-
-
Shell rebuked for 'greenwash' over ad for polluting tar sands project
The Anglo-Dutch energy giant Shell misled the public about the green credentials of a vastly polluting oil project in Canada, in an attempt to assure consumers of its good environmental record, a media watchdog will rule today.
In an embarrassing rejection of Shell's "greenwash", the Advertising Standards Authority said the company should not have used the word "sustainable" for its controversial tar sands project and a second scheme to build North America's biggest oil refinery. Both projects would lead to the emission of more greenhouse gases, the ASA said, ruling the advert had breached rules on substantiation, truthfulness and environmental claims.
Carried by the Financial Times on 1 February to accompany Shell's financial results, the company claimed: "We invest today's profits in tomorrow's solutions."
The advert continued: "A growing world needs more energy, but at the same time we need to find new ways of managing carbon emissions to limit climate change. Continued investment in technology is one of the key ways we are able to address this challenge, and continue to secure a profitable and sustainable future."
Shell explained it was harnessing its technical expertise "to unlock the potential of the vast Canadian oil sands deposits".
The WWF (formerly the Worldwide Fund for Nature) complained that extracting low-grade bitumen from sand was highly inefficient and destroyed huge tracts of virgin forest. In its defence, Shell maintained that new technology was reducing pollution from the Athabasca Oil Sands Project in Alberta in which it owns a 60 per cent stake.
Shell quoted a critical WWF report as rating its Muskeg River Mine one of the least damaging coal-tar sands projects because it sought to limit emissions of nitrogen oxide, sulphur dioxide and organic compounds.
Making its ruling, the ASA quoted Canada's independent National Energy Board that oil sand developments had considerable social and economic impacts on water conservation, greenhouse gas emissions, land disturbance and waste management.
David Norman, the WWF's director of campaigns, said: "The ASA's decision to uphold WWF's complaint sends a strong signal to business and industry that greenwash is unacceptable." The Anglo-Dutch energy giant Shell misled the public about the green credentials of a vastly polluting oil project in Canada, in an at... more -
Monsanto to pursue divestiture of POSILAC
Interesting... Is Monsanto feeling the heat from farmers, people in the medical field, consumer groups, and state attorney generals who know this product is dangerous? Or are they simply looking to do this to invest more in their continuing effort to control the entire seed market of the world and the pesticides that are toxifying it? Personally, I think they are feeling some heat regarding the labelling of products, and people are becoming more informed as to what they buy. People are becoming aware and don't want antibiotics and pus in their milk, nor an added injection of IGF-1 everytime they pour a glass of it. Perhaps the next step will be to have it banned altogether as it should be. Interesting... Is Monsanto feeling the heat from farmers, people in the medical field, consumer groups, and state attorney generals wh... more
-
She's talking about Monsanto, but it's not talking to her
Monsanto doesn't want anything to do with French investigative journalist Marie-Monique Robin.
The American biotechnology and herbicide-producing giant wouldn't co-operate with Robin in her three years researching her highly critical documentary The World According to Monsanto and her accompanying, French-language bestseller (with an English translation on the way).
Now that her film is being shown in more and more countries, and advocacy groups are featuring clips of the documentary on their websites, Monsanto still hasn't called Robin.
To many viewers, the company's "no comment" may appear to be damning in itself, given the litany of accusations made against Monsanto by farmers, scientists, watchdog groups, health and agriculture advocates.
Googling for seeds of truth
The documentary shows farmers alleging that Monsanto - a leader in developing genetically modified seed and herbicides - has pitted farmer against farmer, encouraging them to rat on anyone suspected of not buying new Monsanto seed each year. It shows agricultural experts alleging genetically modified corn has invaded indigenous Mexican corn, with monstrous varieties being found. And advocates in India alleging that cotton farmers sometimes commit suicide owing to their dependence on genetically modified crops and the risk of low harvests. The list of accusations goes on.
A spokeswoman from Monsanto Canada, however, did respond to calls for this article. "Any of the allegations that have been made in the movie have been responded to publicly on our website," spokeswoman Trish Jordan said. A segment on the company's website labelled For the Record, she explained, "basically responds to some of the common allegations that are dredged up by activists. And I think that would probably give you our position on most, if not everything, in her documentary."
The film does refer to the website, and the explanations used by Monsanto in response to various criticisms.
Still, Robin said she was astonished by what she found when making the film. "Yes, I was very surprised. It's very difficult to understand how they manage - what they called in the U.S. the revolving door," she said. By this, she means the way in which government officials and elected leaders have often worked for corporations such as Monsanto, only to later pass regulations while in office favouring their former employers.
It was also difficult to get people to talk. "It's very difficult," Robin said, whether officials within regulatory agencies, scientists or other journalists. She said that one regulatory insider told her they didn't want to have any problems with the company, since it's so powerful.
