The Chainlink

Climate Cycle's founder says: "Don't Blame BP" ?!

 A Letter from the Executive Director
Photo: Tricia Koning
Joey Feinstein


Dear Climate Cycle supporter,

As an organization, Climate Cycle is founded on the belief that each one of us can make a difference that benefits us all. As the founder and executive director of Climate Cycle, I consider it important to improve how I align my actions with this basic tenet.

Today, we find ourselves in the midst of what many are
calling the worst ecological crisis in US history, and it's washing up on
American shores. As we call upon BP and politicians for answers, let us
not ignore it is we Americans who consume five times more oil per capita than the average world citizen.1 Although BP negligently ignored safety warnings and took shortcuts, they are filling our demand like other oil and
energy giants. Much like BP, we too are ignoring nature's safety warnings with our ever-rising consumption of fossil fuels.

Over time, issues like energy have become
Photo: Telegraph.co.uk
BP oil spill
increasingly politically contentious. Yet it was W. Bush's 7th State of the Union Address that he declared "America is addicted to oil." As unnerving as the rallying cry of "drill baby drill" is to many of
us, it is the message that is sent to oil rigs and volatile regimes all
over the world every time we fill our gas tank, whether white, brown,
Republican, Democrat, man or woman.

At 12:40 p.m. today, I am flying to Brussels, Belgium. The arrangements have been made by the
U.S. Mission to the EU so that I can share ideas on sustainability and
education with European delegates in the days leading up to Europe's
Earth Day on June 5th. It is an awesome honor. At the same time, the irony
of traveling in a gas guzzling jumbo jet across the ocean to discuss
issues of climate and energy is an unsettling juxtaposition. For all I know, this plane could be filled with fuel from underwater wells like the one that is gushing out of control.

Although it is easier to look back 1,000 years than forward 50 years, the oil
spills lining our seas pale by comparison to what catastrophic climate
change could look like within our children's lifetime. Society is
dragging anchor and in danger of ecologically capsizing.
Photo: Tricia Koning
Polaris Climate Cyclists
Where this will exactly lead nobody knows, but we must beware of the rocks. As in times of great crises, it is imperative we each do our part to stem the tide.

To this end, upon returning from Europe, I pledge to donate my car to charity and convert most of my long distance travels from airplane to train. While such decisions require increased travel time commitments, until the crude method of combustion we are reliant upon is rendered obsolete,
time is of the essence in reducing our fossil fuel riddled ways.

Let us not allow the miracles of the modern age we all enjoy become dynamite in disguise for the children we love. Together, we can ensure that our greatest dangers become opportunities
for a societal renaissance on par with the Industrial, Space Age and
Computer Revolutions.

To refueling our future,Climate Cycle logo
Joey Feinstein                                                                             
Founder and Executive Director


1 WorldWatch Institute - http://www.worldwatch.org/node/808




His e-mail subject was: Don't Blame BP
Many of us got this e-mail.

This guy is suspiciously wrong .
This enormous environmental disaster was not caused the end users of the fossil fuel.
11 workers were killed by BP and it's policies not by the end users of the fossil fuel.
90%+ of the blame clearly is at BP's door.
1 for allowing  the accident in the first place.
2 for lobbying to change  the rules that allowed them to get away with it.
This lame argument is like saying that users of electricity are responsible the the 29 dead coal miners at the recent coal mine disaster instead of blaming the mine operators. Or like blaming children for lead poisoning of themselves, for wanting  toys instead of blaming the Chinese manufactures.
Has this guy turned into a corporate slug?

I say:
BOYCOTT BP -------and Boycott  all it's parts
am/pm mini mart
ARCO

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Boycott-BP/119101198107726
http://www.earthyreport.com/site/boycott-bp/
http://www.citizen.org/page.aspx?pid=3311
http://boycottbptshirt.com/
http://www.fubp.org/


Views: 173

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on June 3, 2010 at 1:34pm
We do choose our own paths but there are times when we end up far enough down a path that there is not a viable way to find a new one by the time we start to see the world a little differently.

I do what I do to make a living and that probably is not going to change unless but I try to do it in as socially conscious and environmentally friendly a manner as I can; at what point did doing what you can with the situation you are in become not enough effort to keep the blood off your hands?

I have little choice in my job at this point or how I can go about doing it but I work hard to make environmentally friendly choices and try to get my customers to do the same; is that not an acceptable compromise? Should I make half the money and let the companies that don't give a shit about that stuff have my market share?

The concept that you can not being doing good for the world if you drive a car or use petrol to do your job is close-minded, elitist and in the end more damaging to the cause as a whole because it turns off people who are not as dedicated as you are.

