Knowledge is a weapon. So please consider contributing to build our arsenal. We accept no corporate or foundation funding whatsoever. Please make a donation.
Communication to TckTckTck Partner: Federation of Environmental and Ecological Diversity for Agricultural Revampment and Human Rights (FEEDAR & HR) – Fenb. 21st, 2010
As of March 15th, 2010, we have received no response.
From: Canadians for Action on Climate Change [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: February-21-10 1:16 PM
To: ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’
Subject: TckTckTck Concerns | Time Sensitive – Your Response is Requested
Dear Federation of Environmental and Ecological Diversity for Agricultural Revampment and Human Rights (FEEDAR & HR),
We are writing to you because we are concerned about the corporate connections, and about the weak demands in the TckTckTck campaign. We are conducting a survey related to these aspects of the campaign. We will be posting the results of our survey to the web, as well as issuing a media release. We will be issuing the press release on March 15th, 2010. For this reason could your organization please respond no later than February 28th, 2010? If we do not receive a response by this time we will state that your organization did not comment.
Corporate connections of TckTckTck
We note your organization is listed in as a partner or ally of the TckTckTck campaign initiative. We are very alarmed to learn various details about the campaign. The trademark TckTckTck was registered, on November 30, 2009, by the EURO RSCG firm, a subsidiary of Havas Worldwide, a public relations firm. Partners of this campaign include multinational corporations. Two of these are Electricity of France (EDF) which now uses the TckTckTck logo, in TV commercials. EDF, the world’s leading nuclear power utility, operates a French nuclear fleet consisting of 58 reactors spread over 19 different sites. Havas also lists GDF Suez which affirms that there is a nuclear revival. With 45 years of involvement in the nuclear industry, GDF SUEZ confirms its intention to take an active part in developing a new generation of nuclear power worldwide.
In the Havas press release (attached) it also states “Havas Worldwide incorporates the EURO RSCG” whose clients include Novartis and Adventis – both biotech industries in genetic engineering and biofuel. Both Nuclear and Biofuel are deemed to be ‘solutions’ that are equally bad, if not worse than the problem they are intended to solve. Through your association with the TckTckTck campaign, your organization has created intentionally or unintentionally the perception that your organization is supportive of false solutions such as nuclear and biofuel.
When challenged over the inappropriateness of associating NGO partners with the corporate sector, (see EYES WIDE SHUT | TckTckTck exposé) the TckTckTck.org campaign organizer Jason Mogus claimed the two campaigns are different. His argument is not convincing when one sees the press release issued in September of 2009 (screenshot attached). It clearly states that the North American TckTckTck.org is Havas Worldwide. In the September 2009 press release the last paragraph states: “Havas Worldwide Web Site: http://tcktcktck.org”. There is further information about this in an article by ‘Peace, Earth & Justice News’. See the news article here.
One of your partners listed is at tcktcktck.org is the ‘Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change’. Signatories: can be found here. Of interest is the fact that on this page the multinational corporations ‘business verdict’ share your tcktcktck postCOP15 catch phrase ‘not done yet’. This is perhaps one of the most truthful statements coming out of the entire tcktcktck campaign. Partners in this group include Shell, Coca-Cola and RBC. RBC is the number one financier of the most destructive project on the planet – the tar sands. Over 1,000 corporate entities make up this TckTckTck partner group.
Furthermore, two of the same creators & partners (Havas & Euro RSCG) of TckTckTck were also initial partners of the infamous Hopenhagen campaign which was labeled a massive greenwash by the likes of Naomi Klein and others during COP15. (Farbman is reluctant to discuss what led to Ogilvy’s predicament or why previously enthusiastic partners were no longer involved. See article here)
Many of us oppose, at least in principle if not vocally, the consumption of small community business into behemoth sized mega-corps. We fear this is a growing trend with our NGOs. We feel that we must work together to demand an end to this new strain of globalization which undermines and threatens our entire movement.
