Mark Scott, managing director of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), the public radio and television network, is introducing new policies aimed at a more rigorous imposition of impartiality on the content of all ABC programmes. But what does this mean in practice?
Its always easier to see the bias of others than to recognise one's own. A story that supports the status quo is generally considered to be neutral and is not questioned in terms of its objectivity while one that challenges the status quo tends to be perceived as having a "point of view" and therefore biased. Statements and assumptions that support the existing power structure are regarded as 'facts' whilst those that are critical of it tend to be rejected as 'opinions'.
The officious policing of impartiality and balance will mean ensuring that statements by those challenging the establishment (government or business) are balanced with statements by those whom they are criticising, though not necessarily the other way round.
Too much emphasis on objectivity in news and current affairs can lead journalists to leave out interpretations and analysis, which might be construed as personal views, and to play it safe by reporting events without explaining their meaning and keeping stories light and superficial so as not to offend anyone.
Journalists who accurately report what their sources say, can effectively remove responsibility for their stories onto the people they interview and quote. The ideal of objectivity therefore encourages uncritical reporting of official statements and those of authority figures. In this way the individual biases of individual journalists are avoided but institutional biases are reinforced.
The enforcement of impartiality tends to give powerful industry spokespeople guaranteed access to the media, no matter how flimsy their argument or how transparently self-interested. No such access is guaranteed to critics.
When a powerful company is criticised for endangering human lives or the environment it is only fair to give it the opportunity to answer the criticisms but does balance and impartiality require that it be given equal time? Are individual criminals given equal time to answer allegations against them?
In their attempts to be balanced on a scientific story, journalists may use any opposing view even when it has little scientific credibility in the wider scientific community. This can be very misleading. In the case of global warming, the fossil fuel industry has taken advantage of this convention by funding a handful of dissidents and demanding that they are given equal media coverage despite their poor standing in the scientific community.
This strategy of exaggerating the uncertainties and confusing the public has ensured that governments like the Howard government have been able to avoid doing anything to prevent global warming, despite the overwhelming evidence that significant global warming is likely without government intervention.
It is only recently, after many precious years have been lost, that the most intransigent governments have been forced to admit that action must be taken to avoid global warming. Some ask why this has not occurred earlier. Clearly part of the problem has been the ability of vested interests to manipulate the media by holding up the rod of balance and impartiality.
It is notable that the new ABC policy was announced at a meeting of the Sydney Institute, a corporate-funded right wing think tank, which has been one of the ABC's strongest critics on the grounds of bias. Here is a case where bias really is in the eyes of the beholder. The Sydney Institute is a break away group from the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), headed by Gerard Henderson, formerly director of IPA NSW and chief of staff for John Howard (now prime minister).
The IPA also claims the ABC is biased. Aaran Oakley attacked ABC journalists in the IPA Review for making "the assumption that global warming is real, some even making assertions to that end." On this basis he has concluded that ABC reporting "represents a pernicious mixture of science and environmentalism."
This accusation of bias was despite the fact that ABC gave air time to IPA Senior Fellow, Brian Tucker, who stated on ABC's Ockham's Razor that "unchallenged climatic disaster hyperbole has induced something akin to a panic reaction from policy makers, both national and international" and argued that global warming predictions are politically and emotionally generated.
By caving in to ideologically-motivated attacks on the ABC, the new guidelines are more likely to damage impartiality than enforce it.
Thursday, 19 October 2006
Friday, 2 June 2006
Executive Power
The mainstream media occasionally reports on the huge salary and remuneration of corporate executives, particularly CEOs and how far they are above normal working people. For example, the Sydney Morning Herald recently reported on studies that show how "the aristocrats and capitalists of the industrial age have been supplanted by the working rich, particularly the superstar chief executive officer."
What is perhaps of more concern than their super salaries, but which goes unreported in the media, is the way these same superstar executives are increasingly supplanting the role of government policy makers and exerting political power by mobilizing and organizing business coalitions.
CEOs and corporate executives doubling as directors of multiple companies, are providing the leadership for a new corporate class that is changing not just the rules of trade and investment, but also who can own public services and what social and environmental protections are appropriate.
