The ‘ethical’ Co-Op

The negligible effect by aviation on the "environment"?

As the co-op is a business which has a travel agency, it has to compete with private travel agents. If someone wishes to take a holiday, and will do so regardless of the environmental cost (which is neglible compared to running a car) then should they not have the choice to use a collectivelly owned business?

 http://www.co-operative.coop/ethicsinaction/climatechange/

The co-op also has the best 'ethical' policies of any large nationwide grocer. If anyone shops there they promote this, and the collective non-plc structure of the co-op. If people want a fairer less competitive society, with the values of mutuality, community etc they should shop at the co-op. If you agree with the poster, but shop out of convience in asda or tesco or sainsburys you're a hypocrite, and delusional.

Anthropogenic climate change is a lie! Leaked emails from University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit show that scientists have been making the data up and covering things up with lies.

Stop worrying about the utterly negligible impact humans have on the climate!

 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=2

You find out such wonderful things as some of the mails were actually written by contributors paid by the Australian "Institute of Public Affairs".

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Public_Affairs

So, funded by businesses such as ExxonMobil, Telstra, Western Mining, BHP Billiton, Phillip Morris, Gunns Limited, Monsanto Company, Murray Irrigation Limited, and Visy Industries. But the IPA does not publicly disclose

Not only that you also get the hint that the sceptics have started a concerted manufacturing of consent. Anybody investigating the history of the Wikipedia articles for the IPA start to find the same editors removing such important historical notes as "was founded in 1943 with links to the Australian Liberal Party" and such editing pointers as "which is logically impossible as the Liberal Party did not exist in 1943" (for which they probably failed to check the other Wikipedia - and non Wikipedia - sources that explained how the Australian Liberal Party came into existence).

Another source of editorial back and forth on Wikipedia is the relationship between the IPA and various Right Wing US and UK think tanks. If the intention of the leak was to create a conspiracy theory then it helps that the IPA edit their Wikipedia presence so heavily. Changing "neoliberal" to "classical liberal" might be great public relations but, realistically, it speaks volumes about the IPA that they cut and pasted from their own Website onto Wikipedia.

This kind of background to the content of some of the mails is surely more suggestive of maliciousness aforthought on a public relations scale. Such as editing out

On Australian Broadcasting Corporation Radio National program, Okham's Razor, Doctor Jennifer Marohasy says "I agree with Professor Flannery that we need to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide levels."
 http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2005/1509193.htm
Okham's Razor - Broadcast 11/20/05
- yet now thinks Global Warming is a myth that can be explained by repeatedly changing the baseline year for measurement. Such might be the power of patronage.

Given the access that Global Warming Sceptics have to such think tanks, is it not about time for people to start asking what the Sceptics are hiding? Why, exactly did Doctor Marohasy leave the IPA? What are these sceptics hiding.

Given that some of the mails actually look contrived (with obvious email address failures) the big question is why people like the IPA want Global Warming to continue?

@Climate Skeptic: "Anthropogenic climate change is a lie!"

Are you sure about that? I thought pretty much all climate scientists were in agreement that humans were causing climate change big time, and the few that aren't are followed by conspiracy theorists who have some strange idea that global warming is made up, for some reason I don't quite understand.

The leaked emails don't seem very incriminating at all from what I have seen of them.

I think multinational companies are far more likely to be involved in a conspiracy to cover up global warming than scientists are to invent global warming.

Here is some good scientific background and discussion from the people who think human-caused climate change is a reality:  http://www.realclimate.org/

For a large business the Co-op are so far ahead of everyone else it isn't funny. Particularly it's banking arm - refusing over £1 billion in finance to unethical companies - could you imagine the city pigs doing something like that? And their campaigning is first rate - check out:  http://www.co-operativecampaigns.co.uk/toxicfuels/

Ok they have travel agents, but one which opposes airport expansion and the heathrow third runway:  http://www.travolution.co.uk/articles/2009/04/14/2431/co-operative-executive-interview-mike-greenacre.html

Again how many other travel agencies would take such a position?

They might not be perfect but we'd be in a much better place if the plc's were to follow their lead in how you do business - and if the co-op can do it without going bankrupt why can't everyone else?