The entire TckTckTck campaign has been created in partnership with major multinational corporations. These are the same multinational corporations that activists and legitimate grassroots organizations all over the world challenge on a daily basis. People are devoting and risking their very lives defending themselves, their children and their environment from exploitation by these corporations in the name of corporate profit. To have the largest climate change campaign on the planet formed, funded and shaped by the same corporate interests destroying our planet is a grave injustice to those already suffering. It destroys all of our credibility, undermines true climate justice and erodes public trust.
Weak Targets advanced by TckTckTck
SIGNIFICANT OMISSIONS IN TCKTCKTCK http://tcktcktck.org DEMANDS
In the TckTckTck (http://tcktcktck.org) campaign for COP15, the organizers, allies and partners were calling for developed states to reduce developed country emissions by at least 40% by 2020. While most developed and developing states were calling for developed states to use 1990 as a baseline, the TckTckTck campaign did not have a baseline. Consequently what they were calling for was way below what developing states were demanding. How could an NGO campaign have a percentage reduction without a base-line date? In the TckTckTck campaign demands it was stated: “Reduce developed country emissions by at least 40% by 2020”. Is that from 2009 levels? or Canadian 2006 levels, or US 2005 levels? It is far from what most of the developing states wanted, at least 45% from 1990 levels. Apart for calling for stabilization by 2015, the tcktcktck campaign had no commitment for subsequent years, such as calling the reduction of global emissions by at least 95% from 1990 levels by 2050. The TckTckTck campaign was silent on a 2050 commitment. The Key issues at COP15 were i) the need for a common baseline such as 1990, and the need for developed states to commit to high percentage reduction of greenhouse gases from the 1990 baseline, and ii) the urgent demand to not have the temperature rise exceed 1degree above preindustrialized levels and to return to no more than 300ppm. The tcktcktck campaign seriously undermined the necessary, bold targets as advanced by many of the developing states. The TckTckTck (http://tcktcktck.org) list over 220 NGOs. We ask for your response on the following questions:
1) Was your NGO aware that the brand “TckTckTck” has deep corporate ties?
2) If so, how do you understand this relationship?
3) Do you see yourselves as part of a campaign alongside “corporate partners” such as nuclear energy, genetic engineering, biofuels, aviation, automotive and other problematic sectors?
4) If so, do you see how this creates confusion?
5) In a release from Havas Worldwide it states “the idea behind TckTckTck was to create a movement…rather than a campaign, but a movement with a deadline. …the objective of the campaign was to make it become a movement that consumers, advertisers and the media would use and exploit.”
Were you aware that your NGO’s name and credibility would be used as a commodity in this way? (and continues to be used)
6) Do you intend to remain a partner of TckTckTck even though there are corporate ties?
7) Would you like to be removed from the list of partners of TckTckTck?
If yes to number 7;
To be removed from the list, contact email@example.com.
There are further questions related to privacy of the fifteen million people who signed on to it. There is an absolute breach of trust. Who has collected such vital information on citizens with concern for environmental issues is anyone’s guess. Trusting individuals disclosed personal information with no idea the campaign was aligned with corporate interests. This is a separate and distinct issue altogether. It is most likely that of privacy violations which warrant further investigation.
We wish that it be clear that we send this message in solidarity – that we have grave concerns with this “coalition”. We do not wish to be patronizing but only elaborate on the concerns we share in the hope that you will share our concerns and come to the conclusion others have reached – that such a campaign is no longer the right place for any organization who believes in real climate justice to invest energies. If we say nothing – then our silence lends us as being complicit. Therefore, we feel that must ask of all our allies to be accountable for their actions. If we remain silent – we effectively breach the trust of those we claim to represent – the billions suffering at the hands of exploitation in the name of profits. Let us be clear – we do not condone such a campaign and will speak out against it.
We hope that this communiqué will bring about debate that can strengthen our common understanding of the threats and opportunities for true climate justice. Our first priority is the planet, and this can only be worthwhile if it is another strand in unmasking the lies surrounding “climate politics” that threaten us with climate injustice.
Canadians for Action on Climate Change | Cory Morningstar
Pacific Indigenous Peoples Environment Coalition | Aotearoa [New Zealand] | Sandy Gauntlett
Please send response to firstname.lastname@example.org
The responses will be posted on the websites.