Greenpeace UK Blog

All rights reserved. Credit: VW Dog chases Beetle in VW's new advert

VW has launched its latest advert ahead of the US Super Bowl this weekend.

The advert is a follow-up to last year’s Little Darth one which we lampooned to reveal the Dark Side of VW’s environmental claims. It still riffs on a Star Wars theme and throws in a cute dog for good measure, but is there any mention of supporting ambitious climate laws?

Any room for a mention of radical efficiency improvements across VW’s range? Or just generally living up to VW’s ambitious claims of being the greenest car company on the planet?

Sadly not, but I think it’s a missed opportunity. The Super Bowl is one of the biggest television events in the world so why not use it to announce some brave green measures?

That got me thinking: how could this advert be changed to show the real VW? The one that’s lobbying against new laws to reduce emissions from vehicles in Europe. The one that won’t meet with our campaign team for a chat.

How about improving VW’s advert? Download the video and give it a make-over. Then post it on our Facebook page.

Drop in some new footage, add some subtitles, or revoice the guys propping up the cantina bar. Feel free to use clips from any Greenpeace films - how about Episode I or Episode II of our original VW film, or some footage of stormtroopers in action in London and Brussels? Or even a guest spot for Brian the rebellious stormtrooper?

Once you have your mash-up masterwork complete, upload you video to YouTube (or whichever video website you fancy) - if you give it a similar title to the original (it's called The Dog Strikes Back: 2012 Volkswagen Game Day Commercial), there's a chance it will appear alongside it in any search results. Then post it on our Facebook page.

I know you’ll be able to improve on it immeasurably. And after all, dogs? Star Wars? What’s the connection?

Download the video file and get cracking on your own VW advert. No prizes I’m afraid, but I’ll showcase some of the best ones here.

Our VW campaign has passed a significant milestone, as the Jedi ranks swell to over 500,000. That's an incredible half a million people demanding that Volkswagen gets behind the sort of climate laws we need to save our planet.

So thank you for signing up, recruiting your friends and keeping up the pressure on VW - it's been absolutely amazing.

if (window.postMessage) { var tlMouseupFunc = function() { var tlFrame = document.getElementById("tl-timeline-iframe"); if (tlFrame.contentWindow && tlFrame.contentWindow.postMessage) { tlFrame.contentWindow.postMessage("mouseup","*"); } } if (typeof window.addEventListener != "undefined") { window.addEventListener("mouseup", tlMouseupFunc, false); } else if (typeof window.attachEvent != "undefined") { window.attachEvent("onmouseup", tlMouseupFunc); } }

It seems an appropriate time to take a quick look back over the last six months and pulling together the timeline above, I realised how much we've acheived. VW is the largest car company in the world, as well as one of the largest companies full stop, so this campaign was never going to be a short one. But we know the pressure you've been piling on is having an effect within VW and in the rest of the car industry.

We still want to sit down with VW's boss Martin Winterkorn to talk about how his company really can be the greenest one ever (as it likes to claim in its PR and advertising). Until then - and until VW stops lobbying against the new EU climate laws - the Rebellion is just going to keep on growing.

All rights reserved. Credit: © Greenpeace / Paul Hilton Tuna giant Bolton says it will be '100% sustainable' by 2017, but how? Image caption:  Tuna giant Bolton says it will be '100% sustainable' by 2017, but how?

After the huge success of our UK tinned tuna campaign, described by the Independent as "one of the most successful environmental campaigns in years", it was great to hear a big European tuna brand - Bolton commit to completely clean up its act.

In 2011, tuna giant Bolton recognised the damage associated with fish aggregation devices (Fads) by committing to source nearly half its tuna by 2013 from sustainable fishing methods such as Fad-free fishing and pole and line. And judging by the latest announcement in mid-January, it seemed Bolton was ready to follow all the major UK brands and supermarkets in dumping Fads for good.

Or are they? Bolton put out a press release that promised great things, aiming to go "100 per cent sustainable by 2017". But the PR veneer concealed a lack of substance.

There was no detail about how the company will achieve this laudable aim. Will they now drop Fads and switch to pole and line and Fad-free fishing for all of its tuna? Bolton is not telling us, so we simply don’t know if this commitment is worth the paper it’s written on. I could happily commit to being 100 per cent fluent in Swedish by 2017, but without a plan to get there it’s not going to happen.

The tuna market is changing rapidly under pressure from consumers and NGOs to clean up its act and dump destructive practices - but there’s still a long way to go for the global industry. Setting aside environmental impacts for one moment, ultimately corporate reputations and bottom lines are at risk if the tuna industry clings to business as usual in this dynamic marketplace. Bolton can learn from the UK and build a genuinely transformative, profitable model for sustainable tuna, or it can watch market share and marine biodiversity fade away as it fights shy of fully embracing change.

Far from what the vested interests in the tuna industry would have you believe, this is not about hairshirt puritans going back to the Stone Age. It’s about fishing in ways that maintain the integrity of oceans ecosystems for future generations. That happens to be incompatible with the increasing industrialisation of tuna fishing using indiscriminate marine minefields – Fads.

What’s it to be, Bolton? Is this bluewash or did something get lost in translation? Please let us know, we’re all ears. Or should that be, we're all otoliths?

All rights reserved. Credit: Clement Tardif / Greenpeace Senegalese fisherman join Greenpeace campaigners in defending fish stocks from industrial trawlers Image caption:  Senegalese fisherman join Greenpeace campaigners in defending fish stocks from industrial trawlers

In the run up to the Senegalese presidential elections, Youssou N’dour isn’t the only controversial show on the road. Last week, a caravan tour organised by the small-scale fishing sector and our colleagues in Greenpeace Africa, called on presidential candidates to take urgent action against foreign super trawlers.  

Fleets of giant fishing foreign trawlers that operate off the West African coastline are sucking up millions of tonnes of precious local resources. Some of these trawlers - many from Europe - are literally floating fish factories, capable of catching, processing and freezing 300 tonnes a day. This is having a devastating effect on millions of local fishermen who rely on health fish stocks to support their families and local communities.  

During the week-long caravan tour, an impressive 6,000 representatives of large fishing ports across the country expressed concerns about the plunder of their marine resources. Fishermen placed their hand-prints on large banner, reading "Your voice counts, make it heard now". They are urging the candidates to commit to ending fishing authorisations being issued to foreign vessels, and instead support the local fishery sector.

And while fishermen in West Africa may seem a world away from small-scale fishing communities in Europe, they share a common bond. Both small-scale fishermen in the UK and Senegal are struggling as a result of mismanagement by decision makers who favour the short term economic interests of the industrialised fishing fleets.

Over the last few years, with increased technology, fishing vessels have become larger and more ruthless in their fishing techniques. A good example is the Pelagic-Freezer Trawler Association (PFA) fleet, which includes vessels owned by Dutch, German and UK companies. They use sophisticated sonar equipment to track fish across large areas of the sea, and a pipe sucks fish from immense nets into the belly of the ship where a processing factory turns them into frozen blocks.

