent flood of seemingly urgent reports was released, in waves, over the month of November 2012. This was to ensure a sense of urgency, to inaudibly signal that the launch of the “green economy” resonates with civil society. The role of the non-profit industrial complex in the unveiling of the illusory green economy to the world has never been so vital. For it is only via these very institutions that it would be possible to manipulate civil society into embracing a suicidal model that locks the world into catastrophic, irreversible ecological collapse once and for all. The non-profit industrial complex, in tandem with the corporate-media complex, allows Euro-Americans to collectively continue their fetishized addictions and unspoken racist ideologies unabated – in exchange for the sacrificing of our own children to appease the corporate gods.

350.org’s Divestment Tour: More Bread & Circuses

“You can see that all the co-optive forces that have worked together to elect and re-elect Obama are now emphasizing coming together in a greater, ongoing, funded, top down cohesiveness. These friends of mine believe they have the strategy for saving the planet and it wonderfully coincides with feathering their own nests! The Insider might seem to be a minor irritant, but like Counterpunch itself they can’t stand it because it exposes them for what they are, lap dogs and liberal PR flacks with funding from what I call the Dem 1%. This “Progressive Movement building” bullshit from the Van Jones crowd is not a movement for radical change, it’s a hog trough designed to maintain the liberal corporate status quo. But for many it’s hard to see when your head is down and you are slurping up the funding slop”

– Author John Stauber responding to a member of the Business Ethics Network who reacted with indignation and feigned confusion to Stauber’s quote, which was cited in a Counterpunch article. Stauber’s “punishment” was expulsion from BEN.

350.org’s most recent campaign is its “Do the Math” divestment tour. The stated goal of this campaign, which appears online as a project of Fossil Free [2], is to pressure educational and religious institutions, city and state governments, and other institutions that serve the public good to divest from fossil fuels. The identity of the individual who registered the website is listed as private. Such campaigns (not unlike those of electoral races, hence the name “campaign”) are designed, thus destined, to not challenge the hegemony of the fossil fuel industry in practice, but rather, only in theory. Such sophisticated public relations campaigns as this one are quite genius in a multitude of ways. Cloaked under the guise of tackling the root causes of the global climate crisis, such campaigns change nothing. Rather, they ensure the populace is participating in what it has been convinced is meaningful action – and nothing more.

350.org’s “Do the Math”

350.org front man, Bill McKibben tells us that “It’s not all right to be profiting from the wreckage of the planet” yet he will not tell us that the unparalleled violence upon the planet and its most vulnerable peoples is inherently built into the system of industrialized capitalism. He will not tell you the simple fact that every day this system is allowed to continue represents one more day of profiteering from the wreckage of the planet and brings us one day closer to our shared global annihilation. Further, McKibben undermines any campaign that attempts to bring this most critical issue to the forefront of the global debate.

Many inadequacies in both the science and the logic have already been made clear by many reputable activists. On July 24, 2012, three responses to McKibben’s July 19, 2012 article in Rolling Stone magazine [“Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math: Three simple numbers that add up to global catastrophe – make clear who the real enemy is”] by Anne Petermann, Dr. Rachel Smolker, and Keith Brunner were published on Global Justice Ecology Project. Selected excerpts are as follows:

Anne Petermann writes:

“Can the very markets that have led us to the brink of the abyss now provide our parachute? McKibben points out that under this system, those with the money have all the power. Then why are we trying to reform this system? Why are we not transforming it?” “… if you focus solely on eliminating fossil fuels without changing the underlying system, then very bad things will take their place because it is the system itself that is unsustainable. It is a system designed to transform ‘natural capital’ and human labor into gargantuan profits for an elite few: the so-called ‘1%.’ Whether it’s driven by fossil fuels or biofuels or even massive solar and wind installations, the system will continue to devour ecosystems, displace forest-based communities, Indigenous Peoples and subsistence farmers from their lands, crush labor unions and generally make life hell for the vast majority of the world’s peoples. That is what it does.”

Keith Brunner writes:

“Bill offers divestment campaigns, à la South Africa, as a favored strategy to hit the fossil fuel companies financially. Sounds great, except when you look at the trends over the past few years of big institutional investors – like pension funds and university endowments – to move their money (often through a private equity intermediary) into, amongst other things, ’emerging market’ natural resources and infrastructure funds, facilitating land and resource grabbing across the South. It’s what the ‘progressive’ climate-aware fund managers (like the CERES folks) are advocating, and it’s a problem. And that’s another place where he misses the point: Yes, the fossil fuel corporations are the big bad wolf, but just as problematic is the system of investment and returns which necessitates a growth economy (it’s called capitalism). That Harvard University endowment fund manager has a ‘fiduciary responsibility’ to get a certain annual return, which means they have to put their money into growing, profitable funds or firms or states (what’s the difference anyhow), which grow through exploiting people and dismantling ecosystems. We aren’t going to invest our way to a livable planet. We need to focus on the root causes and false solutions, lift up the community solutions, and push the big green groups to become more holistic in their analysis so they don’t shoot us all in the foot.”

A Semblance of Cowards

This view, upheld by most activists, even outstanding ones, that we must “push the big green groups to become more holistic in their analysis so they don’t shoot us all in the foot” is based on a collective naiveté and false assumption that corporate environmental NGOs can be made to “do the right thing” by moral suasion. The steadfast refusal of real activists and real grassroots groups to acknowledge and unapologetically expose the non-profit industrial complex as the gatekeepers of hegemonic rule represents the movement’s greatest and most tragic failure.

They are not shooting “us all in the foot,” they are shooting us all in the head – at point-black range.

As surreal as it is, the so-called climate movement has sabotaged any chance of mitigating a full scale global ecological collapse, having instead cleared the way for corporate profiteering, deforestation, fund-raising and full-out omnicide. Collectively, this faction of the 1% values their privilege more than life itself.

The 350.org Divestment Tour: Brought to You by Wall Street

“Efforts to control corporations’ destructive impacts must have a critique of corporate power at their heart and a will to dismantle corporate power as their goal, otherwise they reinforce rather than challenge power structures, and undermine popular struggles for autonomy, democracy, human rights and environmental sustainability.” – Corporate Watch

People may ask themselves just why the financiers of climate destruction would give a flying fuck about the climate. One may wonder just why McKibben and friends went to the Wall Street billionaires to solicit their input (and permission) on exactly just what type of divestment would be suitable to their liking. Yet, the answer is astoundingly simple: the “Do the Math” divestment tour is not a campaign meant to impair (let alone destroy) Wall Street, big energy, or finance capital – rather it is a strategic public relations campaign, another well-orchestrated distraction for the masses.

A key design element within the non-profit industrial complex is that “movements” are created top down. In the case of Rockefeller’s 350.org/1Sky, the game is simply this: 350.org locals take their marching orders straight from the top (350.org International) while “the top” (McKibben et al) take their marching orders directly from their funders – and in the case of 350.org’s Do the Math Tour, those funders are Wall Street investors.

McKibben, along with key 350.org staff, developed the divestment campaign in consultation with Ceres Investors – referred to fondly as their “Wall Street friends.”

Such loyalties are par for the course in the corporate enviro world where Wall Street execs can be referred to as “our Wall Street friends.” Never mind that Wall Street is the very root cause of our multiple and ever accelerating ecological and economic crises, not to mention the global food crisis. These crises are not truly “crisis” in a spontaneous sense, rather they are strategic by design with the aim of furthering corporate profit, which is simply insatiable. [Watch: The Real Hunger Games – Big Commodity Traders Control World Grain Market. See more videos on this topic here.]

The 350.org divestment tour announcement states:

“It’s simple math: we can burn 565 more gigatons of carbon and stay below 2°C of warming – anything more than that risks catastrophe for life on earth. The only problem? Fossil fuel corporations now have 2,795 gigatons in their reserves, five times the safe amount. And they’re planning to burn it all – unless we rise up to stop them.” [Emphasis in original.]

What McKibben and the “Progressive Greens” Won’t Tell You

This 350.org statement above is incredibly dangerous and misleading as it implies two things: 1) that we can continue to burn more fossil fuels for some time; 2) that only when we exceed 2ºC do we risk catastrophe for life on Earth; and fails to mention a third: the fact that we are already committed to a minimum temperature increase of 2.4ºC (Ramanathan and Feng), even if we stop burning all fossil fuels today.

“[But] we should accept the fact that we have actually written off some of the southern hemisphere communities as a consequence of sticking to 2 degrees centigrade.”

– Professor Kevin Anderson [Also see “What Defines Criminal Negligence?]

“…we need urgent to radical reductions way beyond anything we’ve been prepared to countenance, we’ve really left it too late to go for a 2 degree C.”

– Professor Kevin Anderson

For now, let us ignore the fact that in 1990 the “Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases” warned that a global temperature increase “beyond 1 degree C may elicit rapid, unpredictable and non-linear responses that could lead to extensive ecosystem damage” while a temperature increase of 2ºC was viewed as “an upper limit beyond which the risks of grave damage to ecosystems, and of non-linear responses, are expected to increase rapidly.” The disappearance of this paper represents perhaps the greatest cover-up in history not to mention a crime against humanity. The report was quietly and deliberately buried by NGOs such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, the scientific community and governments. Economic growth, sacrosanct, trumped life itself.

350.org states that fossil fuel corporations are “planning to burn it all – unless we rise to stop them.” Stop them by doing what? Appealing to Obama? Signing a 350.org petition? Getting some universities to not invest in them? Rather than deal with reality (capitalism, imperialism, militarism, etc. etc.) 350.org continues to lead in the manufacturing of hope for the hope industry. 350.org ensures audience acceptance and mass appeal of their brand precisely because they do not tell their target audience that it will be absolutely necessary to give up their privilege if we are to salvage a planet conducive to life as we free-fall into the anthropocene epoch. [4] 350.org ensures their audience that there is no need to question our (suicidal) economic system (let alone the necessity to dismantle it) while “real” climate catastrophe is always far, far away. 350.org is the soma of the 21st century.

“False consciousness of the nature of American liberalism has been one of the most powerful ideological weapons that American capitalism has had in maintaining its hegemony.” — James Weinstein

One must take note of 350.org’s obsession with fossil fuels exclusively. With certainty, 350.org, in tandem with the non-profit industrial complex, is strategically preparing the populace to accept what Guy McPherson calls the “third industrial revolution.” This “climate wealth” agenda will include false solutions such as biomass, unbridled “green” consumerism, carbon market mechanisms such as REDD, etc. What it will not include is: the urgent necessity to destroy the expanding military empire, to transition from/dismantle our current economic system, to address the industrialized livestock industry, to massively scale back and conserve, to employ tactics of self-defense by any means necessary, nor anything else that is imperative to address if we are to mitigate full-out omnicide. In a nutshell, the agenda will not include anything that would actually pose any meaningful threat to the system. It’s always divide and conquer with the corporate/elite-funded NGOs. The point is to ensure the masses fight meaningless battles and never “connect the dots,” to use 350.org‘s phrase. Just like the Avaaz founder MoveOn.org, 350.org successfully induces consent.

Language is everything in the world of fantasy and public relations. Consider McKibben’s statement expressing surprise how his article “Terrifying Math” went “oddly viral” in Rolling Stone. This is hardly the case. In the non-profit industrial complex, all “messaging” is polled prior to publication in order to measure public response and appeal to the status quo. Most messaging is not written by so-called activists but instead is written by highly prized PR executives who help the hope industry distribute their harmless campaigns to the selected/cooperative networks.

350.org and friends serve a vital purpose. These organizations successfully make certain that the public feel good about themselves. Simultaneously, they ensure obedience and passiveness to the state in order to secure current system/power structures and keep them intact. As always, such campaigns focus on list-building for those who benefit and profit from email lists, etc. This focus is done under the guise of “movement building.” One need not be a rocket scientist to comprehend the common sense rationality that organizations funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund will never conduct anything meaningful that would serve to challenge the root causes of the climate crisis. This is a cynical game played by those who fund the NGOs within the non-profit industrial complex. The costs are high with 400,000 dying each year from climate-related disasters. Fortunately for the oligarchy, a deep-rooted racism that purrs like a kitten, humming along under the movement’s veneer, ensures these deaths have no meaning whatsoever. [September 27, 2012: “Nearly 1,000 children a day are now dying because of climate change, according to a path-breaking study published Wednesday (PDF) and the annual death toll stands at 400,000 people worldwide.”]

Author Christian Parenti raises many key questions for consideration in his article Problems With the Math: Is 350’s Carbon Divestment Campaign Complete? published on November 29, 2012:

“The official version of capitalism holds the stock markets exist to help firms raise money for investment. But empirical investigation reveals that the opposite is more often the case. In reality, the stock market, though culturally powerful, is not particularly important to how capitalism actually creates wealth (and pollution).

“So how will dumping Exxon stock hurt its income, that is, its bottom line? It might, in fact, improve the company’s price to earning ratio thus making the stock more attractive to immoral buyers. Or it could allow the firm to more easily buy back stock (which it has been doing at a massive scale for the last 5 years) and thus retain more of its earnings for use to develop more oil fields.”

It must be noted that 350.org’s divestment campaign serves yet another vital purpose. We have now reached the critical juncture where corporations will begin the slow process of ridding themselves of their toxic holdings while preparing for a new wave of unprecedented, unsurpassed “climate wealth.” We are about to witness the global transition to profitable false solutions under the guise of “green economy” coupled with the complete commodification/privatization of the shared commons by the world’s most powerful corporations. All while they simultaneously greenwash themselves as noble stewards of the Earth. In the human species closing epilogue, this will be the greatest lie ever sold.

Ceres 2013: Guest Speakers: 350, PG&E, Bloomberg & GM
On May 1-2, 2013 in San Francisco, California, Bill McKibben joined 350’s divestment campaign partner, Ceres, at the 2013 Ceres Conference. From the Ceres announcement:

“Bill McKibben Joins the Ceres Conference Speaker Lineup! Bill McKibben is the author of a dozen books and is a founder of the grassroots climate campaign 350.org. Time Magazine called him ‘the planet’s best green journalist’ and the Boston Globe said in 2010 that he was ‘probably the country’s most important environmentalist.'”

McKibben joined other featured speakers such as Ezra Garrett (Vice President of Community Relations and the Chief Sustainability Officer for Pacific Gas and Electric Corporation), Curtis Ravenel (Global Head, Sustainability Group, Bloomberg), Mike Robinson (Vice President for Environment, Energy and Safety Policy, General Motors), and many others involved in the promotion and growth of “green” capitalism. Sponsors included Bank of America, PG&E, Bloomberg, Wells Fargo, Sprint, Baxter, Citi, Ford, GM, Brown-Forman, Walt Disney, Prudential, TimeWarner and many more of the planet’s most powerful corporations. Tickets for the conference ranged from $600 (student rate) to $1200 each, with a discounted price of $259 per night for the Fairmont Hotel.

The Art of NGO Discourse
“Mr. Rockefeller could find no better insurance for his hundreds of millions than to invest one of them in subsidizing all agencies that make for social change ad progress. – Frank Walsh, The Great Foundation

And while your attention is successfully diverted from the fact that giant algae blooms are now thriving under thinning Arctic sea ice (June 18, 2012: “First, we were thinking, ‘This can’t be. This can’t be possible. There’s no way this can be what it looks like,'” Kevin R. Arrigo, a biological oceanographer at Stanford University in California and lead author of the study, told CBCNews.ca. “Then the next thing was: ‘Has anybody seen this before?'”) … and while huge crabs more than a metre across have invaded the warming Antarctic and while the elites are hopeful that you’ll buy into a divestment campaign that doesn’t actually give us a hope in hell of averting ever-accelerating planetary ecological collapse, let me leave you with this…

NGO discourse in America takes many forms. In the sixties, the revolutionary black power movement became the recipient of massive funding and then took the form of black capitalism, with the product of this solution being the current status of Black Americans, who are in a worse position than at almost any other time of their history in every possible way. Similarly, the dire consequences of development and environmental degradation resulting from unbridled mass-consumption as modeled by the West opens up the dialogue of the illusory “green economy” as the solution. The necessity to ban genetically engineered food becomes a “demand” for classist (to be ingested by the poor, uneducated and children) and ineffective labeling.

The necessity to shut down the tar sands in their entirety (as boldly voiced by the most conservative of voices such as scientist James Hansen (Put the Brakes on Tar Sands, Feb 18, 2009) and the former head of IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri of the United Nations (“Canada’s oil sands should be shut down.” Sept. 21, 2009) deliberately evolved into “Stop the Keystone XL!” – conveniently dismissing the fact that the Keystone Pipeline was 2/3 completed and in operation before the KXL campaign was thrust into the public realm. Gone is the original grassroots demand from 2005 to “Shut down the Tar Sands,” which is nothing more than a distant memory. And while 350.org exclaimed “Stop Keystone XL!” (a message reverberated by the obedient “progressive” media), the rail industry [3] was busy building the 40,000 oil tankers required for the transportation of tar sands oil, now near completion. [4] The selling feature of this transit method, put forward by industry, is that short of an armor piercing round, these tankers will not leak if they derail. Meanwhile, the construction of the oil warmer facilities in North Dakota (near the Bakken oil fracking fields) has been completed. Eight trains of 110 tankers can carry the same capacity of oil that the Keystone and the KXL can facilitate. BNSF Corp. is now transporting approx. 500,000 barrels of oil daily. Nowhere in the KXL campaign did it convey that on November 3, 2009, Berkshire Hathaway announced that, using stock and cash totaling $26 billion, it would acquire the remaining 77.4 percent of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation, parent of BNSF Railway, that it did not already own. This was the largest acquisition to-date in Berkshire’s history. [Further reading: Keystone XL: The Art of NGO Discourse | Part I]

The oil tycoons have achieved the best of both worlds. They toast to our collective naiveté and subservient demeanor.

The list of successful NGO discourses goes on and on for miles. Billions of dollars are not pumped into the non-profit industrial complex for nothing.

Cory Morningstar is an independent investigative journalist, writer and environmental activist, focusing on global ecological collapse and political analysis of the non-profit industrial complex. She resides in Canada. Her recent writings can be found on Wrong Kind of Green, The Art of Annihilation, Political Context, Canadians for Action on Climate Change and Countercurrents.

Notes.

[1] Human Capital: “Fourthly, of the acquired and useful abilities of all the inhabitants or members of the society. The acquisition of such talents, by the maintenance of the acquirer during his education, study, or apprenticeship, always costs a real expense, which is a capital fixed and realized, as it were, in his person. Those talents, as they make a part of his fortune, so do they likewise that of the society to which he belongs. The improved dexterity of a workman may be considered in the same light as a machine or instrument of trade which facilitates and abridges labor, and which, though it costs a certain expense, repays that expense with a profit.” – Adam Smith defining “human capital”

[2] Fossil Free partners are: Responsible Endowments Coalition, Energy Action Coalition, Sierra Student Coalition,

As You Sow, Better Future Project, California Student Sustainability Project.

[3] July 28, 2011: Rail makes a comeback in moving oil around the US | January 24, 2012: Warren Buffett cleans up after Keystone XL | January 2012: BNSF expects shales, domestic intermodal and other promising sectors to propel 2012 traffic beyond GDP-growth levels | June 27, 2012: Southern Pacific Resource Corp. completes arrangements to transport and market bitumen via CN to the U.S. Gulf Coast | August 21, 2012: Railways ship bitumen to relieve pipeline bottlenecks | January 7, 2013: Alberta bitumen makes it to Mississippi by rail | August 16, 2012: Keystone XL pipeline construction begins amid protests | March 5, 2013: Buffett Says Gloat Like Rockefeller When Watching Trains

[4] “Tank cars are owned by either shippers or lessors, not by railroads. At year end, Union Tank Car and Procor together owned 97,000 cars having a net book value of $4 billion. A new car, it should be noted, costs upwards of $100,000. Union Tank Car is also a major manufacturer of tank cars – some of them to be sold but most to be owned by it and leased out. Today, its order book extends well into 2014. At both BNSF and Marmon, we are benefitting from the resurgence of U.S. oil production. In fact, our railroad is now transporting about 500,000 barrels of oil daily, roughly 10% of the total produced in the ‘lower 48’ (i.e. not counting Alaska and offshore). All indications are that BNSF’s oil shipments will grow substantially in coming years.” [Source: Berkshire’s Corporate Performance vs. the S&P 500]

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/05/17/mckibbens-divestment-tour/

350.org’s Friends on Wall Street
by CORY MORNINGSTAR




Email

An investigative report on the global “movement” to divest from fossil fuels. [Read Part 1 here.]

Preface: A Coup d’etat of Nature – Led by the Non-profit Industrial Complex

It is somewhat ironic that while anti-REDD (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation) climate activists, organizations (legitimate grassroots organizations do exist) and self-proclaimed environmentalists, who consider themselves progressive, speak out against the commodification of nature’s natural resources, they also simultaneously promote the divestment campaign. The divestment campaign will result (i.e., succeed) in a colossal injection of money shifting over to the very portfolios heavily invested, thus dependent upon, the intense commodification and privatization of Earth’s last remaining forests (via REDD), water, etc. (environmental “markets“). This tour de force will be executed with cunning precision under the guise of environmental stewardship and “internalising negative externalities through appropriate pricing” (Sustainable Capitalism, February 15, 2012, Generation Investment Management LLP). Thus, ironically (if in appearances only), the greatest surge in the ultimate corporate capture of Earth’s final remaining resources is being led, and will be accomplished, by the very environmentalists and environmental groups that claim to oppose such corporate domination and capture.

Beyond shelling out billions of (tax-exempt) dollars (aka investments) to those most accommodating in the non-profit industrial complex via their foundations, the corporations need not lift a finger; the feat is being carried out by both the legitimate and the faux environmentalists in tandem with an unsuspecting populace. (A populace with almost no comprehension of 1. the magnitude of our ecological crisis, 2. the root causes of the planetary crisis, 3. the non-profit industrial complex as an instrument of hegemony.)

The commodification of the commons will represent the greatest, and most cunning, coup d’état in the history of corporate dominance – a fait accompli extraordinaire of unparalleled scale, with unparalleled repercussions for humanity and all life.

Further, it matters little whether or not the money is moved from direct investments in fossil fuel corporations to so-called “socially responsible investments.” The fact of the matter is, all corporations on the planet (thus, all investments on the planet) do and will continue to require massive amounts of energies (including fossil fuels) to continue to grow and expand ad infinitum – as required by the industrialized capitalist economic system.

The windmills and solar panels serve as the beautiful (marketing) imagery, yet they are somewhat illusory – the veneer for the commodification of the commons, which is the fundamental objective of Wall Street, the very advisers of the divestment campaign.

Thus we find ourselves unwilling to acknowledge the necessity to dismantle the industrialized capitalist economic system, choosing instead to embrace an illusion designed by corporate power.

The purpose of this investigative series is to illustrate (indeed, prove) this premise.

***

”One recent weekday afternoon, three men walked out of the Environmental Defense Fund’s midtown Manhattan office on their way to have lunch together. On the left was EDF’s senior economist. On the right was an environmental expert in the Soviet government. Between them was a businessman, a trader in the nascent enterprise of buying and selling pollution rights. Together that trio forms a picture of how the new environmentalism is shaping up: global, more cooperative than confrontational – and with business at the center.” — ENVIRONMENTALISM: THE NEW CRUSADE, CNNMoney Fortune, February 12, 1990

The present can only be fully understood if one understands the past. Therefore, in order to understand the present day 350.org divestment campaign, we must look at the inception/creation of 350.org’s partner: The Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies (Ceres).

Who is Ceres? Ceres is the 21st century puppeteers of Wall Street who, most recently, are pulling the strings behind the 350.org divestment campaign. Ceres represents the very heart of the nexus: millionaire liberals, their foundations, the “activists” they manage, and most importantly, where the plutocrats invest their personal wealth and that of their foundations. [“As a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization, Ceres relies on support from foundations, individuals and other funders to achieve our mission to integrate sustainability into day-to-day business practices for the health of the planet and its people.” (Source: Ceres 2010 Annual Report)

On the Ceres Board of Directors we find key NGO affiliations: Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Sierra Club, World Resources Institute, Ecological Solutions Inc. and Green America, to name a few. (The history of the Ceres board of directors is discussed at length, further in this report.)

“Building climate change risks and opportunities into Wall Street research and analysis is a top Ceres priority.” — Ceres Annual Report 2006

Exxon Valdez: Opportunity Knocks

“… sceptics of the effectiveness of a voluntary environmental ethics question whether or not the Valdez principles contain more smoke than substance.” — The Valdez Principles. Is it Time to Put Bambi in the Boardroom? California Journal, November 1990

On March 24, 1989, one of the most devastating man-made environmental disasters in Earth’s history, the Exxon Valdez oil spill, shook public confidence in corporate America to the core. This catastrophic event, 5 years after the atrocious man-made disaster in Bhopal, brought corporate misconduct to the forefront. Corporate America found itself in the midst of an unprecedented public relations disaster.

