I have a confession to make: about 18 months ago, when I was still part of the economic machine, I spent some time calculating the carbon footprint of the company I worked for. To help me, I used the guides provided by the Carbon Trust a, what I thought then, fairly reliable and objective agency of the UK Government working for, I thought at the time, reducing the overall carbon emissions of the UK.
How stupid was I?
In these times of economic downturn and the promise that the runaway consumer culture may be on a crash course in all sorts of ways (hooray!) this apparently earnest organisation turns out to be nothing more than a cheerleader for business growth. Take a look at the advert above or, if you dare, some of the other promotions [
http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/opportunity]. Superficially you might think that what they are saying is that, by reducing your energy consumption, you will improve the profitability of your existing business. In actual fact they are pushing something very bad indeed: business growth as an incentive for reducing emissions. A display advert of theirs says: “Last year consumers bought £4.3bn worth of low carbon goods in the UK alone. Good news if you’re in the market for new customers”
Do you see what they’ve done? In effect they are not sutting emissions at all because all that is being done is allowing more wriggle-room for business to boom, while increasing the carbon intensity of the business - less carbon per monetary unit, but no less carbon overall.
You might think that this is a good thing: after all if business keeps growing then it’s better to reduce their impact. But that’s not the point at all - why should businesses grow at all? Profit is simply the result of excess consumption, which feeds further growth which leads to further consumption - profit drives the capital economy which actively discourages (nay, suppresses) any attempt to merely sustain or reduce consumption.
In March 2008, The Carbon Trust joined hands with HSBC [
http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/News/presscentre/190308_PfR_HSBC.htm], one of the largest banks in the world, to provide funds for renewable energy projects in the public sector; in other words a bank was allowed, through a government agency, to start driving funding for public sector projects while at the same time making themselves look like they were doing good. HSBC were given a great deal of power over public policy for a pittance (£18m). It was so obvious that HSBC were greenwashing but stupid is as stupid does - I remember one great thinker saying (ha!) - which would explain why Greenpeace grabbed the bait with both hands and immediately clarified their position on private interference in public life:
“This is an excellent example of private finance delivering real emissions reductions through innovative partnerships. It also demonstrates that significant cost effective renewable energy potential exists at all levels rather than simply in industrial scale wind power, and that a viable business case can be made for this investment. Within the context of the UK’s demanding emissions reductions targets, we sincerely hope this is a sign of things to come.”
“Industrial”, “Hope”, “Innovative partnerships”, “Demanding emissions reduction targets”? Welcome to the corporate world of Greenpeace: and perhaps goodbye to a few Greenpeace subscription renewals…
Homepage:
Comments
Hide the following 4 comments
Carbon Mistrust
02.10.2008 15:13
The Carbon Trust was set up as a Government body charged with figuring out how to reduce the CO2 emissions from UK businesses.
It was filled with bright (or at least highly educated), well-meaning people, but who didn't necessarily have much specific knowledge of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions.
Not knowing where to begin, the first thing they did was...ask businesses how THEY thought that carbon reductions could be made. You can imagine what sort of answers they got. They then pretty much wrote their entire strategy based on what the industry said would work. Hence all the corporate-friendly adverts mentioned above.
Now, although the Carbon Trust do carry out some useful research into the greenhouse gas emissions from various processes, they spend most of their time trying to get businesses to sign up to voluntary standards and reporting guidelines that will make naff all difference to the climate but will make the companies involved look good.
I suspect that few readers of Indymedia will be very surprised by any of this...
Carbonista
No trust for Carbon Trust
03.10.2008 11:04
Carbon Trust - A quick look at the board members gives you an idea of their priorities - one of em is an ex-Shell manager who worked in africa for 15 years. That's the same Shell that flares gas as a byproduct whilst digging out the crude stuff.
The cheeky monkeys after doing this for many years are now gonna try and get emissions credits for reducing what must rate as one of the most revealing of capitalistic practices - burning natural gas - what could be used as an energy source - as a 'waste' product - causing climate change, because its 'too expensive' to harness.
The amounts are massive too - in 2005 North Sea gas flaring whilst drilling for oil, caused about 6 million tonnes of CO2 to be released. To get that into perspective, Kingsnorth power station when it is built, is projected to emit about 8 million tonnes a year.
But that's ok - cos Carbon Trust are helping put labels on packets of crisps so consumers will know how many grams of CO2 they are responsible for. 107g if you 're interested - which converted into gas flaring equivelent: 56074766355 bags of crisps.
Carbon Trust - what could be a great idea in different world - seems to be just part of capitalistic stategy to shift the cost of the eco-systemic crises back on to individuals and normal people instead of getting the real polluters to pay the price. Indeed it seems as thought the polluters are being paid.
As Eduardo Galeano says:
If the world is upside down the way it is now, wouldn't we have to turn it over to get it to stand up straight?
stuffit
Homepage:
http://www.stuffit.org
capitalism
03.10.2008 13:18
The media might attack the underclasses but it is the middle classes who have benefited from all these inflated grants, job creation schemes, etc. How much money into Glyndebourne etc.,crap arcitecture and public arts, etc., who much money to pay their closed-shop fucking 'public service' wages. And while we are about it can we get rid of those royal scum and loudmouth tax avoiding religous leeches too e.g CofE. Protetstant work ethic? we know your game you slave traders....
Moody Stuart
lack of credibility
03.10.2008 16:46
The expansion of business aviation was ok and their carbon emissions would be mitigated, because they were going to use bicycles!
Keith
Homepage:
http://www.heureka.clara.net/surrey-hants/