The PFA and other super trawlers now roam the global seas, hunting down our remaining fish stocks. West Africa isn’t their only target, the world’s largest trawlers now head south towards the edge of Antarctica in a scramble for whatever’s left.

And who’s funding this? We are. EU taxpayers’ money keeps factory fishing afloat. For example, the PFA received fuel tax exemptions of between €20.9 million and €78.2 million from 2006 to 2011.  Taxpayer’ cover 90 per cent of the payments required for the PFA to have the right to fish in West Africa. EU funds helped the PFA build or modernise nearly half its fleet.

If all subsidies were removed, calculations show that PFA’s average yearly profit of around €55 million would, at best case, drop to €7 million, and at worst case, result in a loss of 50.3 million.

The mess we are in now is a result of mismanagement under the broken EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). But the CFP is in the process of being reformed. This happens only once a decade, and may be our last chance to turn the tide on a policy that has failed our oceans and fishing communities from Scotland to Senegal.

Issa Diop, a fishermen from Mauritania who came to the UK last year for our African Voices tour, sums up the issue perfectly:

“Our message is to tell the world that overfishing is very serious. Why is it serious? Because big vessels destroy the seas. There are fewer and fewer fish as technology is advancing at a fast rate.  23 million people are dependent on the fish stocks in West Africa. If you continue to overexploit these fish stocks, 23 million people will suffer.”

All rights reserved. Credit: Pierre Gleizes/Greenpeace Greenpeace protesters at EDF Evolutionary Power Reactor in France

Despite the growing shift of support away from nuclear energy in Europe, EDF is stubbornly pushing forward plans to build a new nuclear reactor in the UK, without sufficient consideration for all the relevant risks.

It’s less than a year since the disaster at Fukushima reminded the world just how risky and expensive nuclear power can be. Since Fukushima, Germany has ditched their nuclear programmes and turned to clean, efficient energy.  Across Europe investors are refusing to put their money into nuclear without governments guaranteeing their profits. Yet the French state-owned company EDF Energy is trying to build a new nuclear reactor at Hinkley Point in Somerset.

EDF applied for planning permission in late October, less than three weeks after Britain’s nuclear watchdog – the Office of Nuclear Regulation - published a long list of improvements needed to protect Britain’s nuclear reactors. Given the scale of the recommendatons in the list, it is not possible for EDF to have incorporated all those improvements into its proposals in just three weeks. Lessons are still being learned following Fukushima (such as ‘don’t delete the minutes of the disaster response meetings’). EDF's rush to apply for planning permission betrays their cavalier attitude and suggests they can't have fully considered the implications of the Fukushima disaster.

We are seriously concerned that the flood defences, the emergency response plans and other vital safety features (such as a secure supply of off-site electricity during an emergency) aren’t fit for purpose. There’s a distinctly slap-dash feel to the application: as though EDF were more concerned with keeping the wheels on their nuclear gravy train than with making sure their plans stood up to scrutiny.

We’re not the only ones with concerns about the proposals. EDF’s planning application is also facing fierce opposition from local campaign groups, nuclear experts and Members of Parliament. Local councils have made their own representations, pointing out problems with traffic levels, waste storage and the impact on tourism.

With 1,200 people registering to comment on their ill-thought out proposals, EDF shouldn’t expect an easy ride. We’ll keep you posted.

All rights reserved. Credit: Greenpeace Thermographic image of heat loss

The Environmental Change Institute at Oxford University have just put out a new report calling for new laws to increase energy efficiency standards in all of the UK’s 26 million homes and 2 million business properties. Implementing these recommendations would mean that energy use in all buildings in the UK result in zero carbon emissions by 2050.

The report, Achieving Zero by Dr Brenda Boardman, sets out not only how this is necessary to reduce the UK's CO2 emissions but also provides a roadmap to how it can be implemented and the many benefits it will provide. Beyond meeting emissions targets, improving the energy performance of buildings increases our energy security, reduces our exposure to rising and volatile fuel prices, reduces energy bills which helps to tackle fuel poverty, creates jobs, reduces the squeeze on living standards and will make our buildings better places to live and work.

A key component of the report builds on current initiatives such as the Green Deal, energy performance certificates and energy display certificates, by describing a method of creating a financial incentive to improve efficiency. Through the introduction of mandatory minimum standards, more efficient homes and business properties would be more valuable than less efficient ones.

Our Chief Scientist Doug Parr commented, "This report makes the simple case that we need a proper plan as doing nothing is not an option. The savings that could be made by the government by implementing the recommendations in the report are staggering. The energy that could be saved is nearly 500 times larger than energy used to run London Underground system or 10,000 times greater than the energy used each year to keep MPs and Lords warm and well-lit in Parliament."

You can download the full report and the executive summary from the Environmental Change Institute website.

All rights reserved. Credit: Greenpeace / Will Rose Greenland's capital, Nuuk Image caption:  Greenland's capital, Nuuk

I’ve passed north of the polar circle on our trip visiting the west coast of Greenland. The temperature has dropped to -15C: snow is mounting outside my window and in the beautiful harbour city Sisimiut the fjord is filled with ice. At night time, the northern lights are dancing in the sky to the distant howling from the town’s sledge dogs. This wolf-like dog is only allowed north of the Arctic Circle. In a few days, I will be debating oil drilling at the local college – a college that focuses specifically on minerals and petroleum.

We have spent the last couple of days in Greenland’s capital Nuuk, a visit that proved quite interesting. I’ve talked to 200 students about the dangers of oil drillings, but also on how Greenland in general can ensure a sustainable development in the future.

I’ve also had a splendid dialogue at Greenland's parliament the Inatsisartut with members of the sub-committees on environment and business about the several instances where the drillings has led to unacceptable consequences like the discharge of drill cuttings and red-listed chemicals. We also discussed the undemocratic practice of denying a country’s citizens public access to the oil spill response plan - a plan Cairn Energy so fiercely denied to make public that Kumi Naidoo, Greenpeace International's executive director, and a score of other activists felt compelled to scale the Cairn's oil rig last summer off the coast of Greenland.

Another interesting thing happened in the evening later the same day. The university in Nuuk had invited students and citizens to a debate about oil drilling with environmental organizations. A few people stood out from the others - sat scowling in the back of the room were representatives from Maersk, Shell and Cairn. I don’t know why they were there, but I doubt it’s from their deep and sincere concern for the environment and the global climate. However, this leads me to my next point,: why are we here?

Cairn Energy has found nothing in the two years they have been drilling of the coast of Greenland. Reuters has been reporting that Cairn may be leaving Greenland permanently. So, have we won? The answer is without any doubt: no! For instance, Cairn might be looking for a partner in crime to share the expenses. Either way, as the silent listeners at the university in Nuuk demonstrated, other dirty oil companies are waiting behind the scenes ready to move into the Arctic.