“…not long after the Exxon Valdez spill, 41% of Americans were angry enough to say they’d consider boycotting the company.” — The Valdez Principles. Is it Time to Put Bambi in the Boardroom? California Journal, November 1990

Within six months of the Exxon disaster, the late Joan Bavaria, then-president of Trillium Asset Management, had formed a coalition that included high profile environmentalists. The Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies (CERES) was formed with its 10-point code of conduct in hopes of reigning in corporate power. [Note that in 2003, the organization dropped the CERES acronym and rebranded itself as “Ceres”.] Presented to the public as The Valdez Principles [1] on September 7, 1989, the strategic name brilliantly exploited the Valdez crisis (the Principles are said to have actually been written before the Valdez spill, in 1988) to build its own brand recognition and value. Ceres would be the watchdog and savior, reigning in corporate power and making it behave. Although corporate America was reluctant, due to the growing hostility and resentment from the public it also recognized that this coalition offered a strategy (“a voluntary mechanism of corporate self-governance”) as a means of re-establishing public trust, securing brand reputation and most importantly, protecting profits and power. Its influence was enhanced by the fact that member institutional investors controlled over $150 billion in assets. Yet, the risks did not go unrecognized:

“A new basis for environmentally-related derivative suits may now be emerging. Various social-activist groups are successfully sponsoring shareholder resolutions at many major corporations to mandate greater environmental accountability by the corporations. These resolutions require the implementation of ‘Valdez Principles,’ which call for the corporations to curtail air and water pollution, conserve energy, market safe products, pay for damage caused to the environment, and make regular reports on environmental matters to the shareholders. If directors and officers of corporations which have adopted these Valdez-type resolutions fail to comply with their mandate, derivative suits against the directors and officers are likely to follow.” — ACE Bermuda News, July 1991

Corporate America held out. Ceres eventually buckled. The Valdez Principles became the CERES Principles (a 10-point code of environmental conduct) [2], with the most powerful language watered down and abolished. This was fully understood by Bavaria, who recognized that without the annual public audits in particular (principle #10), the principles would be meaningless. November 1990:

“Joan Bavaria, co-chairperson of CERES, believes that the first 8 principles are meaningless without the tenth principle allowing public accountability. The difference between having the company develop their own principles, then monitoring them internally is like putting a fox in the chicken house.” — The Valdez Principles. Is it Time to Put Bambi in the Boardroom? California Journal, November 1990

In the meantime, environmentalism was changing and becoming big business. The world had embraced Neoliberalism (or had it shoved down their throats by the IMF and World Bank) with a statement of neoliberal aims being codified in the Washington Consensus in 1989. This was to be the means of liberating the market from state intrusion, which would instead serve to shield the expanding corporatocracy. Neoliberalism would prove to be the instrumental tool of choice in what would serve, protect and expand the power of the oligarchy.

From the CNNMoney Fortune article: ENVIRONMENTALISM: THE NEW CRUSADE, February 12, 1990:

“Far fewer activists of the 1990s will be embittered, scruffy, antibusiness street fighters. AS AN EXAMPLE of the new breed, consider Allen Hershkowitz, who freely drops the names of his CEO acquaintances. As a solid-waste-disposal expert at the litigious Natural Resources Defense Council, Hershkowitz has won many legal battles with business. Now high-ranking executives of major companies regularly make the pilgrimage to his office in the elegant, airy, and amply funded New York City headquarters of NRDC, coming to him lest he go after them. As he explains, ‘They come in here to see what they’ve got to cover their asses on. ‘The cocky 34-year-old Ph.D., who serves as an adviser to banks and Shearson Lehman Hutton, among others, elaborates, ‘My primary motivation is environmental protection. And if it costs more, so be it. If Procter & Gamble can’t live with that, somebody else will. But I’ll tell you, Procter & Gamble is trying hard to live with it. ‘Still, for all his militancy, Hershkowitz is no fanatic or utopian. He understands that a perfect world can’t be achieved and doesn’t hesitate to talk of trade-offs: ‘Hey, civilization has its costs. We’re trying to reduce them, but we can’t eliminate them.’ Environmentalists of this stripe will increasingly show up even within companies. William Bishop, Procter & Gamble’s top environmental scientist, was an organizer of Earth Day in 1970 and is a member of the Sierra Club. One of his chief deputies belongs to Greenpeace. Eager to work with business, many environmentalists are moving from confrontation to the best kind of collaboration. In September an ad hoc combination of institutional investors controlling $150 billion of assets (including representatives of public pension funds) and environmental groups promulgated the Valdez Principles, named for the year’s most catalytic environmental accident. The principles ask companies to reduce waste, use resources prudently, market safe products, and take responsibility for past harm. They also call for an environmentalist on each corporate board and an annual public audit of a company’s environmental progress. The group asked corporations to subscribe to the principles, with the implicit suggestion that investments could eventually be contingent on compliance. Companies already engaged in friendly discussions included DuPont, specialty-chemical maker H.B. Fuller, and Polaroid, among others. Earth Day 1990, scheduled for April 22, the 20th anniversary of the first such event, is becoming a veritable biz-fest. ‘We’re really interested in working with companies that have a good record,’ says Earth Day Chairman Denis Hayes, who predicts that 100 million people will take part one way or another. Apple Computer and Hewlett-Packard have donated equipment. Shaklee, the personal and household products company, paid $50,000 to be the first official corporate sponsor. Even the Chemical Manufacturers Association is getting in on the act, preparing a list of 101 ways its members can participate. The more than 1,000 Earth Day affiliate groups in 120 countries propose to shake up politicians worldwide and launch a decade of activism. THE MESSAGE that leading environmentalists are sending, and progressive companies are receiving, is that eco-responsibility will be good for business. Says Gray Davis, California’s state controller, who helped draft the Valdez Principles and who sits on the boards of two public pension funds with total assets of $90 billion: ‘Given the increasing regulation and public concern, there’s no question that companies will eventually have to change their ways. The first kid on the block to embrace these principles will increase market share and profit substantially.’”

The primary NGOs involved in the Valdez Principles from inception were the Sierra Club, The National Audubon Society and the National Wildlife Federation. The necessity of the “environmental movement” as the face and foundation of Ceres cannot be understated. In 1989 it was well understood by all players that NGOs were very much perceived as legitimate in the eyes of the public. The non-profit industrial complex was perhaps the only entity in the position of lending the much needed legitimacy and credibility that could mollify the public and allow the corporate world to continue their raping and pillaging, unregulated, under voluntary compliance. And while there is little doubt that well-intentioned individuals with sincere intentions were present in the formation of Ceres (as the corporate watchdog), many such “activists” will never admit to themselves that they are enablers of the very systems collectively destroying us. There is no acceptable excuse for such lack of judgement and foresight – for if it is ignorance, it is willful. Privilege has a convenient way of convincing one’s self to be blind.

“The New York Times/CBS News poll regularly asks the public if ‘protecting the environment is so important that requirements and standards cannot be too high, and continuing environmental improvements must be made regardless of cost.’ In September 1981, 45% agreed and 42% disagreed with that plainly intemperate statement. Last June, 79% agreed and only 18% disagreed. For the first time, liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, profess concern for the environment in roughly equal numbers.” —ENVIRONMENTALISM: THE NEW CRUSADE, CNNMoney Fortune, February 12, 1990

The Valdez Principles, which morphed into the completely watered down Ceres Principles, became the perfect antidote to appease an outraged populace. Corporations could breathe a sigh of relief for a continued voluntary system of corporate self governance – freshly laundered in a light green wash. At a time when public support for environmental protection was unprecedented, restrictive federal regulation power would be avoided. Corporate supremacy would continue apace.

CERES: Clearing House for the Institutionalization of Private Governance

”It is high time that myths were called what they are. They are stories which may help explain our feelings but they are stories nonetheless and they do us no good.” — Margaret Kimberley

The CERES “Sustainable Governance Project” (SGP) was officially announced to the public in Washington, DC, 2002. The non-profit industrial complex was and continues to be an instrumental tool in building public acceptance for expansion of neoliberal policies. Hence a key focus of SGP in 2001 (prior to the official launch) was “expanding collaboration with climate change experts at groups such as The National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Redefining Progress, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, World Wildlife Fund, and many others.” (Source: 2001 Annual Report) Jump forward to 2013 and the Ceres network includes over 130 NGOs.

Today, Ceres serves as the underwriter and clearinghouse for the institutionalization of private governance. Such transformation is now well under way and evolving as witnessed under the guise of the “green economy.” Such strategy is calculated and requires tactical execution. For such transformation to be successful, key critical elements must coalesce: the real or perceived (manufactured/purposeful) decline of public regulatory power; the appearance of “civil society” (self-appointed NGOs) to emanate a patina of legitimacy, credibility and trust; the perception of “caring” corporations (see “Who Cares Wins“); and lastly, media to disseminate the compiled elements in endless waves. When these elements coalesce seamlessly, fertile ground is laid for private regulatory institutions to emerge. By stressing the “risks” (i.e. water scarcity, crumbling infrastructure, etc.) Ceres successfully lays the groundwork for corporate takeover of goods, services and now ecosystems.

The Ceres Network Companies (the first pillar) make up the crème de le crème (approx. 70 corporations) of the corporate world. Examples include Citi, Bloomberg, Coca-Cola, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Suncor and Virgin. The Ceres Coalition (the second pillar) is comprised of more than 130 institutional investors, environmental and “social advocacy” groups, and public interest organizations. Examples of coalition members are Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, Rockefeller Financial Asset Management, NRDC, World Wildlife Fund, Rainforest Action Network, Service Employees International Union (SEIU) (a founder of Avaaz) and The Carbon Neutral Company.

The Ceres Coalition represents: the Ceres Network Companies, Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR) (publicly launched in November 2003 at the first Institutional Investor Summit on Climate Risk held at the United Nations) and Business for Innovative Climate & Energy Policy (BICEP: a coalition of more than 20 leading consumer brand corporations.) [Ceres Membership Requirements] [3]

“Ceres is a national network of over [130*] investors, environmental organizations and other public interest groups working with companies and the capital markets to address sustainability challenges such as global climate change. Coalition members serve on our board of directors, participate on company stakeholder teams and engage with the Wall Street community to incorporate social and environmental costs into their research practices. More than [100*] companies worldwide, many of them Fortune 500 firms, make up the Ceres Network of Companies.” [4] [*Updated to reflect current status]

The network of Ceres companies represents a broad range of corporate interests, including oil and gas, electric utilities, and financial services. More than one-third of the company members are in the Fortune 500. Members include McDonalds Corporations, Bank of America Corporation, PG&E Corporation, Citi Bank, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Nike, PepsiCo, Suncor, Sunoco, Coca-Cola, Walt Disney, Virgin America, and Time Warner, to name just a few. Ceres has close ties with high-level leaders at the New York Stock Exchange, United Nations, World Economic Forum, Clinton Global Initiative, American Accounting Association, the American Bar Association and many of the world’s most powerful corporations. The forté of Ceres is briefing/advising powerful corporate boards, from Nike to American Electric Power, on risk and opportunity.

In addition to working with investors in the Ceres Coalition, Ceres directs the Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR):

“INCR members, whose collective assets total about $[11*] trillion, include many of the world’s largest pension funds and asset managers.” [*Updated to reflect current status]

INCR has grown from 10 institutional investors managing $600 billion (2003) to 100 institutional investors managing more than $11 trillion in assets (2012).

In 1997 CERES launched the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), now the de facto international standard for corporate voluntary sustainability reporting implemented by more than 1,800 corporations worldwide.

Benefits for corporations adopting GRI “standards” included/include guideline tools for “brand and reputation enhancement, differentiation in the marketplace and protection from brand erosion resulting from the actions of suppliers or competitors, networking and communications.” [Source] Since releasing its first Reporting Guidelines in 2000, its global network has grown to more than 600 organizational stakeholders and over 30,000 people representing different sectors and constituencies. GRI has also developed key strategic partnerships with the United Nations Environment Programme, the UN Global Compact, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the International Organization for Standardization. [Source]

Mindy Lubber is the president of Ceres (2012) and a founding board member of the organization. She also directs Ceres’ INCR. Mindy Lubber’s blog “Sustainable Capitalism” is integrated with Forbes. Lubber is a contributing blogger forHuffington Post (acquired by Time Warner in 2011) and Forbes. Lubber has been honored by the United Nations as one of the “World’s Top Leaders of Change.” (Other award winners were the corporations Coca-Cola, Nike, Walmart and Reebok). Lubber was named one of “The 100 Most Influential People in Corporate Governance” by Directorship magazine and is a recipient of the Skoll Award for Social Entrepreneurship.
Skeletons (and Skolls) in the CERES/1Sky Closet

In 2009, 1Sky’s campaign director, Gillian Caldwell, a lawyer by training, was paid $203,620 (US) through the Rockefeller Family Fund. Although McKibben often refers to 350.org/1Sky as a “scruffy little outfit” – a salary of more than $200,000 is hardly typical of a legitimate grassroots organization.

In the Dec 3, 2009 article Prepping for Copenhagen as found on the Skoll Foundation website, the author reports, “The Skoll Foundation, along with a number of Skoll social entrepreneurs and partners, will be participating in the Copenhagen meetings on climate change later this month. Reflecting the high caliber of environmental leaders in the Skoll portfolio, some 10 Skoll social entrepreneurs and/or their organizations will be at Copenhagen: ACORE, Amazon Conservation Team, BioRegional Development Group, Ceres, EcoPeace/Friends of the Earth Middle East, Fundacion Gaia, Global Footprint Network, Health Care Without Harm, IDE-India, and Gillian Caldwell (formerly of Witness), representing 1Sky.”

In the December 15, 2009 article More from the Ground in Copenhagen, also featured on the Skoll Foundation website, Skoll CEO Sally Osberg reports:

Just a couple of highlights from the Climate Leaders’ Summit: Leadership on climate change – both moral and real – is coming from the sub-nation state levels and small countries.

What Osberg neglects to report is the fact that these very states were deliberately and grossly undermined by the non-profit industrial complex, with corporate TckTckTck, 350.org(1Sky) and Avaaz at the helm of the elitist fifth column. [Further reading: The Most Important COP Briefing That No One Ever Heard | Truth, Lies, Racism & Omnicide | Who Really Leads on the Environment? The “Movement” Versus Evo Morales]
Who Cares Wins

”To address the tough environmental and social issues facing global corporations today, we need to hear from a diverse group of stakeholders who challenge us to innovate and operate in a sustainable manner. No one has access to such a vast network of valuable, independent input as Ceres.” — Indra Nooyi, Chairman and CEO, PepsiCo

It is clear why branded agencies such as 350.org, SumofUs, Avaaz et al, who dominate social media, are heavily financed (and in many cases were created by) the oligarchs. Who Cares Wins – The Rise of the Caring Corporation, by David Jones, founder of One Young World, (recently a featured speaker at the 2013 World Form on Natural Capital), makes the case that “social media and corporate social responsibility are not two separate subjects; rather, they are intrinsically interlinked. Businesses that embrace the new rules are set to both make more money and become forces for good in the world.”

“Grow Through Karma Off-Setting: Consumers will actively buy from companies who are good, so they feel that they themselves don’t have to personally undertake social projects, as they have done good by making their purchase with you. Good brands provide a moral alibi for buying.” — Who Cares Wins – The Rise of the Caring Corporation, by David Jones, Global Chief Executive, Havas Worldwide, Creator of the “TckTckTck” campaign and Co-founder of One Young World.

Those born into today’s “young world” are indiscriminately lusted after and seduced by predatory marketing agencies bankrolled by the world’s most powerful corporations and oligarchs, via their foundations. Thus, in stealth synchronicity, the brilliant (albeit pathological) sycophants have created a world where corporate pedophilia runs rampant and indoctrination of youth is perfected and normalized. One cannot deny such a virtuoso performance. Nor can one deny the profound repercussions of such vulturesque exploitation. For adults who willingly offer up their children as sacrificial lambs to appease the corporate gods, denial must be considered the preferred opium of the 21st century.

The name of the game is this: Corporations present themselves as humble and caring elements integral to society with a fierce determination to “do better.” Rather than refusing to comply with ethical environmental and social conduct, which only serves to tarnish brand image, the corporations embrace and welcome all criticisms. This stratagem is made even more effective when CEOs unabashedly take the first opportunity in any given situation to point out the harmful impacts of their industry, articulated with deep concern, followed by a laundry list of all the magnificent things the corporation is looking at for the future that they believe will alleviate environmental degradation and unbridled exploitation.

Cory Morningstar is an independent investigative journalist, writer and environmental activist, focusing on global ecological collapse and political analysis of the non-profit industrial complex. She resides in Canada. Her recent writings can be found on Wrong Kind of Green, The Art of Annihilation, Political Context, Counterpunch, Canadians for Action on Climate Change and Countercurrents. You can follow her on twitter: @elleprovocateur

Endnotes:

[1] The Valdez Principles: In September 1989, the Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies set forth the following ten broad principles for evaluating corporate activities that directly or indirectly affect the biosphere.

1. Protection of the Biosphere

We will minimize and strive to eliminate the release of any pollutant that may cause environmental damage to air, water, or earth or its inhabitants. We will safeguard habitats in rivers, lakes, wetlands, coastal zones and oceans and will minimize contributing to global warming, depletion of the ozone layer, acid rain or smog.

2. Sustainable Use of Natural Resources

We will make sustainable use of renewable resources, such as water, soils and forests. We will conserve nonrenewable natural resources through efficient use and careful planning. We will protect wildlife habitat, open spaces and wilderness, while preserving biodiversity.

3. Reduction and Disposal of Waste

We will minimize the creation of waste, especially hazardous waste, and wherever possible recycle materials. We will dispose of all wastes through safe and responsible methods.

4. Wise Use of Energy

We will make every effort to use environmentally safe and sustainable energy sources to meet our needs. We will invest in improved energy efficiency and conservation in our operations. We will maximize the energy efficiency of products we produce or sell.

5. Risk Reduction

We will minimize the environmental, health and safety risks to our employees and the communities in which we operate by employing safe technologies and operating procedures and by being constantly prepared for emergencies.

6. Marketing of Safe Products and Services

We will sell products or services that minimize adverse environmental impacts and that are safe as consumers commonly use them. We will inform consumers of the environmental impacts of our products or services.

7. Damage Compensation

We will take responsibility for any harm we cause to the environment by making every effort to fully restore the environment and to compensate those persons who are adversely affected.

8. Disclosure

We will disclose to our employees and to the public incidents relating to our operations that cause environmental harm or pose health or safety hazards. We will disclose potential environmental, health or safety hazards posed by our operations, and we will not take any action against employees who report any condition that creates a danger to the environment or poses health and safety hazards.

9. Environmental Directors and Managers

At least one member of the Board of Directors will be a person qualified to represent environmental interests. We will commit management resources to implement these Principles, including the funding of an office of vice president for environmental affairs or an equivalent executive position, reporting directly to the CEO, to monitor and report upon our implementation efforts.

10. Assessment and Annual Audit

We will conduct and make public an annual self-evaluation of our progress in implementing these Principles and in complying with all applicable laws and regulations throughout our worldwide operations. We will work toward the timely creation of independent environmental audit procedures which we will complete annually and make available to the public.

[Source: A New Agenda for Managers, The Challenge of Sustainability]

[2] Ceres Principles:

1. PROTECTION OF THE BIOSPHERE: We will reduce and make continual progress toward eliminating the release of any substance that may cause environmental damage to the air, water, or the earth or its inhabitants. We will safeguard all habitats affected by our operations and will protect open spaces and wilderness, while preserving biodiversity.

2. SUSTAINABLE USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES: We will make sustainable use of renewable natural resources, such as water, soils and forests. We will conserve non-renewable natural resources through efficient use and careful planning.

3. REDUCTION AND DISPOSAL OF WASTES: We will reduce and where possible eliminate waste through source reduction and recycling. All waste will be handled and disposed of through safe and responsible methods.

4. ENERGY CONSERVATION: We will conserve energy and improve the energy efficiency of our internal operations and of the goods and services we sell. We will make every effort to use environmentally safe and sustainable energy sources.

5. RISK REDUCTION: We will strive to minimize the environmental, health and safety risks to our employees and the communities in which we operate through safe technologies, facilities and operating procedures, and by being prepared for emergencies.

6. SAFE PRODUCTS AND SERVICES: We will reduce and where possible eliminate the use, manufacture or sale of products and services that cause environmental damage or health or safety hazards. We will inform our customers of the environmental impacts of our products or services and try to correct unsafe use.

7. ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION: We will promptly and responsibly correct conditions we have caused that endanger health, safety or the environment. To the extent feasible, we will redress injuries we have caused to persons or damage we have caused to the environment and will restore the environment.

8. INFORMING THE PUBLIC: We will inform in a timely manner everyone who may be affected by conditions caused by our company that might endanger health, safety or the environment. We will regularly seek advice and counsel through dialogue with persons in communities near our facilities. We will not take any action against employees for reporting dangerous incidents or conditions to management or to appropriate authorities.

9. MANAGEMENT COMMITMENT: We will implement these Principles and sustain a process that ensures that the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer are fully informed about pertinent environmental issues and are fully responsible for environmental policy. In selecting our Board of Directors, we will consider demonstrated environmental commitment as a factor.

10. AUDITS AND REPORTS: We will support the timely creation of generally accepted environmental audit procedures. We will annually complete the CERES Report, which will be made available to the public.

[3] [Ceres Membership Requirements: All coalition members must be approved by the Ceres Board of Directors. All coalition members pay annual membership dues that are scaled from $50 to $2,000, depending upon the size and type (non-profit, grant making, or investment firm) of the organization. Coalition members are also strongly encouraged to participate in Ceres’ engagement work, including through our multi-stakeholder dialogue processes, investor engagements and other opportunities.] “The primary direct costs of endorsing the CERES Principles are the payment of annual dues and the completion of the annual CERES report form. The dues for a company differ according to the size of the company, but, for a large multinational corporation, are usually in the range of $50,000 dollars a year. The costs associated with dues are not prohibitive considering the size and the budget of the companies.” [Source.]

[4] “Once companies officially join Ceres, they gain access to exclusive benefits, such as a customized stakeholder advisory team that provides advice on sustainability reporting, strategy, policies and specific initiatives.”

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/03/14/350-orgs-friends-on-wall-street/

McKibben: Red, White, Blue and Gold(man Sachs)
by CORY MORNINGSTAR




Email

An investigative report on the global “movement” to divest from fossil fuels. [Read Part 1 and Part 2.]

It is somewhat ironic that while anti-REDD climate activists, organizations (legitimate grassroots groups do exist) and self-proclaimed environmentalists – who consider themselves progressive – speak out against the commodification of nature’s natural resources, they also simultaneously promote the divestment campaign. The irony comes from the fact that the divestment campaign will result (succeed) in a colossal injection of money shifting over to the very portfolios heavily invested, thus dependent upon, the intense commodification and privatization of Earth’s last remaining forests (via REDD), water, etc. (environmental “markets“). This tour de force will be executed with cunning precision under the guise of environmental stewardship and “internalizing negative externalities through appropriate pricing,” Thus, ironically (if in appearances only), the greatest surge in the ultimate corporate capture of Earth’s final remaining resources is being led, and will be accomplished, by the very environmentalists and environmental groups that claim to oppose such corporate domination and capture.

Beyond shelling out billions of (tax-exempt) dollars (i.e., investments) to those most accommodating in the non-profit industrial complex, via foundations, the corporations need not lift a finger; the feat is being carried out by both the legitimate and the faux environmentalists in tandem with an unsuspecting public (a public with almost no comprehension of 1. the magnitude of our ecological crisis, 2. the root causes of the planetary crisis, or 3. the non-profit industrial complex as an instrument of hegemony).

The commodification of the commons will represent the greatest, and most cunning, coup d’état in the history of corporate dominance – a fait accompli extraordinaire of unparalleled scale, with unparalleled repercussions for humanity and all life.

Further, it matters little whether or not the money is moved from direct investments in fossil fuel corporations to so-called “socially responsible investments.” The fact of the matter is, all corporations on the planet (thus, all investments on the planet) do and will continue to require massive amounts of energies (including fossil fuels) to continue to grow and expand ad infinitum – as required by the industrialized capitalist economic system.

The windmills and solar panels serve as the beautiful (marketing) imagery, yet they are somewhat illusory – the veneer for the commodification of the commons that is the fundamental objective of Wall Street, the very advisers of the divestment campaign.

Thus we find ourselves unwilling to acknowledge the necessity to dismantle the industrialized capitalist economic system, choosing instead to embrace an illusion designed by corporate power.

The purpose of this investigative series is to illustrate (indeed, prove) this premise.

***

Poisonous Apples and Agent Oranges

In the explicit plan by the fund portfolio managers to consult with universities to continue investing in the market albeit in “divested” portfolios [Document: Do the Investment Math: Building a Carbon-Free Portfolio], Patrick Geddes, Chief Investment Officer of the Aperio Group, compares apples and oranges, presenting two separate arguments, masquerading as one: 1) Is it worth investing in “environmentally sound” funds from a financial standpoint? and 2) Are “environmentally sound” funds environmentally sound?

