Well, we know that Nestle doesn't seem to like criticism. The debacle on their Facebook page makes that pretty obvious.

But it looks like they're actively blocking reasonable, informed criticism of their unsustainable business practices.

Since Wednesday, we've been asking our supporters to email Paul Bulcke, the CEO of the company, politely asking him to clean up Nestle's business practices and stop using unsustainable palm oil that's contributing to the destruction of Indonesia's rainforests.

But from what we can tell, Nestle have been blocking the IP address of our mail delivery software since Werdnesday afternoon. Rather than engage with people's concerns, they decided to try and censor them. Just like they did with comments on their facebook page - just like they tried to do with our Kitkat subvert.

Oops! Pulled from youtube after a 'copyright' complaint from Nestle.

Update: Want to put your own copy of our video on your favourite video sharing site? Download the file now and be our guest! The more copies out there, the more interesting it will be for Nestle.

Dear Nestle's PR department,

Hey! How are you doing? I know that when we highlight the damaging effect your business is having on the Indonesian rainforests, it must be a bit annoying. I hope you understand that we're only trying to get your attention because using unsustainable palm oil in your products is such a very bad thing. You see, we just can't afford to let the Indonesian rainforests go up in smoke to provide land for palm oil plantations.

When you told us that you cared about the problem just as much as us, sure, we had a few reservations.

For one thing, although you said that you'd no longer buy direct from Sinar Mas - the suppliers of unsustainable palm oil from deforested areas of Indonesian rainforest - you made no such promises about buying from people like Cargill who buy palm oil from the same company. Really, if you're buying the same stuff, but via an intermediary, and you're not able to rule out supplies from APP, that’s not enough progress is it?

I started to wonder if you really cared about this issue in the way that you claim to.

But I guess what made me really wonder about whether you really cared was when you had our video pulled off youtube, citing ‘copyright infringement'. Now, I'm not a lawyer, but I reckon that maybe the terms ‘fair use' and ‘parody' might be relevant here.

Hmm, actually now that I think about it for a moment, I don't think you really care about copyright at all. I think you just wanted to stop people seeing the video! That's pretty lame. Seriously, censorship is just so... last century.

I might also point out that we've already been flooded with offers to host the video elsewhere, and that your move has generated even more interest in the issue on the blogosphere and on twitter.

To me, trying to censor our criticism doesn't seem like such a smart PR move. But then, what do I know!

Anyway, hope you're all well!

All the best,

Christian
GPUK Web Team

Watch the ad here: (We stuck it on Vimeo)

You probably won't be too shocked to hear that BP
and Shell are developing even dirtier ways to profit from oil extraction.

What you might not know is that our pension money is being invested in the companies that are developing 'tar sands' - the dirtiest oil available. But that's the surprising heads-up from top ethical investment campaigners FairPensions.

Before and after - from boreal forest to strip mining, that's tar sands. © Jiri Rezac / WWF-UK

Oil is rubbish. I mean, obviously it's been great - you know, they way that it underpins what we call 'advanced industrial civilisation' - that we can make it into petrol, plastic, pharmaceuticals, fertiliser. That's obviously brilliant, because in my opinion all that stuff has (by and large) been great. But now that we've got better, cleaner and smarter ways to power our cities, run our cars and heat our homes forgive me if I find the black stuff a bit... last century. Read more »

A new report from Friends of the Earth and oil finance experts Platform places a clear financial analysis of the Canadian tar sands alongside testimonies of those affected by the race to extract oil from the Albertan wilderness.

I was struck by the argument it makes that the Canadian tar sands are the 'test case' for an oil industry that wants to move into extracting dirtier unconventional oil in other parts of the world. The report points out other areas of tar sands around the world which are being eyed up by the big oil companies. As the authors point out:

Canada is the international oil industry’s test site – if it becomes acceptable to finance the tar sands of Alberta, then the global finance sector will have ‘normalised’ a disastrously high-carbon development path.

... As investment in technology in Alberta brings down the price of producing synthetic crude and as oil prices fluctuate in higher ranges, companies are re-assessing the potential of operations in other countries. If extraction can be undertaken on the scale envisaged in Alberta then it opens the floodgates for unconventional oil extraction around the world.

In other words, if we allow ourselves to be persuaded that the environmental destruction and soaring carbon emissions that come with the tar sands in Canada is acceptable, we're basically saying that trashing the planet is just business as usual.

Get the report, 'Cashing in on tar sands' (pdf). Read more »

An emissions performance standard would mean no more unabated power stations.

We almost did it. Thousands of you emailed your MP via our website, WWF's, and with online campaigners 38 degrees. And they listened, and turned out to vote, and we almost secured an emissions performance standard - a legal limit to pollution which would have stopped dead any future plans to build dirty, unabated coal power stations.

We always thought that the government's economic case for the third runway at Heathrow was flawed. Particularly so given their plan to only allow use of half of the runway's capacity if environmental targets weren't met.

UPDATE: Thursday - Day 3

The third and final day in the high court turned out to be the best one so far.

The government's barristers continued to try to defend the statistics that the Department for Transport had used to support the case for a third runway, and it turned out to be a bit of a minefield for them. (Perhaps because the statistics were basically pretty shoddy.)

This time we're making arguments in court, rather than on top of a plane.

Just over a year ago, at the start of 2009, transport secretary Geoff Hoon gave the government's approval for a third runway at Heathrow airport. It would be accompanied, he said, by "the toughest climate change regime for aviation of any country in the world".

Cleaner planes, tougher regulation, green slots for takeoff and landing - the secretary of state was keen to broadcast the runway's green credentials. But it didn't make a lot of sense to me then - and it still doesn't.

Anyway, I'll get to spend a whole lot more time thinking about it this week, because tomorrow I'm off to court to report on a legal challenge to the controversial third runway decision.

Greenpeace is part of a coalition mounting a legal challenge to the government's Heathrow decision. Twelve other groups are also backing the challenge, including local councils, other NGOs, residents' groups - altogether, millions of people are represented.

In front of Lord Justice Carnwath, our lawyers will claim that the consultation the government held over the plans for Heathrow expansion was fundamentally flawed. They'll argue that the decision to expand Heathrow is at odds with the UK's overall climate change targets, and they'll also contend that the government hasn't made good enough plans to ensure there's enough public transport to serve an expanded airport.

It's a trio of challenges to the way the decision was made - and if the ruling goes in our favour on any one of the three points, the government's decision to proceed with the runway will be overturned, which is obviously going to lead to a pretty major rethink in transport policy.

We'll see what happens, but it's sure to be a comprehensive thrashing-through for the issues around the third runway, and I'm lucky enough to get to sit through the whole thing, in order to report back to you all.

Wish me luck... (And look out for updates from the court, or just outside the court, through the week.) Read more »

We called for strong climate action from the US. But support for the proposed climate bill is being undermined by BP.

It's not perhaps the most surprising of news, but it is worth noting. BP USA has quit a leading business coalition that's been lobbying for a climate bill to cut carbon emissions in the states.

You can be sure that what goes on in the States will have been approved from the London office, where over the past few years BP have been working hard to create the impression of a company that has moved away from fossil fuels. So does this move mark an admission of oily business-as-usual from the company that claims it is "beyond petroleum"? Read more »