Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Is Big Business Buying Out the Environmental Movement?

By Phil Mattera, Corporate Research Project. Posted June 5, 2007.


With Big Business going green, is it a sign that environmental campaigns have prevailed and are setting the corporate agenda? Or have enviros been duped into endorsing what may be little more than a new wave of corporate greenwashing?
060507story

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Phil Mattera

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

In the business world these days, it appears that just about everything is for sale. Multi-billion-dollar deals are commonplace, and even venerable institutions such as the Wall Street Journal find themselves put into play. Yet companies are not the only things being acquired. This may turn out to be the year that big business bought a substantial part of the environmental movement.

That's one way of interpreting the remarkable level of cooperation that is emerging between some prominent environmental groups and some of the world's largest corporations. What was once an arena of fierce antagonism has become a veritable love fest as companies profess to be going green and get lavishly honored for doing so. Earlier this year, for instance, the World Resources Institute gave one of its "Courage to Lead" awards to the chief executive of General Electric.

Every day seems to bring another announcement from a large corporation that it is taking steps to protect the planet. IBM, informally known as Big Blue, launched its Project Big Green to help customers slash their data center energy usage. Newmont Mining Co., the world's largest gold digger, endorsed a shareholder resolution calling for a review of its environmental impact.

Home Depot introduced an Eco Options label for thousands of green products. General Motors and oil major ConocoPhillips joined the list of corporate giants that have come out in support of a mandatory ceiling on greenhouse gas emissions. Bank of America said it would invest $20 billion in sustainable projects over the next decade.

Many of the new initiatives are being pursued in direct collaboration with environmental groups. Wal-Mart is working closely with Conservation International on its efforts to cut energy usage and switch to renewable sources of power. McDonald's has teamed up with Greenpeace to discourage deforestation caused by the growth of soybean farming in Brazil.

When buyout firms Texas Pacific Group and KKR were negotiating the takeover of utility company TXU earlier this year, they asked Environmental Defense to join the talks so that the deal, which ended up including a rollback of plans for 11 new coal-fired plants, could be assured a green seal of approval.

Observing this trend, Business Week detects "a remarkable evolution in the dynamic between corporate executives and activists. Once fractious and antagonistic, it has moved toward accommodation and even mutual dependence." The question is: who is accommodating whom? Are these developments a sign that environmental campaigns have prevailed and are setting the corporate agenda? Or have enviros been duped into endorsing what my be little more than a new wave of corporate greenwash?

An Epiphany About the Environment?

The first thing to keep in mind is that Corporate America's purported embrace of environmental principles is nothing new. Something very similar happened, for example, in early 1990 around the time of the 20th anniversary of Earth Day. Fortune announced then that "trend spotters and forward thinkers agree that the Nineties will be the Earth Decade and that environmentalism will be a movement of massive worldwide force." Business Week published a story titled "The Greening of Corporate America."

The magazines cited a slew of large companies that were said to be embarking on significant green initiatives, among them DuPont, General Electric, McDonald's, 3M, Union Carbide and Procter & Gamble. Corporations such as these put on their own Earth Tech environmental technology fair on the National Mall and endorsed Earth Day events and promotions.

A difference between then and now is that there was a lot more skepticism about Corporate America's claim of having had an epiphany about the environment. It was obvious to many that business was trying to undo the damage caused by environmental disasters such as Union Carbide's deadly Bhopal chemical leak, the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska and the deterioration of the ozone layer. Activist groups charged that corporations were engaging in a bogus public relations effort which they branded "greenwash." Greenpeace staged a protest at DuPont's Earth Tech exhibit, leading to a number of arrests.

Misgivings about corporate environmentalism grew as it was discovered that many of the claims about green products were misleading, false or irrelevant. Mobil Chemical, for instance, was challenged for calling its new Hefty trash bags biodegradable, since that required extended exposure to light rather than their usual fate of being buried in landfills. Procter & Gamble was taken to task for labeling its Pampers and Luvs disposable diapers "compostable" when only a handful of facilities in the entire country were equipped to do such processing.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: environment, business

Phil Mattera is research director of Good Jobs First and head of its Corporate Research Project.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
it's a massive public relations hoax!
Posted by: Smiggsy on Jun 5, 2007 1:15 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"they are fooling us and are perpetrating a massive public relations hoax."