In the document, the first question trumps the second. In fact, the paper, in its entirety, is framed in these terms. The fact that there is no such thing as an “environmentally sound fund” is moot. Rather, it’s all about whether a fund makes profit.

The webinar “Do the Investment Math—Building a Carbon-Free Portfolio” explores in detail the risk impact of divesting from a range of carbon-intensive companies, from the Filthy 15 to the Carbon Tracker 200. The panel, moderated by Andrew Behar, CEO of As You Sow, features Geddes (who explores the risk impact of divesting from carbon), and Dan Apfel, Executive Director of the Responsible Endowments Coalition, who highlights the trend of students calling for divestment and college interest in responsible and sustainable investing.

Activist Robert Jereski wrote to Apfel of the Responsible Endowments Coalition and asked what the “clean tech” that Apfel speaks of actually is, in precise terms. Apfel’s response is as follows: “We interpret clean tech broadly so that investors can find solutions, but also work hard with students so that we can make sure schools avoid things that we consider to be false solutions – fracking, clean coal, as well as trying to figure out what is a good way to do other investment in clean tech. We’re also trying to bridge the gap to more local investments that are not always seen as investable.” The interpretation is so broad that they are apparently unable to actually define it.

In both the webinar and the Q&A period, the word “equity” arises over and over again. Yet in this divestment campaign, brought forward by the oligarchs’ appointed “leader” on climate change, the meaning of equity is that of finance, accounting and ownership. The word equity, as in fairness, does not exist in this patriarchal paradigm: white privilege harnessing climate wealth, as the solution to our global accelerating ecological crisis.

McKibben: Red, White, Blue and Gold(man Sachs)

“What can our ‘socially responsible’ investment managers say when they invest in the stocks of banks, like Citibank and JP Morgan-Chase, and government contractors, like IBM and AT&T, who are running critical parts of government as these manipulations occur – including the disappearance of $4 trillion from government bank accounts and the manipulation of the gold markets and inventory in a silent financial coup d’etat?” — Catherine Austin, March 14, 2006

McKibben opens his 2013 Ceres presentation (McKibben was also a Ceres guest speaker in 2007) with some welcome honesty, speaking of his long-standing friendships/relationships with many Wall Street darlings. Prior to co-foundingGeneration Investment Management, David Blood served as the co-CEO and CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management. Prior to this position, Blood served in various positions at Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., including “Head of European Asset Management, Head of International Operations, Technology and Finance, Treasurer of the Goldman Sachs Group, L.P. and Head of Global Private Capital Markets. Mr. Blood was the first recipient of the John L. Weinberg Award in 1990, an award given to a professional in the investment banking division who best typifies Goldman Sachs’ core values.” [Source]

In the same 2013 Ceres presentation, McKibben furthers his irresponsible and negligent lie, basing it on the illusion of staying below a deadly +2ºC within an economic system dependent upon growth and the further allowance of burning fossil fuels. In reality, we’re committed to far past 2ºC today, not including feedbacks, [+2.4ºC, Ramanathan and Feng 2008 paper] and looking at a +6ºC future void of most all life.

“[But] we should accept the fact that we have actually written off some of the southern hemisphere communities as a consequence of sticking to 2 degrees centigrade.” — Kevin Anderson

McKibben proceeds to cite his long-time friend/associate, Bob Massie [1], an integral supporter/promoter of the 350.org divestment campaign.

Global Reporting Initiative

In 1994, Bob Massie won the statewide primary election and became the Democratic candidate for Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts. He served as Executive Director of Ceres from 1996 to 2003, and was on the Ceres Board of Directors from 2001-2009. [Note that in 2003, the organization dropped the CERES acronym and rebranded itself as “Ceres”.] During his tenure as executive director of Ceres, Massie increased the Ceres organization’s size and revenue ten-fold. Massie also “proposed and led the creation of the Investor Network on Climate Risk and the Institutional Investor Summit on Climate Risk, a major gathering of public and private sector financial leaders held every two years at UN Headquarters in New York City. In 1998, in partnership with the United Nations and major U.S. foundations, he co-founded the Global Reporting Initiative with Dr. Allen White of the Tellus Institute, and served as its Chair until 2002.” [Source] [Dr. Allen White is also founder of Global Initiative for Sustainability Ratings (GISR) – a joint project of Ceres and Tellus Institute.]

“‘Working increasingly with the business sector as a partner, we in the UNDP welcome the Global Reporting Initiative as a critical effort to strengthen the practice of monitoring and measuring corporate sustainability.’ —United Nations Development Programme” (in Ceres 2001 Annual Report)

The Global Reporting Initiative website outlines the timeline and key events as follows:

GRI’s inclusive, multi-stakeholder approach was established early, when it was still a department of CERES. In 1998 a multi-stakeholder Steering Committee was established to develop GRI’s guidance. A pivotal mandate of the Steering Committee was to “do more than the environment.” On this advice, the framework’s scope was broadened to include social, economic, and governance issues. GRI’s guidance became a Sustainability Reporting Framework, with Reporting Guidelines at its heart.

The first version of the Guidelines was launched in 2000. The following year, on the advice of the Steering Committee, CERES separated GRI as an independent institution.

The second generation of Guidelines, known as G2, was unveiled in 2002 at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. GRI was referenced in the World Summit’s Plan of Implementation. The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) embraced GRI and invited UN member states to host it. The Netherlands was chosen as host country.

In 2002 GRI was formally inaugurated as a UNEP collaborating organization in the presence of then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, and relocated to Amsterdam as an independent non-profit organization. Ernst Ligteringen was appointed Chief Executive and a member of the Board.

It is of interest to note that the GRI Secretariat is headquartered in Amsterdam, the Netherlands while “Ceres continues to serve as the U.S. advocate for corporate and investor use of the GRI, and Bob Massie from Ceres serves on the GRI board of directors.” [Ceres 2003 Annual Report] The GRI’s Board of Directors [2] met for the first time on April 3, 2002. The directors included, but were not limited to, representatives from Deutsche Bank Group, Royal Dutch/Shell, Bob Massie for Ceres, and American Federation of Labor–Congress of Industrial Organizations.

GRI is financed by its global network; corporate and governmental sponsorships, Organizational Stakeholders, revenue from GRI products and services and its core support and grants from governments, foundations and international organizations including the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Germany’s state-owned Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) and the Australian government. Previous institutional supporters include the European Commission, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, UN Foundation, World Bank, International Finance Cooperation (IFC), John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Ford Foundation, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Spencer T. and Ann W. Olin Foundation, United States Environment Protection Agency, V. Kann Rasmussen Foundation, the Soros Foundation, and governmental bodies from the United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway, Germany, and Australia.

“With South Africa liberated, Massie went on to other things. Lots of other things. He became an ordained Episcopal minister; he was the Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor in his native Massachusetts (in a bad year, up against the Gingrich contract-with-America GOP groundswell). And he took up the global warming fight, bringing his expertise to bear as president of Ceres, a national coalition of environmental and investor groups. He went on to found the Global Reporting Initiative, one of the first attempts to hold businesses accountable for their carbon emissions.” — Bill McKibben, Nov 2012

In the above quote, McKibben states “With South Africa liberated, Massie went on to other things.” McKibben either failed to recognize that the transition was from racist apartheid to economic apartheid or, perhaps, simply viewed/views the transition to the hegemonic nature of neoliberalism as a “success.” [Video source: John Pilger, Apartheid Did Not Die. An analysis of South Africa’s new, democratic regime.] It is also imperative to acknowledge that the “attempt” by Massie (as cited by McKibben above) and others within the non-profit industrial complex with their “first attempts to hold businesses accountable for their carbon emissions” has proven to be an epic fail of unparalleled proportions. Despite relentless rhetoric and marketing of such schemes/collaborations/partnerships as success stories, emissions since the launch of the Ceres (1987) and GRI (2000) guidelines have skyrocketed, having increased over 40%; atmospheric CO2 has been pushed to its highest in 15 million years, at an unprecedented rate; ocean acidification has increased 30% with the oceans being acidified faster than at any time in the past 800,000 years and soon, faster than in the past 300 million years. All the marketing and hype will not make this fact any less so. “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.” Failure is success. George Orwell lives on.

In 2002, Massie was named one of the 100 most influential people in the field of finance by CFO Magazine. In 2008, Massie was awarded the Damyanova Prize for Corporate Social Responsibility by the Institute for Global Leadership at Tufts University, and in 2009 he received the Joan Bavaria [founder of Ceres] Innovation and Impact Awards for Building Sustainability in Capital Markets.

In January 2011, Massie declared his candidacy for the United States Senate and began actively campaigning for the Democratic nomination for that office. McKibben actively supported Massie’s campaign utilizing his brand 350.org. [Fundraiser with Bill McKibben, Founder of 350.org: “Mark your calendars: Thursday, June 2nd, Bill McKibben, a founder of the grassroots organization 350.org, is coming to Massachusetts to speak at a fundraiser for Bob’s campaign for US Senate.”]

In March 2012, Massie became the president of the New Economics Institute.

“Ceres and GRI pursue an innovative approach to corporate responsibility which relies on transparency and reputational incentives as opposed to traditional bureaucratic regulation alone. Initially considered impractical, this approach has proven far more effective and efficient at improving social, environmental and human rights performance than traditional regulatory methods alone. More than two thousand major corporations and institutional investor groups now voluntarily participate in Ceres and GRI corporate disclosure standards.” [Emphasis added] [3]

If the voluntary approach as described above has “proven far more effective and efficient at improving social, environmental and human rights performance than traditional regulatory methods alone,” it is hard to imagine what a failure would look like as we edge ever closer towards the final curtain call on what many scientists refer to as Earth’s sixth extinction or the Holocene Extinction .[4] If Coca-Cola and other like-minded corporate psychopaths receive accolades under the Ceres banner of “[H]uman rights performance” (which they do) as they continue to assassinate union leaders in Latin America, what does Ceres consider to be human rights violations? Ceres, although clearly audacious, also understands the psychology of one pining for and readily accepting what one wishes to hear – regardless of whether the facts state otherwise. Like kittens lapping up a bowl of fresh milk, psychopaths have a tendency to lap up such luxurious lies.

Seduction by Omission

In the divestment lecture by McKibben and Massie titled Divestment and the New Economy, it is relatively easy to understand why activists, well-intentioned students and citizens are easily seduced. Language is everything and both McKibben and Massie are extraordinarily experienced, perhaps even gifted, at using palatable and acceptable terminology. Key words that are recognized by many as false solutions (i.e., “green economy”) are omitted, with terms such as “sustainable enterprises” and “fossil-free portfolios” used and exercised in their place. Yet, what is far more stealthy is the language that is purposely omitted: critical discussion as to how colonialism, imperialism, racism and patriarchy are propelled forward and normalized in our commodity culture, via non-fossil fuel investments. Under the economic system of industrialized capitalism, infinite growth of any investment dependent upon Earth’s natural resources is not, and cannot be made to be, sustainable. This is the elephant in the room that no one dares speak of.

Socially Responsible Investing Options: McDonald’s, ConocoPhillips and Nike

“To assess the ‘personality’ of the corporate ‘person,’ a checklist is employed, using diagnostic criteria of the World Health Organization and the standard diagnostic tool of psychiatrists and psychologists. The operational principles of the corporation give it a highly anti-social ‘personality’: it is self-interested, inherently amoral, callous and deceitful; it breaches social and legal standards to get its way; it does not suffer from guilt, yet it can mimic the human qualities of empathy, caring and altruism. Four case studies, drawn from a universe of corporate activity, clearly demonstrate harm to workers, human health, animals and the biosphere. Concluding this point-by-point analysis, a disturbing diagnosis is delivered: the institutional embodiment of laissez-faire capitalism fully meets the diagnostic criteria of a ‘psychopath.’” —The Corporation,The Pathology of Commerce, Case Histories Divest for our Future, 350.org’s divestment website, recommends “environmentally and socially responsible funds.” [5]

Social responsible investing (SRI) is to serve one purpose: the human purpose. SRI serves/benefits only those with the monetary means to invest – meaning those of privilege. In 2009 Forbes provided a list of the top ten “Socially Responsible Buys.” Number 4 was Energen – a diversified energy company involved in natural gas distribution and oil and gas exploration and production. Number 10 was Apache, which develops and produces natural gas, crude oil and natural gas liquids. In 2013 things don’t look much different when we view the top 25 ranked socially responsible dividend stocks. Number 20 is Consolidated Edison (natural gas). On Feb 4, 2013 Forbes reported Northeast Utilities a top socially responsible dividend stock. Note that on Feb 20, 2014, it was reported that “Northeast Utilities (NU) Opposes Solar to Protect Profits” [Source]. Most SRI funds are heavily invested in one type of fossil fuel or another. Examples are Parnassus Equity Income Fund (approx. 14% of assets are held in oil, natural gas and electric utilities), TIAA-CREF Social Choice Equity Fund (owns shares in dozens of oil and gas corporations including Hess, Marathon and Sunoco, and shale gas corporations, Devon Energy (named the “producer of the year” by Oilsands Magazine) and Range Resources), Calvert Equity Portfolio (approx. 10% of its portfolio comprised of fossil fuels with Suncor one of its largest holdings, which says on its website that it was “the first company to develop the oil sands, creating an industry that is now a key contributor to Canada’s prosperity”) and the Domini Social Equity Fund (among its top 10 holdings is Apache Corp). [Source]

Green Money Journal cited the following as one of five “top socially responsible investing news stories of 2004″ as reported by SocialFunds.com:

“While shareowners have for years withdrawn resolutions when companies comply with their terms, 2004 saw an increasing number of such instances. Energy companies Cinergy (CIN), American Electric Power (AEP), TXU (TXU), and Southern Company (SO) agreed to prepare reports on the risks posed by climate change and company plans to mitigate such risks, and Reliant (REI) agreed to increase climate risk disclosure.”

In light of this top news story of 2004 applauding Southern Company’s corporate responsibility, one might wonder, eight years later, how this lauded corporation has since evolved.

It has evolved the way one would expect any psychopath to evolve:

“To insulate themselves against charges of environmental racism for poisoning poor blacks in Burke County, Southern Companies doesn’t just make wild claims about how many [new] Homer Simpson jobs … its nuclear plants will produce. Southern Companies purchased its very own civil rights organization, the Atlanta-based Southern Christian Leadership Council, originally founded by Dr. Martin Luther King himself. A Southern Companies CEO headed up SCLC’s building fund and raised over $3 million to pay for its new office buildings on Atlanta’s Auburn Avenue.” June 27, 2012, Black On The Old Plantation

Giving up Nothing

“Walden Equity (WSEFX) illustrates the variety among SRI funds. Its holdings include McDonald’s, energy giant ConocoPhillips and Nike, which has had its own labor problems…. Walden, which charges 1.0% per year, has beaten the S&P 500 by 2.8 points a year over the past five years…. So, giving up practically nothing, you can get a warm feeling that your money is serving a useful purpose – even if the fund manager or index composer is deciding what that purpose should be. Not a bad deal.” — 5 Mutual Funds for Socially Responsible Investors, May, 2012

“Responsible But Still Profitable – Investors, however, don’t want to suffer losses on their investments, even if they are socially responsible ones. With that in mind, here are five stocks currently listed on the Dow Jones Sustainability United States Index that have produced positive returns over the past year…. limiting your investment selections to companies listed on an index such as this will likely not create an investment portfolio that perfectly matches all of your political and ethical concerns, but it will ensure that your investment capital goes into companies that are regarded as socially responsible on average compared to most companies.” — 4 Socially Responsible Stocks To Watch, Investopedia,June 26, 2012

Stocks
Image: Investopedia

Most all social fund portfolios claim that the funds will consider a company’s performance with respect to environmental responsibility, labor standards, and human rights. This claim must be acknowledged as nothing but marketing rhetoric given Coca-Cola – one of the top offenders on environment degradation, labor and human rights on the planet – is considered a “socially responsible” investment.

The idea that one can divest from Suncor and Exxon and re-invest it into top ranked socially responsible dividend stock such as Pepsi and McDonald’s, and that this is going to somehow develop a “sustainable” economy that will help tackle climate change, is more than a little hopeful. It’s delusional. Don’t like Pepsi? How about Apple? One need not worry about the modern day slaves in China jumping to their deaths from the sweatshop rooftops, just click over to SumOfUs where you can click a petition “to Apple telling them to make the iPhone 5 ethically.” [SLIDESHOW: 25 Top Ranked Socially Responsible Dividend Stocks, Nov. 22, 2013] All is good for the privileged hyper-consumer in the world of make-believe where “real change” is only a click away.

Make no mistake, one can divest from Exxon and reinvest in Coca-Cola, but infinite growth – a requirement of the industrialized capitalist system – will not and cannot become tamed under a “good” investment or a “bad” one. Nor can the violence and oppression upon the world’s most vulnerable and Earth’s ecosystems, also inherently built into the system.

Under Michael Bluejay’s list of socially responsible stocks, the author writes:

“On the other hand, some say that no large company is completely clean — some are just “less bad” than others. For example, the largest plastics recycler in the world is also the largest producer of virgin plastic. And while producing bicycles is a laudable goal, critics allege that a major bicycle manufacturer uses sweatshop labor to produce its bikes….

“There are still yet other complications: Over the years the small eco/responsible companies I list on this site invariably seem to get bought out by a larger company, or themselves grow bigger and then attract multinational investors, or go out of business. As an example of the second case, natural foods maker Hain Foods merged with tea maker Celestial Seasonings a while back and then continued to swallow up dozens of small natural foods makers around the country, and is now a big enough player that their biggest investor is Wellington Management, whose primary investors include Exxon Mobil, Pfizer, Alcoa, Gillette, Pepsi, McDonald’s, and Wal-Mart! Who would have guessed?”

Does divesting from fossil fuels ensure one does not invest in nuclear? Not necessarily. From the Sustainable & Responsible Mutual Fund Chart, let’s randomly look at just one fund, in this instance, Calvert International Opportunities Fund Y. Under the heading Environment: Climate / Clean Technology we find:

“Restricted/Exclusionary Investment – No investment in companies that own or operate new nuclear power plans, but may invest in companies with existing nuclear power if they are demonstrating leadership in alternative energy.” [Emphasis added.]

Under the heading Social: Human Rights:

“Restricted/Exclusionary Investment: Avoids investing in companies that directly support governments that systematically deny human rights, including those under international and/or US sanction for human rights abuses.” [Emphasis added.]

The irony is grandiose: “Avoids investing in companies that directly support governments that systematically deny human rights.” If this were true, most every U.S. corporation would be “avoided” seeing that the U.S. government has the most appalling history of human rights abuses of all states in the entire world. Never has a single country inflicted so much pain and suffering in almost every corner of the globe.

The Right “Track” for Green Investors

On October 12, 2012 the Guardian featured an article titled How to invest ethically (“As National Ethical Investment Week begins, we look at the latest thinking on green finance and joining the ethical revolution”). Reflecting the fact that water will become exceedingly scarce as planetary tipping points continue to be crossed, perhaps it is of little surprise that the second choice for the opportunistic ethical investor is water. The article states: “Desalination will be a significant investment play for ethical investors, naming GE, Suez and Siemens as potential stock beneficiaries. And most green funds now have a portion of their portfolio dedicated to water stocks, while others, such as Pictet Water, invest only in water.” And what was the number one choice for the ethical investor? Incredibly, it is rail. Rail is highlighted as “[T]he right track for green investors.” The irony is rich – literally. Not only did those behind the creation of the Keystone Pipeline campaign distract the populace long enough for Obama’s financial advisor, Warren Buffett, to build a 21st century North American rail empire, hell, now one can even invest in his rail company BNSF under the guise of ethical investment. Move your money from tar sands investments over to the rail. This way you can watch the oil roll down the tracks, but without holding a direct investment in the oil itself. And the best part is you can feel like you’re saving the world. [From the article: “Shares in railroad companies have soared… In 2009, legendary investor Warren Buffett bought America’s second biggest rail operator, Burlington Northern Santa Fe, in a deal valuing the company at $44bn, while CSX, the third biggest operator, has seen its share price quadruple since 2004.”]

Both Norfolk Southern and CSX rail corporations are listed among the “Top 25 Socially Responsible Dividend Stocks” in a recent ranking by the Dividend Channel (August 21, 2013). Norfolk (“Giving Mother Nature a High Five”) has also beennamed in the “Top 100 Military Friendly Employers list” by G.I. Jobs magazine while CSX (“See how CSX is driven to protect the environment”) is the largest coal transporter east of the Mississippi River. CSX is also prepared for growth in the oil by rail market: “CSX’s recently announced capacity expansion will support crude oil growth to the Northeast. The $26 million investment in 2013 adds passing sidings along our River Line running south from Albany, NY to provide even more train capacity to serve the crude oil market. Overall, CSX is investing $2.3 billion into our network and strategic assets in 2013. Currently, CSX has the ability to handle more than 400,000 barrels of crude per day into the Philadelphia market alone. Additionally, our network is capable of handling the largest capacity tank cars (286,000 gross weight on rail), maximizing your barrels loaded per car. This gives you the ability to ship more crude per train and lowers the per barrel transportation costs.”

The Sri Mutual Fund Industry: A Free-For-All

“Colonization, imperialism, slavery, and virtually all wars are directly attributable to oligarchies trying to achieve the highest return on investment. It is called ‘sacred hunger’ in Barry Unsworth’s prize-winning novel of the same name on the slave trade. How the SRI industry came to believe that it could use avarice to reverse the suffering that greed causes has everything to do with marketing and nothing to do with philosophy.” — Paul Hawken, 2004

“Clearly no large company has changed its fundamental business practices due to SRI retail investing.” — Paul Hawken, 2004

In 2004 Paul Hawken wrote:

“Imagine an organic food trade association any company could join. Members set the standards to suit themselves. Thus, any store or company can label their products ‘organic’ if they choose because there are no rules defining what organics mean. If your company does anything to improve its production methods, no matter how inconsequential, it qualifies for membership and can use the word ‘organic’ on its labels.

The association gives an annual prize to an academic paper, showing that if you eliminate six of the twelve pesticides commonly used on lettuce, you still get as much lettuce as before. Consumers who want to know about the food they buy can’t find out how it is grown or how it is certified. Instead of an independent outside agency, association members hire private for-profit ‘screening’ companies to determine what’s organic. The screening companies compete, each has a different screening method, and none reveal how they define or determine organic. The screening standards allow 90% of all the food produced in the world to be labeled organic. Inside this organization a small group of core producers believe organic should mean ‘no use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers.’ The big food companies are amused by this group’s romanticism and see them as ‘idealists.’

Sound ridiculous? Yes, but this trade association exists. It doesn’t sell food, it sells investments. It is the international socially responsible investing (SRI) mutual fund industry. Like the imaginary trade group, it has no stands, no definitions, and no regulations other than financial regulations. Anyone can join; anyone can call a fund an SRI fund. Over 90% of Fortune 500 companies are included in SRI mutual fund portfolios.”

Hawken’s summary:

1. The cumulative investment portfolio of the combined SRI funds is virtually no different than the combined portfolio of conventional mutual funds.

2. The screening methodologies and exceptions employed by most SRI funds allow practically any publicly-held corporation to be considered as an SRI portfolio company.

3. Fund names and literature can be deceptive, not reflecting the actual investment strategy of the managers.

4. SRI in advertising caters to people’s desires to improve the world by avoiding bad actors in the corporate world, but it can be misleading and oftentimes has little correlation to portfolio holdings.

5. There is a lack of transparency and accountability in screening and portfolio selection.

6. The ability for investors to do market-based comparisons of different funds is difficult if not impossible.

7. There is a strong bias towards companies that aggressively pursue globalization of brands, products and regulations.

8. The environmental screens used by the portfolio managers are loose and do little to help the environment.

9. The language used to describe SRI mutual funds, including the term “SRI” itself, is vague and indiscriminate and leads to misperception and distortion of investor goals.

10. Although shareholder activism is cited as a reason to invest in SRI mutual funds, few SRI mutual funds engage in shareholder advocacy or sponsor activist shareholder resolutions.

Perhaps the single most important and overlooked statement within Hawken’s report was as follows:

”The single most important criterion for a company is whether its products or services should exist at all.”

