Mike Comer of Cobasco lays into the climate change and carbon emission trading sector.
On November 3, 2009, Justice Michael Burton ruled in the High Court that a 42-year-old<br>“Sustainability Manager” for a property firm had been unfairly dismissed because his employer<br>had discriminated against his “green views”. The Judge, who heard that the man was so<br>environmentally enthused that he refused to travel by air, concluded that “environmentalism<br>has the same weight in law as religious and philosophical beliefs".<br>Two years earlier, the same Judge ruled that Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth” featuring<br>the supposed imminent disaster of global warming – which he found contained nine gross<br>misstatements – could be shown to every British schoolchild provided it was accompanied by a<br>health warning on its political rather than scientific conclusions.<br>THINKSPEAK- NO LONGER GLOBAL WARMING<br>Like it or not, believe it or not, the global warming crisis (now rebranded as “climate change”,<br>simply because since 1998 global average temperatures have not risen) is the number one<br>priority item for most politicians – especially those in the EU – who promote the impending<br>disaster as a great excuse for compelling a woefully misinformed, but guilty and self-flagellating<br>electorate into accepting more government control and penal taxes. It is also at the heart of<br>many “Corporate Social Responsibility” (CSR) programmes that increasingly pressure<br>companies – and especially retailers – into vast expenditure to prove their green credentials.<br>The European Union defines CSR as “a concept… to integrate social and environmental<br>concerns into business operations on a voluntary basis” but for some companies the effort is<br>far from “voluntary” and more a headlong rush to “greenwash” their competitors and to appeal<br>to those customers who believe spending two pounds in store X rather than store Y will save<br>the planet.<br>ANOTHER BLOODY SURVEY<br>Here We Go<br>In February 2009, Mizz Fionnuala Walravens (for it is she) and other goodbodies at the<br>Environmental Investigations Agency (EIA), an independent campaigning organisation,<br>supported by Mizz Sophie Rivett Carnac of Spring PR Consultancy, released a report titled<br>“Chilling Facts”. This condemned many leading British food retailers for their unwillingness to<br>replace cooling systems that use hydro fluorocarbons (HFCs) as their refrigerant. It was a<br>worthy cause, but badly handled.<br>The report calculated that HFC emissions from retail freezers were equal to flying from London<br>to New York 2.5 million times or to more than 1 billion car journeys to an “average local<br>supermarket” or to 4,000 return flights to Australia. How, or why, such totally meaningless<br>comparisons were computed remains a mystery. Being generous, it is possible that they may<br>be relevant to those who make 2.5 million trips to New York.<br>The Co-operative Group<br>The Co-operative Group was singled out for criticism by EIA because it supposedly uses HFCs<br>in 50% of its depots and also had the audacity to refit some of its stores with the refrigeration<br>systems EIA found so offensive. Morrisons told the EIA to take a running jump. For this<br>effrontery they were rated at the bottom of the EIA’s league table; with the obvious intention of<br>pressurising the company into making changes.<br>AUTHORITY WITHOUT RESPONSIBILITY<br>The Authority of Jobsworths<br>What right do organisations such as the EIA have to poke their snouts into what is a very small<br>part of a much more complicated problem of which they probably have no real<br>understanding?. These days it seems any jobsworth can set up in virtually any position and<br>publish surveys or supposedly scientific findings, free of any responsibility or accountability.<br>They can avoid disclosing even the most glaring conflicts of interest. For example, is it<br>possible that the fragrant Fionnuala’s ex-partner, with whom she has the hump, works at<br>Morrisons: is she a major shareholder in a competitive store or is there some other personal<br>reason behind the adverse appraisal? Most likely none of these apply and Fionnuala, is simply<br>a very nice person in need of a name change. But we would never know if there was a conflict<br>of interest because promoters of surveys are never required to make any disclosures. If you<br>want to damage a competitor- rent a survey and brief against them.<br>No Personal Liabilities<br>An equal latitude is permitted of politicians. They can tell the most outrageous lies, disguised<br>as "spin", with a smile, tear or hand gesture – preferably holding a banana – with total impunity.