This just about sums it up. Big corporations are now aware & seriously concerned that consumers will no longer support them as good corporate citizens for ruining the health of our planet......which they all do. But who are they fooling?

In particular, petrochemical companies can never claim to be remotely considered a green industry & anyone who believes the rot deserves another lobotomy. These are the same companies who seem to be spending the most promoting "earth friendly" concepts. Its seems to be proportional: the more harm the industry does to the planet = the greater amount of bullshit they profess. It really shows how these Oil companies are seriously out of touch with their consumers not to mention reality.

While we're at it, lets raise the price of gas again. Maybe their next ad campaigns will extort the corporate virtues of "helping families save money in times of crisis" or some bullplop. So where are the ads telling us all how successful & glorious they are at being the richest companies on earth making the most profits year after year.....

I consider it as the world's worst propaganda campaign. Don't be fooled...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Consumers are the key facilitators of green washing and green scamming
Posted by: Rune on Jun 5, 2007 1:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Simply by identifying as a consumer, one places the marketing and P.R. forces of manufacturers in a position to pile up profits by burning up more of the planet to sell it to us. Being a consumer is all about getting the maximum, immediate emotional gratification from the consumption of stuff that one can with a given budget. That means buying as much stuff as possible (oh boy, bargains!) or buying the stuff that is loaded with the most potent emotional triggers. And today, everyone is conditioned to see anything green as a status booster and anxiety reliever, so much so that they will load up on anything marketed as "green" or "sustainable" without really thinking through the implications of the life cycle of such products and what they really mean for society or the natural environment the same way a dieter might binge on anything labeled low-fat or low-carb without stopping to ask do I need this?, do I like this?, or is this really healthy?

The truth is, we can't consume our way to a more stable, less dangerous environment unless we reverse the growth of human populations in wealthy and rapidly developing nations. Worldwide, "clean" energy, excluding hydro (which isn't really sustainable or significantly expandable given the life of dams and global warming's impact on regional water supplies) accounts for a small fraction of 1% of today's energy use. Clean energy is struggling to grow at a 30% to 40% annual growth rate. There is no way that clean energy can come close to keeping up with the 1% to 3% population growth going on in moderate to high energy consuming nations given the extremely small scale of the industry today and current and projected growth rates. Even the most optimistic projections for the next few years have clean energy losing ground to the projected increase in demand. And so it is with green products people are gobbling up while throwing away vast amounts of old "junk" (which may not be junk at all) and copious amounts of packaging that no one seems to think about when they buy their "green" products.

As consumers, people want to think they can buy their way to personal improvement, social acceptance, a better future, and an immediate sense of self worth and well being. The flip side is that this leaves consumers feeling very vulnerable to any suggestions that they reduce or limit their consumption. This creates a powerful opportunity for marketers and PR people to push the buttons of consumers to get them to devote their lives to gathering resources and blowing them on shopping sprees. "Green" is just one more trigger to get people to try to buy their way to happiness, over and over, like a cursed character pushing a rock up a hill as if he can actually get where he wants to be that way.

The only real way out is to quit seeing ourselves as consumers and start seeing ourselves creative members of our communities who infuse life with meaning and value by learning and doing, shopping and devouring. Sure we need a certain amount of stuff to live and a little extra is great for play. But when getting more and newer stuff becomes an obsession, which it is, by definition, among people who see themselves primarily as consumers, shopping is stressful, truth is obscured, and the message about a sucker being born every minute takes on a whole new meaning on an overburdened planet.