The report is damning – especially in light of the fact Hawken is an avid supporter/promoter of “natural capitalism.” “In keeping with their longstanding commitment to green capitalism, in 1982 Hawkin’s coauthors Hunter and Amory Lovins founded the green think-tank and consultancy Rocky Mountain Institute, which has worked with all manner of large and small companies including Royal Dutch Shell and Walmart, and with governmental clients such as the Pentagon.” [Source]

Following this report, Hawken went on to found the Highwater Global Fund with Michael Baldwin. Highwater, with Portfolio 21, are considered to be two of the most ethical funds that exist. Yet both funds have holdings in Banco Bradesco – aninvestor in REDD. [“The FAS is an innovative institution, created by the state government of Amazonas and Bradesco Bank, also the maintainer. Among the other organizations that support it are Coca-Cola, Amazon Fund – BNDES, Marriott International, Samsung, and other operational partners.”] [WATCH: Indigenous Peoples Aggressively Targeted by Manipulative NGOs Advancing REDD Agenda]

“[REDD is] a policy that grabs land, clear-cuts forests, destroys biodiversity, abuses Mother Earth, pimps Father Sky and threatens the cultural survival of Indigenous Peoples. This policy privatizes the air we breathe. Commodifies the clouds. Buy and sells the atmosphere. Corrupts the Sacred… It is time to defend Mother Earth and Father Sky. Your future depends on it.” — Tom Goldtooth, Executive Director, Indigenous Environmental NetworkOct 22. 2013

Portfolio 21 also has holdings in gas: “Portfolio 21 Investments will invest in companies involved in the transmission and distribution of natural gas as well as in utilities that utilize natural gas as a fuel source.” [Source]

The top ten equity holdings of Highwater are: Apple; Banco Bradesco; Cisco; EnerNOC; Ford Motors; Hyflux; Natura Cosmetics; Novozymes; SSL International; and Vivo Participacoes (Highwater Global Fund, 2010). Although addressing poverty appears to be a predominant area of interest in Hawken’s extensive CV, those with limited funds need not contactHighwater Global Fund anytime soon. The minimum investment bar creates yet another exclusive venue where only the monetarily rich have access to Highwater’s services, furthering class distinction and division.

It’s not that Highwater or Portfolio 21 are “evil,” rather, it is simply the nature of capitalism. The nature of the beast. Profit comes first.

“Some claim that the SRI label has become a little too elastic. In 2010, a report from ethical financial advisers Barchester Green said many UK funds cannot justify the labels applied to them. It was particularly critical of the Zurich Environmental Opportunities pension fund, whose top holdings – Shell, BP and miner Rio Tinto – resembled ‘an environmental investor’s blacklist.’ Conservative investors might approve of the Ave Maria Catholic Value fund’s screening out of supposed sin stocks, but not be keen that controversial oil companyHalliburton is one of its biggest holdings.” — Ethical wrapper can contain some surprising names, October 22, 2013

From Exxon to BP

It is somewhat ironic that Ceres was launched in 1989 (presented to the public as The Valdez Principles), exploiting the Exxon Valdez spill to build its own brand recognition and value as the corporate watchdog. Jump forward to the April 20, 2010 BP oil spill, which is considered the largest, most catastrophic, accidental marine oil spill in history – surpassing the cataclysmic Exxon oil spill of 1989. How many people know that up until this disaster, BP was a top holding SRI fund. Also not to be forgotten as a top holding SRI investment before its demise in 2004 was none other than Enron – the poster child for corporate malfeasance.

“Regenerative Capitalism”

The December 27, 2012 article (Greenbiz), Why 350.org’s divestment campaign is on the money, is written by Michael Kramer of Natural Investments, another firm of mention in the 350.org divestment documents (Institutional Pathways to Fossil Free Investing).

Kramer (“Regenerative Capitalism“) makes the argument to move fossil fuel divestments to SRI funds. The article ends with Kramer announcing his firm has created a fossil-fuel-free portfolio for investors who can’t bear to invest in fossil fuels. “The time has come to put our money where our values are, and money managers and mutual funds that claim to be sustainable or socially responsible should look very closely at what these words truly mean and reflect upon whether they should use such terminology if they don’t measure up to such a standard.”

Upon further research it was found that the Natural Investments Fossil Fuel Free Portfolio is comprised of ten fixed income and equity funds and that the fund also supports a non-profit organization) (10%). When asked what actual investments comprised the fund, here was the response:

“Thanks for your inquiry. We have identified 10 such funds that meet our financial and broader environmental, social and governance criteria, but it’s certainly possible that there are other fossil fuel free funds that don’t apply such ESG criteria. But given our universe of about 200 sustainable and responsible funds, we’ve indeed found very few that qualify for inclusion. We certainly provide the names of all investments we use to our clients, but not otherwise (though all the responsible funds we consider are listed in the Heart Rating section of our website). As far as the nonprofits we donate to, 350.org is the recipient of a portion of the management fee for the fossil fuel free portfolio, and many other recipients for the rest of our 1%- of- revenues donations are listed here: http://naturalinvesting.com/charitable-contributions. Feel free to be in touch if we can be of further service. Thanks, Michael Kramer, Accredited Investment Fiduciary, Managing Partner, Natural Investments LLC

The transferring of investment funds from fossil fuel investments to SRI investments is not a solution to our unparalleled ecological crisis, with the planet already having crossed a multitude of planetary boundaries. Rather, it is a two-fold distraction with epic consequences. First, it distracts from the very root causes of our ecological/planetary crisis. Second, under this veil, the illusory “green economy,” – the commodification of the planet – is going forward, full throttle, with almost no opposition. This brilliant and diabolical marketing feat employing behaviour change strategies is being carried out by the organizations, firms and NGOs working with and promoting the divestment campaign, while on the surface, 350.org’s “hands” remain clean. SRI fund promoters are not activists. One must never lose sight of the simple fact that their primary duty as a fiduciary is maximum shareholder return.

The SRI industry is not interested in reversing the anguish resulting from colonialism, imperialism, racism, patriarchy, oppression and decimation of environment, as all of this ugliness is inherently built into the system (which then externalizes these costs). The task at hand is the continuance of individualism and greed, normalized into a commodity culture, where all those with monetary means can acquiesce in our collective path to self-destruction. Such a vogue fabrication of, in essence, a kinder, gentler, more compassionate capitalism, is achievable and even preferred in a corporatized society where lies are preferred over truth. Exquisite fabrication, wrapped in opaque vellum, bestowed with a shimmering green bow. It’s not high-gloss marketing over philosophy. High-gloss marketing is the philosophy.

The Mythology of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

Such crafted veneer as the Ceres Principles can be categorized under the similar heading/guise of “Corporate Social Responsibility” (CSR). In the article Corporate Social Responsibility as a Political Resource (February 22, 2010), author Michael Barker writes:

“In June 2003 Gretchen Crosby Sims completed a vitally important Ph.D. at Stanford University titled Rethinking the Political Power of American Business: The Role of Corporate Social Responsibility. Hardly counting herself as a political radical – Sims’s doctorate thesis was supervised by Morris Fiorina, who is presently a senior fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution – the findings of her unpublicized study provide a critical resource for progressive activists seeking to challenge the mythology of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). As the British non-profit organization Corporate Watch states, CSR ‘is not a step towards a more fundamental reform of the corporate structure but a distraction from it.’ Indeed, Corporate Watch advise that: ‘Exposing and rejecting CSR is a step towards addressing corporate power….’

As [Weinstein] demonstrated long ago, corporate elites adopted the principles of ‘cooperation and social responsibility’ to sustain capitalism’s inequalities, not to remedy them. To campaign for Corporate Social Responsibility in this present day is akin to demanding the institutionalization of elite social engineering. Capitalist corporations will never be socially responsible, this fact is plain to see; thus the sooner progressive activists identify their enemy as capitalism, not corporate greed or a lack of good-will, then the sooner they will be able to create an equitable world whose political and economic system is premised on social responsibility, not to corporate elites, but instead to all people.” [Emphasis added]

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/03/28/mckibben-red-white-blue-and-goldman-sachs/

Links to the rest of the series:

http://www.theartofannihilation.com/350-orgs-friends-on-wall-street-the-climate-wealth-opportunists-part-part-iv-of-an-investigative-report/

http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2014/09/04/mckibbens-divestment-tour-brought-to-you-by-wall-street-part-v-a-thinking-persons-nightmare/

http://www.theartofannihilation.com/category/articles-2014/mckibbens-divestment-tour-brought-to-you-by-wall-street-part-v1-a-glimpse-of-truth-in-a-sea-of-liars/

http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2014/12/18/mckibbens-divestment-tour-brought-to-you-by-wall-street-part-vii-the-wolves-of-wall-street/

http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2015/05/01/mckibbens-divestment-tour-brought-to-you-by-wall-street-part-ix-mainstreaming-sustainable-capitalism/

http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2015/08/06/mckibbens-divestment-tour-brought-to-you-by-wall-street-part-x-targeting-millennials-the-30-trillion-dollar-jackpot/

http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2015/08/11/mckibbens-divestment-tour-brought-to-you-by-wall-street-part-xi-2-degrees-of-credendum/

http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2015/09/24/mckibbens-divestment-tour-brought-to-you-by-wall-street-part-xii-building-acquiescence-for-the-commodification-of-the-commons-under-the-banner-of-a-new-economy/

Clean, Green, Class War: Bill McKibben’s Shortsighted ‘War on Climate Change’
by ELLIOT SPERBER


Email

Across the USA, people from all types of backgrounds marinate for hours each day in the glow of nationalistic and militaristic news reports and entertainment. From the reverence directed toward its historical wars, to the imaginary wars featured in the entertainment industry, to the virtual wars of drone strikes (which blend politics and entertainment into ideological indistinction), glorification of war is ubiquitous. But though it may be amplified by the pervasiveness and invasiveness of social media, this philopolemia is hardly new. Love of war even presents itself in the demonym used by the people of the USA – by identifying only people from the US (as opposed to Mexicans, Brazilians, Canadians, and other inhabitants of the Americas) as Americans, the designation symbolically claims, and subordinates (i.e., conquers) the entirety of the Americas to US supremacy (a symbolism that, at least since the Monroe Doctrine, has concrete foreign policy analogues as well).

This is hardly, however, the extent of it. Even those who claim to abhor war still recognize war (and, by extension, force) as both admirable and authoritative. Why else does war function as such a prevalent metaphor for serious commitments? That is, in addition to literal, historical, military wars, one finds the term employed figuratively in such policy campaigns as the war on poverty, the war on cancer, the war on drugs, and the war on terror. Ostensibly no stranger to this sensibility, the famed environmental activist and academic Bill McKibben recently added the latest contribution to this bevy of wars: a war on climate change.

While the severity of the catastrophes attending climate change are difficult to overstate, and are no doubt already bombarding us, “the war on climate change” that Bill McKibben proposes does not, however, amount to much more than a proposal to reform (and continue) an other, far less openly discussed, war – i.e., class war. This becomes clear as soon as McKibben identifies his war on climate change’s enemy as the fossil fuel industry – rather than the political economic system designed to exact, extract, and exploit resources (and to reinvest its gains into exacting, extracting, and exploiting more resources, ad mortem). Abetted by the military (the largest polluter on the planet), the laws, rules and institutions governing this society (rather than the fossil fuel industry alone) compel people the world over to perpetrate unprecedented levels of violence against rain forests, rivers, oceans, and human and non-human animals alike, just to survive. To characterize the fossil fuel industry, which merely fuels these ravages, as the primary enemy, and to argue that it should be replaced by a clean, green energy sector, is deeply problematic.

Like a cleric atop the deck of a fog-enshrouded ship, McKibben peers back into the 20th century and announces that he’s spotted the future. Ostensibly committed to peace, he argues for the order of war. And yet, despite these shortcomings, one can empathize to some degree with McKibben’s argument. Irrespective of his conflation of cause and effect, one can agree that, yes, we are being bombarded, drowned, and routed by super hurricanes, tornadoes, fires, floods, droughts, etc., and we need a radical shift in policy. The urgency of the situation beseeches us to overlook his nationalistic argument that “America” should be “the world’s dominant power in clean energy.” However, upon closer scrutiny, his suggestions seem stilted. And his argument for a massive project to produce billions of solar panels and wind turbines sounds as though his interest in fighting climate change is limited to considerations of marketability.Citing multiple examples from the United States’ WWII war effort, industrial mobilization provides several precedents for McKibben’s argument for a 21st century “full-scale climate mobilization.” Drawing analogies to the industrial-scale production of bombers and other weapons that built up the US military, McKibben’s repeated references to “World War II-type national mobilization,” “industrial mobilization,” “global mobilization,” “the mobilization effort,” and “a wider mobilization,” leads one to question whether the idea of producing technologies that will supply current levels of energy consumption are in any way flawed (as though we really need to prioritize producing mountains of disposable plastic cups, bottles, and other toxic garbage while driving non-stop in the “millions and millions of electric cars” McKibben envisions, despite “the fundamental law of road congestion“). Wouldn’t it be easier, and mitigate climate change even more effectively, to just produce less? But that would harm economic output, which McKibben doesn’t seem to question. Repeatedly invoking the precedent of World War II, McKibben argues that, just like then, we can build “a hell of a lot of factories” that will create “an awful lot of jobs” constructing solar panels and wind turbines, never examining why we need to create such high energy output, or so many things, in the first place.

Considering just how urgent mitigating climate change is, it seems positively odd that McKibben fails to consider far more direct modes of doing so (such as restricting plastic production to essential – e.g., medical – use only). To be sure, while “mobilization” may be appropriate in certain circumstances, what is arguably just as important in tackling climate change (if not more important) is de-mobilization (and rest). And though McKibben may not be familiar with them, just as World War II provides examples of rapid industrial production, World War II also provides pertinent examples of how people learned to live without certain things.

Perhaps most relevant to the issue of climate change and rationing, commodities such as nylon, oil, and meat were rationed during World War II. And since by some measures meat production is responsible for even more greenhouse gas than fossil fuels, rationing (or, better yet, banning the commercial production of meat altogether) would reduce greenhouse gases far more rapidly than McKibben’s building plan. Beyond the ethical imperative to not torture animals, curtailing meat production would not only eliminate the production of greenhouse gases; it would allow the rain forests and other ecosystems destroyed in the creation of pasture and feed for livestock to regenerate, simultaneously halting CO2 and methane proliferation and absorbing it. And it’s a hardly incidental benefit that the tons of water used to raise and process meat could be used to ameliorate climate change-exacerbated drought the world over.

Furthermore, though it’s less well-known than either CO2 or the notoriously potent greenhouse gas methane, water vapor is also a tremendously important greenhouse gas, one with a powerful feedback loop that amplifies global warming. That is, as the climate heats up and ice melts, and soil dries out, and water evaporates (spreading deserts and extending droughts), more and more vapor enters the atmosphere, heating the planet further still – melting more ice, producing more vapor, ad infinitum. The one trillion tons of ice that disappeared from the Greenland ice sheet between 2011 and 2014, for example, didn’t simply vanish; they transmogrified into hundreds of trillions of gallons of liquid water and water vapor that, by further heating the planet, has added to the power – as well as to the mass – of hurricanes, typhoons, storms, floods, and other extreme weather events. And this is only accelerating. But while this vapor heats the planet and, when concentrated, creates catastrophic floods, this vapor can also be absorbed by, and stored in, marine and terrestrial plants.

In addition to the fact that plants convert CO2 into oxygen, because plants absorb and store water, conserving and restoring plant life is arguably just as crucial as building excessive energy capacity. And because forests and other ecosystems regenerate independently, when they’re simply left alone, this requires far less work than building all those solar panels and wind turbines (in factories that, by the way, would likely result in clearing land of a considerable deal of plant coverage). Restoring ecosystems and conserving vegetation doesn’t need to be limited to non-urban areas, though. In addition to decontaminating them (when necessary) and leaving forests alone to regenerate, plants just as easily flourish in cities. Beyond building ‘green roofs’ and street level gardens (akin to the World War II-era “victory gardens” that supplied 40% of people’s vegetables, as McKibben reminds us), much of the space devoted to cars (streets, freeways, gas stations, parking lots, etc.) could be dedicated to the growth of trees and vegetation. By absorbing both CO2 and water vapor, trees and urban gardens, not to mention spontaneously growing plants, would cool cities, improve air quality, and make cities more livable, all while mitigating global warming and providing food. Because they require space that could be used to grow plants, a serious commitment to mitigating climate change should also ration, or ban altogether, the toxic private car – at least from urban areas. If during World War II the use of public transportation increased by close to 90%, as McKibben notes, there’s no reason why this can’t be replicated today, improving the wellbeing of the climate, as well as that of human and non-human animals.

Rather than the “industrial mobilization” McKibben advocates, then, in many respects demobilization could be at least as effective at mitigating climate change, and could be implemented far more rapidly. When methane-producing, ecosystem-killing dams are dismantled, for instance, entire ecosystems can quickly and spontaneously recover. And, as it’s part of World War II history, McKibben may appreciate the fact that, in the decades leading up to the war commercial fishing in the North Sea led to the virtual extinction of fish. But, because of a commercial fishing moratorium (imposed by the threat of German submarines, and other martial maritime dangers), by the end of the war the ecosystem had regenerated itself. Following this precedent, moratoria should be imposed immediately on the commercial fishing industries presently devastating the oceans (wiping out entire species of coral, fish, and mammals, not to mention gigatons of carbon-storing, oxygen-producing phytoplankton).

Of course, rationing and imposing moratoria on ecocidal practices such as commercial fishing, logging, and the production of toxic materials, such as plastics, would slow economic production substantially; but if our priority is effectively mitigating climate change’s harms, as opposed to making money, slowing economic production is crucial. Moreover, rather than exacerbating existing poverty, the phasing out of ecocidal industries, such as the fast food industry, could lead to the elimination of poverty; we simply need to produce necessities, such as food, housing, healthcare, and transportation, for their own sake, rather than in exchange for money. Among other benefits, this would eliminate the conflicts of interest that result in such absurdities as food producers refusing to grow, and willfully destroying, tremendous amounts of food each year in order to keep up prices, and market forces driving vulnerable populations from necessary housing in order to develop luxury housing for people who already have more than enough.

Unfortunately, McKibben’s “war on climate change” only indirectly addresses these structural inequities. Although it might alleviate unemployment, “help ease income inequality,” and clean up the environment to some degree, simply replacing the toxic fossil fuel industry with a clean, green energy sector would do little to correct deeper, systemic problems – such as poverty, slums, our hypertrophic prison system, militarism, and other injustices emanating from our exploitative political economy (one that could be maintained by green cops, and by green armies, just as easily as by their fossil fuel counterparts).

All of this leads to a serious consideration. Instead of regarding the inability to act on climate change as a result of inertia or incompetence, perhaps we should begin to regard it as willful. After all, who now sincerely doubts that pollution and greenhouse gases create the conditions that produce the ecological calamities that largely harm the poor? And how can we overlook the related fact that the owners of the world have a substantial incentive in ridding the planet of the billions of people whose existence alone threatens their property and privileges? Indeed, allowing climate change to kill the poor would not only be more convenient than policing, fighting, locking out and locking up billions; by claiming that it’s inevitable, the owners of the world can watch the ecological holocaust unfold with a relatively good conscience. When one considers this, along with the fact that the affluent classes dictate social policy as well as the regulation of the pollutants responsible for the climate calamities bombarding the (mostly) poor, we may begin to see that the failure to halt the proliferation of notoriously toxic gases is comparable to a type of passive chemical warfare. Isn’t that what it amounts to? And, relevantly, there is a World War II precedent for just this type of inaction as well. While the Red Army was losing millions in their march toward Berlin, the US intentionally delayed invading Europe in order to allow the Nazis to further weaken the USSR, which the US, Britain, and others regarded as a threat to their property (and the rule of money) ever since the October Revolution.

Although there is no evidence to suggest that climate inaction amounts to a willful omission designed to cull the world’s poor, it is nevertheless difficult to deny that action is being both stymied and ignored. Obama, for instance, who promised in 2008 to vigorously tackle climate change, has done much of nothing. And though some may argue that, whatever his shortcomings, McKibben should at least be commended for arguing for action, this argument is undermined by McKibben’s approach which, at best, amounts to a plea for reform (and, at worst, comes off as a pitch for a business opportunity).

Rather than McKibben’s “war on climate change,” adequately mitigating the harms associated with climate change (which are inseparable from poverty and exploitation) requires an entirely new, emancipatory political economy, one that produces necessities for human flourishing for their own sake, rather than for exchange. Instead of producing new machines, what’s more crucial is that we turn the existing ones – such as the war machine – off. And though McKibben is correct in pointing out that climate change involves war, he grievously misidentifies the enemy. Climate change is not the enemy; it’s merely one of the many harmful effects of our biophagous political economic system. This is what needs to be eliminated. But such a transformation requires something greater than war. It requires peace.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/22/clean-green-class-war-bill-mckibbens-shortsighted-war-on-climate-change/

Kinda wears out the metaphor but mostly right. To be sure we need peace but we'll not have that without revolution.

WHEN SILENCE KILLS | THE ART OF ANNIHILATION

Nov 08, 2010
Published November 8, 2010 | Huntington News: http://bit.ly/d0OEOd

As we stand on the edge of apocalypse, we must wake up and acknowledge that what the big greens are not saying is far more important than what they are saying.

From the Non-Profit Industrial Complex with Love. Excerpts from a controversial new book to be released 2010-2011. This article – When Silence Kills | The Art of Annihilation –is thethird in a series in which we continue to discuss the connection between environmental campaigns and their corporate sponsors.

When Silence Kills | The Art of Annihilation

By Cory Morningstar

“The evidence that large-scale climate change is unavoidable has now become so strong that healthy illusion is becoming unhealthy delusion. Hoping that a major disruption to the Earth’s climate can be avoided is a delusion. Optimism sustained against the facts, including unfounded beliefs in the power of consumer action or in technological rescue, risks turning hopes into fantasies. Sooner or later the constant striving to control events must come up against reality. How long will it be before well-meaning people who have accepted the message of green consumerism – that we can all make a difference by changing our personal behavior – begin to say to themselves, ‘I have been doing the right things for years, but the news about global warming just keeps getting worse?’ Clinging to hopefulness becomes a means of forestalling the truth.” – Clive Hamilton, Requiem for a Species

Criminal Negligence

What defines criminal negligence? In Canada, the criminal code states that lack of intent to harm is no defence if the damage results from conscious acts performed in careless disregard for others: “Everyone is criminally negligent who (a) in doing anything, or (b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons” (where “duty” means a duty imposed by law). Significantly, Section 222(5)(b) states that “a person commits homicide when, directly or indirectly, by any means, he causes the death of a human being, by being negligent.”

In the United States, the definition of criminal negligence is even more compelling: “Crimes Committed Negligently (Article 33.1) A crime shall be deemed to be committed with clear intent, if the man or woman was conscious of the social danger of his actions (inaction), foresaw the possibility or the inevitability of the onset of socially dangerous consequences, and willed such consequences to ensue.” “A crime shall be deemed to be committed with indirect intent, if the man or woman realized the social danger of his actions (inaction), foresaw the possibility of the onset of socially dangerous consequences, did not wish, but consciously allowed these consequences or treated them with indifference.” “A Crime Committed by Negligence (Article 33.1): A criminal deed committed thoughtlessly or due to negligence shall be recognized as a crime committed by negligence.” “A crime shall be deemed to be committed thoughtlessly, if the man or woman has foreseen the possibility of the onset of socially dangerous consequences of his actions (inaction), but expected without valid reasons that these consequences would be prevented.” “A crime shall be deemed to be committed due to negligence if the man or woman has not foreseen the possibility of the onset of socially dangerous consequences of his actions (inaction), although he or she could and should have foreseen these consequences with reasonable.”

A Moral Minefield – RINGOS

Why is it that well informed international environmental NGOs who claim to represent the best interests of civil society are not accusing the climate skeptics, the big investment banks and the fossil fuel energy corporations of high crimes against humanity? Is it because they fear that their funding from wealthy friends such as the Rockefellers will decline?

Judith Rodin, President of the Rockefeller Foundation, spoke March 19, 2010 at Innovative Philanthropy for the 21st Century: Harnessing the Power of Impact Investing: “In this second phase of philanthropic innovation, our Rockefeller Foundation predecessors helped establish the non-governmental organization sector as the ‘missing middle’ between giving and direct impact. This included support for entities – we call them RINGOS, Rockefeller Foundation Initiated NGOs.”

The concept of philanthropy was first embraced in the days of 19th century American robber barons. As the monetary wealth of these robber barons grew to astronomical levels, so did the anger of the working classes. Philanthropy was the answer to this problem, resulting in the end of public hostility and the acceptance of obscene individual wealth. And how we have evolved. Today, the CEOs of the top ten green groups in the U.S. rake in from $308,000 to $496,000 per year. (Remember that the next time they call you for a donation, needed to push corporate hand-out suicide pacts, passed off as “win-win” legislation.)

Meanwhile, the Global Humanitarian Forum reported in 2009 that every year, climate change leaves over 300,000 people dead and exacts economic losses of US$125 billion. Four billion people are vulnerable, and 500 million people are at extreme risk. An estimated 325 million people are seriously affected by climate change every year. This estimate is derived by attributing a 40 percent proportion of the increase in the number of weather-related disasters from 1980 to current climate change and a 4 percent proportion of the total seriously affected by environmental degradation based on negative health outcomes.

Sandy Gauntlett, Oceania focal point for the Global Forest Coalition, is amazed that no one has yet charged large corporations with negligent homicide as a result of their actions in deforestation. Gauntlett states: “When we look at the amount of climate gases resulting from deforestation alone, we see enough emissions created by some countries to account for the level of unprecedented climate catastrophes occurring around the planet.” He adds: “Even worse than the actions of the corporate criminals responsible for the rise in climate emissions, at least morally, are the actions of some of the large environmental NGOs. These NGOs, who made their names and reputations as defenders of the victims of environmental abuse, now seem to be courting the corporate lobby in the belief that within these actions lies the solution to all of the problems of the world created by the corporate lobby. These are the people to whom we have given our voices, our monies and our mandate. To think that they are prepared to even consider working with the creators of this devastation is like being stabbed in the back by an old friend.”