And it is not only on the west coast of Greenland. Oil companies are eyeing the north-east coast of Greenland. If irresponsible ideas could be portrayed by the size of mountains, this one belongs to the Himalayas. Even an oil spill off the west coast would prove impossible to clean up for a number of reasons. Among these, the lacking infrastructure and the impassable environment is an important one. These problems will be severely amplified in the even more remote and isolated north-eastern area, as the constant sea ice and the icebergs the size of islands roams the area.

However, even without an accident, drilling will have highly concerning effects on the environment.

The Danish National Environmental Research Institute has been conducting an environmental impact assessment of the north-east area. One of the concerns raised in this report is discharge of produced water that contains small amounts of oil, salts and chemicals:

“Some of these chemicals are acutely toxic or radioactive, contain heavy metals, have hormone disruptive effects or acts as nutrients which influence primary production. Some are persistent and have the potential to bioaccumulate”. 

Oil drilling in the Arctic continues to be an incredible gamble with the nature and the environment; it is quite simply a very bad idea. And even though our journey up along the west coast is coming to an end soon, we will keep challenging the dirty oil.

Jon Burgwald is an Arctic campaigner for Greenpeace Nordic. Read his previous blog from Greenland.

All rights reserved. Credit: Greenpeace / Colin O'Connor Rubbish piled up on the barren ground of the tar sands outside Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada Image caption:  Rubbish piled up on the barren ground of the tar sands outside Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada

President Obama has just said no to the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, which was to carry tar sands oil from Alberta to Texas. Despite a fierce lobbying campaign by oil companies and by Canada's Harper government, Obama spiked the pipeline - in part thanks to an unprecedented and global grassroots uprising.

So this round, at least goes to the people, not the polluters.

But before we crack open the champagne, it's worth remembering that there will be many more tar sands battles to come. TransCanada, the Canadian company wanting to build the pipeline, will be allowed to re-apply for permission. And there are other pipelines in planning - like the proposed ‘Northern Gateway’ pipeline from Alberta to the sensitive and beautiful coast of British Columbia.

And, for Obama, this was a decision based not just on principle, but publicly positioned more as a political win ahead of the US elections. While the outcry against tar sands certainly made Obama's decision easier, he has explicitly said this was not a decision about the pipeline's merits but rather a response to the game-playing of the Republicans in Congress. The US may well support future pipeline proposals.

Meanwhile, on this side of the Atlantic, an EU battle is underway. The European Union is on the verge of passing legislation that would keep dirty fuels - like tar sands fuel - out of the tanks of European cars: the Fuel Quality Directive.

Who is blocking it? Big Oil, and their friends in Cameron's government. Documents obtained through Freedom of Information requests reveal a series of high-level meetings between Canadian ministers, oil executives and British government officials focused on the UK’s position on the Fuel Quality Directive.

The UK, which started out supporting the Fuel Quality Directive, gave in to the oil lobbyists and is now actively blocking the proposals.

The global battle to stop tar sands continues. Big Oil is not likely to give up easily. But this victory shows that, if activists work together to oppose every stage in the process, we may just beat Big Oil, and succeed in protecting vast tracts of Alberta's wilderness - and the global climate.

All rights reserved. Credit: Greenpeace

THANK YOU everyone who took action yesterday and took a historic stand against Internet censorship. We're proud to have stood shoulder to shoulder with some of the world's biggest websites and all of you, in opposing Sopa and Pipa - the two pieces of legislation in the US designed to prevent copyright piracy on the web, but which would have granted corporations unprecedented powers to limit free expression.

It was an amazing day; Pipa, which had looked certain to become law, has now lost a quarter of its sponsors. At least 18 senators heard the roar of opposition and reversed their support for the bill in the course of the day.

Twenty five Greenpeace websites worldwide went dark in solidarity with activism from Google, Wikipedia, Craigslist, Wired, Reddit, Boing Boing, Reporters Without Borders, Pressthink, McSweeney's, MoveOn, more than 25,000 Wordpress blogs, and untold numbers of sites large and small.

Tweets about Sopa/Pipa peaked at 267,000 per hour.

Google drew 4.5 million signatures to its opposition petition, nearly 1.5 per cent of the US population.

This was an extraordinary show of force.  But we came perilously close to the US government enacting a law that would not only have destroyed the Internet as we know it, but empowered corporations to silence criticism and switch off pressure for reform from people-powered groups like Greenpeace. And despite yesterday's advance, the threat has not gone away.

Just weeks ago, Sopa and Pipa had overwhelming bipartisan support. Hollywood spent an estimated $US 94 million lobbying for these bills. Sopa nearly went to a vote six months ago, and would have passed had it not been for a last minute hold from a lone senator who recognised its flaws and dangers. As Reddit Cofounder, Alexis Ohanian put it, the legislation was like a botched medical operation to cure piracy,  where not a single one of the doctors who had been called in knew anything about how the human body worked or how to wield a scalpel.

Not only would the bill have failed its intended aims, it would have driven a massive economic shift away from an Internet structured around creativity, entrepreneurship, and free expression, toward an online police state, run by corporate mob bosses, in which everyone was presumed guilty.

Here's a great explication by Clay Shirky of some of the history behind these bills and what the music and movie industries were trying to do with Sopa and Pipa:

As our chief activist Kumi Naidoo pointed out, whatever intent these bills may have had, the possibility for abuse by environmental criminals was staggering. Victories that we've won over the last few years against corporate Goliaths would have been impossible had Sopa and Pipa been isolating copyright claims from the scrutiny of courts and suffocating the ability of our online activists to share and spread their outrage, opposition, and action.

The Washington Post's Wonk Blog listed greenpeace.org as hosting one of the top 5 blackout pages. Ironically, it wasn't ours. The design was based on an HTML template created by Zachary Johnson and posted to Reddit in the public domain for anyone's use during the protest.  It was a beautiful example of exactly the kind of open-source sharing and remixing that Sopa and Pipa would kill.

What did you do to stop Sopa while the Internet was dark yesterday?

What were your favorite artifacts of the protest? Let us know in the comments.

And please, continue to speak out. The remaining supporters of the bill can be found here, along with contact details. Sopa and Pipa are not dead yet.

All rights reserved. Credit: Herbert Ponting / Library of Congress Scott, writing his journal in the Cape Evans hut, winter 1911 Image caption:  Scott, writing his journal in the Cape Evans hut, winter 1911

Staring out at the bright, open, broken plains of Arctic sea ice back in September, more than once I was struck by the thought of the early explorers who first trekked across similar icescapes at both frozen ends of the planet. My first time stepping down onto the floating Arctic ice was exciting enough; hard to comprehend what it was like for those who were pushing the boundaries of where humans had previously explored.

But beautiful as it may be, the seemingly endless expanses of ice and water are also seriously inhospitable - underlined in those famous words of the British exploring legend Captain Robert Falcon Scott.

Had we lived I should have had a tale to tell of the hardihood, endurance and courage of my companions which would have stirred the heart of every Englishman. These rough notes and our dead bodies must tell the tale.

He was referring to his companions - Edward Wilson, Henry Bowers, Lawrence Oates and Edgar Evans - who walked with him the last march to the south pole and like him never made it back alive. Their bodies, together with Scott's diaries, were found later in November 1912.