<br>This is in stark contrast to the standards required of business managers who under such things<br>as the Companies Acts, Listing Rules or Sarbanes-Oxley face the most penal personal liabilities<br>for any transgression at work. It is time that Sarbanes-Oxley standards were introduced into<br>the media, scientific and political arenas.<br>THE IMPORTANCE OF FACTS<br>Stating the Bleedin’ Obvious<br>If the researchers at the EIA had seriously wished to provide a study of value they would not<br>simply have relied on questionnaires (even on recycled paper) but would have dug deeply into<br>the CSR positions of the companies on which they were reporting. The fact that these<br>goodbodies hoped to establish the facts through a simple questionnaire shows a remarkable<br>lack of understanding of human nature and is akin to sending out a circular to men asking<br>them to disclose the size of their todgers. Most sensible people would not reply and those that<br>did would exaggerate, with the result that conclusions are meaningless. You cannot expect the<br>truth when you ask Dracula if he has stopped sucking blood.<br>The Shining Star in CSR<br>In the case of the Co-operative Group deeper research would have found an overwhelming<br>effort to be socially responsible: a fact that is abundantly obvious to anyone prepared to read<br>the 145, print packed, pages of its 2008 "Group Sustainability Report”.<br>Although the Co-op’s cream doughnuts are nothing to salivate over, and its television ads are a real<br>turn-off with their affected Scottish voice-overs, it has won just about every award possible for<br>its CSR programs. The Co-op is a shining star in the world of CSR. In fact it is so “sustainable”<br>that it is difficult to decide whether it is a top retailer with an effective CSR program or a Vatican<br>outpost that happens to sell carrots and cabbages.<br>The researchers would also have found that the Group had committed plans to invest £200<br>million over the next four years to replace its HFC refrigeration systems. Maybe these will not<br>be installed with the urgency that the EIA required, but they were already part of a<br>comprehensive plan for environmental sustainability in all of the Group’s operations. With CSR<br>you have to look at the whole picture and not just nitpick.<br>CLIMATE FRAUD – FRAUD CLIMATE<br>The Effects of Messianic Zeal<br>People’s concerns with CSR programs may not be with their value but more usually because of<br>the messianic zeal with which all aspects of global warming are pursued; starting with the<br>initiating climatology “science” through to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change<br>(IPCC), political initiatives and abatement actions. An attitude often prevails in which anyone<br>who asks questions is immediately branded a “sceptic”, “denier” or “criminal”. For example,<br>James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (who is to Global Warming what<br>Colonel Sanders is to Kentucky Fried Chicken), called for trials of climate sceptics for "high<br>crimes against humanity". He also urged the closing down of coal fired power stations calling<br>them "factories of death” and the trains carrying coal to them “death trains". This is a deliberate<br>echo of Nazi death camps and shows just how extreme “alarmists’” arguments are becoming<br>and how determined they are to suppress dissent. If the global warming case is so “settled” or<br>“unarguable” why are “alarmists” so nasty, unprepared to debate or to allow their findings to<br>be scrutinised? You don’t have to be a climate scientist to know that if people refuse to<br>answer questions, watch out.<br>Climate Cops<br>A similar sort of manic enthusiasm is reflected in some CSR programs. For example the<br>massive electricity supplier- nPower- has a program referred to as "Climate Cops" which both<br>directly and through schools encourages children to snoop, record and report on<br>environmentally improper (or in luvvyspeak – “inappropriate”) behaviour by their parents and<br>friends. The campaign encourages rug rats to download colourful “crime cards”, which have<br>space to record their parents’ transgressions. Kids issue “tickets” and report back to their<br>teachers. They are also provided with James Bond type assignments –like rummaging through<br>their dads’ golf bags to find the odd dog end. If they pass they qualify for membership of an<br>elite Academy. What next? Maybe an SS badge.<br>CSR STYLE<br>A “ Robert Maxwell”, dominating management style is evident in some aspects of the CSR<br>world where those in charge operate in a monoculture where everything not environmentally<br>friendly is immediately condemned. Worse still, the interests of social responsibility can distort<br>the criteria on which business judgements are based, thereby giving those in charge of CSR<br>programs far greater power than would otherwise, or should, be the case.