Gauntlett continues: “Even more so we, as Pacific Indigenous Peoples, ask that when they call for your donation, you remember the small island states who, 10 years ago, asked for urgent action by the rest of the world, pointing out that their (the industrialized world’s) growth was resulting in coral bleaching, flooding, and salination of the fresh water supplies without which the islands face a grim and very uncertain future. Several years ago, when French nuclear testing in the Pacific seemed at least partially responsible for contamination and health problems on small Pacific atolls, the Rainbow Warrior sailed out and relocated people from the most threatened islands. The world cheered these environmental heroes and all of us gave monies, time and energy to support Greenpeace and other organizations who were daring to take on the might of the developed world in defense of the small islands. So impactful was the campaign by Greenpeace at the time that the French Government sent saboteurs and spies into the harbour of a political ally to sink the flagship of the organization. A photographer paid for denying the French with his life. The scuttled ship was towed to Matauri Bay at the beaches of local Maori and sunk there as a permanent memorial to those horrible days. It is an incident I remember well as I had been on the ship only the day before. I later went on to work at Greenpeace as a fundraiser and believed passionately in their mission statement and campaigns.”

Gauntlett’s final words on this subject demonstrate a growing sentiment across the globe: “Amazingly, times change and the once proud and anti-market campaigners of Greenpeace seem to (like myself really) have grown old and tired of banging heads against brick walls, and with regret, I have decided to never again give money to or support Greenpeace while I am uncertain of the level of cooperation between them and the industrial lobby. After more than 30 years of environmental action and support, it is time that I took back my mandate and gave it instead to organisations that I trust with the same amount of certainty I once did with Greenpeace. They are certainly not alone and probably far from being the worst, but this is the country where the Rainbow Warrior lies as a memorial to defiance.”

The Ethics Resource Center’s 2007 National Nonprofit Ethics Survey reports troubling observations. The report states that conduct that violates the law or an organization’s standards is on the rise, and nonprofit violations have reached levels comparable to business and government. It observes that financial fraud is higher in nonprofit organizations than it is in business or government and furthermore, the boards, while critical in shaping the perceptions of employees with regard to ethics, are not setting clear ethics standards for their organizations. Where boards have heavy influence, we also see high levels of misconduct. In conclusion they state: “The recent erosion of ethical behavior in this sector is very troubling, and the trend cannot be allowed to continue.”

Runaway Climate Change

Leading climate expert James Hansen (among many other scientists from several disciplines) believes that methane clathrates (or hydrates) played a crucial role in the largest mass extinction, the “end-Permian” event 251 million years ago, in which more than 90 percent of terrestrial and marine species were exterminated. Methane clathrate is frozen methane gas that lies on ocean floor sediment off the continental coasts of our planet. Since 1992 it has been recognized that the shallow Arctic methane clathrates would be subject to melting by global warming, releasing methane gas into the atmosphere (U.S. Geological Survey Marine and Coastal Geology Program, Gas (Methane) Hydrates – A New Frontier, September 1992).

The end-Permian event was accompanied by a temperature rise of as little as 6ºC. Life took 50 million years to recover the diversity that had existed prior to the mass extinction. It is considered that methane clathrates may also have played a role in other mass extinctions, such as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), which occurred 55 million years ago. Hansen warns that humanity is putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere today at a rate that is 10,000 times higher than the rate during the PETM.

In Hansen’s recent book, according to the penultimate chapter, The Venus Syndrome, it might be even worse. Hansen posits a possible future Earth in which a “runaway greenhouse effect” takes over: anthropogenic global warming from greenhouse gases causes a massive increase of water vapor into the atmosphere as the heated oceans evaporate, which in turn causes further warming. Today, the Arctic methane clathrate deposits are destabilizing, and if not re-stabilized will release vast amounts of methane into the atmosphere and add more acid to our oceans. The oceans will then become more acidified by dissolution of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This scenario would end all life on Earth. Today, the rate of ocean acidification exceeds anything witnessed in the past 65 million years.

Tragically, the Arctic summer sea ice has now passed its tipping point to melt down – the Arctic has finally shifted to a new climate pattern in which “normal” has become obsolete (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 21 October 2010). A recent study (funded by the National Science Foundation, the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council in Canada, the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research, and the European Research Council) shows that even though during the Pliocene Epoch (2.6 to 5.3 million years ago) it was about 34 degrees Fahrenheit, or 19 degrees Celsius, warmer than today, CO2 levels were only slightly higher than present. According to another study by David Lawrence, this means that the rate of permafrost thaw will likely triple. No Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPPC) climate model currently incorporates the amplifying feedback from methane released by a defrosting tundra. Leading scientist Shakhova and colleagues estimate that roughly eight million tons of methane are now leaking into the atmosphere each year from the East Siberia Sea. As previously stated, studies suggest that the destabilization of methane clathrates likely triggered the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum that saw global temperatures rise by around 6°C (over 20,000 years as opposed to what we are experiencing / causing over 200 years) with a corresponding rise in sea level as the whole of the oceans warmed. The rate of carbon addition at that time almost equals the rate at which carbon is being released into the atmosphere today.

“My view is that the climate has already crossed at least one tipping point, about 1975-1976, and is now at a runaway state, implying that only emergency measures have a chance of making a difference…” “The costs of all of the above would require diversion of the trillions of dollars from global military expenditures to environmental mitigation.” – Andrew Glikson, Earth/Paleo-climate scientist

Drinking the Kool-Aid



The model-based projections of the rate of future global warming take no account of the loss of the Arctic summer ice, nor of the methane emissions from thawing permafrost, nor of the methane emissions from the melting Arctic gas hydrates. It has been well known for a long time that these are by far the greatest dangers, all unavoidable with enough warming. To date, the world has agreed to being led (to the gallows) by the climate modellers. Yet, the models have already been proved to be sensationally wrong. Modellers are not climate experts, nor in life sciences, nor ecologists – the climate science leaders are complex math/computer modellers. The reliance on models has given the governments and compromised NGOs an excuse to do nothing.

As it is, the IPCC relies on models that exclude approximately half of the adverse climate change impacts on food crop production (two examples being heat waves and floods). Even so, the IPCCstates that the absolute limit for agriculture is a 3ºC global average warming (from pre-1900). Beyond a 3ºC temperature increase, we had best consider that agriculture would enter into an irreversible decline headed to collapse in all regions of the world, even when we use the dangerously incomplete models that attempt to give us a sense of what is coming down the pipe.

What do the big greens have to tell us about the alarming changes to our food crop production now being witnessed? Nothing. The big greens have been deadly silent. They continue to ignore the risks and the projections of global warming and climate disruption on our food security. We have to expect disastrous impacts on northern hemisphere agriculture resulting from the loss of the summer sea ice in the Arctic. If the Arctic summer sea ice is already in irreversible melt down, as many scientists now believe, the food security situation of the northern hemisphere is no better, and perhaps even worse, than that of the southern hemisphere.

Meanwhile in Canada, the Harper regime government has the propaganda machine working overtime, selling the lie of “Climate Prosperity” to Canadian citizens while planning to slip 16 billion of our tax dollars to his friends at Lockheed Martin for F-35 stealth fighter jets. Compare this to the four-year, $1.43-billion ecoEnergy program, introduced in 2007, which provided money to corporations for the development of false solutions passed off as new clean-energy technology. This program expires in 2011. The new budget (2010) offers a token $25 million for the next four years. Military budgets have steadily increased from $15 billion in 2005-2006, to $18 billion in 2008-2009, and this year $20.6 billion – representing one-fifth of the total government direct program spending on an annual basis. The 2010 budget is 56% higher than the 1998-99 budget. But why spend money on clean, safe renewable energies that will save lives when you can spend money that results in the extermination of men, women and children in the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq? And why do anything to protect citizens from catastrophic climate change when you can unveil an outrageous greenwash campaign instead? For the Conservative government led by Stephen Bush Harper, this massive Suncor-sponsored campaign to reframe dangerous climate change as something positive for Canada’s economy and our children is just another example of the dangerous denialism that has slowly and effectively saturated the most critical issue of our time.

Denialism has proven to be almost as effective as Jonestown Kool-Aid. For many years, Western democracy has been considered and designed as governance by a process of negotiation and compromise between three partners: 1) governments 2) corporations, and 3) civil society (with the big greens at the forefront). In the case of our Earth, her inhabitants and climate, we must consider this nothing less than a three-way silent truce for global catastrophe.

“The truth, indeed, is something that mankind, for some mysterious reason, instinctively dislikes. Every man who tries to tell it is unpopular, and even when, by the sheer strength of his case, he prevails, he is put down as a scoundrel.” – H. L. Mencken,Chicago Tribune, 23 May 1926

Soma and the Big Greens | A Love Story



“The service had begun. The dedicated soma tablets were placed in the centre of the table. The loving cup of strawberry ice-cream somawas passed from hand to hand and, with the formula, ‘I drink to my annihilation,’ twelve times quaffed.” – Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World

In Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, the soma routine was not a private addiction; it was nothing less than a political institution. Soma was the very essence of life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness – all of which were guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. However, this most valued of the slaves’ subjects’ absolute privileges was, at the same time, by far the most powerful instrument of rule in the dictator’s arsenal. The systematic drugging of citizens for the benefit of the state (and incidentally, of course, for their own pleasure and amusement) was a main vice in the policy of the world controllers. Soma was invaluable. The daily soma ration was nothing less than insurance against personal maladjustment, social unrest and the spread of subversive ideas. [www.huxley.net] Sound familiar?

Where is the line that distinguishes the bystander from the perpetrator when atrocity becomes both systemic and political? Passive messaging and symbolic campaigns creatively and successfully do nothing less than deny the existence of universal truth and scientific knowledge. Such brilliant tactics effectively and subtly refute the crisis, thus enabling further denial discourse and behavior. If we do not challenge and successfully eradicate what has evolved into the universalizing of symbolism and hegemonic ideology of the big greens, indeed, we will be crushed by them. The evidence is upon us that climate change is now incontrovertible, as is the realization that this is by far the greatest catastrophe to ever confront our species.

One Sky – But Many Puppets

Truth and Deception

“We were warned repeatedly by highly paid consultants and well-funded studies that discussion of global warming or the climate crisis was unproductive. But we reject the either/or dichotomy, and maintain, as our founding 1Sky principles above suggest, that we must be clear about the planetary emergency we are facing….” – 1Sky Board of Directors (Jessica Bailey, KC Golden, Bracken Hendricks, Bill McKibben, Billy Parish, Vicky Rateau, Gus Speth and Betsy Taylor), 6 August 2010

The above is a key statement that supports the (non)meaning behind what climate justice activists have come to call “the big greens.” Organizations whose CEOs live fat cat lifestyles thanks to exorbitant paychecks that exceed those of state senators. The faux climate movement no longer reflects the reality we must all face – now or never. This is it. Pollyanna’s cheerleading days have officially expired and it is time to send her and her fellow cheerleaders packing. On August 6, 2010 the big greens state that we must be clear about the planetary emergency we are facing, yet, immediately following this statement, they call upon citizens to celebrate and participate in a day of actions that had nothing to do with solving a planetary emergency and everything to do with perpetuating a meaningless brand.

McKibben and friends are planting daffodils in the shape of 3-5-0 as the planet advances in a crisis of such magnitude that our children will most likely not survive it. Not so surprising considering in Cochabamba Kelly Blynn, 350.org co-founder, explicitly stated that they (350.org) would NEVER change their brand (by endorsing/reflecting the 300 ppm as per the People’s Agreement) as 350 was “the most powerful brand in the world.” Her words – as spoken in Cochabamba in April 2010. McKibben now refers to the number 350 as “iconic.” They have come to believe their own hype. Pass the soma please….

We can acknowledge that 350.org has been most successful in creating global awareness in regards to the number 350 – that being the uppermost amount in parts per million of atmospheric carbon that humanity must target. However, the reality is that we are at 390 today and only accelerating. Is this considered dangerous climate interference as defined by the IPCC? The answer is yes. Did NASA’s James Hansen call upon civil society to declare a planetary emergency in 2008? The answer is yes. Yet McKibben and friends speak of neither. Hansen’s dire plea is ignored. Dead silence. Epic fail. Most critical, why do McKibben and friends not educate on the necessary emissions reductions we must achieve if we are ever to get back to 350? It has been known by scientists for years that only zero CO2 emissions can make atmospheric CO2 drop. Nothing less. Could it therefore be considered nothing less than criminal negligence for McKibben, 350.org and friends to tell us that we are on the road to hell but refuse to give directions to the only way to get off that road (a freshly paved one of eco-asphalt lined with happy daffodils and shiny new electric cars, no less)? The map to safety is M.I.A.

“No one on the corner has swag like us? – Hit me on my banner prepaid wireless? – We pack and deliver like UPS trucks? – Already in hell just pumping that gas – ??All I wanna do is (BANG BANG BANG BANG!)? – And (KKKAAAA CHING!) – ?And take your money” – Paper Planes, by M.I.A.

Message to Pollyanna – this is Cassandra. Please go away before you kill us all. We don’t want to go down on your sinking ship.



The big greens understand the global implications of runaway climate change – the implications being the elimination of humanity and all evolutionarily advanced life. They recognize the current major calamities all over the globe. Yet, they continue to deny out loud to the public the critical state of the atmosphere, confirmed by the world’s leading research organizations; NASA, NSCDC, Potsdam, Tyndall, Hadley-Met, CSIRO, BOM, the world’s academies of science and others. By depriving the public of the gravity of this emergency, big greens effectively ensure that humanity remains ineffective in the imperative, urgent task of implementing changes in our social and economic spheres – at a speed and magnitude of such force, the world has yet to ever witness an effort of such scale.

“We are unleashing hell on Australia.” – Prof. Neville Nicholls, world expert and lead author for the IPCC, Monash University

“… many, many scientists now … are frantically, hysterically worried.” – Professor Ann Henderson-Sellers, former head of the UN’s World Climate Research Program, now at Macquarie University

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, told the Oxford 4 Degrees and Beyond Conference that “Political reality must be grounded in physical reality or it’s completely useless.” Schellnhuber briefed U.S. officials from the Barack Obama administration who chided him that his findings were “not grounded in political reality” and that “the [U.S.] Senate will never agree to this.” Schellnhuber told them that the U.S. must reduce its emissions from its current 20 tonnes of carbon per person average to zero tonnes per person by 2020 to have even a chance of stabilizing the temperature increase at around 2ºC.

Could it be that 350.org does not campaign on the imperative of zero because 350 ppm, in fact, demands a zero fossil fuel economy at breakneck speed? This is a vital observation being that the money “donated” by such foundations as the Rockefeller Brothers Fund is only possible because of an explosive oil economy that continues to break record profits in the billions.

Did any of the big greens ever message the critical Potsdam Institute information to their supporters? (TckTckTck, for example, claims to have over 17 million members.) Of course not – informing U.S. citizens of the reality that they must achieve zero emissions by 2020 to avoid catastrophic 2ºC could result in: 1) negative impact on the economy, and/or 2) negative impact on NGO funding, and/or 3) negative impact on the brand.

Dangerous Messaging



The dangerous symbolic messaging that the big greens churn out has done far more damage than good. Such passive messaging, in which they excel, ensures that society remains indoctrinated under the illusion of happiness only made possible by consumer capitalism. This indoctrination has been suicidal. Literally. What is even uglier is that it seems McKibben and friends have accepted, therefore believe, their marketing strategists’s advice that there is no other way to reach their audience – other than to appeal to their selfish identity. Do they believe that their supporters (Americans being their primary target) are so shallow that the only way to entice change is to market campaigns and messaging that will lure citizens by feeding into the most negative characteristics of the human species – those of selfishness, greed and apathy? Such marketing campaigns succeed not by motivating people to make any meaningful change or sacrifice, rather such marketing motivates individuals to do only the actions that people may consider when they are not motivated enough to make a real change or sacrifice.

Big greens may not have zero faith in humanity – but they certainly do appear to have zero faith in their target audience. They have identified their audience first and foremost as self-serving consumers – as opposed to recognizing and building upon the fact that these are people. Citizens. With families. A reality that encompasses characteristics to be nourished. It is true that contemporary profit-driven, capitalistic and money-worshipping wealthy societies have fallen into a death trap, losing perspective and failing to realize that the value of money is totally subjective. However, does this mean that organizations should cater to these characteristics – brought about by relentless corporate messaging that has inundated and polluted our minds – thereby reaffirming them? Do we believe that our citizens are so shallow and so past the point of human sentience, empathy, capacity for critical thinking, and the ability to love beyond themselves that we just continue to distribute soma to the masses? Because the 21-year-old marketing prodigy told us so in between texting his investment banker on his Blackberry?

We may have lost our own self worth, beaten down by unwavering, relentless indoctrination – our bare souls laid siege by unabashed propaganda hell, but should the role of those who claim to speak for civil society not be the one to help civil society reclaim our humanness?

Fittingly, in our consumer capitalism society we now find that even social conscience itself has become a hot commodity. If the markets see our social conscience as an asset to exploit – and they absolutely do – at least this means we still collectively have a conscience, even if we have to peel back a thousand brands to eventually uncover it.

“People with strong intrinsic values must cease to be embarrassed by them. We should argue for the policies we want not on the grounds of expediency but on the grounds that they are empathetic and kind; and against others on the grounds that they are selfish and cruel. In asserting our values we become the change we want to see.” – George Monbiot

Unfortunately, the multimillion dollar social structure of the non-profit industrial complex is ruled by the expediency of public relations, politics and funding – not by high moral values. Furthermore, we are all ruled by the multi-billion-dollar banks who remind us of our enslavement to the system whenever we threaten to allow our moral values to lead us.

The bizarre “party” on 10:10:10 forgot to mention in the “top ten” ideas for the day that we must use all of our democratic powers and rights – including our moral obligation to break the laws that continue to protect the corporations while sentencing people to certain death. 350.org and partner TckTckTck proclaimed on 10:10:10, “We Own the Media Today.” In reality, the media own 350.

The Consequences of Modern Day Soma

Deconstruction, reconstruction, muzzling and outright lies within the corporate-owned mainstream media (MSM) have been a long-term barrier to truth. From organizing public support for controversial issues that threaten our very well being, even when our own children will be paying the ultimate price, to ensuring that certain political “leaders” are elected, or that women start smoking and the public keeps buying the consumer products they don’t need which ensures billions in corporate profits, the role of “communication” has been and remains pivotal. Today we witness that mainstream communication and public relations have become nothing more than basic propaganda, because the underlying facts and reality have to be reconstructed and watered down to make the message easy to swallow.

The plutocracy needs us to continue to buy crap we don’t need, consume things we don’t need, waste things we never needed to begin with, and most important of all – to quit thinking. Be passive. Be complacent. Dissent is effectively framed as unpatriotic or ungrateful. Take your soma three times a day, more if necessary.

The greatest threat to the corporate power that has a complete stranglehold on our global society, including governments, is a society of people who can sustain themselves independent of the corporate institution. A zero-carbon perpetual-energy world made up of citizens who embody and value the right to critical thinking, free of mind pollution, provides the greatest threat to corporate power. No corporation can dominate every drop of sunshine. No corporation can capture every breath of wind.

“So here we are, forming an orderly queue at the slaughterhouse gate. The punishment of the poor for the errors of the rich, the abandonment of universalism, the dismantling of the shelter the state provides: apart from a few small protests, none of this has yet brought us out fighting. The acceptance of policies which counteract our interests is the pervasive mystery of the 21st Century. In the United States, blue-collar workers angrily demand that they be left without healthcare, and insist that millionaires should pay less tax. In the UK we appear ready to abandon the social progress for which our ancestors risked their lives with barely a mutter of protest. What has happened to us?” – George Monbiot

2100|Tomatoes and Flat Screens for the Bourgeois



In a “good news scenario” posted on 4 October 2010, titled Policy Reform to 350, McKibben envisions the future. A scenario whereby global society reverses levels of CO2 in the atmosphere to 350ppm by 2100 – this made possible by the consequences suffered by way of devastation that finally resulted in the imperialist governments waking up and smelling the coffee – thus acting. McKibben assumes in this scenario that governments are simply unaware, which is not at all true. Governments are absolutely aware of the consequences that we will face – and they have chosen not to act. They have all been briefed, in no uncertain terms, by the world’s foremost scientists and military experts.

The scenario McKibben writes of is neither factual, nor is it scientific. Indeed, he omits the most critical aspect of failing to deal with this crisis at breakneck speed – that of the amplifying feedbacks, many of which are now operational. Climate change has a full spectrum of dangerous consequences spread over many centuries into the future, however McKibben makes no mention of this reality. The reality that this scenario excludes is this: If we do not stabilize the climate by achieving virtual zero carbon emissions within a decade (Annex 1, or developed, countries), positive feedback mechanisms will continue to amplify, and become irreversible. This would result in runaway climate change. Humans will not survive this. The positive feedbacks will not simply retreat when Nature sees that we have finally learned our lesson and repented, as McKibben fantasizes within the article. He makes zero mention of tipping points and the point of no return. In fact, his scenario is survivable, including plug-in cars, tomatoes and even flat screen televisions. There is no mention of the billions who will have perished south of the equator nor is there mention that Africa will now be a furnace – void of all life. In McKibben’s “good news scenario,” exceeding 2ºC does not lead to uncontrollable temperatures of 4ºC, 6ºC, 8ºC and higher. This fantasy demonstrates the ultimate in denialism. If the “leader” of 350.org is believing in such delusional fantasy while packaging it as possible and rational, we are in terminally serious trouble. NGOs should be opposing this nonsense head on – but they won’t. Because in the Non-Profit Industrial Complex, when it comes to the critical issues of climate change, mum is the word.

350.org would like you to believe that 350 ppm is the most important number in the world. Not true. 350 ppm is recognized by climatologist James Hansen as the highest tolerable carbon level allowing survival of life on Earth. In reality, we need to get back down to levels below 300 ppm in order to re-freeze the Arctic sea ice. Then return to pre-industrial levels, which we know were safe. Until then, the Arctic sea ice will continue to accelerate in its death spiral, accelerating feedbacks. As we lose the albedo effect (reflection of sun off the ice), the solar energy, rather than being reflected, is then absorbed into the ocean. Such warming amplifies further feedbacks such as ocean acidification and melting of permafrost, which has led to the current situation of destabilized methane hydrates that are now leaking methane into the atmosphere. There is double the amount of carbon in the methane hydrates than in the entire atmosphere. We’re talking big numbers here.

These are all tipping points, beyond which catastrophic runaway feedback loops become irreversible. At this point, no amount of human ingenuity will save us. No amount of monetary wealth will save us. The term runaway greenhouse effect is best described as the conditions that led to the current greenhouse state of Venus. Terrifying? Yes. Yet this is the path we are currently on. For anyone who wishes to see what is happening to our ice – as you read this – watch the unbelievable time lapse footage that has only recently been witnessed by scientists. It is nothing less than incredible. You will understand the enormity of our situation once you see these images: http://bit.ly/bbH8mV

Thawing frozen soils could unleash a carbon bomb – massive volumes of carbon dioxide and methane frozen in the earth’s soils are a “time-bomb ticking under our feet.” – World Congress of Soil Science, 4 August 2010

http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2010/11/08/when-silence-kills-the-art-of-annihilation/?utm_source=ReviveOldPost&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=ReviveOldPost

STANDING ROCK: PROFUSION, COLLUSION & BIG MONEY PROFITS [PART 1]

Wrong Kind of Green Dec 05, 2016 350.org / 1Sky, Natural Resources Defense Council, Non-Profit Industrial Complex, Sierra Club, Whiteness & Aversive Racism
Wrong Kind of Green

December 5, 2016

by Cory Morningstar with Forrest Palmer

Part one.

While the world celebrates from the pause the Army Corps Of Engineers has forced in the development of the Dakota Access Pipeline, Cory Morningstar and Forrest Palmer string together an important and critical history of the environmental and climate change movement. The funders of this nonviolent, peaceful, prayerful resistance are the exact individuals who profit from an oil-railroad-transport industry that can only survive when pipeline projects are defeated. Solar power projects and “coal-free” investment portfolios rise in value as indigenous youth are arrested and maced. The recent history is a pattern minimally documented via alternative news and with relatively little critical oversight. This is part one of an investigative series to be published over the next few days.