Stuff can be a thrill, but very few people ever end up on their death beds saying, "oh, if only I had worked more so I could have bought more stuff that I would not have had time to enjoy anyhow!" All this stuff, even the stuff with the green veneer, is killing us and killing our planet. We need to quit being consumers in a perpetual junk food feeding frenzy and start becoming humanists and materialists, that is people with a deep appreciation for a few excellent humans and fine materials in our lives. New and improved is something to be, not something to buy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Great Post. Posted by: Lincoln fan
Partners for Life?
Posted by: edith on Jun 5, 2007 2:10 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is it possible in the US, given the intractable hold large corporations hold over consumers, and the grip large investment banks hold over captial investment decisions, to improve any sector environmentally without private partnership? Like it or not, the corporate sector runs the US economy and a good deal, if not the entire, US Congress.

Is there realistically a choice as to whether corporations get a seat, and maybe a veto, at the "green" reform table?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Partners for Life? Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: Partners for Life? Posted by: Lincoln fan
damn right
Posted by: Rshaw on Jun 5, 2007 3:32 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fuck the corporations, they are THE problem, not the solution. Anyone who thinks otherwise just doesn't get it.

We need to build horizontal, participatory structures (co-ops, collectives, non-profits) - we need them to manage our resources not this institutional form that is structured to oppress, exploit and consume our labor.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Wow... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Wow, that's really helpful... Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE:You are making assumptions. Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: You are making assumptions. Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: You are making assumptions. Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: You are making assumptions. Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: damn right Posted by: WitchyNy
Cars driven by air
Posted by: robchapman on Jun 5, 2007 3:50 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the latest issue of Popular Mechanics, there is story that the largest car maker in India is going to mass produce an SUV driven by compressed air with a $17,500 sticker price.

The air will operate the pistons the same way the combustion of gasoline runs them in American cars.

With automakers world-wide introducing, safer, cleaner, cheaper and better cars than the ones made in America, our flagship industry is faltering fast.

The same will happen in any other industry in which corporations offer green mail instead of better products.

Foreign manufacturers are proving that green is not only economical for the customer, but that green is profitable for the manufacturer.

Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Cars driven by air Posted by: Ron in OH
» RE: Cars driven by air Posted by: willymack
» RE: Cars driven by air Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: Cars driven by air Posted by: monkeywrench
A Broader View
Posted by: EKSwitaj on Jun 5, 2007 4:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a good analysis of a specific instance of what corporate marketing departments are designed to do: take radical social and political ideas and appropriate and sanitize them in order to fulfill their own needs. New ways of living become new ways of dressing; reducing consumption becomes, instead, a way of consuming.

Activist groups and/or artists do the heavy work of making a new idea popular. While it still seems new and exciting to many people, marketers take that idea, gut it, and present it as something that can be participated in without (scary) fundamental change in one's life. Many feel vague dissatisfaction with this but can't quite place why and so are eager to consume the next "new" idea marketers feed them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Here's a good exploited marketing example Posted by: common intelligence
Why are most PV panels made by oil companies?
Posted by: grim ripper on Jun 5, 2007 4:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is it, that with the notable exception of Evergreen solar in Marlboro, Mass., all the other PV companies are subsidiaries of oil companies?

Just wondering

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

it doesn't matter why
Posted by: judep on Jun 5, 2007 5:32 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't like the tone of this article and some of its explicit assertions. I don't care why corporations are getting on the green bandwagon as long as they do it. (Of course, we need to dig deep to find out if they really practice what they preach.) The recent changes show that ideology and consumer demand in a capitalist society does not have to be incompatible with eco-awareness. Why not support corporations if they are really doing the job? And why beat them up for past atrocities? Now is now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: it DOES matter why Posted by: anthroman
» RE: it doesn't matter why Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» "...capitalist society"? Posted by: Mr. Heathen
publicity helps
Posted by: solrev on Jun 5, 2007 6:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Green corporations may be an oxymoron, however all the publicity being generated by corporations going green helps to legitimize the global warming theory. It is harder and harder for people to deny global warming is real and it is the result of greenhouse gases. Global warming can only be addressed by government energy policies. If everyone is on the green bandwagon how can the government continue to deny the problem. Even if the government does not take any meaningful steps to address the problem they have at least to pay lip service to the problem. Even Bush pretends to be concerned and that’s a monumental step from a few years ago. The people need to keep the government feet in the fire and all the publicity can only help.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We DO need to overthrow Capitalism-
Posted by: WitchyNy on Jun 5, 2007 9:16 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A profit based system LEADS to environmental destruction.

