by cliff1066
Q. If an inaugural gala is sponsored by ExxonMobil, can it still be green?:
[Via Climate Progress]
A. No.
The NYT reported yesterday on tonight’s two big “Green Galas”:
The first gala is being held by Al Gore, the former vice president and Nobel laureate. His event is also joined by a no-compromise crowd long frustrated with the Bush administration. Among them, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council…
[No, I'm not attending. I'm going to the "traditional" energy & environmental inaugural ball tomorrow.]
The second gala is being held by the International Conservation Caucus Foundation, comprising the goliaths of international and animal wildlife conservation like the Nature Conservancy and the World Wildlife Federation.
[Note to NYT, on climate at least, WWF is more no-compromise than NRDC (see "NRDC and EDF endorse the weak, coal-friendly, rip-offset-heavy USCAP climate plan)."]
Inexcusably, “Exxon Mobil is a prominent sponsor of the event.” The oil giant has spent millions of dollars over the years as a principal sponsor of the global warming disinformation campaign aimed at stopping efforts to conserve a livable climate – even after they said they stopped such funding. Chris Mooney has an excellent piece on ExxonMobil’s two-decade anti-scientific campaign (see also posts on Heritage and CEI and AEI).
It is simply unconscionable for any major conservation-based event (or group, for that matter) to take money from them. ExxonMobil is one the world’s greatest enemies of conservation for three reasons:
It is always a useful exercise to identify friend and foe. One gala will be focussed on how personal choices affect the environment. It will have locally grown organic food cooked across the street. It features a rock band who uses alternative fuels for its tours and strives for carbon-neutral events.
The other gala has roses flown in from Ecuador, beef brought in to Virginia from Texas where it will be cooked before being trucked into the gala site, and whose organizing body has the philosophy that “the environment and wildlife are most effectively protected by governments and businesses.”
Look, governments and businesses will not protect anything unless people who elect and purchase feel it is an important aspect of life. People have to have a personal viewpoint first and drive the big guys to change. So it is nonsensical to do big business galas unless you also make it personal.
Makes one feel that the only reason to have a green gala is for some people is to jump on the bandwagon while continuing to pursue the same path that got us here in the first place – smoozing with big money corporations and lobbyists. Makes for nice parties but what does it accomplish.
The President of the caucus feels that, to quote the NYT, ‘more gets done to protect the environment, he says, when big corporations get involved in a committed way.’ So why not have big corporations give them money to pay for things?
Well, because corporations do not give to something because they feel it is the right thing to do. It might be but they give to things because primarily it helps the corporation. Perhaps their customers take a personal interest in what the company does for the environment or whether it funds disinformation instead. Or perhaps disinformation continues to be a goal.
Preempting the green revolution could be beneficial to almost any oil company. The corrupting influence of large amounts of money from businesses helped produce the problems we see today. ICCF apparently feels that it can deal with these corrupting influences somehow.
It seems that the ICCF feels that it can ride the tiger and get to where it wants to go instead of using a horse. The tiger may be faster but it is as liable to eat the rider as to run to the proper place.
The Gore gala, which seems to actually be concentrated on personal and sustainable efforts rather than having dinner with DC heavyweights, tried unsuccessfully to combine both balls .
So keep track of those who sponsor these two differing galas. One is committed to doing things differently. The other seems to be perfectly happy taking money from anyone,including those who have done a lot of damage to the cause.
Which one do you think will create a more sustainable economy? Which is more likely to want to maintain the status quo?
Technorati Tags: Environment, Sustainability