While of course it's true that on his voyage to the south pole a century ago - "the worst journey in the world" - Captain Scott and his team never would have had to deal with the prospect of polar bears popping up from behind ice floes - remember, there are no bears in Antarctica - they did have to battle with even colder temperatures than anything experienced in the high north. They had spent weeks journeying in an environment regularly more than 37 degrees centigrade below freezing.

One evening of our Arctic trip last year, in the comfort of the mess of the Arctic Sunrise, we spent a couple of hours discussing just quite how remarkable those adventures must have been. Our expedition leader, Frida, who is much more informed about the early explorers than I am, was so enthusiastic about her fellow Scandinavian Roald Amundsen who ultimately won the race to the south pole. As she describes in the blog post remembering the anniversary of his achievement: 

Amundsen was fascinated by the polar regions since his early years. Back then, he was sleeping with the windows open, enduring the cold Norwegian nights to strengthen his body and ready himself to explore those regions. The dreams of the boy became the epic adventures of the man who navigated through the Northwest Passage (1903-1906), reached the south pole 100 years ago, and flew over the north pole on the airship Norge in 1926.

Whilst Amundsen may have been the first person to undisputedly reach both north and south poles, Captain Scott discovered 400 new animal species in Antarctica, and made monumental scientific findings. He also broke new ground in geographical understanding - as Sir David Attenborough recently recalled for the BBC.

Everybody I know who has ventured into the polar regions has an infectious passion for their wild magnificence, beauty, biodiversity, and consequently their protection. So it surely cannot be any coincidence that Captain's Robert's son - Sir Peter Scott - became a founding father of the modern environment movement, one of those who established WWF and the IUCN, the International Union for Conservation of Nature. Nor surely, with Sir Robert as his father, can it be any surprise that Sir Peter's driving passion should have been preservation of Antarctica from human exploitation.

But now Antarctica, like the Arctic, is undergoing changes with consequences that will be felt around the world. The National Snow and Ice Data Centre, one of the leading polar research institutes in the world, says "[...] that Antarctic sea ice plays an important role in climate, helping to protect the Antarctic ice sheet from waves, warmer surface water, and warmer air that can destabilise Antarctica's ice shelves and help speed the flow of continental ice into the ocean. And in some regions, Antarctic sea ice is not as stable as it used to be."

Meanwhile, at the other end of the planet, Arctic sea ice has shrunk by about 10 per cent per decade since 1979 - about 72,000 square kilometres (28,000 square miles) per year. Given the role of the Arctic sea ice in keeping the global climate stable, this is hugely significant for millions of people around the world.

Keeping in mind these dramatic changes at the poles, and remembering their significance for the rest of the world, Captain Scott could have had no inkling of the wider resonance of his final diary entry. Now his last known words - "For God's sake look after our people" - could offer us a new rallying cry as we campaign to protect the fragile balance of the Earth.

All rights reserved. Credit: Greenpeace Under proposed US censorship laws, our websites could be shut down because we spoofed VW's logo Image caption:  Under proposed US censorship laws, our websites could be shut down because we spoofed VW's logo

In the history book of bad ideas, the concept of giving corporations the right to censor the internet has to rank among the worst ever.

But that's what the impact of two bills recently introduced in the US Congress would be if they, or anything like them, were enacted into law, and it's causing a righteous ruckus among free speech activists around the world.

In solidarity with major sites like Wikipedia, Boing Boing, and Reddit, many Greenpeace websites will be dark for 12 hours on 18 January to protest these two bills specifically, and the idea of empowering internet censorship in general.

If you don’t know what the Stop Online Piracy Act (Sopa) and Protect IP Act (Pipa) are, you should look them up. While touted as efforts to curtail film and music piracy, they have the potential to allow corporations to censor online activism as well.

In a nutshell, these bills will enable corporations to effectively shut down websites they believe are infringing their copyrights and trademarks. All they have to do is file notice (not prove to a court, but simply file notice) that their copyright has been infringed to a service provider, such as the one which registers the name greenpeace.org on the internet, and that entity has five days to take action to end service to the site.

If in fact there was no copyright infringement, the service provider is immune from lawsuit by Greenpeace for taking the site down or suspending any other services.

In effect, the law says that copyright infringement is so great a crime that corporations can play judge and jury, presume guilt, and possibly infringe civil rights, free speech, and privacy in the defense of their interests.

They can demand that search engines and social networking sites block access to the targeted site, and that payment services and advertisers cease doing business with the accused site. A previous provision, that internet service providers block access to the site through the domain name system, has for now been removed: a good thing, perhaps, but not if it means a better chance for the rest of the bill’s draconian measures going through.

So what’s this got to do with online activism?

It so happens that trademark infringement is part of the bill as well - and that is an open invitation to corporate abuse of Sopa and Pipa to silence critics.

At Greenpeace, we’ve managed to put some judo moves on some mighty corporations by leveraging their own advertising budgets against them. Whether it’s spoofing VW’s most expensive superbowl ad of all time, spreading the word about a spoof of the American Petroleum Institute’s support for the Keystone XL tarsands pipeline, creating a Kit Kat ad that illustrates the rainforest destruction inherent in palm oil production, or putting up a look-a-like Apple.com website to push for better e-waste policies, we’ve rigorously exercised our right to free speech. In freely speaking out against corporate abuse of the environment, we've won many a campaign victory.

We use corporations' own language, their own marketing, their own strength against them - which is sometimes the only way that an entirely supporter-funded operation like ours can afford to put a spotlight on the negative side of their operations.

Thing is, while court case after court case has agreed with us that parody is a protected form of free speech, the corporations at the pointy end of our parodies tend to disagree. Exxon/Esso took us to court in France over alleged copyright infringement of their logo when we launched a campaign against them:

Esso said we were in violation of their intellectual property rights. We said it was free speech. The court agreed with us, and in an historic decision, we won. But had that decision been left to Exxon/Esso, we would have been shut down.

Nestlé's Kit Kat brand famously failed when it attempted to have our spoof video featuring its brand - and critical of their support for rainforest destruction - removed from YouTube for trademark violation. Hundreds of our supporters reposted the video on other sites and their own Facebook profiles.

Eventually, YouTube’s lawyers intervened and the video was restored. Under Sopa, YouTube itself could have been shut down for hosting our Kit Kat video. Facebook could have gone dark for hosting supporter samizdat. Greenpeace.org would have gone dark worldwide. And Kit Kat owner Nestlé would never have been compelled by our supporters and their customers to revise its policy on palm oil procurement, a move which has struck a major blow to an industry which is mowing down orang-utan habitat in Indonesia to plant palm trees.

Which is why you need to oppose Sopa and Pipa. While the Obama administration has indicated they would veto any bill with some of the more draconian measures that have been considered, and Sopa itself has been "shelved indefinitely", we need to send a message, loud and clear, about how far we'll go to stop corporate censorship.