All Eyes Off the Sacagawea Pipeline

In the article “All Eyes On Dakota Access – All Eyes Off Bakken Genocide” published September 13, 2016 by Wrong Kind of Green, a pipeline was highlighted that the non-profit industrial complex (NPIC) has absolutely no interest in discussing: The *Sacagawea Pipeline (*Hidatsa, North Dakota spelling) which will carry Bakken crude under Lake Sakakawea – the source of drinking water for several western North Dakota cities.

http://i1.wp.com/www.wrongkindofgreen.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Lake-S-Red-Power-Media-.jpg?w=600
Above: Lake Sakakawea

Consider the August 5, 2016 article, “Former Worker Says Lake at Risk of Oil Leak, Pipeline Contractor Defends Workmanship”:

“A former crew member on an oil pipeline under construction in North Dakota claims that pipe installed under Lake Sakakawea was not properly inspected and he fears the lake could be at risk… Pipeline contractor Kenny Crase writes in a sworn statement filed with the PSC and federal regulators that he was ordered to skip a final coating inspection on a section of the Sacagawea Pipeline before another contractor installed the pipe under Lake Sakakawea in July. External coating protects the steel pipe from corrosion. To me, it’s an accident waiting to happen.” — Pipeline contractor and whistleblower, Kenny Crase
Crase, a pipeline contractor with 34 years of experience (including five years as a pipeline inspector) was fired by contractor Boyd & Co. for exposing the “defects in the pipe coating that could cause oil to spill in the reservoir”. It is worth repeating that this reservoir serves as the source of drinking water for several western North Dakota cities.

According to Crase, “the coating crew was not allowed to complete their work. In addition, the crew was told to stay in their trucks and not allowed to do a final inspection of the coating as another contractor installed the pipe under the lake.”

“I cringed when they hooked to it and pulled it because we never made a single run through there when we didn’t find holidays, which is bare metal. If I was a betting man, I’d bet there’s bare metal spots.”— Kenny Crase

“It’s frightening to think that pipe could have been pulled under Lake Sakakawea without being properly inspected.” — Kevin Pranis, spokesman for the Laborers Union
So, why was there no interest by Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in a pipeline that even evoked fear in the Labourers Union? We summarized as follows: “What is absolute is that it is those who own the media (not coincidentally, the same elites that own the Non-Profit Industrial Complex) that decide on who and what the media spotlight will shine upon. Native land defenders are essentially ignored, unless it furthers elite interests.

But it’s actually much simpler than that. The NGOs that comprise the Non-Profit Industrial Complex (NPIC) have no interest in this pipeline – or the water source they proclaim to care so deeply about – not simply because the tribes (Grey Wolf Midstream) have a financial stake in the project (a mere 12%). Rather, it is because the Sakakawea serves Warren Buffett’s interests via the expansion of rail infrastructure and terminals.

Much more at link:

http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2016/12/05/standing-rock-profusion-collusion-big-money-profits/?utm_source=ReviveOldPost&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=ReviveOldPost

STOP THE KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE, BUT DON’T STOP

February19, 2013

Salty Eggs

by Stephanie McMillan

Our worst nightmares reverberate with the prediction of respected scientist James Hansen: if we don’t stop TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline, then it’s “game over” for stabilizing the climate. With final US governmental approval (or not) to complete the pipeline looming, struggle over it is intensifying.

In late January, representatives from more than 25 First Nations in what is currently known as Canada and the US met in South Dakota to pledge mutual support in halting all Alberta tar sands oil production projects, including specifically the Keystone XL pipeline.

On February 17, tens of thousands rallied in Washington, DC, to demand that the Obama administration reject the XL pipeline. Even the members of the Sierra Club were sufficiently alarmed that the staid ENGO had to lift its 120-year ban on civil disobedience.

Protesters want to believe Obama’s promises to take “act decisively” on climate change. (His statement is suspiciously vague enough to leave the door open for insanely dangerous projects such as geo-engineering, the next big gold rush. It also certainly incudes increased production of natural gas through fracking, which is destroying our water supply. What it doesn’t include is limiting greenhouse gas emissions from their primary source: existing power plants.)

They also want to believe John Kerry, who will lead the State Department review of the pipeline plan, when he describes himself as a “passionate advocate” for taking action in response to climate change (his wording, like Obama’s, is extremely careful not to call for preventing it but for responding to it). (Before making his decision, this “passionate advocate” has promised to divest nearly $750,000 of his money from Canadian tar sands companies Suncor and Cenovus).

Protesters desperately want to encourage or pressure these men to do “the right thing.” They want to believe they have the capability of making an ethical choice.

In reality, the choice is not theirs to make. These politicians are nothing but puppets. They represent the interests of the ruling class, the capitalist class. They are installed in office and given specific jobs to perform: to regulate capital’s flow and accumulation, to smooth the relations between competing capitalists, and to keep the masses sufficiently pacified so they don’t get in the way.

Capitalism can deal with a few thousand people protesting and getting arrested. In fact it helps bolster its legitimacy, serves as proof of how democratic the system is. Those in power tolerate dissent; how nice. (Never mind that they only pretend to listen to it).

No amount of symbolic action will stop them from extracting whatever fuels will make money for them at any given time. A million people could scream, chain themselves together, or set themselves and their children on fire in front of the White House, but this would not mitigate capital’s compulsion to expand.

If an action is not going to be effective, it’s not worth taking. Fighting losing battles is simply depressing. When we do decide to engage in these struggles for strategic reasons, we need to understand their limitations to avoid being demoralized.

Many people understand what we’re up against. They know that capital has no ethics, no limits to the atrocities it will perpetrate in the pursuit of surplus value (a form of profit). They recognize that it is not a rational entity; it will not respond to reason or pleas or threats. So some have been attempting to physically block or otherwise interfere with the construction of the pipeline.

But capital, faced with obstacles, will take alternate routes. While our attention has been focused on the Keystone XL, which would be capable of moving 830,000 barrels of tar sands oil every day, another Canadian company (Enbridge) has outfitted a pipeline network capable of moving more than a million barrels a day. The price of each barrel will rise by nearly $40 once it reaches Louisiana refineries. The decision to make $40 million a day additional profit to destroy the planet is not a difficult one for companies like Enbridge to make. $40 million a day is not to be denied.

Capitalism is facing structural economic crises that, for capitalists, are even more urgent than the ecological crisis. Too high a proportion of their economy has become based on debt and speculation—profit based on “fictitious” value. This is becoming increasingly unstable and untenable. The global “structural adjustment” measures they’re currently imposing are attempts to shift back into more industrial production, which produces the “real” value—surplus value—on which their entire economy ultimately rests.

Faced with impending annihilation as capitalists, they can’t afford to care—or even to pretend to care—about their likely future annihilation as carbon-based life-forms. They are impelled by economic forces more powerful than any addiction.

Tar sands, fracking, deep sea drilling, Arctic drilling, ecocidal agriculture, GMOs, prison labor, privatization of social services, sweatshops in “free trade zones”—however destructive or exploitative or evil the means, capital must expand. It has no choice.

Capital reproduces itself through surplus value. This is the new value that is created by the exploitation of labor power in the process of industrial production (converting the natural world into commodities). It is embodied in commodities until it’s realized as profit and re-invested as new capital.

Capital must accumulate surplus value. It is the blood, the fuel, the essence of capital itself. Therefore, capital will push itself into every investment opportunity it can possibly locate within the global economy, no matter how destructive. It will not stop. Capital’s pursuit of surplus value is a relentless force that is poisoning the air, water and land all over the world. It is capable of killing us all, of rendering the planet uninhabitable.

The problem is not the greed of individual capitalists. They are merely social agents who fill positions that are required and generated by capital itself. Capital has motion, needs, a life of its own. It cannot sit still and depreciate; it must expand by being invested somewhere. If one area of investment is blocked, it will find another. If we begin to block it effectively, it will annihilate us. Recall how effectively the police dispersed the Occupy encampments (once those in power decided to do it), and how quickly the Democratic Party and organized labor have been attempting to recuperate what is left of it for their own objectives. Capital will sweep away any obstacle, by whatever means are necessary.

Ecocide (quickly leading to omnicide) is an effect of capitalism, of commodity production. It is an extremely dire consequence, but nevertheless peripheral to the generation of capital. In order to stop ecocide, global capitalism must be destroyed. The generation of capital itself must be halted, at its source: surplus value.

We can’t stop it by attacking it only from the outside; we must go after it at the core, its inner contradiction. The only ones who can ultimately overturn capitalism are those who are, through being enslaved to it, producing it: the working class.

The fundamental internal contradiction of a capitalist society is capital vs. wage labor. That doesn’t mean it’s necessarily the most important contradiction—that’s a value judgment that will be made differently by people depending on their positions and interests. What it means, instead, is that the push-pull of the struggle between capital and wage-labor is what moves society in the direction it is going. It is the engine driving our society over an ecological cliff.

The production of surplus value is an economic process embedded in a social relationship. The contradiction between capital and wage-labor is manifested in class struggle between capitalists and workers. The relationship between these classes is an antagonistic one: workers are exploited by capitalists in the process of the production of surplus value. To force them to produce, and to accept exploitation, capitalists dominate workers economically, politically, and ideologically.

It is only by the workers overturning and destroying this entire ensemble of social relations through which capital reproduces itself, that capitalism can be stopped. When workers liberate themselves, they liberate all of society from the domination of capital. To end capitalism, those of us directly exploited by capital should intensify our efforts to organize ourselves and crush our enemy. We can only be effective if we are organized collectively; individually we are helpless.

What does that mean for those of us who are not workers, not part of the process of producing surplus value, but are still part of the “popular masses”? Those of us who are unemployed, or non-productive (service) workers, or students, or members of the progressive or radical petit bourgeoisie (“middle class”)—we can’t touch capital; we can’t get our hands on it. We can’t go on strike to make it stop reproducing itself.

We can still organize ourselves, however, and build alliances to expose and resist various forms of domination by capital, as well as its effects. Mobilizing as a means of building mass movements is positive and necessary. Strategically blocking the flow of capital and resource extraction can complement and enhance struggles at the point of production. There is a lot we can do to damage capital, and capitalism, and we should strive to maximize all of our efforts in that direction.

The struggle against the capitalist accumulation of surplus value must be led by those who produce it: the working class. This is the only class that can follow through to the end, to actually defeat capitalism. In line with that orientation, we should build alliances and offer solidarity for every form of autonomous (not co-opted by collaborationist unions) struggle. Because capitalism is at a global stage of imperialism, the struggle against it is also global. Inside the imperialist social formations, we must fight imperialism, as well as build solidarity for the struggles against imperialism by the international working class.

To liberate the world from the domination of capitalism, workers must overturn political domination (smash the current state and seize political power) in order to take the means of production and subsistence out of private hands. Only then, can profit be abolished. When the profit resulting from surplus value is no longer the motive force of expansion of production, then will we be free to figure out, and implement, a way of life that can be sustainable.

For now, our enemy is stronger than we are. We have to overcome that, and deal with the fact that if we begin to be effective, they will commit any conceivable atrocity to crush us. But we are potentially stronger than them. We have right on our side. We outnumber them. When we organize ourselves, we will be unstoppable.

Stop the Keystone XL pipeline: absolutely. But let’s not delude ourselves that that will be enough, or even close. Capitalism could easily absorb that loss and flow around it. If we keep on fighting its effects, we will never solve the problem. There is no quick fix. To stop ecocide, we must wage class struggle to overturn the entire system of global capitalism, all forms of domination that comprise that system and keep it in place, the entire matrix of social relations that brings tar sands oil pipelines into existence in the first place.

http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2013/02/27/the-reformist-approch-dead-end-the-absolute-enemy/?utm_source=ReviveOldPost&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=ReviveOldPost

WHY I REFUSE TO PROMOTE BILL MCKIBBEN

“Nations and peoples are largely the stories they feed themselves. If they tell themselves stories that are lies, they will suffer the future consequences of those lies. If they tell themselves stories that face their own truths, they will free their histories for future flowerings.” – Ben Okri, Nigerian poet and novelist

It continues to both concern and baffle me that those within the movement who coined “climate justice” continue to promote a false prophet who believes/hopes and promotes that greed can save us (see McKibben’s The Greenback Effect: Greed Has Helped Destroy the Planet – Maybe Now It Can Help Save It). Greed, of course, being one of the ugliest traits in the human species. Greed being the pivotal factor behind the “success” of capitalism. Greed being the reason the world’s wealthiest 15% contribute 75% of all global greenhouse gas emissions (Professor Stephen Pacala) on the backs of the poor and most vulnerable while simultaneously decimating and raping the Earth.

Throughout history, greed has proven to be lethal. Greed and justice cannot co-exist.

The premise that “greed can save us” is void of all ethics. It stems from either desperation or denial, or perhaps both combined.

Perhaps McKibben’s 350.org/1Sky partner – Climate Solutions (who McKibben praised/promoted in a recent article) – will soon see their wish list of “sustainable aviation,” biofuels and carbon offsets morph into a global reality. 350.org/1Sky partner Climate Solutions was a key player in the creation of 1Sky – an incubator project of the Rockefellers, who are pushing/funding REDD (the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation program) and many other false solutions that ensure power and monetary wealth remain exactly where it is – in the hands of the few.

Of course, James Hansen’s magic wand (which Hansen himself sometimes refers to) will be most imperative for such false solutions to succeed in cooling the planet and stopping the eradication of most life on Earth.

Do we reject biofuels, carbon offsets, the greenwash and delusional concepts like “sustainable aviation”? Or do we only reject these false solutions when promoted directly by industry and government? If we do reject false solutions outright, why do those who claim to seek climate justice turn a blind eye when our “friends” and “partners” support these false solutions that we must fight against?

Perhaps it is a good time to reflect upon the concept of living well, proposed by Bolivia, which describes the capitalist system and the effects of greed that it perpetuates like this:

“We suffer the severe effects of climate change, of the energy, food and financial crises. This is not the product of human beings in general, but of the existing inhuman capitalist system, with its unlimited industrial development. It is brought about by minority groups who control world power, concentrating wealth and power on themselves alone. Concentrating capital in only a few hands is no solution for humanity, neither for life itself, because as a consequence many lives are lost in floods, by intervention or by wars, so many lives through hunger, poverty and usually curable diseases. It brings selfishness, individualism, even regionalism, thirst for profit, the search for pleasure and luxury thinking only about profiting, never having regard to brotherhood among the human beings who live on planet Earth. This not only affects people, but also nature and the planet. And when the peoples organize themselves, or rise against oppression, those minority groups call for violence, weapons, and even military intervention from other countries.”

It must be remembered that McKibben, 350.org/1Sky and most all other “big greens” have rejected the People’s Agreement of Cochabamba rather than unite behind it, in favour of the false illusion of “green” capitalism.

No Logo

I, for one, choose not to promote organizations or individuals who embrace such a system so unfair that it is systematically destroying all life, nor those who purposely and continually reject and undermine the Cochabamba People’s Agreement. I leave this to the likes of Naomi Klein, who recently joined 350.org/1Sky and other key 350.org/1Sky messengers … celebrated individuals who have warned us of the dangers of unfettered capitalism, yet have chosen to embrace the “green” capitalist entity, 350.org/1Sky.

Over a decade ago, Klein brilliantly educated the public on the growing trend of corporations hijacking public entities, including our universities and museums. In a statement on BP’s sponsorship of the Tate Museum, to which Klein is listed as the first signatory, she/they write: “Corporate sponsorship does not exist in an ethical vacuum.”

Yet, hypocritically, when it comes to corporate power funding the entire mainstream environmental movement, Klein and others have not only failed to speak out against it – they have lent their names to it. In the environmental movement, it has been decided by Klein and others that corporate funding sponsorship does indeed exist in an ethical vacuum, thereby lending legitimacy and credibility to an organization that promotes and protects the branded logo 350 – and little else. As much as Klein and other celebrated anti-capitalists such as Vandana Shiva passionately deliver us the imperative truth, when it comes to 350.org/1Sky and pro-free market McKibben, they turn a blind eye to a movement shaped and funded by the industrial machine itself. As the push towards an illusory “green economy” and “climate wealth” strengthens, even those within the climate justice movement itself are covertly being estranged from the truth.

The videos below shed light on our free markets at work. These people represent only a glimpse of those who suffer at the hands of our current economic system. Climate “justice” or any kind of justice just cannot and can never exist in our capitalist economic system, as this system is dependent upon not only continued growth, but continued violence, oppression and exploitation of perhaps 85% of humanity – who emit a mere 25% of all emissions. This way of life is coming to an end. This system is destined to ultimately collapse – or kill us – whichever comes first.

If the definition of justice is “the quality of being just or fair” – our current economic system, that being capitalism, is the furthest thing from any kind of justice. The idea that we can avert climate genocide by embracing “green” capitalism is an illusion. It is a lie whereby the consequences will prove to be lethal beyond anything our species has ever witnessed. Those who truly seek justice must think long and hard about maintaining faith in a system that has finally brought us to the precipice. We may be trapped within it – but that does not mean we cannot fight like hell to break free.

Testimony of Rosa Elbira: Gang-rapes at a Canadian-owned mine in Guatemala:


http://youtu.be/dSGuDk4cnz4

On the Origins of Green Liberalism: http://tedsteinberg.com/essays/can-capitalism-save-the-planet/

Cory Morningstar is climate justice activist whose recent writings can be found on Canadians for Action on Climate Change and The Art of Annihilation site where you can read her bio. You can follow her on Twitter: @elleprovocateur

http://www.theartofannihilation.com/why-i-refuse-to-promote-bill-mckibben/?utm_source=ReviveOldPost&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=ReviveOldPost

Other videos at link

Ferget the greed screed the point here is these false solutions must be rejected. It will take Reds to stabilize the planetary metabolism, if it can be done.

On the Origins of Green Liberalism

(originally published in Radical History Review 107 (Spring 2010): 7-24)

In a 1992 speech commemorating Earth Day, Bill Clinton urged Americans to reject “the false choice” that environmental responsibility had to come at the expense of the economy. In the world according to Clinton, it was possible “to bring powerful market forces to bear on America’s pollution problems.” The speech is vintage Clinton, shot through with his signature triangulation. “I believe it is time for a new era in environmental protection,” he said, “which uses the market to help us get our environment back on track—to recognize that Adam Smith’s invisible hand can have a green thumb.”1

Clinton’s market-based approach to environmental reform has proven enormously popular in this brave new world of carbon offsets and emissions trading. Even Bill McKibben, one of the most prominent environmentalists in the world today, seems imprisoned within it. Rejecting the maximizing imperatives at the core of capitalism, McKibben in Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future made a case for moving beyond “hyper-individualism” and embracing local economies centered on farmers’ markets and other ways of bringing neighbors together. But he did not suggest any fundamental structural change. “Shifting our focus to local economies,” he writes, “will not mean abandoning Adam Smith or doing away with markets. Markets, obviously, work.” Buying a local tomato, he was at pains to point out, “doesn’t require that you join a commune or become a socialist.” In a more recent essay titled “The Greenback Effect: Greed Has Helped Destroy the Planet—Maybe Now It Can Help Save It,” McKibben takes his market fetishism still further. “Markets are powerful,” he admits. All we must do is refine our use of them by building in the information they need to function to address global warming and other ecological ills. To those who argue that we need to go “beyond capitalism” to solve our environmental woes, McKibben has this response: we cannot wait for structural change. It takes too long and we simply cannot risk delay, not with the atmosphere furiously warming. “Markets are quick,” he writes. “Given some direction, they’ll help.”2

The love affair with markets comes alongside other more unrestrained testimonials to the virtues of economic growth. Consider, for example, the recent publication by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger of their grandly titled book, Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility. Nordhaus and Shellenberger spent their lives working for environmental organizations but up and quit after realizing that the “pollution and regulation framework” of the mainstream environmental movement just could not work any longer.3 The environmental movement needs to die and on its ashes must arise a new political force graced with a more positive rhetorical tone and a respect for how economic growth can contribute to environmental ends. In pronouncing the old environmentalism dead, Nordhaus and Shellenberger seem willing to narrow the field of environmental politics to the point at which only those with the spending power and the economic freedom to participate are at all likely to play a role. In their postenvironmental world, grassroots working-class efforts, for example, seem to play no part, which makes one question precisely whose interests their agenda would advance.

The argument in Break Through rests in part on a mechanistic understanding of the history of environmentalism. The authors assert that environmentalism was born in the 1960s (and not the 1930s) because of the rise of affluence. Free enterprise gave birth to the U.S. environmental movement as people, no longer concerned with feeding or sheltering themselves, had the luxury to worry about environmental amenities. And presumably if rising wealth spawned environmentalism, the current environmental movement can recruit a new form of economic development to its cause. Explicitly arguing for a “pro-growth agenda,” they believe that capitalism, if not regulated out of existence, can solve our ecological woes.4

Putting aside the gross economic determinism of such an analysis, one thing is clear: green liberalism is all the rage today. Green liberalism is the idea that market forces combined with individuals all doing their part can save the planet.5 The notion that environmentalism ought somehow to be connected to market imperatives goes back a long way, arguably as far back as the efficiency-minded conservation movement of Theodore Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot. But green liberalism in its modern incarnation is a more recent phenomenon that unites a faith in the ability of both price mechanisms and individual (consumer and investor) initiative to rescue the earth. Economic freedom and pragmatic individual action stand at the core of this ideology.

Green liberalism is at the root of much that happens in the lives of Americans today. It is the philosophy that consumers discover in the sprawling aisles of Whole Foods supermarket, with its organic baby carrots, snack food, and beer. It is the driving force behind the new kind of consumerism that finds shoppers eager for less chemicals—fewer pesticides and artificial fertilizers—in their food and even on their lawns. It is the philosophy that helps explain why Americans are flocking to Wal-Mart and Home Depot for compact-fluorescent light bulbs, driving who knows how many miles in the name of energy efficiency. A world of number one and number two plastic, working itself into a lather over how to sort its bottles. A world that has Al Gore, who has perhaps done more than any other single human being to publicize the perils of global warming, running out to buy carbon offsets so he can heat his swimming pool.

It is hard to imagine that a system so good at producing wealth and so poor at distributing it, so steeped in the commodity form and bent on bringing everything from land to water to air into the world of exchange, is likely to be turned around to save the earth without a great deal of reform. But a more interesting question for the historian is how green liberalism came into vogue. When did the idea that markets and individual actions working together on behalf of nature come into being? And why? Those are historical questions that deserve our attention in this world of eco-friendly bathroom cleaners.


Consumers of the World Unite!
Green liberalism originated with the more general loss of faith in political action common among some segments of the counterculture. Its canonical text, if we can call it that, was the Whole Earth Catalog that, as the historian Andrew Kirk explains, rested on a form of environmental pragmatism placing individual responsibility at its core. Stewart Brand masterminded the project. Brand believed in the virtues of “individualistic ecological living.” The future would rest on a change in lifestyle, not on regulation or protest. Initially published between 1968 and 1971, the Whole Earth Catalog was as Brand said in 1990, “a book of tools for saving the world at the only scale it can be done, one hand at a time.” For Brand and his colleagues, retrofitting one’s toilet was as revolutionary an act as joining a street protest against the corporate domination of foreign policy. “Peter Warshall’s Septic Tank Practices (1973) was just as revolutionary a book as Das Kapital,” Kirk writes, “or more so because of its immediate implications and practicality.” “Consumers of the World Unite” could easily have been Brand’s motto. Or as Brand himself put it in 1971: “Individual buyers have far more control over economic behavior than voters”6

The Whole Earth Catalog formed part of a larger trend in environmental thinking that came to be called the “appropriate-technology” movement. The economist E. F. Schumacher was one of the most important thinkers behind this new movement. Compared with the lives of those in the counterculture who embraced some of his ideas, Schumacher’s life differed and revolved chiefly around the question of how to revolutionize state politics in the quest to make it less harmful to nature and to people. Born in Bonn in 1911, Schumacher early in his career worked to help craft a social security system used by the British Labour government as a blueprint for its welfare-state reforms. Schumacher then went on to spend a generation working as a civil servant for the British National Coal Board. In his work with the board, he became an advisor to governments around the world; his travels made him increasingly concerned with the lives of the poor. “I am interested in the poor,” he would say. “I’ve always found that the rich can look after themselves, they don’t need me.”7 By the 1960s, Schumacher, in seeking to solve the problems of poverty in developing nations, coined the notion of “intermediate technology.” The idea was to design a set of technologies more productive than the current methods available in poor countries but less capital intensive and hence cheaper than the technologies in the industrialized world. An example involved employing many more people in, say, mini-refineries as opposed to large-scale enterprises. Schumacher always put people first and believed firmly that any new technology must, above all, create jobs.