The World According to Monsanto is as disturbing as any Hollywood thriller. Robin's next documentaries will likely be just as heavy, with a film on the U.S. military's use of what many see as torture during interrogations and a documentary on environmental causes of cancer.
So what drives Robin to investigate such dire topics?
"I have three daughters at home," she said, "and I think when I'm doing this kind of documentary, it's for my daughters. ... With what's going on with GMOs [genetically modified organisms] and what it means, in 20 years, if we don't react, it's very worrisome."
Aug.1,2008 Monsanto doesn't want anything to do with French investigative journalist Marie-Monique Robin. ... more -
ProChoice.com Is Not What You Think It Is
You know, no matter where you stand on the abortion debate, toying with women’s lives through false advertising is pretty effed up. We’ve read a lot about “pregnancy crisis centers”, which seem like abortion clinics, but really only offer “counseling” that scares and guilt trips pregnant women into not getting abortions. Likewise, it’s really frickin’ irritating to hear that ProChoice.com is actually an anti-choice website serving up all sorts of anti-abortion information. What I don’t understand is how the pro-choice movement doesn’t have the authority to get the domain name back. You know, no matter where you stand on the abortion debate, toying with women’s lives through false advertising is pretty effed up. We... more
-
Prius bad for the environment?
This may or may not come as some shock to you, but many scientists are saying that Toyota's best-selling hybrid, the Prius, is actually bad for the environment. Some are even asserting that it has a worse impact on our world than the widely-hated Hummer.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I don't know if this is good or bad information but it is out there so I think we should address it because people are reading it.
cg This may or may not come as some shock to you, but many scientists are saying that Toyota's best-selling hybrid, the Prius, is ac... more -
Celebrate clean coal, come on!
In one TV commercial, Kool and the Gang warble their celebration of good times because coal, yes, coal, makes the party possible in America. In another, white and black, young and old, male and female, and even someone in a doctor's green scrubs, stare into the camera and soulfully declare: "I believe" American know-how will make coal clean and stop it from contributing to climate change. Not sold? Maybe you missed the newspaper ads and billboards warning that turning away from coal could mean blackouts, unemployment and higher electric bills.
These messages and other variations on the coal-is-great theme are flooding the nation courtesy of the coal industry, coal-fueled utilities, railroads and related industries. The pro-coal marketing campaign -- known by its tag line "Clean Coal" -- has kicked into high gear as prospects for new plants have turned bleak. Wall Street is tightening financing, leading to what one analyst told the Christian Science Monitor is a "de facto moratorium on coal power." The expected election of a more environmentally friendly president may lead to the first federal limits on carbon dioxide emissions. Even red states like Kansas are now battling the construction of coal-fired plants. Last year, 59 new plants were either canceled or halted across the nation.
When it comes to the threat of global warming, "the coal industry are the last people to get it," says Daniel J. Weiss, senior fellow and director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress, a nonprofit, progressive think tank. "That's why they're fighting so hard. They're on a death spiral right now."
The coal industry's woes have risen as worries over climate change have increased. Today's coal-fired plants emit copious amounts of carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas. One new plant planned for Iowa, for example, would dump 5.9 million tons of the stuff into the air in just one year. Two proposed Kansas plants would add 11 million tons annually.
snip
As the coal debate continues, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced April 23 that global levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide increased by 19 billion tons in the last year. The worldwide concentration is now 385 parts per million. The level that is expected to tip the world into disaster is 450 parts per million.
But climate change isn't raining on the coal industry's campaign. In April, Barack Obama acknowledged a voter sporting one of the industry's hats at a campaign stop in Dunmore, Penn., and then used the industry's own terminology to talk about his support for investing in carbon storage research. In an appearance in Charleston, W.Va., Hillary Clinton also used the industry's own words to pledge her support for doing the same.
Obama, Clinton and John McCain all favor legislation to fight climate change. The nearly identical programs proposed by the two Democrats are more far-reaching than that put forth by McCain. However, none of them support a moratorium on building new coal-fired plants.
Meanwhile, the Clean Coal marketing machine keeps rolling. As one commercial declares, coal powers "our way of life." On the soundtrack, Kool and the Gang sing, "Celebrate good times, come on!"
~~~~~~
What an insidious campaign. And all the presidential candidates go along with it! It is time to tell them to stop this pandering to those industries who care about nothing but their own balance sheets. CO2 levels are now the highest they have been in 650,000 years and it is because of the very garbage being spewed by coal plants.
"Clean coal" is an assault on reason! Shame on Obama, Clinton, and McCain for giving it credence to get votes while people die from its effects. In one TV commercial, Kool and the Gang warble their celebration of good times because coal, yes, coal, makes the party possible in Am... more
-
related topics
false advertising
Contributors (49)
false advertising
