 |
Ford and CEI: something smells funny
Less funny — much less funny — is Ford’s ongoing sponsorship of CEI, the quote-unquote think tank responsible for the ad campaign. We’ve been pressing Ford for a meaningful response to the controversy, but so far the only public message has been a tepid affirmation of the “importance of global climate change.” To us, this seems pretty simple. Here’s what a meaningful response would look like if we were running the Ford Motor Company:
See, that’s not so hard. Instead we get this (via Salon): Josh Gottheimer, director of strategic communications at Ford, acknowledged that Ford continues to fund CEI, though he said the company does not release dollar figures of its contributions to nonprofits. “We support them on certain issues,” said Gottheimer, “but we do not agree with them on global warming.” Salon is rightly unimpressed: CEI is part of a network of think tanks funded by corporations specifically to wage war against any and all government regulation of business. Thwarting environmental regulation is front-and-center on their to-do list. Global warming, of course, is the No. 1 environmental issue in the world today. Global warming has been a CEI hobbyhorse for years. To try to split the difference and say, “We support them on some things, but not on this issue,” just doesn’t fly. There are two particularly frustrating aspects to this story. The first is that Ford is missing an incredible opportunity to raise awareness on climate change. After all, this whole thing is a PR game. The reason a slimy little outfit like CEI releases shoddily-produced commercials in a handful of markets is to generate a whirlwind of publicity for their point of view. How great would it be if that story were turned on its head when one of CEI’s longtime backers stepped forward to demolish their credibility? Unfortunately, the window of time in which to act is small, and companies of Ford’s size just don’t move very quickly. The second frustration is that we know from personal experience that many people within Ford agree with what we’re saying. But it’s looking increasingly unlikely that our script is going to make it through the bureaucracy. Postscript: A third frustration, of course, is that, through our partnership with Ford, this stuff makes us look stupid too. But I guess at least no one can accuse of holding back our opinions. Tags: Beating around the bush, CEI, Competitive Enterprise Institute, ford
Further reading
Like this article? Get weekly updates by email!
Comments2.
Comment by disdaniel
@ May 18, 2006 10 PM
 Thanks for taking up this issue. Those ads are funny but in a pathetic way. I think CEI is doing this just to poke a finger in the eye of environmentalists. It is sad that Ford supports such wackos. I wrote a counter-ad :::[Carbon dioxide ad – they call it a spot, we call it a stain.] Let me know what you think. If you have any rich friends (or are wealthy yourself) who have the psychological need to save the planet, I am looking to get it produced. I see perfect synergies between the way Ford and the CEI are behaving, and TerraPass’s approach to climate change. TerrPass is an offsetting project; in the long run it will cost nothing if modern climate change is found to have been a completely natural process (which I do not believe it is), businesses do not have to change to less polluting technologies, no-one has to change their damaging lifestyle and we can drive, fly and air-condition to our hearts content, guilt free because we have given some solar panels and low-energy light bulbs away. But it is everyone’s responsibility to change, moreso the polluting west who have to set a good example to the growing economies; why should they reduce their emissions if we cannot be bothered to change ourselves. 
Keith, I can’t claim to understand what you’re getting at, but a couple of things: First, offsetting projects absolutely do require a change to less polluting technologies. To create an offset, someone has to pollute less. Offsets are just a mechanism for funding that reduction. Second, Ford itself has done quite a bit to curb the environmental impact of its manufacturing processes through real investments in cleaner technologies. Since 2000, they’ve shaved 150 million metric tonnes of CO2 emissions from their annual output. So of all the things you can say about Ford’s environmental record, this is the charge that least sticks. Third, you’re remarkably glib about solar panels and low-energy light bulbs. You’re also awfully paternalistic regarding those “growing economies.” I think countries like China and India are well able to grasp the consequences of climate change without a pat on the head from the West. I’m glad you’re personally interested in climate change and conservation, but please focus on solutions rather than empty criticism. Adam I can understand your defensiveness about offsetting, it is what you do, after all, but in the end no matter how effective the offsetting, it is ephemeral if people do not change the way they live their lives. Offsets are, by definition, a balancing mechanism, not a reduction. It is true that some aspects of TerraPass are longer term than most forms of offsetting, but biodiesel and biomass are no better than planting trees as offsets due to the fragility of their lifecycle - it has to go on forever, and no-one can guarantee that. So the answer has to be a change in our lifestyles and our patterns of economic activity rather than, what in many cases is “guilt reduction” - Ford do an excellent job of that; those in the activist world call it “greenwash”. Your heart is clearly in the right place, but you must be careful not to claim you are selling the answer, only a way of reducing the damage until that answer is properly in place. BTW: The “paternalism” is nothing of the sort, it is based on the experiences of those who have spent many years campaigning on behalf of a global method of GHG reduction, such as the Global Commons Institute. China and India have every right to insist on developing as the West have done so, if the governments of the West are not willing to change