H3N3 said:
As Clark said, we choose our paths. Nobody "makes" anyone do anything.
Can't respond to the bit about elitism or sitting in front of a computer without some effort on your part to frame that argument in a way that makes some sort of sense.

JKH said:
Suggesting that someone change jobs is the biggest bunch of elitist bullshit I've heard in a long time. It's easy to feel smug when you sit on your ass in front of a computer for a living. There are jobs necessary for our society that require driving. Would you suggest that everyone that is socially conscience get a job that doesn't require driving? As a fabricator I manage to use a Subaru wagon for a job that most people use a full size pickup or van. I also schedule my work so I can bike about half the time. Should I quit so someone with a F-250 takes my place. I say if you are promoting career changes everyone in a cubicle should get a job in construction and use a fuel efficient vehicle. This would do a lot more good than most of the suggestions made here.
Permalink Reply by Natalie on June 3, 2010 at 1:36pm
There's a report (which I've not read, because it is long and I'm busy) from the United Nations in 2006 that says that the meat industry produces more greenhouse gases than all the SUVs, cars, trucks, planes, and ships in the world combined. The reference is here. Maybe I'm oversimplifying things, but it seems like becoming a vegetarian is the single most effective change most of us can make.

Actually, the most effective change would be for humans to become extinct.

H3N3 said:
Not sure why you need to discount the effect of choosing not to drive-- it's the single most effective change most of us can make. The argument that you have to either reduce your ecological footprint to zero or not even bother is childish and depressing.
Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on June 3, 2010 at 1:49pm
I hate to say it but I will gleefully watch everyone I know suffocate, burn to a crisp or otherwise come to an unsavory end provided I get to keep eating sweet, sweet bacon right up until it's my turn.

I mean seriously, give up bacon? For the well being of other people? Sheeyeah, right!

Natalie said:
There's a report (which I've not read, because it is long and I'm busy) from the United Nations in 2006 that says that the meat industry produces more greenhouse gases than all the SUVs, cars, trucks, planes, and ships in the world combined. The reference is here. Maybe I'm oversimplifying things, but it seems like becoming a vegetarian is the single most effective change most of us can make.

Actually, the most effective change would be for humans to become extinct.

H3N3 said:
Not sure why you need to discount the effect of choosing not to drive-- it's the single most effective change most of us can make. The argument that you have to either reduce your ecological footprint to zero or not even bother is childish and depressing.
Permalink Reply by Michael Perz on June 3, 2010 at 2:30pm

Clark said:
Sorry Howard, I wasn't intending to condescendingly lecture you...but in rereading my post I can see how you might have inferred it. Perhaps not here in this forum, but usually when I tell folks I've given up my car, it provokes a "holier than thou" reaction from them. So I always add a disclaimer, that I recognize that I'm still a polluter...my original sin.
I actually think population control is our only long-term answer. With 7 billion people in the world, and another billion being added every 11 years, we will have many problems to confront in the next 100 years. Energy will only be one of them. But telling people to have fewer kids is more provocative than telling them to give up their car. Not to mention the religious and political overtones of that message.

H3N3 said:
Sorry, Clark, I appreciate the backup but I never said anyone was scot free of anything and I find the implication that this would not have occurred to me condescending and insulting.
Permalink Reply by Tank-Ridin' Ryan on June 3, 2010 at 2:52pm
Now we're talkin'!

Natalie said:
Actually, the most effective change would be for humans to become extinct.

H3N3 said:
Not sure why you need to discount the effect of choosing not to drive-- it's the single most effective change most of us can make. The argument that you have to either reduce your ecological footprint to zero or not even bother is childish and depressing.
Permalink Reply by Dubi Kaufmann on June 3, 2010 at 3:04pm



No one is benefiting from this leak except Nalco share holders

http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10004387/how-warren-buffett-may-pro...
Permalink Reply by Glenn on June 3, 2010 at 3:49pm
I agree with him. Its every ones fault. Obviously some more then others but consumers aren't spot free clean on the situation either.

For now though, who is at fault is absolutely irrelevant. EVERYONE needs to help clean this sh*t up. Cry and point fingers later. First things first
Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on June 3, 2010 at 5:24pm
Can you show me where anyone has expressed this "concept" in this thread?

The concept that you can not being doing good for the world if you drive a car or use petrol to do your job is close-minded, elitist and in the end more damaging to the cause as a whole because it turns off people who are not as dedicated as you are.
Permalink Reply by JKH on June 3, 2010 at 6:52pm
I do not discount the effect of choosing not to drive, on the contrary I think it does good for society and the environment. What I said was it is not enough and that we need to do more.

At no point did I make the argument that we need to reduce our footprint to zero or not bother. On the contrary I advocated for people to actively take part in helping reduce the environmental impact of construction, shipping and agricultural. I also said we should all do what we can about the BP mess.