While in his sixties, Schumacher published Small Is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as If People Mattered, a book that reflected his skepticism about the basic principles of economics. The book reads more like a political manifesto than an economics textbook. The study challenged the growth imperative in a world of finite resources and called for a new form of economic organization based on collective ownership and technologies that would create meaningful work for people under “conditions of human dignity and freedom.” Inspired by Buddhism, Schumacher advocated nonviolence with respect to both environmental and social relations. “A population basing its economic life on non-renewable fuels,” he wrote, “is living parasitically, on capital instead of income.” This meant committing a crime against nature, “which must almost inevitably lead to violence between men.” In the final chapters of the book, Schumacher takes a more radical turn, urging the expropriation of private property in large enterprises through nationalization. He proposed a decentralized form of socialism based on “semi-autonomous small units” that could be coordinated, if necessary, by a centralized planning authority. Nationalized industries were above all meant to serve the public interest, to provide meaningful work for people, but presumably not at the expense of the environment. The book became a best seller and would eventually be translated into fifteen languages.8

Schumacher’s ideas helped inspire the appropriate-technology movement of the late 1960s and 1970s. But as the movement unfolded, it set aside the political questions Schumacher raised about how best to organize production so as to prioritize the health of both democracy and ecology. Instead, the driving idea behind the evolving appropriate-technology movement was more apolitical: individuals could adopt small-scale technology and through countless smart, individual decisions forge a path to a greener and more sustainable economic world. People such as Amory Lovins, a physicist who advocated for small-scale, self-sufficient energy systems, and Brand seemed less interested in the larger political questions that motivated Schumacher. Lovins’s most famous statement on his green thinking in the 1970s came in the form of an essay in Foreign Affairs titled “Energy Strategy: The Road Not Taken?” Although acknowledging that “economic answers are not always right answers,” Lovins wrote that “properly using the markets we have may be the greatest single step we could take toward a sustainable, humane energy future.” While Lovins admitted that “there are things the market cannot do, like reforming building codes or utility practices,” he was already revealing his true inclination for sketching out “technical fixes” and calculating “end-use efficiency.”9 He was far less interested in asking bedrock political questions about the undemocratic effects of the industrialized world’s rampant consumption of finite resources. As Kirk has put it regarding the earliest green liberals, “politics always took a back seat to ideas and tools.”10

The dominant themes of individual initiative and consumer choice emerging with countercultural environmentalism found expression in one of the most enduring children’s stories of the era: Dr. Seuss’s wildly popular The Lorax, published in 1971. The story is an environmental parable that features a captain of industry named Mr. Once-ler and his battle with a forest of Truffula trees. The Once-ler is opposed in his efforts by the Lorax, an odd creature resembling a South American emperor tamarin. Eventually the Once-ler in his quest for trees to make clothes cuts down the entire forest. But in the end, he recognizes that he has made a terrible mistake. He recruits a little boy to go out and plant the last tree seed left to help start a new forest.

The political scientist Michael Maniates, in trying to explain the enormous popularity of The Lorax, argues that the story resonates in part because of “its overarching message of environmental stewardship and faith in the restorative powers of the young.” But another reason for its success has to do with the book’s assumption that environmental tragedy is the result of “individual shortcomings.” Those deficits are “best countered by action that is staunchly individual and typically consumer based.” That is, “enlightened, uncoordinated consumer choice”—planting trees, changing light bulbs, modifying toilets, much as the appropriate technologists suggested—would help etch a path to environmental enlightenment.11 In this understanding of environmentalism, not systemic forces but individual decisions were the root cause of environmental problems. Bad apples, in other words, remained the true source of environmental woes; individual responsibility would lead the way toward reformation. What had emerged by the early 1970s was one of the core principles of green liberalism: individuals pursuing their own best interests could create a sustainable society. Here was a form of liberalism that Adam Smith would have appreciated—self-interested individuals contributing to ecological harmony, as opposed to the economic growth that he championed.

Liberalism’s New Clothes
The countercultural emphasis on individual responsibility mirrored the newly emerging neoliberal agenda with its vision of democracy rooted in an appeal to personal freedom, disingenuous as it may have been. Green liberalism, in other words, was shaped by changes in the larger political culture. The old liberalism had its origins in the Great Depression of the 1930s, which spawned a new world economic order in which the state functioned to make sure that the economy helped ensure full employment and the more general welfare of the citizenry. Franklin Delano Roosevelt redefined liberalism to mean a political philosophy centered on an activist state. This understanding of the term contrasted with the version promoted by Smith and his disciples in the nineteenth century. They, of course, held a more skeptical view of government. Under Roosevelt’s understanding of liberalism, government combined with Keynesian economic policies would tame the market to prevent another disastrous depression.

The changing political world alone, however, could not lift the United States from the economic downtown. It would take an unprecedented military buildup to do that. Defense spending for World War II, the Cold War, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War transformed a workforce with 17 percent unemployment in 1939 into one with close to full employment by the 1960s. In large part the federal government, by arming itself to the teeth, produced the golden age of capitalism—the postwar expansion that saw the gross national product double in the fifteen years after 1945.12 By the late 1960s, however, the postwar boom was running out of steam. Wages during the 1960s outstripped productivity gains, and this trend combined with competition from abroad dampened corporate profits. The 1973 oil shock teamed up with a raft of regulatory reforms—environmental, occupational, and consumer-protection laws—to weaken corporate balance sheets still further. “These were the conditions,” the economist Robert Pollin has written, “that by the end of the 1970s led to the decline of social democratic approaches to policymaking and the ascendency of neoliberalism.”13

Now on the defensive, U.S. business sought to promote the ideas of neoliberalism in the larger political culture. The Austrian philosopher Friedrich von Hayek and the U.S. economist Milton Friedman styled themselves liberals in the sense that they believed in the inherent virtue of personal freedom. They remained adamantly opposed to state intervention in the workings of the economy and objected to Keynesian theory. They believed instead that the market’s invisible hand ought to govern all human behavior. Although Hayek and Friedman had been expounding their views for decades, only in the 1970s did they both win Nobel prizes in economics (Hayek in 1974 and Friedman in 1976). The awards signaled the power of their ideas in the mainstream political world.14

The neoliberal program involved a restructuring of the state in the name of corporate freedom, not personal freedom as promoted. It began under Jimmy Carter, who helped ailing industries, including the airlines and trucking, by making the first foray into deregulation. Then, as the historian Sean Wilentz notes, deregulation under Ronald Reagan “became an all-out pro-business crusade.”15 Regulations were thrown to the wind. The axe came down on health and safety laws, as well as on regulations that supposedly restrained competition. Industry was left to regulate itself through organizations such as the American National Standards Institute, a nonprofit group (founded in 1918) that promulgated and codified regulations favorable to business.

Neoliberalism rested on what the economist and former member of the Clinton administration Joseph Stiglitz has called the ideology of “market fundamentalism.”16 But that does not begin to explain the complexities of this new economic and political philosophy and, in particular, its obsession with individual responsibility. It was Margaret Thatcher—along with Reagan one of the chief representatives of neoliberalism—who said in 1987: “There’s no such thing as Society. There are individual men and women, and there are families.”17 What she meant, explains the geographer David Harvey, is that “all forms of social solidarity were to be dissolved in favour of individualism, private property, personal responsibility, and family values.”18

Under the neoliberal paradigm, the importance of personal responsibility rose in proportion to the sway that the market held over life. In this sense, the year 1996 amounted to something of a watershed. It was no accident that welfare reform—signed by President Clinton in 1996—bore this official title: Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. The bipartisan legislation signaled a victory for those who viewed poverty as the result of individual failings and not of larger structural problems with the distribution of wealth and income. As Ellen K. Scott and Andrew S. London write, the “logic of individualism—the view that poverty is a problem of cultural deficits and lack of motivation rather than of an unequal distribution of power and wealth—became largely uncontested in policy arenas.”19 A steelworker’s job loss was no more than his own little personal market failure, even if larger structural forces—plant closings, say, brought on by overseas competition—were to blame. Such a supercharged ideological environment represented fertile ground for the growth of green liberalism. The changing political culture, in other words, welcomed an environmental philosophy built on market worship and individual initiative.


Give Me Liberty or Give Me Recycling
At the core of green liberalism stands what can be called the recycling ethic, perhaps the surest sign today of virtuous environmental behavior. The history of municipal recycling thus proves instructive. Recycling constitutes a profoundly individuated response to the problem of waste. It works to the advantage of industry by pushing the costs of business onto the public to bear. It also shields industry from any restrictions on its methods of production.

Less of a need existed for municipalities to deal with solid waste issues before World War II. Consider the case of beverage containers. Before the war, industry itself shouldered the burden of dealing with empty bottles. Until the late 1940s beer came in bottles that could be used repeatedly, perhaps as many as thirty times. And soft-drink bottlers sold the bulk of their beverages the same way, even into the 1950s. Nonrefillable cans became available as early as the 1930s, but it was World War II that helped popularize them as manufacturers shipped both cans and one-use bottles overseas to supply the troops. After the war the steel and can industry promoted beverage cans.20 Meanwhile, beverage producers increasingly favored one-way containers because they helped them consolidate market share. By obviating the need to deal with empties, these new forms of packaging allowed national brewing companies to compete more effectively against local breweries. Now the companies did not have to be located near their customer base to deal with the leftover containers—annihilating space with aluminum.21 By 1970 one-way containers had made a stunning inroad into the market, accounting for 40 percent of soft drinks and 76 percent of beer sold in packages.22

Efforts to combat one-way containers go back as far as the 1950s. In 1953 Vermont farmers, concerned that cows were swallowing glass bottles thrown into fields, united to compel the state legislature to ban these containers. In response, the American Can Company and Owens-Illinois Glass Company, pioneers of throwaway cans and glass bottles, formed an advocacy group called Keep America Beautiful. Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, the U.S. Brewers Association, and others with a stake in promoting convenient throwaway containers joined them. The group began a media campaign targeting the corrupt behavior of individual “litterbugs.” Calling littering a “national disgrace,” William C. Stolk, the president of the American Can Company, openly opposed legislative fixes to the problem.23 Recruiting schools, churches, and garden clubs to its cause, the group tried to forestall any more industry regulation and instead supported fines and jail for littering. They even succeeded in persuading Vermont legislators to overturn its bottle ban in 1957.

Keep America Beautiful produced one of the most successful public service announcements in history. The 1971 commercial featured the actor Iron Eyes Cody playing a Native American who cries at the sight of litter tossed in the road. “People start pollution,” the ad declared. “People can stop it.”24 Not a can or bottle could be found in any of Keep America Beautiful’s commercials because of the profits that could be made on them.25 Instead of focusing on the systemic problems with industry’s packaging decisions, the ads located responsibility at the individual level. Litter became a matter of personal responsibility while industry practices such as planned obsolescence—which made the perpetuation of waste central to the success of postwar consumer capitalism—went unexamined.26

Seeking to stem the flood of disposable items, Oregon in 1971 imposed a five-cent refundable deposit on the bulk of beer and soft-drink containers. The idea was to give people a financial incentive to return the containers for reuse or recycling. Vermont later followed suit. In 1973 Minnesota passed an even stronger measure that tried to restrict the amount of packaging used by industry. “The recycling of solid waste materials is one alternative for the conservation of material and energy resources,” read the law, “but it is also in the public interest to reduce the amount of materials requiring recycling or disposal.” The law put the onus on industry—not on the people of the state—to engage in “materials conservation.”27 Though the law lacked teeth, it represented precisely the approach toward solid-waste issues that industry wished to avoid.

Calls for a federal bottle bill surfaced repeatedly in Congress beginning in 1970.28 In 1973 twenty-eight states introduced bottle-bill legislation.29 One estimate from 1980 estimated that fourteen hundred bottle-deposit laws had been put forth at the local, state, and federal levels in the 1970s.30 As of 1983, however, there was no national law, and just nine states (Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Oregon, and Vermont) had bottle-deposit laws on the books—a testament to industry’s clout on the issue. Industry’s successful counterattack emerges as even more stunning in light of the evidence, including two General Accounting Office reports, showing that national bottle-bill legislation would reduce “litter, solid waste, and energy and raw material use.”31

Companies like Anheuser-Busch, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and others in the beverage industry opposed (and continue to oppose) bottle bills for a variety of reasons. Chief among these is that curbside recycling works as a corporate subsidy: the makers of the product do not bear the cost of dealing with packaging waste. And that is precisely how industry wants the system to operate. As an official from the American Plastics Council put it in 1993, “If I buy a product, I’m the polluter. I should be responsible for the disposal of the package.”32 But of course individuals themselves are also not bearing the cost; that is amortized to people all across the country. Bottle bills, in contrast, shift the cost of dealing with beverage waste from the taxpayer to the producers of the beverages. Distributors and bottlers would have to pay the cost involved in collecting the deposit containers. Industry could live with the reduced profits or pass the cost along to consumers in the form of a price increase. No wonder the beverage industry is such a fan of curbside recycling.

Industry has largely succeeded in its anti–bottle bill exploits by adopting three strategies: splitting off labor from the environmental movement, painting bottle bills as a threat to consumer freedom, and plugging municipal recycling. In a New York Times op-ed titled “Leisure Class and Throwaway Glass,” Theo Alexander of the American Can Company and his wife, Judd, who according to the byline was “active on their town’s beautification commission,” noted that during a 1978 bottle-bill hearing in Connecticut, no one represented the users of throwaway containers. “The typical consumer of both beer and soft drinks is urban, male and blue-collar,” they wrote. “The membership of the elitist proponent organizations show a different profile: suburban, female, well-to-do and leisure class.”33 Returnable containers, they went on to explain, were not a problem if you had a big basement to store them in, presumably not a luxury in those beer-guzzling working-class households. The op-ed came after years of recruiting unions in states with major bottling plants to industry’s side.

Nor presumably was the working class in the 1970s interested in arming the state for any further intrusion into their lives, which perhaps explains why one anti–bottle bill group took as its name the Committee against Forced Deposits.34 Industry tried to fashion bottle bills as a threat to consumer freedom. William May of the American Can Company went so far as to call proponents of measures restricting the growth of packaging “communists.” Donald Kendall, the president of PepsiCo, wrote to the Environmental Protection Agency in the 1970s to complain about its support of a national bottle bill: “Your position defies and denies the free will of the people expressed by their free choice of containers.”35

But it was municipal recycling and “resource recovery” that became the industry mantra. As environmentalism climaxed during the 1970s, companies sought to foreclose on more stringent regulatory measures that would have limited production while leaving the pollution burden for consumers and the public sector more generally to deal with. “The real answer to product disposal,” wrote the director of communications for the American Can Company, John F. McGoldrick, in a thinly veiled effort to shed costs, “lies in resource recovery and solid-waste management, not in a token return to a refundable system.”36 Some companies even set up their own recycling centers as models of good environmental citizenship.37 The real goal, however, was to get municipalities to climb on board the recycling bandwagon. “The answer to our waste problems is total solid waste resource recovery,” explained Jule Roll of the New York State Allied Beverage Industries Employees Environmental Work Force in 1977.38 Charles S. Mack of the New York State Food Merchants Association concurred. “Recycling and litter-control programs could deal with all litter, not just part of it,” he wrote in 1981.39 In an attempt to beat back a New York bottle bill in the early 1980s, industry cleverly dubbed a recycling and cleanup program to be paid for with a tax of five cents per case on beverages, “Total Litter Control” or TLC.

The rise of municipal recycling gained further ground during the Reagan administration. Reagan undercut the incineration industry by reducing its subsidies and thus helped steer municipalities further toward recycling programs. Municipal recycling boomed in the 1980s and early part of the 1990s in the wake of reports about the travails of a barge named the Mobro 4000. In 1987 the barge, containing trash from Long Island, set sail in search of a place to deposit its load. According to Newsweek, the embattled Mobro was “to the trash crisis what the sinking of the Lusitania was to World War I.”40 A surge in interest in recycling soon followed. Municipalities pledged to recycle a given percentage of trash by some specified date. By the early 1990s domestic recycling by weight had increased roughly three times since the 1970s.41

By then the perils of curbside recycling had grown increasingly apparent. In 1992 a report surfaced in California about fifty thousand pounds of meticulously collected and separated plastic that had to be dumped in a landfill because of the saturation of the market in recycled plastic. The market failure constantly jeopardizing curbside recycling was aggravated further by federal tax policies supporting the use of virgin materials.42

Meanwhile, efforts to pass a national bottle bill failed. In 1992 committees in both the House and the Senate voted against federal legislation. Coca-Cola, Philip Morris, and others in the beverage industry spent $4 million between 1989 and 1992 to defeat the measures.43

In his 1992 Earth Day speech—the same one in which he gave Adam Smith the green thumb—Clinton proclaimed his support for national bottle-bill legislation. The trade magazine Beverage World, however, told industry not to worry. Forecasting robust growth for curbside recycling in the near future, the magazine reported that Clinton had always sided with the Arkansas soft-drink industry in efforts to defeat bottle bills.44 On the campaign trail Clinton purportedly reassured a representative from the National Beer Wholesalers Association, saying that a national bottle bill would damage recycling and only add to the federal bureaucracy.45 Ultimately, the Clinton administration never came through on its campaign promise for a national bottle bill.

Instead, Clinton signed an executive order in 1993 requiring government procurers to use recycled products.46 The following year, the White House instituted its very own recycling program. “The first family has just received recycling bins in their residence so they can begin sorting,” said Cathy Zoi of the White House Office of Environmental Policy.47 The candidate who said he would put people first instead wound up putting personal responsibility ahead of any substantive regulatory reform. By advocating recycling Clinton drove mainstream environmentalism further into the embrace of green liberalism.

Naturalizing Capitalism
Clinton’s cave-in on the national bottle bill can hardly surprise in light of his background. In 1985, in the wake of Walter Mondale’s crushing election defeat, Clinton played a key role in organizing the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). Joined by Bruce Babbitt, then the governor of Arizona, Chuck Robb, the governor of Virginia, and the Georgia senator Sam Nunn, among others, the DLC orchestrated a rightward shift in the Democratic Party. Jesse Jackson dubbed the DLC, “Democrats for the Leisure Class.”48 Once in office, Clinton largely carried through on his neoliberal agenda. Losing faith in the role that government could play in the workings of the economy, the so-called New Democrats, led by Clinton and Gore, fell in love with markets and deregulation. Seeking to distinguish themselves from the Democrats of the past, the New Democrats tried to outdo their Republican predecessors in the deregulatory arena. They led the charge, for example, in the deregulation of telecommunications and contributed to the great bubble that burst in 2001.

Into this deregulatory environment stepped Paul Hawken, the founder of Smith and Hawken, the garden supply company, and before that a contributor to the Whole Earth Catalog. If the appropriate technologists sought to rescue the environment “one hand at a time,” to quote Brand, the green liberalism ascendant by the time of people like Hawken sought to do so one investor at a time. Writing after the fall of communism, Hawken in The Ecology of Commerce: A Declaration of Sustainability tried to forge a “third way” in opposition to what he viewed as simply unrestrained capitalism, on the one hand, and failed regulatory policies, on the other. His was a path “that restores the natural communities on earth but uses many of the historically effective organizational and market techniques of free enterprise.”49 As Hawken saw it, government regulation was no match for powerful industries. Instead, business needed to regulate itself and above all honor the true logic of the market. He meant for companies to incorporate into their design decisions an effort to deal with the full costs of manufacturing a given product.

Hawken’s understanding of commerce bears scrutiny because he sees it in fundamentally ahistorical terms, as simply part of “the natural impulses in society.” Seemingly the market has always existed and will continue to exist forever. Given that circumstance, no environmental program can succeed if it “requires a wholesale change in the dynamics of the market.” Such an ahistorical understanding of the market’s role in society suggests that we have no choice but to embrace capitalism. As Hawken continues: “We have to work with who we are,” by which he means people who live and die at the altar of price. It is but a short leap to the conclusion that what is natural is also beneficial and thus benign. Given the history of capitalism, it is a very suspect conclusion, to say the least.50

Emboldened by the success of his book, Hawken teamed up with Lovins and the latter’s wife, Hunter, to write a book they titled Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution. The veteran appropriate technologists argued that capitalism had run its course, reaching the limits of the available resource base. A new mode of production they called “natural capitalism,” which would factor the environment into all economic equations, was destined to take root. This new economic order would come about chiefly through the increasingly efficient use of natural resources. The authors provide numerous examples—from transportation technology and building methods to urban planning and agriculture—of ways in which natural resources could be used vastly more efficiently than at present. A parade of innovations unfolds across the book—so-called Hypercars that weigh little and use hybrid-electric technology, computer software for saving power, and a giant pillow stuffed with human hair, invented by a hairdresser, for soaking up oil spills.51

If the transformation planned by those in the appropriate-technology movement would come from individuals reading the Whole Earth Catalog, the next industrial revolution, according to these authors, will come by virtue of entrepreneurs recognizing the error of their ways. Then they would invest in green technologies to help them pursue their financial best interests and promote environmental sustainability at the same time. This industrial revolution will come under the auspices of capitalism, hence the title of their book. The authors, unsurprisingly, have little to say about wage labor, despite an interest in labor productivity. Nor do the authors envision the demise of market relations. Rather, they seek to make markets work in more ecologically sustainable ways. “The goal of natural capitalism,” they write, “is to extend the sound principles of the market to all sources of material value, not just to those that by accidents of history were first appropriated into the market system.”52

Political transformation is off the table. Instead, these neo-appropriate technologists argue that the system can be reformed from within. Though it is very hard to imagine what incentive a corporate executive would have to engage in more ecologically sustainable behavior if it did not financially benefit shareholders. Or as the historian Eric Schatzberg has written, “Nowhere in the book do the authors acknowledge that such a transformation of market capitalism would require a political process, one that would directly challenge the power of many of the industries that are supposedly heading down the path of natural capitalism.”53 Moreover, the book ignores the growth imperative at the core of capitalism—natural or otherwise. Indeed, the book relies on the subtext that limits can be transcended and the quest for economic growth can proceed through natural-resource efficiency, say, through carbon-free technologies. But using more soil, water, and forest in a carbon-free manner will not solve other ecological problems such as species extinction. In the end, natural capitalism does not address the fundamental structural problems at the core of the capitalist economic order.

Hot Flat Wrong
The idea that markets and individual initiative can save the world has reached a fevered pitch in the past couple of years. Exhibit A is the wild success of Thomas Friedman, the chief publicist of the neoliberal order. In his book Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution—And How It Can Renew America, Friedman argues that the conjunction of climate change, globalization, and population growth present a unique opportunity for Americans. In his earlier work, Friedman explained that a flat world is one in which technological change combined with global markets could expand economic opportunity and bring millions out of poverty into the middle class.54 In his new book he seems more worried about the consequences of this expanded bourgeoisie, deliriously going out and buying automobiles and air conditioners.

The global crisis in environmental relations with its effects on everything from biodiversity to forest cover—substantial as it is—is nothing that the capitalist system cannot handle. The new project in the United States—”Code Green,” as Friedman calls it—is about creating the right market incentives for green innovation to take place. At almost every turn Friedman seeks to naturalize the free market. As he explains, only the “free market” can lead us down the path to clean energy. “Only the market can generate and allocate enough capital fast enough and efficiently enough to get 10,000 inventors working in 10,000 companies and 10,000 garages and 10,000 laboratories to drive transformational breakthroughs; only the market can then commercialize the best of them and improve on the existing ones at the scope, speed, and scale we need.”55

At points in the book Friedman seems to be renouncing the emphasis on individual initiative that also characterizes green liberalism. He makes fun of tracts such as “205 Easy Ways to Save the Earth” and “40 Easy Ways to Save the Planet.” If only environmental reform were so easy, explains Friedman. While urging readers to “personally lead as environmentally sustainable a life as you can,” he also advocates for a more “systemic approach” to environmental reform—reforms such as properly factoring price into the cost of goods and seeing that externalities are absorbed within the financial equation. But since Friedman is not advocating any structural transformation it is impossible to see how, for example, corporations—which are legally obligated to operate in the financial best interests of their shareholders—would relinquish the idea that plants, soil, water, forests, and other natural resources are anything but a form of capital. Nor is it clear how Friedman’s prescription for the world’s ecological ills can come about without renouncing the pro-growth ideology that has governed capitalism since at least the nineteenth century. What Friedman means by fundamental change is, at most, “changes in our lifestyle,” not in the prevailing mode of production.56

In Friedman’s “Code Green” world, more companies would presumably behave like Wal-Mart, which has been greening its trucking fleet and pushing consumers in the direction of compact-florescent bulbs. On the surface it seems hard to disagree with Friedman’s conclusion that the superstore’s “growth be as green as possible.”57 And yet Wal-Mart’s entire business plan centers around a particular strategy of labor and environmental management. Just as anti-unionism has enabled the company to externalize the cost of labor, the company’s push for new roads and drainage systems on the urban fringe for its big-box stores allows it to profit—at public expense—from the high traffic that is the signal feature of the retailer’s success. How likely is it that a company like Wal-Mart will internalize the true environmental and labor costs of its operations when its entire business plan is predicated on externalizing those costs? Will a planet filled with green-thumbed CEOs, bowing down to Smith and his faith in free markets, really be able to address ecological problems such as global warming, species extinction, and the alteration of the global nitrogen cycle?58

Friedman’s best-selling prescription for the world is of course a long way from the ideas of people like Schumacher who wrote Small Is Beautiful thirty-five years earlier. The popularity of the two books at their various points in time represents the distance environmental politics has traveled over the past several decades. Unlike Friedman, Schumacher, an economist though he was, believed the question of how to reform capitalism in the name of social justice and ecology remained at its core a question of politics. Schumacher put his trust in small-scale economic entities, but he did not believe in small government or small ideas. It might surprise today’s devotees of the neoliberal, neo-appropriate-technology worldview that their pioneering intellectual figure reckoned that corporations “live parasitically on the labour of others” and argued for an end to private ownership, at least among large-scale enterprises.59 If in these Friedmanesque times such ideas sound like so much Joe Hill pie in the sky, it is worth taking a moment to remember that Schumacher, too, in his day, was a best-selling author—even if his road was not taken.