Offsets are, by definition, a balancing mechanism, not a reduction. This is false. To create an offset, you must reduce emissions. An offset is a reduction. TerraPass purchases these offsets and then retires from the carbon market, ensuring that the reduction is permanent. TerraPass has never once held up offsets as “the answer” to climate change. In fact, quite the opposite. Offsets are one tool for bringing about the sorts of long-term changes necessary to forestall the effects of climate change. They are not the only such tool, and they are not by themselves enough. This may come as a surprise, but we’ve actually heard the term greenwashing before. People are of course free to draw their own conclusions about whether Ford is engaging in greenwashing. Our conclusion is that, because the Greener Miles program is part of a broader carbon strategy at Ford that includes conservation and offsetting of their own manufacturing emissions, it passes muster as a credible program. As we’ve demonstrated, we will continue to criticize Ford in the areas we feel they deserve criticism. But we also believe that they should be encouraged rather than condemned when they take positive steps. BTW: Your paternalism is deeply rooted. India and China don’t need to insist on the right to do anything. They have the right, and as burgeoning superpowers they will negotiate with other governments over climate change as equal partners. They have an equal stake in the future of the planet and an equal responsibility to safeguard it. Adam If you have a fundamental issue with my arguments then I am happy to address them. However, I notice that you significantly changed Comment 7 from its original version - from something constructive to a sarcastic comment about greenwashing. Furthermore, semantic arguments like : BTW: Your paternalism is deeply rooted. India and China don’t need to insist on the right to do anything. They have the right are exactly what the polluters and destroyers love to see - they show we can’t focus on the big issues due to infighting. I am not going to comment further on this, and hope for more constructive dialogue in future. Regards Keith
Keith, my fundamental objections to your argument has been clear from the beginning: you are seeking to redefine carbon offsets in a way that is flattering to your own opinion and counter to everyone else’s definition. I can’t have been more plain about this. You are free to disapprove of offsets if you wish, but as long as you continue to assert falsehoods about what they are or about what TerraPass has said about them, I will continue to point those falsehoods out. And your implication that by disagreeing with you, I’m abetting polluters and destroyers is about the most specious thing I’ve ever read, and also deeply ironic. You know what I think abets polluters and destroyers? Reflexive accusations of greenwashing and rejection of any initiative that doesn’t meet some arbitrary standard of environmental correctness. I have about as much patience with this attitude as I do with the many people who flood my inbox with accusations that global warming is a hoax. Here’s a suggestion for a constructive dialogue we can have: propose a specific plan for how we effect the widespread societal and economic changes that you seek. And then explain why a cap-and-trade U.S.-based or global carbon market wouldn’t be a useful tool in bringing about those changes as efficiently as possible. A final note: you may notice that I’ve reacted forcefully to your comments. I do apologize if I’ve crossed any bounds. I try to keep my own comments substantive and free of sarcasm. But I also note that tone counts for a lot in online discussions, and you set a very bad tone from the beginning with your odd and baseless equation between TerraPass and CEI, whom we revile. You are more than welcome to continue participating in this discussion — I can see that you are sincere and well-intentioned — but please do so respectfully. I will do likewise. Agreed, Adam. I am currently defining a comprehensive methodology for moving forwards, which does include the use of offsets as a temporary measure, and I will be publishing my ideas soon on The Earth Blog. I apologise for the initial tone, but having seen Bill Ford so positive about Climate Change prevention in 2001 and then doing a u-turn, I have developed a very cynical streak about ideas that give companies easy ways out of the mess they have brought to us all. Thanks, Keith. Post a commentSearch the TerraPass blogTurn your old cellphones and PDAs into a FREE TerraPass. |
|
The verdict is in on the “Hooray, global warming!” ads, 
Ed. note: comments like the following are a real dilemma for us. On the one hand, our comment policy is that we pretty much let anything stand, as long as it isn’t completely off-topic or abusive. On the other hand, there’s such a thing as “diversity of viewpoint” and then there’s “pushing tired, discredited arguments.” Look, everyone knows that there is a natural cooling and warming cycle that takes place over geological time scales. This isn’t news. How long are armchair climatologists going to keep pointing this out, in the face of increasing scientific consensus that manmade emissions are having a serious impact on the climate?
Original comment follows:
==============
I’ve posted a full commentary about these ads and the internet frenzy surrounding them at greenr.
If you look at it, there have been 4 cycles of cooling in warming of +/-5 degrees C over the past 450,000 years, and I’m betting there weren’t CO2 humans to blame back then, so why should they be to blame now?
We are in the MIDDLE of a warming cycle, that still has +5 degrees C to go. Of course we are seeing global warming.
See my site for the full details.