Green Extreme! Police warn of Eco-Terrorists.

In today's Observer (one of the "quality" UK Sunday newspapers) is an article entitled Police warn of growing threat from eco-terrorists which goes on to describe an organisation called Earth First! which allegedy advocates an 80 percent cut in the global human population in order to save the planet.

Apparently the organisation is being monitored by The National Extremism Tactical Co-ordination Unit who are expecting a 'lone maverick' acting on behalf of Earth First! to "attempt a terrorist attack aimed at killing large numbers of Britons."

Fucking psychos you might think. Especially if you stop reading shortly after the fold. Earth First! is clearly up there with Al Qaeda in the classmates most likely to bring about the end of your life shortlist. Probably all eco warriors are the same too, just like all Muslims probably want to kill you, and living in England in the 80's I'm still not so sure the Irish won't blow me up either. But those eco monkeys. Fuck, this is the worst yet.

Actually the article does work really hard to conjour up images of "climate camps" as terrorist training facilities where you can literally learn to put the warrior into eco-warrior.

The thing is if you carry on reading you find that Earth First! don't actually subscribe to mass culling of the species at all. As an anonymous spokesman suggests "the ecology also includes humans". That is a nod towards balance and actually demonstrates an amount of journalism (see I told you the Observer was a quality paper).

So they probably aren't really encouraging mass slaughter of innocents then, although a quick scan over the Earth First! (sorry, EF!) website seems to indicate that they are far from harmless. They might be non-violent, but they will quite happily publish tales of vandalism perpetrated by members of the organisation. Which does make them a bunch of idiots and an easy scapegoat if there is any value in creating the image of a radicalised dangerous form of eco-terrorist.

You see it all helps to discredit environmental causes in the current financial climate where green/ethical business practices will be unnecessarily expensive maintain and governments have spent all the money they had for dealing with climate change on bailing out the banks. It would be much easier if we all just thought these greenies were a bunch of loonies and didn't really want to associate with their ideals any more. Then we might be less inclined to ask our leaders to do difficult and expensive things like SAVING THE FUCKING PLANET!

So well done mass media, well done activist twats, well done credit crunch, you've given the spin-monkeys everything they need.

As the global recession takes hold...bugger the environment

In the current issue of Private Eye there is a cartoon in which the EU environment ministers re-assess climate targets. "Great! We can dump these targets that we were never going to meet and blame the banks".

On the same page there is an article about Gordon Brown campaigning to get the price per litre of fuel reduced, yet high fuel prices really were causing people to re-think their driving habits even before the banking system went tits up and people started feeling financially vulnerable.

As we know living in an ethical and environmentally friendly manner can be achieved fairly easily by those who can afford it, but with a recession the number of people who feel that they can afford the luxury of prolonging human existence on the planet beyond their lifetime will surely reduce.

Of course it doesn't need to be expensive to be green, but it takes more effort to do it on the cheap. Let's hope the cause doesn't get forgotten as world governments scramble to find ways to restore the reckless standard of living that their populations have become accustomed.

Shell get their wrists slapped for lying in an advert

Spotted in this weeks Advertising Standards Authority adjudications was a complaint about a print ad from Shell International. The ad printed in the UK national press stated that "We invest today's profits in tomorrow's solutions". Ignoring for a minute that any corporation actually has to invest today's profits for the future profits of it's shareholders, otherwise it would be doing them a disservice, such is the wanky nature of the modern business model the ad went on to say

Text at the top of the ad, attributed to Shell's Chief Executive, stated "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". Further text at the bottom of the ad stated "The challenge of the 21st century is to meet the growing need for energy in ways that are not only profitable but sustainable. As our 2007 results show, we're investing heavily in new technology and assets to safeguard the interests of our shareholders and future generations. In Canada we're harnessing our global network of technical and financial expertise to unlock the potential of the vast Canadian oil sands deposit. In the USA we're helping to build what will be the nation's largest refinery. And we're exploring a new generation of biofuels made from non-food sources. Difficult yes, impossible no". The ad then directed readers to full details of Shell's 2007 results on their website.

The accuracy of this advertisement was challenged by the World Wildlife Fund UK on 2 fronts, namely whether:

1. by harnessing the potential of the Canadian oil sands deposit, Shell was helping to provide a sustainable future; and

2. by helping to build the largest refinery in the US, Shell was helping sustainable energy production.

As a result the advertisement was investigated under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 49.1 and 49.3 (Environmental claims), in other words they were accused of making shit up in order to hop onto the environmental bandwagon.

To summarise the ruling both complaints were upheld, Shell were playing fast and loose with the facts and particularly by claiming that making a larger oil refinery they would be assisting with sustainable energy production when in fact they would be increasing CO2 emissions overall, and by describing oil sands as sustainable when according to the WWF they are actually one of the dirtiest energy sources.

Unfortunately all the ASA are able to do is instruct Shell not to run the ad again, but the chances are more people saw it than will see the ruling so I doubt that they are that bothered.

The rather lengthy response from Shell, and the full ruling from the ASA can be read here, and the response from the WWF UK is here.

Please don't pick up your dog poo!

Okay, I'm really not suggesting that if you are a dog owner that you leave it's crap lying around - having a couple of young children and living near a park where they like to play you can imagine that irresponsible dog owners really grind my gears. If you can't be bothered to read the rest of this update PLEASE DO PICK UP YOUR DOG POO.

