I've said before that the unremitting negativity of the environmental movement toward corporations bugs me. I'm fully aware of the evils committed by corporations, but the tactic seems to be to find those that are talking about green issues and accuse them of hypocrisy, thus creating a massive disincentive. The lesson for corporations is: keep quiet.
But don't we want them talking about green issues?
The example I always use is Ford -- Bill Ford is, by all accounts, a committed environmentalist and has been pushing against the massive inertia of the Ford bureaucracy to do some good things (yes, yes, with limited success). But because the Ford fleet overall still has poor fuel efficiency, Bill ends up getting compared to Dick Cheney. Could anything be more insulting? The lesson for Bill -- or rather, for the Ford board of directors -- is: lower our profile on environmental issues. Don't draw the attention of the greens.
Yeah, so, that bugs me. And yet for some reason, this bugs me too. I guess the lesson is that everything bugs me and I should relax. Perhaps drink more.
Oh, wait! Here's something that doesn't bug me: ExxposeExxon, the new coalition trying to put together a boycott of Exxon. (Okay, the spelling bugs me, but ... baby steps.)
The problem with Exxon, you see, is not that they're saying one thing and doing another. It's that they're doing malignant things. Evil, not hypocrisy, is Public Enemy No. 1.
Comments
View as Flat
Katharine Wroth Posted 6:31 am
14 Jul 2005
Permalink
Lisa Hymas Posted 7:15 am
14 Jul 2005
An amusing bit from said ad [PDF]: It notes that Saudi Arabia is "a dictatorship where women are not allowed to vote or drive." Isn't equating driving with freedom a bit off-message?
And agreed with Katharine that, by Dave's reasoning, the Sierra Club should get credit here.
Permalink
City Hippy Posted 7:31 am
14 Jul 2005
For example...we want green cars. So when a car company etc takes a step in the right direction we should thank them profusely and engage with them as to when their next step in the right direction will be.
When they make a move in the right direction we should only act to encourage more action.
Or we can get negative.
Which one is likely to get more results?
Love breeds love and hate breeds hate
Namaste
City Hippy
City Hippy (http://cityhippy.blogspot.com)
Permalink
dreadsword Posted 10:18 am
14 Jul 2005
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/002282.html
http://www.sustainabilityzone.com
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 11:46 am
14 Jul 2005
I find the unending conspiracy theories about evil corporations tiresome. If the aformentioned company is typical, then the upper ranks of most corporations are filled non-threatening, sociable, but otherwise unremarkable people who go to work everyday, try to stay awake at meetings, and please their bosses, who eventually take their bosses positions to repeat the cycle. I would replace "Evil" with "marginally competent."
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
Catharren Posted 3:47 pm
14 Jul 2005
(No, need to answer that.)
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 6:21 pm
14 Jul 2005
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:20 pm
14 Jul 2005
Nope. The lesson is get with it, start mass producing plugin hybrids.
Until they do, these (monoply)corporations will continue to feel the heat from the environmental movement.
Lipservice does not get the job done. These folks using their connections within government have been stalling renewable energy transportation for decades.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:44 am
26 Jul 2005
Permalink