If you are a US citizen, write your representative. If you live outside the US, sign this petition. If you want to do more, check out these suggestions from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

More than ever, the networked world is holding corporate interests accountable for their environmental and human rights abuses. Don’t let people power be silenced.

Stop corporate censorship of the internet.

All rights reserved. Credit: Greenpeace

Over the last two weeks all of the Big Six energy companies - E.On, RWE, nPower, British Gas, EDF, Scottish Power, and Scottish and Southern Energy - have announced reduction in their prices for gas or electricity. However, our analysis of the reductions in wholesale prices compared to the retail prices show that the Big Six are not passing on the fulls savings to their customers.

Last year, all of the Big Six companies increased their prices by an average of 17 per cent for gas and 10 per cent for electricity as, they claimed, the wholesale price for energy had increased.

But wholesale prices have recently come down, so they should have cut prices even further. Our analysis shows they should have been cut by an average of 8.4 per cent for gas and 10.7 per cent for electricity. However, what we have seen is an average decrease of just 3.25 per cent for gas and 1.83 per cent for electricity.

With 90 per cent of UK households supplied by one of these suppliers, they're exploiting their hold on consumers to increase their profits. They have been repremanded by energy regulator Ofgem for failing to pass on reductions in wholesale prices to consumers as quickly as they push them up.

Key to this issue is a lack of transparency in the way the Big Six energy firms buy gas and electricity. This makes it almost impossible for consumers to know whether or not they are paying a fair price for gas and electricity. This has led Ofgem to conclude that a team of forensic accountants is needed to go over the books of these companies.

Even industry analysts are not impressed. Peter Atherton of Citibank has said he doesn't think energy companies are playing fair:

All the Big Six retailers have now cut either their electricity or gas tariffs by [about] five per cent. What is noticeable about the price reductions is they have been on just one fuel
type, and for the one that is least important for the company involved (EDF gas,
Centrica electricity etc). This suggests to us that these companies are attempting to
gain good media coverage without any noticeable impact on outlook.

To make sure the energy companies are not taking all of us for a ride, the government needs to sort a few things out, such as ensuring that measures to help households and industry use less energy are at the heart of its upcoming reforms to the energy market - energy efficiency is, after all, the quickest and cheapest way of bringing bills down.

Speaking of reforming the energy market, it needs to be opened up to allow in new suppliers to end the stranglehold that the Big Six utilities currently have and encourage new investment. That includes providing support for clean energy to reduce our reliance on gas, which would also bring new manufacturing industries and jobs to UK.

And David Cameron needs to take personal responsibility for protecting consumers from high energy prices. After all, winter's here for a while yet, along with the higher fuel bills that go with it.

All rights reserved. Credit: Victor Svensson HS2 is great in principle, but the plan has plenty of holes Image caption:  HS2 is great in principle, but the plan has plenty of holes

Last week, the government gave the thumbs-up to the first phase of the new high-speed rail network (aka HS2). Since then, debate between those for and against has filled the media including a piece in the Mail claiming Greenpeace is opposed to the project. We're not of course, but it does need correcting.

So: we do support high-speed rail in principle. If you were an Airplotter, you'll know it's one of the main alternatives we used to show how the case for a third runway at Heathrow didn't stack up. Developed properly, HS2 could start the move towards a rail system that got people away from short-haul flights and onto trains, with enormous potential to reduce carbon emissions.

But (and it's a big but) it needs to be part of a wider transport strategy across the country. One train line between London and Birmingham isn't going to address the various transport issues we have, and the plans released by the Department of Transport are lacking in several key areas.

For instance, will it actually reduce CO2 emissions? It's hard to be sure, as the plans don't really make a substantial case for this. If more freight transport goes by conventional rail, that could be a big saving on emissions. Building the new line will free up capacity on existing lines, and lack of room has often been an argument against sending freight by rail instead of road or air.

Again, it depends how the new line will work as part of the wider transport network.

On the flipside, it's not clear where the passengers for HS2 will come from. If they're using the train when they would have flown or driven big cars instead, that could bring down overall emissions. But if they're new passengers who wouldn't have travelled otherwise, then the number of passenger journeys will increase along with emissions.

Neither of these questions (along with many others) are fully tackled by the government's plans. It's because of these gaps that Greenpeace, along with many other organisations, has signed up to the Right Lines Charter. The charter supports high-speed rail with various conditions: that it's part of a national transport strategy, that there's proper public participation in the scheme, and that impacts on the local environment and communities are minimised.

The case we made during the third runway campaign in favour of high-speed rail still stands, but now it's becoming a reality the details of the government's plan need to be assessed. At the moment, they're falling short of what's really needed.

All rights reserved. Credit: Vicki Couchman/Greenpeace No longer a 'rust bucket trawler': the new Rainbow Warrior docked in London Image caption:  No longer a 'rust bucket trawler': the new Rainbow Warrior docked in London

In 1977, Greenpeace organised a ‘Save the Whales’ rally in Kensington Gardens. Spike Milligan came over to rally the troops with a quirky but passionate speech. We sat on the grass to listen and many people ended up soiled by dog crap.

This was just inside the park gates where dogs would dump as soon as they were let loose on the grass. In those days people never cleaned up their dog mess. What’s more, dog food was usually made with whale meat. The irony of the moment was not lost on us and I couldn’t help thinking, darkly, that what goes round comes round.

A few months later in a debate against Jilly Cooper on LBC Radio, I said that people should clean up after their dogs. The call-in hot lines nearly melted with outraged dog owners saying I should go back where I came from and generally questioning my sanity. Yet over time, cleaning up after one’s dog became normal behaviour.

Greenpeace fought much tougher battles. They were trying to stop nuclear testing in the Pacific Ocean and whaling in the Atlantic. At the end of 1977, I went along to Surrey Docks to see a rust bucket trawler that Greenpeace had acquired which they planned to refurbish and rename the Rainbow Warrior. I had the chance to go on the maiden voyage to Iceland to challenge whaling, but I had court appearances scheduled over Whole Earth jam illegally sweetened with apple juice.

The Rainbow Warrior was sunk in Auckland on the orders of France’s President Mitterand in 1985. During Opération Satanique, French secret agents attached explosives to its hull to blow it up before it could lead a flotilla to oppose nuclear testing in Pacific island atolls. This act of terrorist sabotage killed photographer Fernando Pereira. The culprits were sentenced to 10 years for manslaughter but released when France threatened to block New Zealand’s agricultural exports to the EU.

Greenpeace converted another ship, the Rainbow Warrior ll, and carried on being a pain in the bum for evildoers in the whaling, bombing and oil rig industry. It’s retired and is now a hospital ship in Bangladesh.

When Monsanto’s GM soya beans started flooding the market in 1996, the Soil Association lobbied hard to protect organic food and had desperate meetings with tin-eared ministers of agriculture and environment. While we talked, Greenpeace took action. First they sailed up the Mississippi to block the export of soybeans at source. Later, led by Lord Peter Melchett, Greenpeace activists pulled up a GM maize crop in Norfolk, ‘decontaminating’ the field.  Arrested and jailed, they were exonerated in court and set free. They had stopped the GM tide, protecting organic farming from extinction.