<br>This type of inflated authority applies in such areas as vendor selection, choice of carbon<br>offsets projects and sponsors, construction of renewable energy facilities, long-term<br>procurement of supposedly green energy: among others. These are all highly exposed to fraud<br>and corruption because they introduce subjective, complex and obscure criteria into decision<br>making processes. And line managers may be afraid to ask questions for fear of being branded<br>“sceptics”.<br>ENERGY AND POWER FALSE ACCOUNTING<br>Energy and Carbon Emissions<br>There can be a problem over the way in which emissions and emission savings are calculated.<br>Just check for yourself on the vast numbers of Internet sites that calculate carbon footprints.<br>You will find a massive disparity. Some suggest that for every gigawatt hour (GHw) of electricity<br>used, 300 tonnes of carbon dioxide will be emitted: others say 540 tonnes and one 900<br>tonnes. There is a big difference.<br>The British Wind Energy Association (the trade association representing turbine suppliers)<br>originally promoted a ratio of 860 tonnes of carbon dioxide per gigawatt hour, thereby proving<br>that wind turbines were extremely effective. However, after the figure was questioned, the<br>factor was reduced to 430 tonnes: a big difference, with no explanation. Was the mistake<br>accidental? What do you think? It resulted in many wind farm planning applications and<br>investment returns appearing twice as good as they were. There is a lot of false accounting in<br>the carbon world.<br>Some Internet sites, having calculated what a dreadful emitter you are, will offer to sell you<br>offsets. Of course these do nothing to reduce your emissions and can be compared to the<br>ridiculous indulgences provided by Pope Leo X in the 16th century. One site calculated a<br>colleague’s emissions at 336.65 tonnes per annum and suggested that if he were to buy -<br>from them of course – 337 eucalyptus trees in Abyssinia for £1,700 everything would be okay.<br>This was a hopelessly ineffective remedy because as everyone but a raving idiot knows and<br>discusses over breakfast, these trees sequester only 50 pounds (or 0.026 tonnes) of carbon<br>dioxide each per annum. Thus it would take a forest of 14,000 trees – planted every year- to<br>indulge his transgressions. There is a big difference.<br>If you read the CSR reports that some companies issue you will find that they fall into the same<br>trap and misrepresent such things as carbon dioxide emissions or the efficiency of offset<br>mechanisms. They also happily confuse “capacity” with “load” for renewable energy and<br>especially wind turbines. These facts have not gone unnoticed by the Advertising Standards<br>Authority and some companies have been exposed. And luvvies should consider this: if<br>companies lie to them about sustainability stuff can their other claims – like raising their<br>chickens in luxury at Hilton Hotels – be trusted?<br>Measurement of CSR Programs<br>The success of CSR programs is difficult to measure and there are at least eight different<br>commonly used methodologies, ranging from fairly simple balanced scorecards through to<br>complex systems such as the Global Reporting Initiative, G3 standard. The criteria used by<br>these alternative systems vary widely and they can be “cherry picked” to produce the best<br>results, thereby hiding less than optimal performance.<br>Few of the systems enable the summarisation of costs and benefits or take into account more<br>innovative possibilities such as compulsory organ donation, condom recycling or sponsored<br>fire eating. The bottom line is that a universal, comprehensive standard is required for<br>assessing CSR programmes that includes really important things like supplier payment<br>policies, litigation records, fines and other punishments as well as all aspects relating to<br>regulatory compliance and fair accounting.<br>There are also serious problems about renewable electricity and claims made by companies<br>that they have gone entirely green with energy. In fact, as of January 2009, the UK generated<br>a total of 21,597.50 gigawatts of renewable electricity. Yet if you were to add up CSR claims<br>you will find that this total is exceeded. Again the suspicion is of false accounting.<br>Compliance with Kyoto: The Good News<br>The good news – for anyone laying awake at night, tossing and turning, worried that the UK will<br>not meet its carbon dioxide reduction targets under Kyoto- is that there is no doubt that we will<br>surpass them but only providing New Labour remains in power. Our present leaders are<br>unquestionably world-class at achieving targets including policing, health service, pensions,<br>immigration, social security and equality. You name it and these boys can achieve it, mainly<br>because their credo of “what gets measured, gets managed” is applied as “what gets<br>measured, gets manipulated”.
