Hello Bruce >Keith, > >From the bits. My orientation is cautious capitalist; >a curious blend of 7 parts libertarian with 2 parts >conservative, and 1 part social liberal. Strange brew >I suppose. But I strongly believe in the individual >versus the "social collective."
Each needs the other, IMO, and in my experience as well. I think the either/or of it only applies at the extremes. Another example of the extreme polarization of America? Think I should add that when I say "in my experience as well" it's objective, not subjective, an observation, not clouded by personal circumstances - I don't "belong" to anything, never have. I don't even have a home, a family, a country, I don't belong to any community, and I don't even feel that I'm lacking those things. >And I agree with you, broad brush on all and every >isn't the way to go. But it's an easy trap to fall >into and sometimes I sin. Ah yes, don't we all. >That said; from over 15 years experience in mid-to >senior management with investor owned utilities I was >witness to egregious politics on both sides of the >fence. > >That said however, often times it was the hard core >environmentalist that often played the part of >obstructionists to pratically anything constructive or >any compromise. That only comes from my experience >"in theater" if you will. > >I agree there are good and sincere folks on either >side of the fence - however, from experience I know >that many in the senior management of the large >environmental groups have compromised with the big >energy interests. > >The worker bees at the lower levels of either side's >organizations are truly where the heart and soul is of >the matter - both groups would love nothing more than >to compromise and get on with solutions - not >politics. Hm... I don't like the big groups, generally, with some exceptions. I've worked with and for most of them, so I know them quite well. I think small, local groups do much better, but they don't get their fair share because the big groups tend to shoulder them aside. But there IS a definite role for the big groups which small groups can't fill, other than through coalitions maybe. The problem with all this is that you have to be really careful in criticizing them that you don't fall into the anti-environmentalist trap set by the "Wise Use" and think-tank spin merchants, which has been very effective and is basically dishonest. This is where the real problem lies, of which corrupted environment groups are but a symptom. I was specifically interested in what you said about Greenpeace and big energy interests. Links between big business and the big environment groups are well-known. For instance (I've posted this previously): Stauber: Big environmental organizations, socially responsible investment funds, and other groups perpetuate the myth that if we just write checks to them, they'll heal the environment, reform the corrupt campaign-finance system, protect our freedom of speech, and reign in corporate power. This is a dangerous falsehood, because it implies that we don't have to sweat and struggle to make democracy work. It's so much easier to write a check for twenty-five or fifty dollars than it is to integrate our concerns about critical issues into our daily lives and organize with our neighbors for democracy. Many so-called public-interest organizations have become big businesses, multinational nonprofit corporations. The PR industry knows this and exploits it well with the type of co-optation strategies that Duchin recommends. Jensen: This seems especially true of big environmental groups. Stauber: E. Bruce Harrison, one of the most effective public-relations practitioners in the business, knows that all too well. He's made a lucrative career out of helping polluting companies defeat environmental regulations while simultaneously giving the companies a "green" public image. In the industry, they call him the "Dean of Green." As a longtime opponent of the environmental movement, Harrison has developed some interesting insights into its failures. He says, "The environmental movement is dead. It really died in the last fifteen years, from success." I think he's correct. What he means is that, in the eighties and nineties, environmentalism became a big business, and organizations like the Audubon Society, the Wilderness Society, the National Wildlife Federation, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the Natural Resources Defense Council became competing multi-million-dollar bureaucracies. These organizations, Harrison says, seem much more interested in "the business of greening" than in fighting for fundamental social change. He points out, for instance, that the Environmental Defense Fund (whose executive director makes a quarter of a million dollars a year) sat down and cut a deal with McDonald's that was probably worth hundreds of millions of dollars in publicity to the fast-food giant, because it helped to "greenwash" its public image. Jensen: How so? Stauber: After years of being hammered by grass-roots environmentalists for everything from deforestation to inhumane farming practices to contributing to a throwaway culture, McDonald's finally relented on something: it did away with its styrofoam clamshell hamburger containers. But before the company did this, it entered into a partnership with the Environmental Defense Fund and gave that group credit for the change. Both sides "won" in the ensuing PR lovefest. McDonald's took one little step in response to grass-roots activists, and the Environmental Defense Fund claimed a major victory. Another problem