On 10 November, we attended the London launch of Rainbow Warrior lll near Tower Bridge. No rustbucket of a trawler this one, but a brand new ship that will travel mostly by sail, with engines powering it for perhaps 10 per cent of the time. The cost was funded entirely by contributions from tens of thousands of supporters.

Damon Albarn re-formed The Good, The Bad and The Queen and played on deck to spectators lining the shore at Butler’s Wharf. Michael Eavis of Glastonbury Festival  had driven the ship on the last leg of its trip. We toured the ship and learned about its revolutionary design – soon container ships could be using its advanced wind-capture principles to cut the emissions from seaborne trade.

Greenpeace has been on the front lines stopping the destructive greed that makes the world a worse place, thereby providing cover for organisations like the Soil Association, Garden Organic, Slow Food and Fairtrade that are working to build a better world. We all owe them a tremendous debt. Joining Greenpeace and supporting their work is the least we can do to repay their efforts.

Craig Sams is co-founder of Green and Black's and a long-time Greenpeace supporter. This blog first appeared on Natural Products

All rights reserved. Credit: Tim Dirvan/Greenpeace Darth Vader present Ivan Hodac of Acea with an award for threatening planet Earth

Another bit of fun from the Brussels motor show today: an award presented by Lord Vader himself for jeopordising the future of our planet.

Together with a squad of stormtroopers, Darth Vader interrupted a speech given by Ivan Hodac, general secretary of the car industry lobbying body Acea. The dark lord presented Hodac with a gong for his achievements in blocking propressive car efficiency legislation in Europe.

Listen to Darth Vader's speech below and tremble with fear.

Darth Vader presents VW the Dark Side award for threatening Planet Earth (mp3)

All rights reserved. Credit: Eye in the Sky / Greenpeace At the UN climate summit in Durban, Greenpeace brands the Harper government 'CLIMATE FAIL' Image caption:  At the UN climate summit in Durban, Greenpeace brands the Harper government 'CLIMATE FAIL'

At the dawn of the 21st century a new political regime has transformed Canada from global hero – once standing up for peace, people, and nature – to global criminal, plunging into war, eroding civil rights, and destroying environments.

What happened to Canada? Oil. And not just any oil, but the world’s dirtiest, most destructive oil. Canada’s betrayal at the Durban climate talks – abandoning its Kyoto Accord commitments – is the direct effect of becoming a petro-state.

By the late 20th century, oil companies knew that the world’s conventional oil fields were in decline and oil production would soon peak, which it did in 2005. These companies, including sovereign oil powers such as PetroChina, turned their attention to low-grade hydrocarbon deposits in shale gas, deep offshore fields, and Canada’s Alberta tar sands. Simultaneously, inside Canada, oil companies began promoting the political career of the son of an Alberta oil executive, the conservative ideologue Stephen Harper.

Shell Oil opened operations in the tar sands in 2003. In 2004, the same year Canada signed the Kyoto Accord, committing to reduce carbon emissions, oil companies began to form thinktanks and astroturf groups in Canada to establish the oil agenda and promote Harper as Conservative Party leader. Two years later, in 2006, Harper’s Conservatives formed a minority government with 36 per cent of the popular vote and launched Canada’s petro-state era, slashing environmental regulations, joining US Middle East wars, and launching a tar sands campaign, one of the most ecologically destructive industrial projects in human history.

In Durban, in December 2011, after mocking climate science and common decency, Canada’s environment minister Peter Kent announced that his country would abandon the Kyoto deal, abrogating a legally-binding international agreement which Canada had signed seven years earlier.

The Canadian government has become the policy arm and public relations voice of the international oil industry, discarding its reputation as an ethical country. Millions of Canadians have expressed outrage at the government that abandoned them and shamed Canada on the world stage. These voices are rarely heard in Canada’s corporate media. Meanwhile, Canadians witness an erosion of free press and civil rights within their own nation. They should not be surprised.

Life as an oil resource colony

“Oil and democracy do not generally mix,” explains Terry Karl in The Paradox of Plenty: Oil Booms and Petro-States. Oil is a 'resource curse' for local populations, as experienced by Nigeria, Indonesia, Venezuela, Iran, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, and other nations. Oil rich nations attract oil industry patrons, who tend to support dictators. Petro-states often lose local economic sovereignty, suffer human rights atrocities, and see their environments devastated.

In the 1970s, the UK and Dutch economies experienced the oil curse as the North Sea oil and gas boom gave the illusion of prosperity while eroding sovereign economic capacity. Britain’s petro-state leader Margaret Thatcher used oil revenues to wage war, create banking empires, and subsidise elite society, while plundering the environment and leaving common citizens dispossessed of their own national heritage.

In 1977, The Economist coined the term “Dutch disease” to describe the social and manufacturing decline caused by extreme resource exploitation. Oil revenues make a nation's currency appear stronger for a while, but this makes their exports more expensive and undermines manufacturing and local economy.

In 2011, the Montreal Macro Research Board warned that the “petrolization” of Canada had created “a severe case of Dutch disease,” weakening Canadian business sovereignty, “hollowing out manufactured goods exporters” and making Canada “increasingly reliant” on oil and coal exports.

Like Thatcher's England, Canada launched a scheme to privatise profits and socialise the costs of oil development. In the last decade, Canada has handed out over $14 billion in tax subsidies to oil, coal, and gas companies, while losing over 340,000 industrial jobs. A University of Ottawa study shows that oil colony economics is the largest factor in these job losses.

“Petro-states,” writes Terry Karl, become “unaccountable to the general population.” To impose the oil company agenda on their citizens, petro-regimes tend to centralize power, avoid transparency, and create a politics of lies and deceit.

Politics as war

Twice, in 2008 and 2009, Harper shut down the Canadian parliament to avoid inquiries into his international deals, finances, and scandals including abusive treatment of Afghanistan detainees. Canada now ranks last among industrial nations in honouring freedom of information requests.

Harper’s perverse secrecy is typical of oil politics. “This is how petro-states are made,” writes Andrew Nikiforuk in one of Canada’s best news sources, The Tyee, “with a quiet infection that eats away a nation's entire soul.”

In March 2011, as Harper ran Canada from secret cabinet meetings, 156 members of the government found Harper and his minority regime in contempt of parliament for its refusal to share legislative information with other elected members.

In April 2011, Canadians learned that Harper’s liaison to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers had previously been convicted of defrauding two Canadian banks, a car dealer, and his own law clients, and had lobbied the Canadian government on behalf of his ex-hooker girlfriend.

The convicted felon, Bruce Carson, served as chief tar sands promoter, claiming “The economic and security value of oil sands expansion will likely outweigh the climate damage that oil sands create.” Carson also opposed “clean energy efforts in the U.S.” Canadian lobbyists undermined US low-carbon fuel standards by lobbying the US government.