My whole point about elitism is if you work at a desk it's easy in Chicago to not own a car. I went car less for two years during my last job and loved it. With Chicago traffic not owning a car is about as self-sacrificing as deciding not to punch yourself in the balls. I could get a desk job if I wanted but I truly believe that by using less than half the fuel most people using my job do and by encouraging others to do the same I'm having a much more positive impact than if I had different job and no car.

It's easy in Chicago to have a life moving from one pocket of liberalism to another preaching to the choir. I think the real challenge is figuring out a way to preach to people that can effect substantial change. Convince one shipping manager at a mid size company to ship by train instead of truck and you've just saved 25,000 gallons of diesel a year. My point is people with environmental consciences in industries that use resources could make huge change for the good.

H3N3 said:
Not sure why you need to discount the effect of choosing not to drive-- it's the single most effective change most of us can make. The argument that you have to either reduce your ecological footprint to zero or not even bother is childish and depressing.

JKH said:
It is impossible to live in our society without having a negative environmental impact and it's not enough to say I don't drive. What are you actually doing to decrease pollution? My point is that running away from the physical world isn't helping at all. Things need to move, be built, be grown and best way to help is to figure out how to do it better.

Of course we all are responsible for the current mess and we should do what we can and part of that should be boycotting BP
Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on June 4, 2010 at 9:57am
I feel it's in the overall tone and it could be me picking up on the general vibe I often feel from the car free that anyone who drives a car is evil and part of the problem.

Think of it as me being overly sensitive because of every time on a list-serv, message board or at a bike related event I have to listen or read about how anyone who is 'stupid' (and I have had people tell me anyone who drives is stupid), drivers are 'killers,' driving a car is a aggressive choice and every other piece of rhetoric I have to hear.

I do a job that supports the industries that provide society with it's basic, and not so basic needs and have for years; before that I kept airliners running on time When I point out that my job, one that is pretty crucial to the everyday lives of many people on this board, requires me to drive and use fossil fuels I get told I should just go find a new job? Is it lost on everyone how ignorant a statement that is?

People preach to me about social and environmental responsibility and act like my choice of careers makes it impossible for me to care about any of those thing when I make choices every day to try and, within the confines of my business, make the right choices about both of those things. You can be a part of the 'problem' and still be socially responsible; I left a very good position with General Motors some years ago because I felt it was a morally reprehensible job! I use my skills where they are needed and bring me the funds I need to live my life.

H3N3 said:
Can you show me where anyone has expressed this "concept" in this thread?

The concept that you can not being doing good for the world if you drive a car or use petrol to do your job is close-minded, elitist and in the end more damaging to the cause as a whole because it turns off people who are not as dedicated as you are.
Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on June 4, 2010 at 12:23pm
I was in a crappy mood and having a bad day during my previous posts, sorry.

Overall, though, there are different messages that need to get out at different times to different audiences in the course of trying to create social change, and if you happen to party to a message that's meant for a different audience I think it would be healthier to acknowledge as much and move on.

I've been at this for 10 years and I can't even remember a small percentage of the times I've gotten the "the time is not right" or "that message turns people off" response to the message that we need to move away from the personal automobile as our dominant mode of travel.

Like anyone's going to get back in touch with me and let me know when the time is right . . .

I still don't get the desk job/elistism thing, sorry-- it sounds like you're expressing a bitter disdain of anyone who is left-leaning and has quit car ownership, but I still can't figure out exaxtly why.
Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on June 4, 2010 at 12:54pm
Well I'm overly sensitive, like a cheerleader, so we'll call it even...

I don't know about the desk job thing but I think that a lot of people who live car free or dedicate themselves more then the average joe to being 'green' tend to hold the attitude that their choice is somehow 'better' then other peoples and I am not sure I agree with that. It's different, and I think it's better, but who am I, or anyone else, to judge these things? The most we can do is what we think is right and hope the rest of the world does the same.

I have no disdain, beyond envy, for those who are car free. At this point in my life I only have a work vehicle and no personal car so I am part way there...

H3N3 said:
I was in a crappy mood and having a bad day during my previous posts, sorry.

Overall, though, there are different messages that need to get out at different times to different audiences in the course of trying to create social change, and if you happen to party to a message that's meant for a different audience I think it would be healthier to acknowledge as much and move on.

I've been at this for 10 years and I can't even remember a small percentage of the times I've gotten the "the time is not right" or "that message turns people off" response to the message that we need to move away from the personal automobile as our dominant mode of travel.

Like anyone's going to get back in touch with me and let me know when the time is right . . .

I still don't get the desk job/elistism thing, sorry-- it sounds like you're expressing a bitter disdain of anyone who is left-leaning and has quit car ownership, but I still can't figure out exaxtly why.

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service