The business coalitions they form and join enable common goals and strategies to be worked out; public relations campaigns to be coordinated; and conducive government policies to be decided. But most of all they seek to present a combined and powerful voice for business in order to pressure governments to adopt those policies.
Companies that are theoretically competitors in the market, cooperate with each other to protect business interests against democratic regulations and restrictions.
The US Council for International Business (USCIB) noted that "Leading American companies increasingly recognize that, to succeed abroad, they must join together with like-minded firms to influence laws, rules and policies that may undermine U.S. competitiveness, wherever they may be." In this way "USCIB members can lower the costs of doing business abroad and enhance their long-term profitability."
Not all business coalitions are nationally based. Several are international and promote the interests of transnational corporations on a global stage. This has been particularly evident in the push for free trade and globalisation where the many corporate coalitions are closely networked with overlapping memberships and shared leadership.
The corporate executives who coordinate these coalitions and networks are powerful within the corporate community because of their top level management positions within large corporations, their board membership of other large corporations, and their leadership positions in a various business associations. Because of these multiple positions they are able to network with others in similar positions and mobilize resources.
One of the earliest models for this grab for corporate power over policy making occurred in the area of free trade in services. The whole idea of 'trade in services' began with the CEO of American Express, James D. Robinson III in the 1980s. He and AmEx Vice President, Harry Freeman, enlisted the CEOs of Citicorp and the American International Group (AIG) in his campaign to get financial services included in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) negotiations.
These executives broadened their coalition by creating the idea of a services sector which included fields as diverse as entertainment, engineering, transportation and finance. They coined the term "financial services", promoted the use of the term "goods and services", and encouraged government statisticians to collect data on the new concept of the services sector and its importance to national economies.
Robinson later became chair of the Advisory Committee on Trade Policy and Negotiations, which oversaw the US GATT negotiations. He and Freeman formed the Coalition of Service Industries (CSI) and the Multilateral Trade Negotiations (MTN) Coalition, both of which were headed by Freeman.
These coalitions played a major role in writing the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and getting it included in the World Trade Organisation (WTO). GATS aims to open up the provision of all services, including water, electricity, education, waste disposal and health care, to foreign companies. Governments decide which service sectors they will open up, often without any public consultation or parliamentary vote, and the decision cannot be reversed, even if the majority of voters in a nation want to do so.
The success of the CSI subsequently spawned like organizations around the world including the Australian Services Roundtable and the European Services Forum. Freeman and the CSI went on to form other coalitions also, including the Financial Leaders Group and the Global Services Network.
Today these powerful corporate coalitions continue to push for nations to open up more of their service sectors to foreign companies. Similar and overlapping corporate coalitions and networks, coordinated by key corporate executives, are pushing for business-friendly trade agreements on foreign investment and intellectual property.
However the media reports the consequent 'progress' towards globalisation as an evolutionary, inevitable and even natural process that is somehow occurring without the agency of human intervention, rather than the deliberate strategies of corporate executives.
Read more about these strategies in my recently published book, "Suiting Themselves: How Corporations Drive the Global Agenda" (Earthscan) - for more information go to http://homepage.mac.com/herinst/sbeder/suiting.html
What is perhaps of more concern than their super salaries, but which goes unreported in the media, is the way these same superstar executives are increasingly supplanting the role of government policy makers and exerting political power by mobilizing and organizing business coalitions.
CEOs and corporate executives doubling as directors of multiple companies, are providing the leadership for a new corporate class that is changing not just the rules of trade and investment, but also who can own public services and what social and environmental protections are appropriate.
The business coalitions they form and join enable common goals and strategies to be worked out; public relations campaigns to be coordinated; and conducive government policies to be decided. But most of all they seek to present a combined and powerful voice for business in order to pressure governments to adopt those policies.
Companies that are theoretically competitors in the market, cooperate with each other to protect business interests against democratic regulations and restrictions.