We need an Environmental based system.
ANY energy is still going to affect global warming.
We need to use LESS energy.

Alternative energy is good-but it is going to be too little -to late.

Some scientists think this is why we have not been contacted by other worlds...in spite of the mathmatical odds- the huge numbers of planets- suggest we should have been by now.

Scientists think that developing worlds tend to reach a level of
technology-and then destory themselves. And we are right at that point right now.

Do you believe the Earth is alive? Because that is what it is going to take-to get people to change. The only thing Bush and the Big Corporations believe in..is Money.

Communism is not a dirty word. It has been made to look that way...but we need to grow up now. We need to develop a new system...working in common for the common good-not profits for a few rich rulers. I don't care what you call it.

We need to get RID of the rich Dinosaurs running this world-and their oil.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Speaking of TexacoChevron in Ecuador... and BP in Berkeley...
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jun 5, 2007 10:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Texaco faces multibillion dollar lawsuit over pollution record in Ecuador

"...The developments come as a landmark class-action lawsuit against Texaco (now Chevron), which has dragged on for years, is finally due to reach a conclusion in early 2008. The presence of Ms. Hannah and Ms. Kilcher, and the show are expected to generate huge public interest in Ecuador where Texaco operated from the 1960s to the 1990s, making billions of dollars of profit.

During that period Texaco dumped 18.5 billion gallons of formation waters, a toxic byproduct of the drilling process, directly into a vast inhabited area of the northern Ecuadorian Amazon in contravention of industry standards of the time. The 30,000 plaintiffs are demanding an environmental remediation that has been provisionally priced at $6 billion.


What is ChevronTexaco's response to this? "We've got a public relations image problem, so let's hire a few PR firms to spruce up our image - how about "Will You Join Us?" - maybe that can head off this lawsuit..." Who did they hire to run their PR campaign?

In PR Week 2007, Chevron won an 'honorable mention" for their PR campaign on these issues:

With consumers and politicians angry about record industry profits at the same time as high prices, Chevron's media relations team launched a public education campaign designed to explain their complex industry to lawmakers and consumers across the country, and to increase public understanding of energy markets that would make politicians less likely to pass laws targeting the company's profits. Chevron devised a "Follow the Barrel" storyline that tracked the life of oil and its resulting products. The subsequent publicity resulted in front-page stories in the nation's top papers, increased CEO visibility, and had 100 million total impressions.

But what is really going on? See Chevron's Dirty Business in Ecuador

For the last four decades, Chevron has treated Ecuador as an image problem to be managed rather than a humanitarian crisis that compels a compassionate and real solution. When one connects Chevron’s dots in Ecuador, what emerges is a coordinated series of frauds marked by misinformation designed to deceive courts, the public, shareholders, and the financial markets. The purpose of this scheme is to avoid paying the cost of a real cleanup, and it matters not that vulnerable rainforest peoples – among them thousands of children – have died or suffer grievously as a result. Already, the government of Ecuador has charged Chevron with fraud in U.S. federal court over a purported cleanup. The company also is being targeted by the SEC for hiding its Ecuador liability from shareholders. Still further, these problems have prompted a criminal investigation by Ecuador’s national prosecutor that could ensnare current Chevron managers – a fact the company has yet to disclose to shareholders or the SEC.

The fact is that a lot of these 'environmental organizations' that 'partner' with the likes of GE, BP, Exxon, Chevron, etc. are little more than astroturf groups whose only role is to provide 'third party support' for PR campaigns.

BP is even cleverer than Chevron - they're now taking over at UC Berkeley. See Greenwashing Fears Raised by Berkeley-BP Initiative, April 2007

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Something did seem to just change
Posted by: Logic's Edge on Jun 5, 2007 12:58 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Home Depot had been looking at environmental responsibility for a longer time (e.g. responsible foresty in its source of wood).

But yes, it did seem like something just changed suddenly. Like a directive coming down from some unseen top. Or maybe a critical mass was reached, and the other companies just started following suit.