is that big green groups have virtually no accountability to the many thousands of individuals who provide them with money. Meanwhile, the grass-roots environmental groups are starved of the hundreds of millions of dollars that are raised every year by these massive bureaucracies. Over the past two decades, they've turned the environmental move-ment's grass-roots base of support into little more than a list of donors they hustle for money via direct-mail appeals and telemarketing. It's getting even worse, because now corporations are directly funding groups like the Audubon Society, the Wilderness Society, and the National Wildlife Federation. Corporate executives now sit on the boards of some of these groups. PR executive Leslie Dach, for instance, of the rabidly anti-environmental Edelman PR firm, is on the Audubon Society's board of directors. Meanwhile, his PR firm has helped lead the "wise use" assault on environmental regulation. Corporations and public-relations firms hire so-called activists and pay them large fees to work against the public interest. For instance, Carol Tucker Foreman was once the executive director of the Consumer Federation of America, a group that itself takes corporate dollars. Now she has her own lucrative consulting firm and works for companies like Monsanto and Proctor & Gamble, pushing rBGH and promoting the fake fat Olestra, which has been linked to bowel problems. She also works with other public-interest pretenders like the Washington, D.C.-based organization Public Voice, which takes money from agribusiness and food interests and should truthfully be called Corporate Voice. - From "War On Truth - The Secret Battle for the American Mind", An Interview with John Stauber, Published in "The Sun", March 1999 http://www.mediaisland.org/thewarontruth.html See also: http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=44&row=1 Fill your lungs it's only borrowed grime http://www.nonprofitwatch.org/ballona/summary.html NRDC Corrupt: Ballona Wetlands Sold Out -- Environmentalism on the Take http://www.counterpunch.org/sclaw.html Sierra Club Law Firm Linked to Polluters http://www.sacbee.com/static/archive/news/projects/environment/index02.html Environment, Inc. Etc etc. >As for Greenpeace: I will dig around (in my unusally >large piles of files) and find the remarks and >comments of the founder of Greenpeace regarding what >he considers the "compromise" of that organization >with big energy interests. Paul Watson? >You and I have something here in common; we both >require chapter and verse. I appreciate that very >much. I require my students to provide citations of >chapter and verse for their premise on issues. :-) We have to keep each other honest, eh? You'd do the same for me. >Again I appologize for what appears to be broad brush >treatment of the growing relationship between big >corporate energy and the environmental movement. > >I will over the near term dig up the paper trail >(follow the money) linking the large environmental >NGO's with the large corporate energy interests. > >This as I stated occurs at the upper levels of the org >management - not the "boots on the ground" level. > >Unfortunately, politics usually gets in the way of >solutions. > >My experience has been that the larger the >organization in terms of political and financial >capital, the less interested they are in actually >achieving solutions, and the more interested they are >in spending years upon "making progress" and "working >on solutions". And in fund-raising. >Keeps them in business - Yes indeed. I note you don't specify "environmental" organizations, and I agree with that - we've been most successfully sold on the idea that big means more professional, more efficient, better, when it quite obviously doesn't, you can see that instinctively, and that's almost always borne out in practice - big all too often means less efficient, more wasteful, less effective, more stupid. "Small-scale capitalism works out fine, but as scale increases the departure from real capitalism becomes more pronounced---profits are privatized, but costs are socialized. The attendant repair and maintenance are left to succeeding generations if possible, if not, to present low and middle income taxpayers." - Tvo There's a role for "big", unbeautiful though it be, but there have to be tight reins on it, at ground level, that pull it up very far short of the rampant corporatism that's now deemed normal, and "good". It doesn't get to buy elections, and governments, and courts, for instance. Nor "rights". All this applies to the big environment groups too, but it's not specific to them. Best Keith >--- Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello again Bruce > > > > Bit of a partial response, and I find it confusing > > (not because of > > the > thingies). Let me pick some bits out and > > rearrange them, see > > what happens... You asked: > > > > > > >... what is the text > > > > of > > > > >Kert Davies of Greenpeace? > > > > It was this: > > > > > > >"Techno-fixes are pipe dreams in many cases," > > said > > > > Kert Davies, > > > > >research director for Greenpeace, which has > > been > > > > conducting a broad > > > > >campaign against Exxon Mobil. "The real > > solution," > > > > he said, "is > > > > >cutting the use of fossil fuels by any means > > > > necessary." > > > > You went on: > > > > > > >My general dis-trust of the Green political > > types > > > > I commented: > > > > > > ... is somewhat misplaced in this case I think, > > > > nothing wrong with > > > > what Davies says, LOTS wrong with the reply from > > > > Acusorb. I agree > > > > with Davies about techno-fixes, I disagree if > > what > > > > he meant by > > > > "techno-fixes" was biofuels, but I suspect he > > meant > > > > Acusorb beads. > > > > You: > > > > > > >stems from their "everything is bad" point of > > view. > > > > >While they put down alternatives, they usually > > (not > > > > >always) never offer constructive alternatives. > > > > > > > > > >Had this problem with them when developing wind > > > > energy > > > > >in the Altamont Pass of California. > > > > Me: > > > > > > We have to take them (which includes a lot of us > > I > > > > believe) on a > > > > case-by-case basis: eg, Club Sierra's stance on > > > > diesels and > > > > biodiesel, and ethanol, is downright stupid, and > > > > they're totally > > > > pigheaded about it - but that doesn't mean they > > > > don't also do good > > > > work. Some or many of the big groups have become > > > > rather too > > > > corporatised, syphoning off funds that would be > > put > > > > to much better > > > > use by small, local, grass-roots groups which > > too > > > > often don't get a > > > > look-in, and some of the big groups have made > > unholy > > > > greenwashing > > > > deals with big business - but you still can't > > just > > > > write them off, > > > > there are some good people there too, doing some > > > > good work. And in > > > > these cases they're often more like victims, > > with > > > > the big-bucks corps > > > > and their mega-buck spin campaigns the real > > > > villains. Along with the > > > > AstroTurf groups, the "Wise Use" crowd and the > > > > rightwing > > > > "think-tanks". > > > > But in this post you insist on tarring them all with > > the same > > fossil-fuels tainted brush, and I can't accept that. > > > > Something else I don't accept is the Washington > > Times as a credible > > source - it's a notorious outlet for right-wing > > think-tank > > anti-environment "Wise Use" spin, from the likes of > > Dennis Avery, > > Steven Milloy, the CEI, and all the usual suspects. > > > > Deputy editor of the Washington Times editorial page > > is Kenneth > > Smith, in which capacity he has polemicized in > > defense of leaded > > paint, biotech foods, DDT and Love Canal. > > > > Less than a month after 9/11, on October 7, the > > Washington Times > > published an editorial calling for "war against > > eco-terrorists," > > describing ELF and ALF as "key links in the web of > > violent > > environmental groups -- an eco-al-Qaeda" with "a > > fanatical ideology > > and a twisted morality." This was the thin end of a > > wedge aimed at > > all environment groups, which has been hammered home > > a lot further > > since then. > > > > And so on and on. Caveat emptor. > > > > Anway, you talk here about Kerry and Kenneth Lay, > > Enron, the Heinz > > Center, the UN Foundation, and end up with this: > > > > >** The bottom line is that there is ample evidence > > of > > >the cozy relationship between the major > > environmental > > >groups such as Greenpeace et al, and the major oil > > >companies. > > > > But you didn't say anything about Greenpeace. Please > > provide the > > ample eveidence you refer to of a cosy relationship > > between > > Greenpeace and the major oil companies. If you're > > going to say you > > were just generalizing, then stop generalizing and > > get more specific. > > Which major environmental groups? (The Heinz Center > > isn't one.) Which > > major oil companies? What evidence links them? > > > > Also, is this still part of the original thread? Are > > you still > > seeking to paint Kert Davies of Greenpeace as the > > bad guy in the > > Acusorb exchange? > > > > Best > > > > Keith > > > > > > >This is just a little mixing of politics with the > > >topic of strange bed-fellows; (quotes are from the > > >Washington Times 7/7/03 p6). > > > > > >(speaking on Sen. Kerry's attacks on Enron) "All > > the > > >more intriguing, given Enron's founder, Kenneth > > Lay, > > >has been longtime trustee of the > > environmental-minded > > >Heinz Center founded my Br. Kerry's gazillionaire > > >wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry." > > > > > >(speaking of a senior lawyer who bid good-bye to > > Enron > > >after many years of service) "The lawyer bid > > goodbye > > >to the giant energy company after detecting a > > 'swcheme > > >of supporting green groups to scare people into > > >regulating Enron's competition out of the mix and > > ... > > >[because] it bought the world's largest wind-mill > > >company and half of the world's largest solar-panel > > >company ... then embarked on a trek to ensure a > > >global-warming treaty." > > > > > >(a direct quote from a memo from the Heinz Center > > to > > >Ken Lay) "Ken, we want you to chair the forum. You > > >are by far the best candidate. Simply stated, your > > >background, expertise and experience make you > > uniquely > > >qualified [to run our] global warming > > [initiative]." > > > > > >(a direct quote from a Jan 17,2001 memo to Mr. Ken > > Lay > > >from Timothy Wirth (ex Colorado Senator and > > >Undersecretary of state for global affairs, who > > became > > >=== message truncated === ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Free shipping on all inkjet cartridge & refill kit orders to US & Canada. Low prices up to 80% off. We have your brand: HP, Epson, Lexmark & more. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5510 http://us.click.yahoo.com/GHXcIA/n.WGAA/ySSFAA/9bTolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://webconx.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