In June 2011, on national television another Harper henchman, Tom Flanagan, advocated assassinating WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange: “I think Assange should be assassinated,” he told Canada’s CBC. Flanagan has been one of the lead architects of Harper’s war on his own people. Before the 2011 election, in Canada’s Globe and Mail, Flanagan wrote, “An election is war by other means.” He compared an election campaign to Rome’s destruction of Carthage, whereby they “razed the city to the ground and sowed salt in the fields so nothing would grow there again.”

Alan Whitehorn of the Royal Military College of Canada wrote, “This suggests a paradigm not of civil rivalry between fellow citizens, but all-out extended war to destroy and obliterate the opponent. This kind of malevolent vision and hostile tone seems antithetical to the democratic spirit.” Harper’s government is now constructing barricades around the parliament buildings, erecting more jails, and passing tougher criminal codes. The Canadian people, who once felt proud of their democratic institutions, now feel like the enemy of their own government.

Canada against the world

Outside Canada, the Harper regime has dismissed the United Nations and international opinion. Canadian government officials called the UN a “corrupt organization”. Former Canadian senior UN official Carolyn McAskie wrote in Canada and Multilateralism: Missing In Action that Canada, once respected as a UN leader, is now “spurning a whole system of organisations critical to world peace, security and development.”

Economic analyst Jim Willie wrote that Canada has “followed the Goldman Sachs path to the fields of corruption and fealty… Canada followed the Bush doctrine of fascism, embracing the war footing … and tightening the security vice. Next they will become a Chinese commercial colony.”

When citizens around the world objected to the climate impact of the tar sands, Harper’s government attempted to rebrand the notorious carbon bomb as 'ethical oil', shamelessly ignoring the facts. The tar sands crimes against humanity and nature begin with obliterating boreal forests and soils, creating massive open pit mines, and removing two tons of sand and soil for every barrel of oil.

The thick bitumen is melted with natural gas, which requires one-third of the energy in tar sands oil to remove it. The project uses about 150 million gallons of water each day from the Athabasca river and aquifers, and the black waste turns boreal lakes into sludge pits, kills birds and other wild life, and contaminates the local ground water. Pollutants from tar sands smoke stacks have caused lung disease throughout the region and a 30 per cent increase in cancers over the last decade. Mike Mercredi from the indigenous Fort Chipewyan Cree Nation calls the impact “slow industrial genocide”.

The crime continues with pipeline oil spills and oil tankers that threaten the entire coast of North America. Meanwhile, the tar sands project emits more that 45 million tons of greenhouse gases each year. NASA climatologist James Hansen has warned that if the tar sands are fully exploited, “it is game over for the climate”.

The French foreign ministry called Canada’s decision to renege on its Kyoto climate commitments “bad news for the fight against climate change”.

Representative Ian Fry from the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu called Canada’s reversal “an act of sabotage ... a reckless and totally irresponsible act”.

The China news agency, Xinhua, called Canada’s decision “preposterous”, and China's Foreign Ministry urged Canada to “face up to its due responsibilities and duties... and take a positive, constructive attitude towards participating in international cooperation to respond to climate change.”

UN climate chief Christiana Figueres warned that Canada “has a legal obligation under the convention to reduce its emissions, and a moral obligation to itself and future generations to lead in the global effort.” UN Advisor on Water, Maude Barlow, called the tar sands “Canada’s Mordor.”

After Canada’s shameful showing in Durban, a Canadian businessman wrote to The Globe & Mail: “The pride of wearing the maple leaf on the lapel or backpack is gone. It's best hidden now... not one person in any country I have visited has been complimentary. Harper and his sheep will deny or ignore such facts while people like me lose business.”

Inside Canada, people are rising up, lead by The Wilderness Committee, Greenpeace, Council of Canadians, the Indigenous Environmental Network, the Yinka-Dene Alliance, and others. These groups need international support to halt the tar sands crime and help Canada recover its lost reputation.

Deep Green is Rex Weyler's monthly column, reflecting on the roots of activism, environmentalism, and Greenpeace's past, present, and future. The opinions here are his own.

All rights reserved. Credit: Sara Ayech/Greenpeace Polars bears lounge around a VW Polo at the Brussels motor show

VW has been ignoring our requests for a meeting, so we've paid a visit to its exhibition stand at the Brussels Motor Show.

Or, to be more precise, dozens of polar bears (including the majestic Paula Bear) have invaded the prestigious Autosalon 2012 event to protest about the impact that Volkswagen and the rest of the car industry is having on our climate and the Arctic.

The polar bears have been congregating around VW's show models, many of which are nowhere near as efficient as they could be such as the controversial new Up! which a couple of cheeky bears managed to squeeze inside. Yet VW claims to be the most environmentally-friendly car maker out there. And banners hung by climbers in the rafters in the exhibition hall have ensured that everyone gets the message.

We’ve just heard that there are hints of dissension within VW's ranks. Representatives from VW Belgium talked with Sara from our campaign team - they said they think VW should be making all its cars as efficient as possible, not to mention backing stronger European emissions targets which VW has so far tried to block. Does this mean a split is forming within VW's workforce?

The link between car makers and the disappearing ice sheets in the frozen north is crystal clear. As oil consumption grows, so do our carbon emissions which accelerates climate change and reduces ice cover in the Arctic.

The car companies' lobbying group is blocking attempts to bring in tighter emissions targets across Europe and dragging their feet on making their cars more efficient.

The great irony is the retreating ice is encouraging oil companies to go drilling in extreme, dangerous environments. In fact, you may recognise the bears in action today from the protest at oil drilling outfit Cairn Energy's head offices last year (I can't show you a picture of said polar bears sadly, as there's still an injunction preventing me from doing so).

Obviously, we would love to meet with VW to discuss all this but a scheduled conference between our campaign team and Martin Winterkorn, the chair of VW's board, was cancelled. Not postponed – cancelled. What on earth is he afraid of?

Over the past week, thousands of people have been using Facebook to ask VW bosses why they won't meet with us – we haven't received a response yet. If you want to help out, join the Jedi Council on Facebook and post some messages to VW. The Belgian VW reps said they would ask Winterkorn to meet with us, so we may have help on the inside too.

But until VW gets behind more ambitious emissions targets, we're not going anywhere.

After ignoring well over 1,000 comments on its Facebook pages, Volkswagen has found a new tactic: deleting them.

It's difficult to understand why VW bothers to engage in social media like Facebook at all if it has absolutely no interest in listening to what people think.

Here's the evidence: two comments on VW Sweden that were there in the evening, but then deleted in the morning.

Before:

After:

Huge thanks to the hundreds (nearly a thousand) of online activists in the 'Jedi Council' - a group of supporters who've been chasing Volkswagen around Facebook to highlight how they're continually dodging the issues and refusing to meet us.

Are you on Facebook? Join them.

If you're not sure what this is all about, Volkwagen is lobbying against critical laws that will make our cars use less oil and limit our emissions. Read the FAQ or the full report on VW's Dark Side. 

by. Credit: Greenpeace Volkswagen is ignoring us on social media. Time to make some noise.