It may be that the evidence for global warming is getting to be more than data in scientific papers and so their people are finally reacting. Remember the trees blooming in what should have been mid-winter in New York?

In any case, the dice are rolling. I hope we settle into a new and sustainable paradigm such as solar + electric cars rather than nuclear fission + biofuels or "clean coal" or whatever. Lowering the cost of living AND reducing environmental impact... beautiful.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thanks Rune Posted by: off-the-radar 2
It's more corporate bullshit posing as change all a'sudden
Posted by: DaBear on Jun 5, 2007 1:20 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
. . . have enviros been duped into endorsing what my be little more than a new wave of corporate greenwash?

Yeah, that one. Someone with a history of violence has to do pretty damned much to prove to me that what they're gonna do now isn't violent or tainted with it. If I have to suffer through one more GE "ecomagination" bullshit propaganda crap, I'm gonna box up the damned teevee and ship it to GE's CEO with a packet of crayons and tell him to doodle on his own time, not mine, you smug rich asshat.

If a corporation can't prove with evidence and behavior that they've substantively changed their stripes they deserve their charter pulled. Period. Until Mal Wart, Home Despot and others put PV's and rainwater catchment on ALL of their big box roofs (all of which are currently WASTING SPACE as taxpayer expense), I wouldn't trust one of 'em any further'n I kin spit. Until they prove it, they can just plain kiss my pasty white ass.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Of course they are--why should we be surprised?
Posted by: BobbyGreyFriar on Jun 5, 2007 1:23 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Environmental detruction is in the name of conservation is no more surprising that the violent destruction of people and countries in the name of humanism. It would in fact be surprizing if we learned that corporations were really taking constructive action to save the environment. A corporation or business just has to do a lot of damage to the world around it in order profit; the idea that one could do anything constructive and survive is absurd (Increasingly this is also true of governments--they seem ot have lost their ligitimate function or refuse to perform this function even where in theory they could; either way the result is the same.).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is it generational?
Posted by: DaBear on Jun 5, 2007 1:32 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It also occurs to me that the so-called environmental groups are largely run by boomers, boomers who are now pining for retirement and who are more susceptible to wanting to make deals with the devil so that they can feel peaceful. I can certainly understand that urge. But coming from a generation that was and continues to be shat upon from old and young alike, my cynical nature leads me to believe that trusting GE and MalWart and other corporado goons to just do the right thing, that they've just suddenly got enlightened, is just a bad bunch of stoopid, the kind that gets a planet and a species killed, quick.

I mention this after watching guys like Jay Walljasper suddenly grow soft to the point of being damned goofy in the last ten years (from Utne to Ode?! Gimme a break!), and after watching a local anti-nuke activist "retire" from a local nuke fight because they've paid their dues and put in their time and now we should just trust Edison because afterall, it's "just time" to stop fighting with them over nukuler power. WTF?! She was lucky she had the resources from running a lucrative non-profit (she was a whiz at getting donations) to even imagine such a thing as retirement. The rest of us aren't that fortunate. We'll be working till we're dead and bones bleachin' in the sun. So we don't have the luxurious minds to make peace with the devil, especially a devil who fights tooth and nail to hide evidence of their malfeasance and criminal intentions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's all about the money
Posted by: wallart2006 on Jun 5, 2007 4:20 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Corporations are required by law to maximize profit to their shareholders. This is ALWAYS their highest priority. We citizens must change the laws.

As it now stands, shareholders aways take presidence over stakeholders such as the environment, employees, communities, customers. When a corporation tries to say that stakeholders have equal presidence with shareholders, don't you believe it. It is a lie.

Only when the interests of stakeholders are represented in the criminal code with major prison terms for board members, and those statutes are strictly enforced and prosecuted, will we be able to trust anything that corporations say as something other than PRopoganda designed to increase profits at any cost.

We will know that corporations are beginning to be brought under control of the people when white collar prisoners become a significant, if not major, percentage of the country's imprisoned population.