The US Council for International Business (USCIB) noted that "Leading American companies increasingly recognize that, to succeed abroad, they must join together with like-minded firms to influence laws, rules and policies that may undermine U.S. competitiveness, wherever they may be." In this way "USCIB members can lower the costs of doing business abroad and enhance their long-term profitability."
Not all business coalitions are nationally based. Several are international and promote the interests of transnational corporations on a global stage. This has been particularly evident in the push for free trade and globalisation where the many corporate coalitions are closely networked with overlapping memberships and shared leadership.
The corporate executives who coordinate these coalitions and networks are powerful within the corporate community because of their top level management positions within large corporations, their board membership of other large corporations, and their leadership positions in a various business associations. Because of these multiple positions they are able to network with others in similar positions and mobilize resources.
One of the earliest models for this grab for corporate power over policy making occurred in the area of free trade in services. The whole idea of 'trade in services' began with the CEO of American Express, James D. Robinson III in the 1980s. He and AmEx Vice President, Harry Freeman, enlisted the CEOs of Citicorp and the American International Group (AIG) in his campaign to get financial services included in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) negotiations.
These executives broadened their coalition by creating the idea of a services sector which included fields as diverse as entertainment, engineering, transportation and finance. They coined the term "financial services", promoted the use of the term "goods and services", and encouraged government statisticians to collect data on the new concept of the services sector and its importance to national economies.
Robinson later became chair of the Advisory Committee on Trade Policy and Negotiations, which oversaw the US GATT negotiations. He and Freeman formed the Coalition of Service Industries (CSI) and the Multilateral Trade Negotiations (MTN) Coalition, both of which were headed by Freeman.
These coalitions played a major role in writing the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and getting it included in the World Trade Organisation (WTO). GATS aims to open up the provision of all services, including water, electricity, education, waste disposal and health care, to foreign companies. Governments decide which service sectors they will open up, often without any public consultation or parliamentary vote, and the decision cannot be reversed, even if the majority of voters in a nation want to do so.
The success of the CSI subsequently spawned like organizations around the world including the Australian Services Roundtable and the European Services Forum. Freeman and the CSI went on to form other coalitions also, including the Financial Leaders Group and the Global Services Network.
Today these powerful corporate coalitions continue to push for nations to open up more of their service sectors to foreign companies. Similar and overlapping corporate coalitions and networks, coordinated by key corporate executives, are pushing for business-friendly trade agreements on foreign investment and intellectual property.
However the media reports the consequent 'progress' towards globalisation as an evolutionary, inevitable and even natural process that is somehow occurring without the agency of human intervention, rather than the deliberate strategies of corporate executives.
Read more about these strategies in my recently published book, "Suiting Themselves: How Corporations Drive the Global Agenda" (Earthscan) - for more information go to http://homepage.mac.com/herinst/sbeder/suiting.html
Wednesday, 26 April 2006
Devil In The Detail
Sunday, March 26, 2006, 11:00
The UK Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) recently stopped the airing of a series of Australian television advertisements in Britain because they feature the word "bloody". (They have since reversed this decision.) The advertisements are aimed at promoting tourist visits to Australia and feature the statement "So where the bloody hell are you?"
The advertisements are part of an A$180 million (£76 million) dollar advertising campaign put together by Tourism Australia for audiences in Britain, Germany, China, Japan, India and the US. The campaign is actually an example of viral marketing. Viral marketing seeks to reach a wide audience, sometimes using humour or a sense of bypassing censors, to encourage people to tell or email each about a product or website.
Tourism Australia Managing Director, Scott Morrison explains: "The campaign was designed to achieve cut through and get people talking, especially online. After just two weeks, we've certainly achieved that. Already, we estimate that over 100,000 people in the UK have already viewed the ad online through our website www.wherethebloodyhellareyou.com and after the BACC decision this is only going to get better".
However whilst the use of a cutesy, old-fashioned, innocuous swear word is a calculated effort to garner publicity, the campaign includes a phrase that is much more offensive, and unintentional, which seems to have gone unnoticed. One of the print advertisements (and an image on the website), featuring a picture of a pristine forest, states "We've fertilised the ferns, Had the garden watered, And pacified the Tasmanian Devil. SO WHERE THE BLOODY HELL ARE YOU?"