As you may well know, Volkswagen has decided to ignore over a thousand of your comments on Facebook. This isn't just a social media faux pas, it's also downright rude.

They want us to go away quietly. But we won't. This is about the world's biggest car maker risking our future.

We really need your help.

Volkswagen have massive advertising budgets and have huge teams of people operating their Facebook accounts. We don't. But what we do have is all of you - real people - who care passionately about the planet and challenging those who disregard it.

We need you to make this Facebook protest viral.

Volkswagen is exposed on dozens of Facebook pages (see below) and we need to expand our protest so that our demands are at the top of the comments on all of them. In all languages. Anywhere in the world.

We've set up an open Facebook group which you can join to let other activists know when new posts arrive and to invite your friends to help.

This is totally open to you - nobody is controlling it.

We're not spamming - this is a legitimate protest against a company that is lobbying against climate laws and refusing to talk about it.

Here's what you need to do:

1. Join the 'Jedi Council: VW will not ignore us' Facebook group
2. Follow or like all of Volkswagen's Facebook pages (listed below). Don't worry you can unlike them later
3. As soon as you see a new post, comment on it. Post a link to this group if nobody has already to let others know
4. Add your friends to the group

Things to ask:

1. Why won't VW respond to criticism on Facebook?
2. Why is Volkswagen's boss refusing to meet us?

We will stop when:

1. VW responds to our comments about lobbying against climate laws
2. When Martin Winterkorn agrees to meet us

Let the group know if people are rude to you or are deleting your comments.

Remember: be nice. We are not being abusive. We want a response to legitimate questions about Volkswagen and its attitude towards our planet.

Use the Force.

Brian (ex-VW employee)

Volkswagen's Facebook pages:

UK: http://www.facebook.com/VolkswagenUK
Germany: http://www.facebook.com/VolkswagenDE
Australia: http://www.facebook.com/VolkswagenAustralia
Brazil: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Volkswagen-do-Brasil/195799454437?v=info
Canada: http://www.facebook.com/vwcanada
Costa Rica: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Volkswagen-Costa-Rica/142609615762380
Croatia: http://www.facebook.com/VolkswagenHrvatska
Denmark: http://www.facebook.com/volkswagendk
India: http://www.facebook.com/Volkswagenindia
Middle East: http://www.facebook.com/VolkswagenMiddleEast
Portugal: http://www.facebook.com/VWportugal
Romania: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Volkswagen-Romania/286947639638
Turkey: http://www.facebook.com/vwturkiye
Ukraine: http://www.facebook.com/VolkswagenUA
US: http://www.facebook.com/VW
Argentina: http://www.facebook.com/VolkswagenArg
Motorsport: https://www.facebook.com/volkswagenmotorsport
International: https://www.facebook.com/volkswagen
Netherlands: https://www.facebook.com/volkswagennl
Belgium: https://www.facebook.com/VolkswagenBelgium
Turkey (commercial vehicles): https://www.facebook.com/vwticariarac
Italy: https://www.facebook.com/VolkswagenIT
Korea: https://www.facebook.com/VWKorea
Paraguay: https://www.facebook.com/VolkswagenParaguay
Spain: https://www.facebook.com/volkswagenesp
Mexico: https://www.facebook.com/VolkswagenMexico
Reunion: https://www.facebook.com/volkswagen.reunion
Bulgaria: https://www.facebook.com/VW.Bulgaria
Bosnia&Herzigovina: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Volkswagen-BiH/190527117636619
Canary Isles: https://www.facebook.com/vwcanarias
Russia: https://www.facebook.com/volkswagenrussia
Poland: https://www.facebook.com/VolkswagenPolska
Slovenia: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Volkswagen-Slovenija-Official/132019426830397 Finland: https://www.facebook.com/volkswagensuomi
Japan: https://www.facebook.com/VolkswagenJP
Czech Republic: https://www.facebook.com/VolkswagenCR
Chattanooga, USA: https://www.facebook.com/VolkswagenChattanooga
Bolivia: https://www.facebook.com/VolkswagenBO
Chile: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Volkswagen-Chile/177540868925607
South Africa: https://www.facebook.com/VWSA
Hong Kong: https://www.facebook.com/VolkswagenHK
Sweden: https://www.facebook.com/VolkswagenSverige
Peru: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Volkswagen-Peru/10150107498660184
Colombia: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Volkswagen-Colombia/157359044325721
Serbia: https://www.facebook.com/VolkswagenSrbija
Venezuela: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Volkswagen-Venezuela/86582767044
Egypt: https://www.facebook.com/VWEgypt
Style: https://www.facebook.com/VolkswagenStyle
eGames: https://www.facebook.com/volkswagen.egames

What I love about social media is that you can’t fake it.

For all the hundreds of millions of dollars companies like Volkswagen pump into their advertising machines (for VW it’s a cool £1.5bn every year) they can’t crack social media. And that’s down to one simple reason: they fear honesty. 

For a company like Volkswagen, whose dangerous anti-climate policies are hidden far beneath its cool adverts and smart reputation, truth is something to be feared.

Truth wasn’t a threat when you only communicated with your audience through the one-way media of TV, radio or print. Back then it was easy to craft an image of a shiny green company and pay for that lie to be plastered everywhere.

In the social media world the reality is different. To engage their audiences, companies like Volkswagen want to talk to you, joke with you, and supposedly listen to you. It’s the digital equivalent of trying to be one of your mates.

So when Neil, a volunteer from our Camden group, pointed out Volkswagen’s latest Facebook post, which was chattily asking for advice for 2012, it seemed a good opportunity to chip in.  Because we’re friends, right?

It wasn’t us giving the advice and asking questions. After telling our supporters on Facebook that VW was shopping for tips for 2012, over 800 people quickly hopped on their page and told VW to stop lobbying against climate laws.

The problem for Volkswagen is that when friends start asking awkward questions about your hidden dark side, you’ve only really got a couple of options:

• Try to justify yourself
• Confess and weep apologetically

So what does Volkswagen do?

It decides on a third, distinctly anti-social option: to cover its ears and run around shouting “la-la-la-la”. Despite the 800+ comments, there’s not been a single word in response from the car giant.

But let’s be clear: this isn’t a case of an intern asleep at their keyboard. Volkswagen has been busily responding to the handful of other commenters, it’s just ignoring the hundreds of comments about its anti-climate lobbying.

Why? Orders from above. We know that Volkswagen’s head honcho Martin Winterkorn has refused to sit down and talk to us.  So I can only assume a diktat has been passed down from on high: ignore all Greenpeace supporters.

Will it work? I very much doubt it. If the brief history of social media has told us anything, it’s that ignoring people doesn’t make them disappear, it just makes them angry.

Either way, it doesn’t seem like such a smart move when over 90,000 of the 480,000 people calling on Volkswagen to change are VW drivers.

Or at least they were.

Add your comment to VW’s Facebook post. Let’s see how many it takes before we get a reply.

Update: more than 1,000 comments and still no reply.