Corporations do not have a right to exist. That privilage is granted by the people of each state. I think that the federal government should take a role in granting and revoking corporate charters. Without federal reach, corporations are too free to move operations and malfeasance to other states or countries.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Indypendent's global climate change issue
Posted by: BBaumer on Jun 5, 2007 7:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
6/5/07

The Indypendent

Releases Global Warming Special Issue: “What No One Else Will Say”

The Indypendent is releasing a special global warming issue as a barbed-wire fence circles leaders of the world’s wealthiest nations gathered in Germany for the Group of Eight (G8) summit to discuss global climate change and other issues. Outside the meeting, concerned people worldwide are taking a stand against the G8’s market-based solutions to the climate change crisis.

“The root cause of the climate crisis is capitalism,” said Jessica Lee, a contributing editor at The Indypendent. “Furthermore, the media reports pertaining to global warming echo the piecemeal and inadequate solutions that are being proposed at international conferences like the G8 summit.”

The Indypendent’s coverage will look at everything from the science of global warming to the economics of green capitalism to destructive alternatives like biofuel and “clean” coal to the radical grassroots movements around the world demanding climate justice. Interviews and contributors include historian Howard Zinn, renowned eco-sociologist John Bellamy Foster, Edward Holt-Jimenez of Food First, political economist Mathew Forstater, and many others from the environmental justice movement.

In an interview with The Indypendent, Howard Zinn, author of A People’s History of the United States points out:

“Our national history is one of economic expansion at the expense of the environment, unbridled, uncontrolled exploitation of coal, oil and lumber for the sake of corporate profit. This means that if we are to do something about global warming, we will have to drastically change our policy of deregulation, of turning a blind eye to what corporations do. We will have to regulate the industries that pollute.”

The Indypendent is the tri-weekly newspaper of the New York City Independent Media Center. It has won more awards for excellence in journalism from the Independent Press Association of New York than any paper in the city each of the past four years and has a combined print and on-line readership of 75,000. For more, see www.indypendent.org. To receive a complimentary copy, call The Indypendent at 212-221-0521.

“There is an urgent need for independent media to which activists and concerned citizens can turn for information and analysis that escapes the filters and doctrinal bounds of the establishment spectrum. In brief, there is an urgent need for The Indypendent newspaper of New York City and the global Indymedia network on which so many have come to rely,” says linguist and political theorist Noam Chomsky.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» More Propoganda Posted by: gellero
» RE: More Propoganda? Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Next, you will see Naomi Klein taking money from Rupert Murdoch...
Posted by: Bobsays on Jun 5, 2007 8:39 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And doing the cruise ship circuit - oops, that is what she already does. It is no surprise activists sell out at the first opportunity. What sickens most is their smugness. Maybe the new house and the yacht will at least make that smugness more serene. Enjoy your environmental hypocrisy comrades!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Corporations are persons under the law
Posted by: Frish on Jun 5, 2007 9:31 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I know we all should be skeptical about corporate interest in green, I also believe that the stockholders behind the boardrooms have moved greener.

It would be nice to think that those corporate "persons" recognize what's up and start doing the right thing, since by not doing so they won't have a market to sell to.

Walmart, last person left on the planet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fool us once, shame on you; fool us twice. . .
Posted by: monkeywrench on Jun 5, 2007 10:20 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the article:
"Either corporations are fooling themselves, in which case they will eventually realize there is no environmental free lunch and renege on their green promises. Or they are fooling us and are perpetrating a massive public relations hoax."

One need only look at the blatant lies that fill corporate advertising to consumers in other areas to know which one of the above alternatives is the correct one. When it comes to the bottom line, corporations, especially Fortune 500 conglomerates with long histories, almost never do anything foolish. That, and preditory business practices, is how they became conglomerates in the first place.

What corporations are doing with their sudden, unexpected, seeing-of-the-light on environmentalism is a variation on "divide and conquer" called "infiltrate and conquer" – and it works just as well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Hoax, Corps and Right Wing Religious Fraud
Posted by: bob t on Jun 6, 2007 11:39 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think the corporate line of bullshit that they are doing something and going green is still so much bullshit. Sure there are some corps doing something. However what is being done by them so far is nothing more than a huge hoax.