The bad taste involved here may not be obvious unless you know something of what is happening to Tasmanian devils and the controversy over the role of chemicals used by foresters in its demise. The devil is a smallish marsupial animal, complete with a pouch for its babies, that is not found living in the wild anywhere else in the world outside of the island of Tasmania. It has long been extinct on mainland Australia.
The numbers of devils have been falling fairly dramatically since the late 1990s when they started getting an incurable facial cancer which prevents them from eating, so they starve to death. Populations have been reduced by 90 percent in affected areas and the number of affected areas are increasing. For this reason the devils are becoming endangered.
Some argue that the chemicals used in forestry are contributing to the cancer. Others that the cancer is contagious and is spread when the devils bite each other.
Those who hypothesise that the devils are affected by chemicals point to aerial spraying of pesticides and herbicides - such as atrazine which causes tumours in rats - by foresters and their extensive use of 1080 as a poison. 1080 is used in Tasmania to kill some native animals, such as possums and wallabies, which damage young plants, and it is used extensively in forestry operations. Devils are not direct targets of the poison as they are carnivores but they often eat dead animals, including possums and wallabies and so are indirectly exposed to the poison.
Recently published research by Anne-Marie Pearse and Kate Swift from the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Water & Environment (DPIWE), supports the hypothesis that the cancers are contagious and infectious cells are transferred to new animals when they bite each other during fights. Their findings have yet to be confirmed by DNA studies of the tumours.
The DPIWE, which employs them, is responsible for the permitting, control and supervision of 1080 use and for administering legislation covering aerial spraying of atrazine and other chemicals. Its 2005 Code of Practice for 1080 recognises that "Farmers and foresters frequently have a real need to reduce damage to pastures and crops by native browsing animals."
Naturally the forestry industry has hailed the publication by the DPIWE researchers as proof that their chemicals are not the cause of the cancers. However, even if it is subsequently proven that the cancers are contagious, it may well be that forestry chemicals have weakened the immune systems of the devils and made them vulnerable to cancers. It is highly unusual for cancers to be contagious in normal circumstances.
Given this ongoing controversy, the claim in the advertisements that the Tasmanian Devil has been "pacified" is not only offensive but reflects badly on an organization that depends on Australia's natural flora and fauna to attract tourists.
The UK Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) recently stopped the airing of a series of Australian television advertisements in Britain because they feature the word "bloody". (They have since reversed this decision.) The advertisements are aimed at promoting tourist visits to Australia and feature the statement "So where the bloody hell are you?"
The advertisements are part of an A$180 million (£76 million) dollar advertising campaign put together by Tourism Australia for audiences in Britain, Germany, China, Japan, India and the US. The campaign is actually an example of viral marketing. Viral marketing seeks to reach a wide audience, sometimes using humour or a sense of bypassing censors, to encourage people to tell or email each about a product or website.
Tourism Australia Managing Director, Scott Morrison explains: "The campaign was designed to achieve cut through and get people talking, especially online. After just two weeks, we've certainly achieved that. Already, we estimate that over 100,000 people in the UK have already viewed the ad online through our website www.wherethebloodyhellareyou.com and after the BACC decision this is only going to get better".
However whilst the use of a cutesy, old-fashioned, innocuous swear word is a calculated effort to garner publicity, the campaign includes a phrase that is much more offensive, and unintentional, which seems to have gone unnoticed. One of the print advertisements (and an image on the website), featuring a picture of a pristine forest, states "We've fertilised the ferns, Had the garden watered, And pacified the Tasmanian Devil. SO WHERE THE BLOODY HELL ARE YOU?"
The bad taste involved here may not be obvious unless you know something of what is happening to Tasmanian devils and the controversy over the role of chemicals used by foresters in its demise. The devil is a smallish marsupial animal, complete with a pouch for its babies, that is not found living in the wild anywhere else in the world outside of the island of Tasmania. It has long been extinct on mainland Australia.
