read this article explaining all the ways in which 10:10 is pointless and greenwash:

 http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?query=10%3A10&lid=21&go=GO

guardian article:

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/25/arms-manufacturer-1010-campaign

A self-publicist with a movement to kill off. Watch out.

Corporate Watch claims that 10:10 campaign has diverted people from taking action in Copenhagen. Look forward to seeing that evidence.

I look forward to the day when the green revolutionaries finally overturn the evil warmongering capitalist empire in favour of a nice sustainable peaceful society in which everyone meets their electricity needs through wind turbines in their community garden made from recycled cardboard and solar panels made from organic hemp fibre, and in which old rocket shells are used to grow organic courgettes.

In the meantime, perhaps we should encourage arms manufacturers to reduce their carbon emissions. Just a thought.

John, I take it that your sarcastic post is a pro-10:10 one that cast doubts on the CW assertion that they (10:10) will impact numbers at Copenhagen? Well, how do you suppose that this can be measured? Well, it can't. But the CW idea still holds firm, that this kind of liberal individualist choice thing does divert from the collective action that targets the real cause. And that's the point. Movements are not just destroyed by force. They're destroyed by people making too many compromises.

As for the other post, do you seriously suggest we should be supporting anyone or any company/state that makes token efforts to show themselves to be making any effort, however small, to reduce their emissions? Who will you applaud next, execution chambers doing Carbon Capture and Storage? You fool.

"do you seriously suggest we should be supporting anyone or any company/state that makes token efforts to show themselves to be making any effort, however small, to reduce their emissions? Who will you applaud next, execution chambers doing Carbon Capture and Storage? You fool."

My point is that much as many of us would like to see the capitalist structures that we consider responsible for all the ills of this world being dismantled, it is, I'm afraid, a sad reality that this is unlikely to happen any time soon. Meanwhile, the planet is warming up, the forests are being chopped down and greenhouse gas emissions are on the rise. What we should be asking ourselves is what effective action we can realistically take right now to reduce emissions across the board. Targets are one thing, but how will they be achieved? Unless every sector of society is involved, we are bound to fail. If you start making moral rather than pragmatic judgments about who can and can't make a commitment to cut their emissions, you enter a minefield and increase the likelihood of failure.

Well, I still strongly disagree, but thanks for the sensible answer to my slight rant! I apologise for calling you a fool too, although I do stand by my assertion that this is a very dangerous road to go down, and will, long term, not help us.

It's a difficult path to tread once you get to implicitly "endorsing" companies like this. I'm sure we could criticise every single company that has signed up to this 10:10 thing for some way or another.

The Vegan Society produces a guide to vegan products and this always gets stick for similar reasons e.g. including companies that people think are unethical (i.e. pretty much every company).

Anyway, it's just an awareness raising exercise so I wouldn't read too much into it. Maybe people will hear about it and think "if even scum like arms manufacturers are cutting their CO2 emissions, then maybe I should too, otherwise I'm worse than those lowlife."

I'm sure the people behind 10:10 couldn't really give a shit about arms dealers cutting pollution and would much rather they all kill themselves, but for pragmatic reasons they can't really say this.

Coincidentally I just watched The Age Of Stupid today, good film, nicely done.