And the proof is--- Since Bush became prez he has used his power, not to do any good for anything but his corp friends. Bush has gutted almost every government agency that in any way lessens or threatens the profits of all his corporate friends.

And the two big right wing religions give not one damn bit, as they both just continue to endlessly support him and the rethug party.

And all of this religious support for the rethug party of endless greed for money and political power came into being with Reagan and the rethug party and has reached HUGE and EPIDEMIC proportions under Bush and the rethug party.

Will it ever end, I sincerely doubt it. Unless 'we the people' takeback our country, our democracy back from the corporations and the two big right wing religions it will never end.

God is not a fraud, the two big right wing religions and their rethug friends and corporate partners are the fraud/hoaxes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» My sentiments exactly. Posted by: Lincoln fan
bashing corporations is fun and all
Posted by: chds on Jun 6, 2007 6:34 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As is bashing capitalist society, especially oil companies and all they represent, and for good reason. But it's so...obvious.

Obviously companies and marketers have caught on to "environmentalism," and are adopting it with varying degrees of commitment and sincerity, and will prefer to do the minimum they can for the biggest positive splash. Shocker. Neither cynicism nor consumerism are the answer. Both are, again, too easy, and frankly boring to read about.

Among our real needs are a serious and brilliant reconceptualizing of economics and how markets themselves see natural resources, and a return to the kind of class consciousness and solidarity that translates into domestic and international political accountability. Let's THINK instead of whining.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Understanding Who Corps are...
Posted by: common intelligence on Jun 6, 2007 7:32 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bare in mind, the corporations are owned (I think) by stockholders and are worked in by people too, all of which are consumers, too. So when we rag on about the Corporations it is important to realize all the insurance companies, lenders, banks, S&Ls and even the Social Security System invest in Corporations, hoping to profit by the money flow circle jerk.
So anyone that buys insurance or "saves money in an institution" is indirectly engaged in the scam.
SO where does the self abuse stop? Stop participating!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Companies may not all be the same
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jun 11, 2007 1:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Would the extinction of Homo "Sapiens" affect
The bottom line of those big companies? If we don't go
green, we will go extinct. The article: "Impact from the
Deep" by Peter D. Ward from the October 2006 issue of
Scientific American explains this convincingly. You can
download the entire article from:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00037A5D-
A938-150E-A93883414B7F0000&sc=I100322
The last paragraph of the article says:
"The so-called thermal extinction at the end of the
Paleocene began when atmospheric CO2 was just under
1,000 parts per million (ppm). At the end of the Triassic,
CO2 was just above 1,000 ppm. Today with CO2 around
385 ppm, it seems we are still safe. But with atmospheric
carbon climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm and expected to
accelerate to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900 ppm by the
end of the next century, and conditions that bring about the
beginnings of ocean anoxia may be in place. How soon
after that could there be a new greenhouse extinction? That
is something our society should never find out."
The mining of coal and the pumping of oil will stop when
we go extinct. Then Nature will put the earth back the
way it should be over several million years.
Coal is a $100 Billion industry in the US. Did you see
coal companies on the green list? The coal industry has
driven America paranoid about all things nuclear to keep
the coal industry growing. Did you know that enough
URANIUM goes up the smokestack of a coal-fired power
plant to Fully fuel a nuclear power plant with the same
output? See: http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-
34/text/coalmain.html
If breeding of thorium into uranium and using plutonium as
fuels are allowed, enough uranium and thorium go up the
smokestack of one coal-fired power plant to fully fuel 500
nuclear power plants of the same size.
There are two possible ways to avoid extinction:
1. A few people [scientists only] could move to Mars and
wait out the extinction event; or
2. We could educate everybody to the level of a B.S. in
some science so that everybody could understand that
nuclear power is the safest available adequate source of
power and that coal will be the cause of our extinction if we
keep on mining coal.

It amazes me that neither other responders nor Phil Mattera
mention the impending extinction event. You are all
thinking way too small.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]