The numbers of devils have been falling fairly dramatically since the late 1990s when they started getting an incurable facial cancer which prevents them from eating, so they starve to death. Populations have been reduced by 90 percent in affected areas and the number of affected areas are increasing. For this reason the devils are becoming endangered.
Some argue that the chemicals used in forestry are contributing to the cancer. Others that the cancer is contagious and is spread when the devils bite each other.
Those who hypothesise that the devils are affected by chemicals point to aerial spraying of pesticides and herbicides - such as atrazine which causes tumours in rats - by foresters and their extensive use of 1080 as a poison. 1080 is used in Tasmania to kill some native animals, such as possums and wallabies, which damage young plants, and it is used extensively in forestry operations. Devils are not direct targets of the poison as they are carnivores but they often eat dead animals, including possums and wallabies and so are indirectly exposed to the poison.
Recently published research by Anne-Marie Pearse and Kate Swift from the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Water & Environment (DPIWE), supports the hypothesis that the cancers are contagious and infectious cells are transferred to new animals when they bite each other during fights. Their findings have yet to be confirmed by DNA studies of the tumours.
The DPIWE, which employs them, is responsible for the permitting, control and supervision of 1080 use and for administering legislation covering aerial spraying of atrazine and other chemicals. Its 2005 Code of Practice for 1080 recognises that "Farmers and foresters frequently have a real need to reduce damage to pastures and crops by native browsing animals."
Naturally the forestry industry has hailed the publication by the DPIWE researchers as proof that their chemicals are not the cause of the cancers. However, even if it is subsequently proven that the cancers are contagious, it may well be that forestry chemicals have weakened the immune systems of the devils and made them vulnerable to cancers. It is highly unusual for cancers to be contagious in normal circumstances.
Given this ongoing controversy, the claim in the advertisements that the Tasmanian Devil has been "pacified" is not only offensive but reflects badly on an organization that depends on Australia's natural flora and fauna to attract tourists.
Friday, 14 April 2006
Teflon - A Sticky Issue
DuPont has been conducting an advertising campaign in major newspapers in various parts of the world, including Australia, asserting its product Teflon® is safe. In its advertisements DuPont is at pains to distance Teflon from the PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid), which is used in the manufacture of Teflon to give Teflon-coated cookware its non-stick property.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been investigating PFOA because it "is very persistent in the environment, was being found at very low levels both in the environment and in the blood of the general U.S. population, and caused developmental and other adverse effects in laboratory animals."The main message of the 'Teflon is safe' campaign is that Teflon is not PFOA. But is Teflon safe? The problem is that when cookware is used at very high temperatures the Teflon coating decomposes and gives off toxic gases. As early as 1991 researchers reported in the journal Chemical Research in Toxicology that PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene - the chemical name for Teflon) has "long been known to evolve toxic products when heated above normal service temperatures."It is the "normal service temperatures" that is the key here. DuPont's advertisements claim that PFOA is not detected in Teflon coating when used "under normal cooking conditions". But what does DuPont mean by normal cooking conditions? DuPont admits on its teflon.com website that "Significant decomposition of the coating" occurs "when temperatures exceed about 660°F (349°C)-well above the smoke point for cooking oil, fats or butter". But it claims that "it is unlikely that decomposition temperatures for non-stick cookware would be reached without burning food to an inedible state."
The website goes on to say "However, these high temperatures can be reached if dry or empty cookware is neglected on a hot burner or in an oven-a safety hazard that should be avoided with all cookware." A safety hazard not mentioned in the 'Teflon non-stick coating is safe' advertisement.
A 2003 study conducted by the respected Washington DC-based research group, the Environmental Working Group, found that an aluminium fry pan coated with Teflon took only five minutes to heat from room temperature to 721°F (383°C) when the element was on high.The DuPont advertisement also refers to the Australian regulator, NICNAS (National Industrial Chemicals Notification Assessment Scheme), as endorsing the safety of Teflon. Dr Roshini Jayewardene, Leader Regulatory Strategy & Reform at NICNAS says that "based on the information available, there is absolutely no risk to the consumer when using non-stick cookware under normal cooking conditions". She claims that if you heat a frypan above 350°C you would "incinerate" the food.
