1. I T ' S T H E E C O N O M Y , S T U P I D

Trees aren't the only plants that are good for the atmosphere. Because nuclear plants don't burn airborne pollutant* in the U.S b\ need for elect rimy without >a*;nfir anything to make i'fwtndtv. nuclear mere than iaUHJO ten- every day mjc the quahh of our environment, plants don't pollute the air. Just as important. nticlt .) \ > t - r n . » s ^ *t <
in iaet \in s K i llleperatan t» «kia no ^ Mihu -< ia ^ » >vnte to tba I S Council for Energ) micleareieetricplants displace other But mure plants are needed to W o ! « P < < P <\ ohUN). Dept. power sources and so reduce certain help satisfy the nation's growing fiPOi. Washington. D.C. 20035.

luctear « n y iniani cleaner air,

up to society's expectations around the world."

DuPont in fact, of course, is famous around the world for inventing chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) - the primary chemicals responsible for ozone depletion. In March 1993, DuPont announced it would stop CFC production for sale in "developed countries", following record-low ozone levels over Northern Europe and Canada. The company continued to manufacture CFCs for export to the Third World however. Despite grand claims in one of its more ludicrous advertisements that it is now "protecting the skies", DuPont's substitutes for CFCs - hydrotluorocarbons (HFCs) - are in fact powerful greenhouse gases that also deplete ozone three to five times the extent claimed by DuPont.

For many years, ICI produced vast quantities of Paraquat, a highly toxic herbicide banned in five countries and listed as one of the "Dirty Dozen" by The Pesticide Action Network. ICI's Malaysian subsidiary was nevertheless happy to laud their herbicide's environmental benefits in an advertisement depicting "Paraquat and Nature Working in Perfect Harmony". Needless to say, research has shown that Paraquat can be fatal to frog tadpoles at the lowest dose tested, is highly toxic to some species of bird and insect, kills honeybees at doses lower than those used for weed-killing and is toxic to some species of mite. Horses also seem to have missed out on the harmony, suffering lesions in the mouth and increased mucous secretions after grazing on pastures recently sprayed with Paraquat. The World Health Organisation (WHO) recommended that "all domestic animals should be kept far from freshly-spayed areas." As for human beings, the US EPA has classified Paraquat as a "possible human carcinogen"; it can also lead to skin injuries such as dermatitis, burns and rashes at even low levels.

A favoured kind of greenwash has been the voluntary adoption of "corporate codes of conduct" by transnational corporations (TNCs). The chemical industry calls its set of codes 'Responsible

Care'. Although 'Responsible Care' commits companies to annual self-evaluation, those evaluations are not available for public inspection. In other words, companies evaluate themselves and then decide whether they have been successful or not. A chemical corporation's "commitment to continuous improvement" is backed up by nothing more than the corporation telling us that such is the case!

Similarly, although the code commits to the development of "safe" products, the word "safe" is used as a flexible friend to mean whatever chemical corporations want it to mean. Most revealing, the Chemical Manufacturers' Association found in its own survey that relatively few chemical industry employees had even heard of 'Responsible Care'.

In similar vein, the 'Rotterdam Charter', dreamt up by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) before the 1992 Earth If we are to solve the world's escalating social and environmental problems, we need to cultivate an understanding of these problems based not on the false words of corporate spin, but rather on the instincts of ordinary people and on the science of the truly independent. Summit commits to "sustainable economic development". The words sound nice, but were actually coined to enable global economic growth to escalate: "Economic growth provides the conditions in which protection of the environment can best be achieved." (Executive Board, ICC)

The assumption being that investment in environmental protection relies on wealth creamed off from economic growth - a dubious concept at best.

The strategy of delivering carefully prepared responses to environmental concern is generally designed to confuse the argument, dissipate protest and so postpone action. In October 1997, Nobel Prize winner Dudley Herschbach, professor of chemistry at Harvard University, warned of the threat of global warming:

"This is a wake-up call for world leaders. Never before has the senior scientific community spoken so boldly on the urgent need to prevent disruption to our climate."

Three days later, James May, Director-General of the UK Offshore Operations Association Limited, opened the sluice gates on the greenwash:

" I should make clear at the outset that concern for the environment is something that motivates us all." However, May notes, "A l l would admit the science surrounding climate change is complex. One thing is clear, though. This is a global issue, necessitating a global response."

The real meaning of the statement is clear enough when translated from Newspeak. May argues that "the science . . . is complex", which is industry code for: "more research needs to be done, we can't be sure of the significance of the threat".

The examples are endless, but wherever we look we will find business as usual. The evidence is all around us: after several decades of mounting, hard evidence pointing to impending environmental catastrophe, not only has big business not reformed itself, it has vastly expanded its global reach.

I f we are to solve the world's escalating social and environmental problems, we need to cultivate an understanding of these problems based not on the false words of corporate spin, but rather on the instincts of ordinary people and on the science of the truly independent^

David Edwards is a researcher/writer for International Society for Ecology and Culture. His latest book The Compassionate Revolution is published by Green Books.

174

The Ecologist, Vol. 29, No 2, May/June 1999