Notes
A version of this essay was originally delivered as a lecture at Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa, on September 28, 2008. I thank my hosts for inviting me to deliver the paper and all those who participated in the discussion following the lecture. A special thanks as well to Joshua Palmer and Donald Worster.

1. “Text of Clinton Speech on Environment,” U.S. Newswire, April 22, 1992.

2. Bill McKibben, Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future (New York: Times Books, 2007), 2, 105; Bill McKibben, “The Greenback Effect: Greed Has Helped Destroy the Planet—Maybe Now It Can Help Save It,” Mother Jones, May/June 2008, 42, 45.

3. Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2007), 8.

4. Ibid., 15.

5. For a completely different perspective on green liberalism, see Marcel Wissenburg, Green Liberalism: The Free and the Green Society (London: University College London Press, 1998). The political theorist Wissenburg develops an environmental critique of the liberal-democratic theory of philosophers such as John Rawls and Ronald Dworkin.

6. Andrew G. Kirk, Counterculture Green: The Whole Earth Catalog and American Environmentalism (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2007), 11, 52. The two Brand quotations are from, respectively, J. Baldwin, ed., Whole Earth Ecolog: The Best of Environmental Tools and Ideas (New York: Harmony Books, 1990), 3 and The Updated Last Whole Earth Catalog: Access to Tools (Menlo Park, CA: Nowles, 1971), 43.

7. Quoted in Witold Rybczynski, Paper Heroes: A Review of Appropriate Technology (Garden City, NY: Anchor, 1980), 8. The biographical information on Schumacher is derived from 5–8.

8. E. F. Schumacher, Small Is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as If People Mattered (1973; London: Abacus, 1974), 46, 50, 226; Rybczynski, Paper Heroes, 13.

9. Amory B. Lovins, “Energy Strategy: The Road Not Taken?” Foreign Affairs 55 (1976): 74–75.

10. Kirk, Counterculture Green, 37.

11. Michael Maniates, “Individualization: Plant a Tree, Buy a Bike, Save the World?” in Confronting Consumption, ed. Thomas Princen, Maniates, and Ken Conca (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002), 44, 45.

12. Michael A. Bernstein, “Why the Great Depression Was Great: Toward a New Understanding of the Interwar Economic Crisis in the United States,” in The Rise and Fall of the New Deal Order, 1930–1980, ed. Steve Fraser and Gary Gerstle (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989), 48; Robert Pollin, Contours of Descent: U.S. Economic Fractures and the Landscape of Global Austerity (London: Verso, 2003), 116.

13. Pollin, Contours of Descent, 18, 185.

14. David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 22.

15. Sean Wilentz, The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974–2008 (New York: HarperCollins, 2008), 140.

16. Joseph Stiglitz, The Roaring Nineties: A New History of the World’s Most Prosperous Decade (New York: Norton, 2003), 284. Stiglitz, however, did not coin the phrase. See Margaret R. Somers and Fred Block, “From Poverty to Perversity: Ideas, Markets, and Institutions over Two Hundred Years of Welfare Debate,” American Sociological Review 70 (2005): 260–87.

17. Elizabeth Knowles, ed., Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, 6th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 787.

18. Harvey, Brief History of Neoliberalism, 23.

19. Ellen K. Scott and Andrew S. London, “Women’s Lives, Welfare’s Time Limits,” in People at Work: Life, Power, and Social Inclusion in the New Economy, ed. Marjorie L. DeVault (New York: New York University Press, 2008), 158.

20. General Accounting Office, Solid Waste: Trade-Offs Involved in Beverage Container Deposit Legislation, GAO/RCED–91–25, 1990, 12. See also, Louis Blumberg and Robert Gottlieb, War on Waste: Can America Win Its Battle with Garbage? (Washington, DC: Island Press, 1989), 237–38.

21. David Bird, “Oregon’s ‘Bottle Bill’ Attacked and Praised,” New York Times, April 10, 1973.

22. General Accounting Office, Solid Waste, 12.

23. Quoted in “Industry Fosters Drive against Litter,” New York Times, October 14, 1954. For an excellent discussion of Keep America Beautiful, see Heather Rogers, Gone Tomorrow: The Hidden Life of Garbage (New York: New Press, 2005), 141–46.

24. Rogers, Gone Tomorrow, 145.

25. Peter Harnik, letter to the editor, New York Times, August 27, 1976. Harnik was a coordinator for Environmental Action.

26. For more on planned obsolescence, see Giles Slade, Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006).

27. Laws of Minnesota, ch. 748, sec. 1 (1973).

28. General Accounting Office, Solid Waste, 14.

29. Bird, “Oregon’s ‘Bottle Bill’ Attacked and Praised.”

30. Robert E. Tomasson, “The Old Deposit Bottle Is Back But It Can Cost Twenty Cents More,” New York Times, January 20, 1980.

31. The quote is taken from General Accounting Office, States’ Experience with Beverage Container Deposit Laws Shows Positive Benefits, PAD 81–08, 1980, title page. See also, General Accounting Office, Potential Effects of a National Mandatory Deposit on Beverage Containers, PAD–78–19, 1977.

32. Quoted in John Holusha, “Who Foots the Bill for Recycling?” New York Times, April 25, 1993.

33. Theo Alexander and Judd Alexander, “Leisure Class and Throwaway Glass,” New York Times, March 12, 1978.

34. William M. Bulkeley, “Plan to Ban Nonreturnable Bottles, Cans Stirs Ire in Michigan as Vote Approaches,” Wall Street Journal, October 27, 1976.

35. The two quotes are taken from Rogers, Gone Tomorrow, 150, 151, respectively.

36. John F. McGoldrick, letter to the editor, New York Times, March 11, 1974.

37. David Bird, “Environment Bills Stalled by Legislative Lobbyists,” New York Times, April 23, 1971.

38. Jule Roll, letter to the editor, New York Times, June 9, 1977.

39. Charles S. Mack, letter to the editor, New York Times, May 29, 1981.

40. Quoted in Ted Steinberg, Down to Earth: Nature’s Role in American History, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 235.

41. Rogers, Gone Tomorrow, 168.

42. Anthony R. Depaolo, “Plastics Recycling Legislation: Not Just the Same Old Garbage,” Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 22 (1995): 873; Brett Godush, “The Hidden Value of a Dime: How a Federal Bottle Bill Can Benefit the Country,” Vermont Law Review 25 (2001): 874.

43. Mary L. Wells, letter to the editor, New York Times, October 17, 1995. Wells was a staff attorney for U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

44. Greg W. Prince, “Is Clinton really Bottle Bill?” Beverage World, June 1992, 28.

45. Havis Dawson, “With a Different Party in Washington, Will Beverages Be Served?” Beverage World’s Periscope, November 30, 1992, 6.

46. Gary Lee, “Government Purchasers Told to Seek Recycled Products,” Washington Post, October 21, 1993.

47. Quoted in Verne Kopytoff, “White House Goes Green,” San Jose Mercury News, March 21, 1994.

48. Quoted in Wilentz, Age of Reagan, 318.

49. Paul Hawken, The Ecology of Commerce: A Declaration of Sustainability (New York: HarperBusiness, 1993), 9.

50. Ibid., xv. See the excellent critique of the book in Alexander Cockburn, “Earth Day Supporters Focus on Who Has the ‘Green,’” Philadelphia Inquirer, April 22, 1997.

51. Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins, and L. Hunter Lovins, Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution (Boston: Little Brown, 1999), 66, 70–71.

52. Ibid., 261.

53. Eric Schatzberg, review of Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution, by Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins, and L. Hunter Lovins, Technology and Culture 43 (2002): 220.

54. Thomas L. Friedman, The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005).

55. Thomas L. Friedman, Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution—And How It Can Renew America (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2008), 244.

56. Ibid., 193, 199, 397. On the nineteenth-century roots of the idea of endless economic growth, see Steven Stoll, The Great Delusion: A Mad Inventor, Death in the Tropics, and the Utopian Origins of Economic Growth (New York: Hill and Wang, 2008).

57. Friedman, Hot, Flat, and Crowded, 401.

58. The tendency to obsess over global warming without acknowledging the other very real threats to global ecology is nicely explained in Peter M. Vitousek, “Beyond Global Warming: Ecology and Global Change,” Ecology 75 (1994): 1861–76.

59. Schumacher, Small Is Beautiful, 223.

http://tedsteinberg.com/essays/can-capitalism-save-the-planet/

THE DEKLEIN OF LOGIC. THE ART OF CONFLATION

Wrong Kind of Green Feb 03, 2016 350.org / 1Sky, Foundations, Greenpeace, Non-Profit Industrial Complex, Pacifism as Pathology
The Art of Annihilation

The following is an excerpt from Part thirteen of the Divestment Investigative Report Series [Further Reading]: Part I • Part II • Part III • Part IV • Part V • Part VI • Part VII • Part VIII • Part IX • Part X • Part XI • Part XII • Part XIII


http://i1.wp.com/silentsplease.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/khrizantemy-chrysanthemums-yevgeni-bauer-vera-karalli-10-vera-flower-drop.gif?resize=400%2C300
Chrysanthemums (translit. Khrizantemy; 1914): a “conflation of art, performance, and death” [Source]

With the 350.org divestment movement and Klein at the helm, in addition to its in partnership The Guardian (who has also partnered with Klein personally outside of 350.org) and endorsement from the UN, 350.org et al have a position in the media to create mobilizations on cue, simply by calling out on its army of divestment students, now global in scope. On the This Changes Everything website it should be noted that within Klein’s bio, 350.org continues to be referred to as a global grassroots movement. Disregarding the fact that 1Sky (which merged with 350 in 2011) was an incubator project of the Rockefeller Foundation; it is still an NGO whose annual incomes exceeds millions; and rewards staff with six-figure salaries. Due to its now global size (not to mention its oligarchic origins), 350.org is very far removed from the true concept of grass roots. The word disingenuous, in regard to this claim, is an immense understatement.

http://i2.wp.com/www.wrongkindofgreen.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/bono-clinton-2007.jpg?resize=690%2C464
2007: “Former President Bill Clinton and musician Bono appear on stage during ‘Giving – Live At The Apollo’ presented by the MTV and Clinton Global Initiative at the Apollo Theater on September 29, 2007 in New York City.”

http://i2.wp.com/www.wrongkindofgreen.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/bono-clinton-2.jpg?resize=690%2C458
2008: “U2 singer Bono speaks with Al Gore during the opening session of the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) on Sep. 24, 2008, in New York City. Gore attended the fourth annual meeting of the CGI, a gathering of politicians celebrities, philanthropists and business leaders to discuss pressing global issues.” (Spencer Platt / Getty Images)

In the October 12, 2007, CNN article The Bono-ization of Activism, Klein (rightly) criticizes the “Bono-ization” of the protest movement:

“…the new style of anti-poverty campaigning, where celebrities talk directly with government and business leaders on behalf of a continent (such as Africa) is another form of “noblesse oblige” where the rich and powerful club together to ‘give something back.’ “They are saying we don’t even need government anymore, it’s the replacement of nation states with corporate rule — this Billionaires Club, including Bill Clinton that gets together to give a little something back.”
And yet, eight years later, Klein has fully immersed herself in this same (yet even more powerful) “Billionaires Club”, having replaced nation states with corporate rule. If anyone could be characterized as embracing “another form of ‘noblesse oblige’” it is Klein, the 350.org NGO she serves, and the climate cartel they run with—inclusive of Wall Street.

In 2007, Bill McKibben launched the national ‘Step It Up’ campaign (Clinton Global Initiative Commitment 2007) targeting members of the U.S. congress to be ‘real leaders’ on climate change. Presidential candidates including Senators Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton attended Step It Up events and issued statements of support for 1Sky’s goals. Step it Up then morphed into 1Sky. 1Sky was an incubator project of the Foundation at its inception. [Further reading: Rockefellers’ 1Sky Unveils the New 350.org | More $ – More Delusion] At the 2007 Clinton Global Initiative, then President Clinton announced the 1Sky campaign. [Video, September 29, 2007: 1Sky at Clinton Global Initiative published by Step It Up][Clinton Foundation Press Release, Sept 27, 2007: “Working with partners 1Sky will raise $50 million to advocate for a simple set of goals and policy proposals to improve the federal government’s policies on climate change.”]

Four years (2011) after voicing very strong criticisms of the anti-poverty campaign’s engagement with Bill Clinton, a campaign that coincided with the 2007 Step It Up and 1Sky alliances with the Clinton Foundation, Klein would choose to serve on the 350.org board of directors as it officially merged with 1Sky.”

Klein: “What’s complicated about the space that Bono and Geldof (Bob Geldof, founder of Live Aid) are occupying is that it’s inside and outside at the same time — there’s no difference. What’s significant about the Seattle movement (the WTO protests in 1999 and 2000) is that it’s less the tactics but the fact that it identifies that there are real power differences, winners and losers in this economic model.”
In similar fashion, the space that 350.org and the NPIC “are occupying is that it’s inside and outside at the same time – they are part and parcel of the same elite power structures Klein criticizes. There’s no difference.” Like Bono’s Live Aid that Klein condemned, the divestment campaign, that Klein actively promotes, deliberately avoids the fact that “there are real power differences, winners and losers in this economic model.” (i.e. the divestment model)

“Klein believes when celebrities such as Bono engage in talks with world leaders at forums such as Davos they are legitimizing the structures in place, and the inequalities that arise from these structures, rather than promoting any radical change; “The story of globalization is the story of inequality. What’s been lost in the Bono-ization is ability to change these power structures. There are still the winners and losers, people who are locked in to the power structures and those locked out.” [The Bono-ization of Activism]
The official Road to Paris website cites Klein is one of the top twenty influential women in respect to this year’s “Road to Paris, United Nations, Conference of the Parties” (with McKibben being cited as one of the top influential men). Like Bono lending legitimacy to Davos, Klein’s and McKibben’s luminary (and manufactured) status is being fully utilized in the same fashion: legitimizing the structures in place, and the inequalities that arise from these structures. While Klein spoke to Bono’s legitimizing of globalization and inequality, 350’s partnership with the United Nations is stealth marketing that serves to whitewash the United Nations pivotal role as part of the finance/credit cartel subverting state sovereignty and undermining Indigenous autonomy. [Absence of the Sacred]

Failure to publicly expose and condemn the third pillar of the new economy, that of the commodification of nature via implementation of ecosystem services accounting, not only legitimizes the current power structures in place, but expands and insulates them beyond reproach. The inequalities that arise from this one single, and most critical, false solution (of many) not only legitimizes inequalities, it guarantees the finish line for the ongoing genocide of the world’s Indigenous peoples—nothing less than total annihilation. The NPIC, as the third pillar of contemporary imperialism, [3] which Klein has submerged herself in, ensures current power structures are not only kept intact, but strengthened and insulated.

Of course, this is not the first time 350.org has taken to subverting state sovereignty and undermined Indigenous autonomy.

“Bono’s Red initiative is emblematic of this new Pro-Logo age. He announced a new branded product range at the World Economic Forum in Davos Switzerland last year called Product Red. American Express, Converse, Armani and Gap were initial partners, joined later by Apple and Motorola. The corporations sell Red branded products, with a percentage of profits going to Bono approved causes. In this Pro-Logo world there is an irony of consuming to end poverty. Perhaps an even bigger irony: through initiatives like the Red card, consumer culture and branding is buying a stake in anti-globalization and alleviating poverty movement.”
The global divestment campaign (as was the Stop the KeystoneXL! campaign) is emblematic of the increasingly sophisticated, 21st century Pro-Logo age. Today, Bono’s 2008 branded product range promoting his ‘Product Red’, has been replaced in the public realm, with the divestment campaign’s ‘Fossil Fuel Free’ Funds and portfolios (while in the background, hedge funds and private investments comprise the portfolios of the ultra wealthy). Responsible Endowments Coalition, Energy Action Coalition, Sierra Student Coalition, As You Sow, Better Future Project, Better Future Project (financed by Wallace Global Fund) and Ceres were initial partners, joined later by the Guardian and the United Nations. In this “capitalism vs the climate” world, there is a strengthening/expanding of capital markets to counteract capitalism. Perhaps an even bigger irony: through initiatives like the global divestment campaign, investment (which furthers consumption/consumer culture) and branding is buying a stake in the anti-capitalist and environmental movements.

“What they’ve tapped into is a market niche. There’s nothing that’s inherently wrong with these initiatives except when they make radical claims that it’s going to end poverty. There’s a long history of radical consumption — what’s pretty unbelievable about this (the Red Label) is that they say it’s revolutionary and it’s going to replace other forms of politics.” [The Bono-ization of Activism]
What the divestment campaign has tapped into is a market niche. While the future will bear witness that there is /was everything inherently wrong with the divestment (dis)course, the framing that the campaign is in service to the fight against climate change, is more than insulting. Remix: There’s a long history of “radical” consumption — what’s pretty unbelievable about this current version (the divestment campaign) is that they say it’s revolutionary and it’s going to replace other forms of politics.

In the 2007 article, Klein argued that Bono’s supporters believed he was being constructive because his camp was engaging with power, which she disagreed with. Yet eight years later Klein has aligned herself with some of the most powerful oligarchs and institutions in the world.

Toward the end of the 2007 article, the author quotes an unidentified activist who stated charity concerts were a way to recorporate the issue. The parallels are striking, for who could disagree that the divestment campaign does perform the exact same function— “a way to recorporate the issue”?

In a single quote that serves to be most prophetic, the unidentified activist added: “It changes nothing.”

http://i1.wp.com/www.wrongkindofgreen.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/manray3.jpg?resize=690%2C532

Kiki de Montparnasse, Man Ray (Radnitzky, Emmanuel)

Klein’s partnership with the Guardian newspaper, her placating of 350.org’s foundation funding, her chosen decision to remain silent on warmonger NGOs such as 350.org’s strategic partner Avaaz (in large part responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands in Libya [4], which they seek to be repeated in Syria), her silence on the NPIC undermining of vulnerable states at COP15 (with Greenpeace, 350 and Avaaz being the first signatories of TckTckTck), her acceptance of 350’s undermining of a sovereign state and the world’s Indigenous peoples, her scant, almost non-existent references to the military-industrial complex in relation to its massive (and exempted) contribution to both climate change and ecological devastation (case in point, consider The US Air Force (USAF) is the single largest consumer of jet fuel in the world. The avoidance of this subject is even more unconscionable considering US President Barack Obama is one of the most (if not the most) militarily aggressive US presidents in history, authorizing various airstrikes and military operations in at least seven Muslim countries ); her silence on industrialized factory framing (livestock stats), and her failure to disclose the relation between 350’s KXL campaign and Buffett’s 21st century oil by rail dynasty, etc. — all demonstrate Klein’s own “noblesse oblige”.

Klein’s most glaring “noblesse oblige” is the exclusion of ecosystem services accounting in her international best seller, This Changes Everything. The promotional description reads: “The really inconvenient truth is that it’s not about carbon—it’s about capitalism.” The solution is delivered in the next line: “The convenient truth is that we can seize this existential crisis to transform our failed system and build something radically better.” The elites are indeed seizing this existential crisis to transform our failed system—it’s the financialization of the Earth’s commons referred to as “valuing ecosystem services”.

Consider that in a 505 page book written on climate and capitalism not a single chapter, or even a single page explores the most pathological intent of the 21st century. One is tempted to conclude that investigative journalist Klein has simply over-looked another critical issue pertaining to the climate. Or perhaps Klein simply has no knowledge of this scheme. However, the word financialization does garner one vital mention—buried in the acknowledgements: “Two years ago, Rajiv and I were joined by Alexandra Tempus, another exceptional and diligent journalist and researcher. Alexandra quickly mastered her own roster of topics, from post–Superstorm Sandy disaster capitalism to financialization of nature to the opaque world of green group and foundation funding to climate impacts on fertility. She developed important new contacts, uncovered new and shocking facts, and always shared her thoughtful analysis.” (The single reference to ecosystems services within the book is found within one sentence on p 34: “Nor have the various attempts to soft-pedal climate action as compatible with market logic (carbon trading, carbon offsets, monetizing nature’s “services”) fooled these true believers one bit.”)

Further consider that in an Earth Island Institute “Conversation” with Naomi Klein (Fall, 2013) Klein is asked a direct question on monetizing ecosystem services. Interviewer to Klein: “It’s interesting because even as some of the Big Green groups have gotten enamored of the ideas of ecosystem services and natural capital, there’s this counter-narrative coming from the Global South and Indigenous communities. It’s almost like a dialectic.” Klein’s response is not only incoherent, she evades the question altogether:

Klein:

“That’s the counternarrative, and those are the alternative worldviews that are emerging at this moment. The other thing that is happening … I don’t know what to call it. It’s maybe a reformation movement, a grassroots rebellion. There’s something going on in the [environmental] movement in the US and Canada, and I think certainly in the UK. What I call the “astronaut’s eye worldview” – which has governed the Big Green environmental movement for so long – and by that I mean just looking down at Earth from above. I think it’s sort of time to let go of the icon of the globe, because it places us above it and I think it has allowed us to see nature in this really abstracted way and sort of move pieces, like pieces on a chessboard, and really loose touch with the Earth. You know, it’s like the planet instead of the Earth.

And I think where that really came to a head was over fracking. The head offices of the Sierra Club and the NRDC and the EDF all decided this was a “bridge fuel.” We’ve done the math and we’re going to come out in favor of this thing. And then they faced big pushbacks from their membership, most of all at the Sierra Club. And they all had to modify their position somewhat. It was the grassroots going, “Wait a minute, what kind of environmentalism is it that isn’t concerned about water, that isn’t concerned about industrialization of rural landscapes – what has environmentalism become?” And so we see this grassroots, place-based resistance in the movements against the Keystone XL pipeline and the Northern Gateway pipeline, the huge anti-fracking movement. And they are the ones winning victories, right?

I think the Big Green groups are becoming deeply irrelevant. Some get a lot of money from corporations and rich donors and foundations, but their whole model is in crisis.”
Noblesse oblige indeed.

Klein’s contributions have not threatened capitalism; rather her efforts are utilized to not only protect it, but strengthen it.

Perhaps the icing on the cake that is the Rockefeller and Clinton 350.org/1Sky project, is as follows: Participation in the Clinton Global Initiative is by invitation only. The membership fee is $20,000 ($19,000 tax deductible) per year. 2014 annual meeting sponsors include HSBC, Barclays, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, The Coca-Cola Company, Ford Foundation, Monsanto, Proctor and Gamble, The Rockefeller Foundation, Blackstone, Deutsche Bank, Dow, Exxon Mobil, and others. Clinton Global Initiative University includes McKibben’s Middlebury College within its network (“These 70 schools have pledged more than $800,000 to support CGI U 2015 student commitment-makers.”) Thus, it is of little surprise to find that in December of 2014, Global CEO cites both McKibben and Klein as those within the top ten list of “inspirational CSR leaders” as voted by their readers.

Identified in the 2007 Clinton Global Initiative membership along with princes, baronesses, heads of states, and CEOs are none other than:

Mindy Lubber, President of Ceres, (In 2013, Morgan Stanley created the Institute for Sustainable Investing – Lubber serves on the Institute’s Advisory Board, which is chaired by Morgan Stanley’s Chairman and CEO James Gorman) (Stern Citi Leadership & Ethics Distinguished Fellow)
Kumi Naidoo, Secretary General, CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation (Chair/president of Greenpeace and TckTckTck a.k.a. GCCA, International Advisory Council for 350.org and SumofUs)
Billy Parish Coordinator, Co-Founder, Energy Action Coalition, (1Sky Board of Directors)
Betsy Taylor, Chair 1Sky Campaign (Ceres Board of Directors, Greenpeace Board of Directors President of Breakthrough Strategies and Solutions,SumofUs Advisory Board)
Lynne Twist, Trustee The John E. Fetzer Institute (Pachamama Alliance founder)
Timothy Wirth President United Nations Foundation (Next System Initial Signatory)




“Who will be the Bill Gates of ecosystem services?” Read the full article: The Increasing Vogue for Capitalist-Friendly Climate Discourse



[3] “Accordingly, a nonprofit-corporate complex (based in international non-governmental organizations, NGOs) dominating an array of social services, many of which were performed by the state in the past, emerged as the third pillar of the triangular structure of contemporary imperialism during the 1980s. It represents a kind of “Third Way” on the part of capital that privatizes state functions and occupies key strategic points within civil society (co-opting social movements) while seemingly outside the realm of private capital—thereby enabling an acceleration of privatization and reinforcing the hegemony of monopoly-finance capital globally.” [Source]

[4] 500,000 dead, 30,000 in terrorist-run prisons, 2.5 million exiled, tens of thousands of refugees.

http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2016/02/03/the-deklein-of-logic-the-art-of-conflation/?utm_source=ReviveOldPost&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=ReviveOldPost