Now for the rest of you what the hell am I wittering about? Well the title of this update was inspired by a notice I spotted at the entrance to a local area of managed woodland while walking the dogs today. We've become accustomed these days to signs warning us that we will be fined if we don't clean up after our dogs (although I don't think I've ever seen anyone with the authority to issue such a fine while I've been out) so it was interesting to spot one today politely requesting that we do the opposite.

Naturally details were short but the implication seemed to be that due to the eco-nature of the area they would rather you didn't use plastic bags to collect your dog mess and instead leave it for nature to take it's course if it is out of the way of the paths and car parks. Oh the fun trying to find a stick to flick dog crap far enough into the undergrowth when our Labrador opted to squeeze one out right on the edge of the main entrance route to the forest.

Anyway, getting back to the matter in hand seeing this sign reinforced a concern I've had for some time. You see responsible dog owners collect their crap, but it's usually in plastic bags and typically it's then deposited in general waste bins. Not the most environmentally friendly option, and I guess it means that the contents of these bins aren't likely to be sorted for recycling if they are 50% full of bagged dog mess!

There has to be a better option surely? I just can't think of it. It's not practical to carry a shovel round to bury it, and I'm sure the council wouldn't take kindly to legions of dog owners digging up their parks, so apart from buying bio-degradable poo bags which will only do so much good in the land-fill anyway what can the eco conscious dog owner do?

Answers on a post card...or in the comments box ;)

Sustainable Music Festivals?

Although you might not realise it from the weather if you live in the UK at the moment it's the middle of summer and the festival season is well under way. Here at EarthDream we are partial to a bit of a dance in the sunshine and are encouraged by the number of big events that are taking their environmental impact seriously, particularly in the dance music sphere.

From alternative energy powered stages (although this rarely extends to main stages at big events) to the often poorly received (read accused of cynical money grabbing) "green tax" on parking to encourage car sharing there are all manner of initiatives aimed at reducing the carbon footprint of, let's face it, some potentially pretty environmentally destructive events.

Of all the UK festivals this year though few have gone as far as Waveform claim to with it's policy of prioritising solar and wind power, and even resorting to pedal power. Of course the electronica heavy line-up requires some serious late night amplification so where it's abolutely necessary they will resort to bio-diesel (yes yes we know it's controversial but what are the current alternatives?).

But it's not just the power where the sustainable nature of the festival is apparent, with eco-talks and workshops going on over the weekend and a team of dedicated "eco-rangers" ensuring that traders are furnished with the required information to reduce their envinronmental impact, and that enough information is gathered "on the ground" to help the organisers further improve next year.

Oh and the line-up looks pretty fantastic too!

Max Mosely and the Green F1 Dream

Even if you aren't into Formula 1 the chances are you have heard of president of the FIA (F1's controlling body) perhaps for all the wrong reasons after details of his whore habit were recently exposed by a tabloid newspaper.

Well having been cleared of having Nazi overtones to his nasty he's started talking about making Formula 1 greener for his remaining term as president. Many might see this as bandwagon jumping but it's important to recognise that when Max puts his mind to something he is able to deliver.

The last comparable crusade was for safety in F1 and by extension we all got safer road cars as a result of the Euro NCap body of which Mosely was chairman from it's inception.

If he can do the same thing for the environment, and making cars greener then surely we can all benefit.

Citizens or Consumers?

Did you know that in the United Kingdom at the moment you can be arrested for eating a cake in parliament square if it happens to have words iced on it that politicians don't like? And not even words that they legitimately might take offence to either, for example if your icing of choice spelled out "Ruth Kelly is a creepy mad manboy bullshit muncher" you might at least understand why the Government wouldn't be impressed although even so you might find it a bit extreme if the tourettes baker had their collar felt.

So which delicious iced words will get you arrested then? "Freedom of Speech" is one example. It's true. In 2005 a group of "protesters" were arrested in parliament square. Their protest comprised eating politically decorated cakes.

If you are reading the above and thinking "well I already new that and it's a fucking disgrace" then you are either more tuned in to the more sinister activities of the shower of weasel piss that we've given power to for the last 11 years than most of the zombie consumerist drone people that modern Britain has created, or you might have read Dan Kieran's "I Fought The Law" which has recently been released in paperback. If you've not read it, you live in the UK, and you weren't aware that cake is now a crime then you need to get down your local library and borrow a copy because the entire situation is far more bleak than you might expect.

What makes Dan's book stand out is that it started life as another novelty Christmas gift of the type he written in the past (Crap Towns, Crap Jobs, Crap Holidays...etc). This time he was planning to find ridiculous bylaws left on the statue book as a result of lazy legislative housekeeping and break them but as he started his research he found another far more important story, that is the sheer extent to which our freedoms have been eroded as a result of laws passed by the current Government. "Erosion of freedoms you say...change the record...you'll be tin-foiling your hat next" - but because of the way this book came about from someone who was just discovering what the Government had done in his name it's all the more convincing for it.

On his journey Dan explains how we have all become consumers of the country rather than citizens of it, a wide reaching hypothesis that is applied to all manner of shittiness in society. It also demonstrates the extent to which we as UK citizens can no longer be considered "innocent until proven guilty", including the law abiding IT consultant who was arrested for nothing more than failing to make eye contact with a policeman.

Buy a copy of this book for anyone you know who has voted Labour in the last 10 years so you can show them the dark times their X on the paper has plunged us into. Maybe they'll exercise a bit of democratic responsibility next time.