<x-charset ISO-8859-1>Ford, like any business, exists because there is a MARKET for their product. Attacking the businessman for simply practicing capitalism is a huge waste of time and resources, and will accomplish little.
A better approach would focus on reducing demand for oversized gas guzzlers. This opens the conversation to many more solutions and options, but requires that individuals be held fully accountable for their decisions, and forced to bear the true cost of them. Sadly, I have sat in California State hearings and meetings and witnessed groups like Blue Water Network, Sierra Club, NRDC and others climb on-board with the very corporate interests they claim to be attacking. What an interesting marketing angle they have taken! When the rubber meets the road, it is easier to raise funds to keep an organization going if said organization is not actually doing the corporate interest any real harm. In fact, if the so- called environmentalist organization will assist in the greenwashing, the corporate entity will help out with funding. Hard to resist for the average college graduate trying to make a living. I would like to see League of Conservation Voters, or CodePINK, or Ben & Jerry's thing "True Majority", or the long distance marketing thing, "Working Assets" (This one is including jet air travel incentives now) or any of those mentioned before, plus many I have missed - I would like to see them actually work toward changing CONSUMERS preferences, and educating CONSUMERS with the truth, instead of playing the typical addicts game of "Blame & Shame". Heh, not the most popular guy on the block, Tim --- In biofuel@yahoogroups.com, Jason Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Murdoch, et. al.: > > You write that: Šh therefore came to see it as naive to put much stock in > Bill Ford's > "environmentalist" credentials.‰‹> > > As someone who is spearheading a grassroots campaign against Ford, I totally > agree. I donŤ” know that I trust Bill Ford farther than I can throw him. > That said, he should be held to his Š…nvironmental‰ž pronouncements, even if > (or especially if!) they are just greenwashing. > > ItŤ“ a matter of rhetoric versus reality. We all know the reality: FordŤ“ > vehicles are gruesome gas-guzzlers, and according to the EPA Ford cars and > trucks get the worst fuel economy of the seven major auto makers. At the > same time, Ford likes to say he is an environmentalist and wants to create > an Š…nvironmental car company,‰žwhatever that means. > > I think that as advocates, itŤ“ our job to hold Ford to its PR copy. If they > want to say theyŤ’e an environmental enterprise, fine: But they have to > actually prove it through their actions. They have to walk the walk instead > of just talking the talk. ... This, I think, is the first step toward > corporate accountability. > > ... For more info about ongoing campaigns against Ford, check out > http://www.jumpstartford.com. > > All best > > Jason Mark > Clean Car Campaigner > Global Exchange > > on 2/11/04 8:28 AM, murdoch at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > http://www.detnews.com/2004/autosinsider/0402/06/c01-57178.htm > > > >> >California-based Blue Water Network spearheaded this ad campaign in > >> >response to Ford's pledge in 2000 to improve SUV fuel economy. > > > > [...] > > > >> >Ford pledged in July 2000 that the company would improve the fuel > >> >economy of its SUVs by 25 percent over five years. General Motors > >> >Corp. and DaimlerChrysler AG made similar pledges soon afterward. > > > > [...] > > > >> > > >> >The fuel economy of Ford's light truck lineup was 20.3 mpg for the > >> >2002 model year, the last year for which the government has published > >> >complete data. Under federal regulations, an automaker's fleet of > >> >light trucks must average 20.7 mpg in the 2004 model year. That > >> >requirement will rise to 22.2 mpg by 2007. Cars must average 27.5 mpg. > >> > > >> >You can reach Jeff Plungis at (202) 906-8204 or [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > At the time of the 2000 pledges, I tried doing some of the math. I think the > > 25 > > percent improvement that Ford pledged was the bare minimum or close to it, and > > that this came out within a tenth of a gallon. I recall doing the math, and I > > was surprised to find that the pledge that Ford was making was not some huge > > ambitious thing to be proud of so much as the bare legal requirement. I'm not > > sure if anyone has ever officially seconded these calculations or publicly > > taken > > notice of the matter. Ford's pledge was *nothing* so far as I could see. > > They > > were doing basically what all of us do every year about this time, which is > > drag > > our time, kicking and screaming, to comply with the law and take our legally > > required actions. > > > > I therefore came to see it as naive to put much stock in Bill Ford's > > "environmentalist" credentials. This is not to say that he hasn't convinced > > himself that he means well. I just mean that I did not and do not foresee > > making mileage or environmental precaution, a priority any time soon. He's > > made > > it pretty clear, explicitly, that there are other priorities for the company. > > > > Sure, Environmental PR seems to be a big priority, but the underlying > > environmental effort seems to be a priority only insofar as it's easier to do > > PR > > if there's a grain of truth left in it. > > > > Ford's modest mileage efforts (alongside their failure to oppose the > > market-skewing anti-competitive tax breaks for the purchase of giant gas > > guzzlers) does not address the issue of fuel-types. The only fuels that can > > power new Ford Vehicles are fossil fuels. The only exception is that E-85 can > > power a Ford Flex-Fuel Vehicle and B100 could power a Ford Diesel (though I > > don't know if Ford has lifted a finger to maker an effort to help keep such > > vehicles under warranty if B100 is used). > > > > Also, Ford conspicuously cancelled the Think City EV program despite evidence > > of > > demand (including the fact that when I went for a Test Drive, to do an > > article, > > there were none on the lot because the dealer had leased every one out). Such > > vehicles as the Think City get excellent mileage per "gallon equivalent" and > > if > > they were sold by the Automakers, and included in mileage calculations, I > > think > > they could provide some excellent help in making their CAFE- required mileage > > numbers. > > > > But, apparently, the Automakers are so completely against making available a > > non-fossil-fuel-powered vehicle that they will not make the effort to fight to > > have such vehicles included in the CAFE mileage calculations (I don't know if > > they are basically because such vehicles have never been made widely > > available) > > and then take advantage of the good mileage to help meet these supposedly > > problematic CAFE requirements. > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > * To visit your group on the web, go to: > > * http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evworld/ > > * > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service > > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> . > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> 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/ </x-charset>