But at temperatures of around 260°C, which is just below the smoke point for safflower oil, Teflon gives off fumes according to a warning on an earlier version of DuPont's Teflon website. It said that Teflon can "emit fumes harmful to birds, if cookware is accidentally heated to high temperatures, exceeding approximately 500°F (260°C) - well above the temperatures needed for frying or baking".Another problem is that drip pans can get to temperatures high enough to emit fumes even under normal cooking conditions. DuPont noted that Teflon-coated "drip pans should be avoided because even in normal use they reach extremely high temperatures and can emit fumes that are hazardous to birds." DuPont maintains Teflon is safe for humans whilst warning people to "never keep your pet bird in the kitchen".
The DuPont advertisements boast that "DuPont has been praised by the US Environmental Protection Agency for our 'leadership' in reducing PFOA emissions". Yet in December last year that same agency levied the largest environmental administrative penalty in its history against DuPont for failing to "report information to EPA about substantial risk of injury to human health or the environment that DuPont obtained about PFOA from as early as 1981 and as recently as 2004."PFOA is now found in the bodies of people all over the world. Given that the manufacture of Teflon is a major contributor to PFOA in the environment, can DuPont really assert, without qualification, that Teflon is safe? Wouldn't it be more responsible to say that Teflon is not safe to manufacture but they believe it is safe to use provided people don't heat their cookware to temperatures above 250°C and never heat an empty Teflon-coated container?
Sharon Beder is author of "Suiting Themselves: How Corporations Drive the Global Agenda" and "Environmental Principles and Policies" (UNSW Press, Sydney) forthcoming.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been investigating PFOA because it "is very persistent in the environment, was being found at very low levels both in the environment and in the blood of the general U.S. population, and caused developmental and other adverse effects in laboratory animals."The main message of the 'Teflon is safe' campaign is that Teflon is not PFOA. But is Teflon safe? The problem is that when cookware is used at very high temperatures the Teflon coating decomposes and gives off toxic gases. As early as 1991 researchers reported in the journal Chemical Research in Toxicology that PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene - the chemical name for Teflon) has "long been known to evolve toxic products when heated above normal service temperatures."It is the "normal service temperatures" that is the key here. DuPont's advertisements claim that PFOA is not detected in Teflon coating when used "under normal cooking conditions". But what does DuPont mean by normal cooking conditions? DuPont admits on its teflon.com website that "Significant decomposition of the coating" occurs "when temperatures exceed about 660°F (349°C)-well above the smoke point for cooking oil, fats or butter". But it claims that "it is unlikely that decomposition temperatures for non-stick cookware would be reached without burning food to an inedible state."
The website goes on to say "However, these high temperatures can be reached if dry or empty cookware is neglected on a hot burner or in an oven-a safety hazard that should be avoided with all cookware." A safety hazard not mentioned in the 'Teflon non-stick coating is safe' advertisement.
A 2003 study conducted by the respected Washington DC-based research group, the Environmental Working Group, found that an aluminium fry pan coated with Teflon took only five minutes to heat from room temperature to 721°F (383°C) when the element was on high.The DuPont advertisement also refers to the Australian regulator, NICNAS (National Industrial Chemicals Notification Assessment Scheme), as endorsing the safety of Teflon. Dr Roshini Jayewardene, Leader Regulatory Strategy & Reform at NICNAS says that "based on the information available, there is absolutely no risk to the consumer when using non-stick cookware under normal cooking conditions". She claims that if you heat a frypan above 350°C you would "incinerate" the food.
But at temperatures of around 260°C, which is just below the smoke point for safflower oil, Teflon gives off fumes according to a warning on an earlier version of DuPont's Teflon website. It said that Teflon can "emit fumes harmful to birds, if cookware is accidentally heated to high temperatures, exceeding approximately 500°F (260°C) - well above the temperatures needed for frying or baking".Another problem is that drip pans can get to temperatures high enough to emit fumes even under normal cooking conditions. DuPont noted that Teflon-coated "drip pans should be avoided because even in normal use they reach extremely high temperatures and can emit fumes that are hazardous to birds." DuPont maintains Teflon is safe for humans whilst warning people to "never keep your pet bird in the kitchen".
