Quote:
Originally posted by Mouse:
Nighty night SC - personally, I'm amazed I can still think straight  I blame Rosemount Estate 2000 Grenache Shiraz for the whole farrago.
And here's a thought, if you accept that both Greenpeace and ExxonMobil have agendas which their public relations are designed to promote, who can you trust to be the "honest broker"?
|
The one who isn't making great big fat profits? As I already said, Exxon made US$17.9 billion in PROFIT last year. Greenpeace is a non profit making, non governmental organisation.
Greenpeace started off as a few men in a boat, bearing witness to US nuclear testing in 1971. That's its purpose, to bear witness, non violently. Another of its stated aims is 'to ensure the continued ability of the earth to nurture life in all its diversity'. In a nutshell, that is Greenpeace's agenda. Exxon Mobile's agenda is to make as much money as possible. If their agenda was simply to supply the world with energy, there are a myriad ways in which they could do it and do us all a favour at the same time by reducing Western dependence on OPEC, reducing our dependence on a fossil fuel which is finite, and will run out, and reducing wear and tear on our environment. They could, but the profit margins would probably have gone down a tad. And that would never do, would it?
When you talk about conspiracy theories - I'm sorry Mouse, all around me I see hard evidence of what rich individuals and companies will do to get rich and stay rich. A majority (not all!) of companies are pretty short term in their thinking, and build, make and manufacture without due consideration for the environment, and in many cases, for human or animal rights. This is not true of all companies, but it is of many. I am talking about both Western and developing world based companies here...
(Of course, many Western companies produce and manufacture in the developing world. More and more and more and more of them in fact. Well, hey now. Why would that be then? Would it be because labour and land is dirt cheap? Why yes, maybe it would. And might it be because health and safety regulations are often non existent, or at least far less stringent than in the West? Well, could be.... And could it be because the environment is far less protected than it is here... (although that isn't saying a fat lot..) Well, that might be the case also... The freedom to pollute AND exploit whilst paying next to nothing for the privilege. (No, that's not everybody, but there's a lot of it about. Like I said, I work on a business 2 business web site, and I see news clips every day that illustrate the points I'm making. There are also numerous books on this subject, not to mention web sites.)
This reality exists. Turning your back on it won't make it go away. (Although Exxon don't do too badly. Their public relations machine is awesome. They also pay a lot of money to finance climate change sceptics in the US (Lee Raymonds, for example), and undermine the good science which has been published on the subject, and which is now accepted by the vast majority of scientists and governments around the world.)
I personally think they are bonkers. Why don't they get busy developing alternative sustainable energy sources NOW before the fossil fuels start running out? What the world is going to be when that happens doesn't bear thinking about. A bit of long term thinking works wonders - except when those involved just don't have the brain capacity. Short termism - who does it benefit? No-one, in the long run.
------------------
Ascended Mistress of Illumination OR Paws R Us
[This message has been edited by Silver Cheetah (edited 10-02-2001).]