Toxic Sludge is Good for You!

Chapter 8

I have heard about the story of Hugh Kaufmann and the EPA whistle-blowers but this article sheds more light on the corruption of environmental legislation. There is so much conflict of interest between government and corporate bureaucracies. The same thing happened with the tobacco industry, there is this obvious love and marriage between lobby groups and government officials. The list is endless, in one instance the PR firm Powell Tate or had connections to the Reagan and Bush Administrations.

The renaming of sludge by the public relations group is very ironic in the context of this book, and particularly this chapter. The one quote by Rutgers Professor Frank Lutz on the newly coined term is hilarious, "It does have one great virtue, you think of biosolids and your mind goes blank." Some of the other proposed names are simply laughable, "recyclite" as if the stuff is recyclable, and "black gold" this must be the type of gold where only a few make a significant profit.

It is hard to believe that New York City was dumping its waste into the ocean only 20 years ago. It is also unbelievable that it took complaints from the fishing industry to actually change policies. The image of the barge of trash getting pulled around the Atlantic Ocean sticks in my mind when thinking of the sludge situation

The PR campaigns for spreading sludge in rural towns particularly the ones in Texas are ridiculous. How can this group get away with paying off the mayor, giving money to the board of education, and having turkey dinners to convince the public? Their use of "passive" techniques instead of protesting and handing out flyers is smart and impressive but the subtleness is scary.

One really scary point is the last paragraph referring to how far greenwashing can go. I agree that a PR representative would go as far as saying that sewage sludge is so environmentally friendly it might as well be certified organic. This is indicative of greenwashing today and how much the organic label actually means in the market. Media and public relations can change the image of anything, even if it is hazardous as sludge to seem healthy and environmentally friendly.

My question is how twisted and greedy are proponents of land spreading of sludge? And how far are they willing to go to make a profit from exporting New York City’s waste to host towns?

Chapter 9

This chapter does a great job of getting the perspective of anti-environmental groups and public relations campaigns with some good quotes. A good one is by former Interior Secretary James Watt saying "If the troubles from environmentalists cannot be solved in a jury or ballot box, perhaps the cartridge box should be used." Another good one is by Ron Arnold of Wise Use he says, "Our intent is to sue environmental groups whenever there is a legal reason to do so." He went on saying that environmental groups lie, skew data, and are economically harmful. These people should not have any power in this society.

There are so many references to the Greenpeace Guide to Anti-environmental Organizations, I feel I should purchase a copy of this, I am sure there is a list on their website. Anyway, it is interesting because I have never heard of some of these environmental PR groups such as ARCO or the environmental defense fund (EDF). They have clearly had an influence, especially for McDonalds to have risen to be one of the most environmentally friendly businesses. How is that possible?

It was a little disturbing to learn how much funding to the big environmental organizations received from notorious anti-environmental corporations. Corporate sponsors for the World Wildlife Fund, Nature Conservancy, Defenders of Wildlife, and more represent one quarter of the organizations in the Greenpeace guide.

I was never a huge fan of Earth day but it makes sense now because it is corporate public relations scheme. As described in the Good cop/Bad cop section of the chapter earth day helps create a schism in the environmental movement, and convinces people that the planet is healthy and worth celebrating. The one cartoon of the polluted industrial plant putting up an earth day banner explains the situation well. Public relations is everything, one company could be responsible for massive deforestation and unfair labor but if they put "recycle more" banners on their products or business they are fine.

Reiterated from Chapter 8, the issue of greenwashing is important and worse than I thought. Also termed as "Green PR" this form of propaganda has been rampant since Silent Spring was published. PR experts such as Burston-Marsteller, Ketchum, Bruce Harrison, and others are waging an all out war on environmentalists, and with the backing of large corporate clients they usually end up wining. It is amazing but $1 billion is spent by U.S. businesses every year on anti-environmental PR services.

My question is should activists try an focus on education to combat greenwashing and chemical corporations? Or is attacking the PR campaigns and businesses with protests and flyers more effective?