The DuPont advertisements boast that "DuPont has been praised by the US Environmental Protection Agency for our 'leadership' in reducing PFOA emissions". Yet in December last year that same agency levied the largest environmental administrative penalty in its history against DuPont for failing to "report information to EPA about substantial risk of injury to human health or the environment that DuPont obtained about PFOA from as early as 1981 and as recently as 2004."PFOA is now found in the bodies of people all over the world. Given that the manufacture of Teflon is a major contributor to PFOA in the environment, can DuPont really assert, without qualification, that Teflon is safe? Wouldn't it be more responsible to say that Teflon is not safe to manufacture but they believe it is safe to use provided people don't heat their cookware to temperatures above 250°C and never heat an empty Teflon-coated container?
Sharon Beder is author of "Suiting Themselves: How Corporations Drive the Global Agenda" and "Environmental Principles and Policies" (UNSW Press, Sydney) forthcoming.
Tuesday, 17 January 2006
Climate Change - the real priorities of big business
Tuesday, January 17, 2006, 21:38
Government leaders at the Sydney meeting of the new six-nation Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, say we can trust big business to reduce greenhouse gases without regulations or binding targets (Sydney Morning Herald, 12 Jan 06). This is more a declaration of surrender than a demonstration of trust. The genuine commitment of big business is belied by their recent history of denying problems such as global warming and opposing fuel efficiency standards.Perhaps the best indicator of the changes big business envisages in the area of transport, a major contributor to greenhouse gases, is a report prepared on behalf of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Mobility 2030. The report was written by the experts from twelve companies: eight major car companies (General Motors, Toyota, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, Honda, Nissan, Renault and Volkswagen); two major oil companies (Shell and BP); the Michelin tyre company; and a Norwegian aluminium company which supplies car makers.The report admits that "the way contemporary society moves people and goods is not sustainable indefinitely". It found that if present trends continue transport-related greenhouse gases will grow significantly and so it recommends ways to reduce these gases as well as other pollutants.However, their recommendations for achieving these goals involve the purchase of more cars over time, not less. They recommend technological fixes for motor vehicles and more roads, rather then expansion of public transport or changes to land-use planning that might reduce motor vehicle travel.The report argues that emissions of conventional pollutants will be reduced as the existing fleet is progressively renewed, new technologies are developed to control emissions, two-stroke engines are replaced "by more economical, cleaner four-stroke engines", new fuels developed and adopted such as unleaded petrol. As far as greenhouse gases go, "Only the successful development and general adoption of a number of advanced technologies - about which much remains to be learned - will achieve this goal." And even then governments and individuals would have to be committed to buying the new vehicles. Win-win for the motor vehicle industry - more sales of cars!The report argues that mobility divides, that is the gap between those who have easy access to mobility and those who have poor access, inhibit economic growth and therefore governments should build more roads and encourage the production of cheaper motor vehicles. The report admits: "Narrowing mobility divides in these ways might increase transport-related GHG's."The point is that businesses are only willing to adopt new technologies or promote solutions if they can make money out of them. Otherwise such solutions can only be achieved through government action and regulation. And while there are a few technological changes that can reduce greenhouse emissions cheaply and profitably, there are many more existing technologies that are both polluting and highly profitable. One relevant example is the four wheel drive or sports utility vehicle (SUV), from which companies such as Ford make around half their total profits. At the recent Detroit motor show Ford unveiled its 6.7 metre ute with a V10 engine, said to be inspired by a locomotive.SUV sales have caused the average fuel efficiency of the car fleet to decline rather than improve over the past two decades. While car companies get green reputations by producing a few green cars they make their big profits by producing large numbers of "gas guzzling" SUVs. In fact Toyota's carbon emissions grew faster than other car manufacturers during the 1990s (by 72 percent) because of its production of increasing numbers of SUVs and despite its production of the popular hybrid petrol-electric Prius.
Whilst car companies remain committed to manufacturing ever more powerful and energy consuming vehicles, oil companies remain committed to ever increasing production and usage of oil and gas. Companies such as BP and Shell, which have invested a miniscule amount of their budgets in solar energy, continue to focus most of their efforts and make most of their profits on expanding sales of fossil fuels.
At the end of last year the Federal High Court in Nigeria ruled that gas flaring by oil and gas companies, including Shell, should be stopped as it violates constitutional rights to life and dignity. The gas flaring causes people to be exposed to toxic chemicals. And even though not flaring would be an easy way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions the ruling has been contested by Shell. Yet Shell is often cited as one of the more socially responsible oil companies.
Government leaders at the Sydney meeting of the new six-nation Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, say we can trust big business to reduce greenhouse gases without regulations or binding targets (Sydney Morning Herald, 12 Jan 06). This is more a declaration of surrender than a demonstration of trust. The genuine commitment of big business is belied by their recent history of denying problems such as global warming and opposing fuel efficiency standards.Perhaps the best indicator of the changes big business envisages in the area of transport, a major contributor to greenhouse gases, is a report prepared on behalf of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Mobility 2030. The report was written by the experts from twelve companies: eight major car companies (General Motors, Toyota, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, Honda, Nissan, Renault and Volkswagen); two major oil companies (Shell and BP); the Michelin tyre company; and a Norwegian aluminium company which supplies car makers.The report admits that "the way contemporary society moves people and goods is not sustainable indefinitely". It found that if present trends continue transport-related greenhouse gases will grow significantly and so it recommends ways to reduce these gases as well as other pollutants.However, their recommendations for achieving these goals involve the purchase of more cars over time, not less. They recommend technological fixes for motor vehicles and more roads, rather then expansion of public transport or changes to land-use planning that might reduce motor vehicle travel.The report argues that emissions of conventional pollutants will be reduced as the existing fleet is progressively renewed, new technologies are developed to control emissions, two-stroke engines are replaced "by more economical, cleaner four-stroke engines", new fuels developed and adopted such as unleaded petrol. As far as greenhouse gases go, "Only the successful development and general adoption of a number of advanced technologies - about which much remains to be learned - will achieve this goal." And even then governments and individuals would have to be committed to buying the new vehicles. Win-win for the motor vehicle industry - more sales of cars!The report argues that mobility divides, that is the gap between those who have easy access to mobility and those who have poor access, inhibit economic growth and therefore governments should build more roads and encourage the production of cheaper motor vehicles. The report admits: "Narrowing mobility divides in these ways might increase transport-related GHG's."The point is that businesses are only willing to adopt new technologies or promote solutions if they can make money out of them. Otherwise such solutions can only be achieved through government action and regulation. And while there are a few technological changes that can reduce greenhouse emissions cheaply and profitably, there are many more existing technologies that are both polluting and highly profitable. One relevant example is the four wheel drive or sports utility vehicle (SUV), from which companies such as Ford make around half their total profits. At the recent Detroit motor show Ford unveiled its 6.7 metre ute with a V10 engine, said to be inspired by a locomotive.SUV sales have caused the average fuel efficiency of the car fleet to decline rather than improve over the past two decades. While car companies get green reputations by producing a few green cars they make their big profits by producing large numbers of "gas guzzling" SUVs. In fact Toyota's carbon emissions grew faster than other car manufacturers during the 1990s (by 72 percent) because of its production of increasing numbers of SUVs and despite its production of the popular hybrid petrol-electric Prius.
Whilst car companies remain committed to manufacturing ever more powerful and energy consuming vehicles, oil companies remain committed to ever increasing production and usage of oil and gas. Companies such as BP and Shell, which have invested a miniscule amount of their budgets in solar energy, continue to focus most of their efforts and make most of their profits on expanding sales of fossil fuels.
At the end of last year the Federal High Court in Nigeria ruled that gas flaring by oil and gas companies, including Shell, should be stopped as it violates constitutional rights to life and dignity. The gas flaring causes people to be exposed to toxic chemicals. And even though not flaring would be an easy way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions the ruling has been contested by Shell. Yet Shell is often cited as one of the more socially responsible oil companies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
