So, I wasted all this money on improving insulation in my home, on energy efficient appliances, and on new energy star windows and doors.  You should have told me this earlier, I could have saved a lot of money.  I'll go home and turn the water heater and thermostat way up.  Thanks! ;)

Sarcasm aside, how do you solve this issue without changes in personal behavior?  Is your point that personal action doesn't work, government regulation of individuals' decisions and behavior does?  Or is it that actions that address demand are not as effective as actions that address supply?

If Chevron's ad campaign gets thousands of people to think about this issue in terms of their personal actions, and they change those actions.  What's your beef with that?  Shouldn't you be happy that they are spending money on a consumer awareness campaign?  This is essentially what the Climate Change Commission wants the SCC to spend $10 million on.  

"Personal action ALONE isn't going to solve the climate crisis."

This was obvious from the context, of course, unless you're just trying to be argumentative for the sake of it.      

That was not clear and if that was the meaning then why not write it that way.  I am asking these question to elicit clear responses and clear positions.  Since you responded on the poster's behalf for my subject line, why not respond to all the questions contained in my comment?

The sense I got from this post was: pick, pick, pick, pick, pick.  Honestly, I think this is a diversion.  Who cares what Chevron does?  How does this relate to your goal?  Just like the big brew-ha-ha about Exxon's ad at the National's Stadium.  With a finite amount of resources, I think this is a waste of them.  And then you wonder why folks like Chevron, Exxon, and Dominion run circles around you.

It seems the only thing that would make some of you happy is if Chevron and its competitors went out of business.  You have in my estimation an unreasonable expectation of an integrated oil company.  If you had a company and you had a 12%+ return on total assets that netted you $18 billion of net income, and you expected another $97 billion based on discounted cash flows of you current reserves; you're telling me you would drop everything and invest all of your net income in something else?  Something that potentially your staff of 65,000 employees, who focus on running an integrated oil company, is unfamiliar with?  

You can look at BP's financial reports.  Here are some key statistics:  In 2007 their E&P segment, they had a before tax profit margin of 49%.  In their Gas, Power, & Renewables segment, they had a before tax profit margin of 3.2%.  So, if you were running this company, where would you be spending most of your resources?  49% v. 3.2%, tough decision, right? ;)

"you wonder why folks like Chevron, Exxon, and Dominion run circles around you."

No, I don't wonder at all.  The answer is very simple.

They've got it. We don't. End of story.

As I recall Obama raised a boat load of money for his campaign.  An unprecedented amount at that.  So, it isn't as if there aren't resources out there to be tapped.  You all laud this massive power of the netroots.  What about that?  That's nothing now?

I still think if you continue to waste the time, resources, and money you do have hemming and hawing over an ad campaign, that is going to get you nowhere fast.

You keep using the word "you" as if the entire progressive movement, the environmental movement, the netroots, etc., etc. were one and the same.  Well, sorry, but they're not.  The fact is (yes, "fact"), the environmental movement has a miniscule fraction of the money that Big Oil, Big Coal, etc. have.  Check the # of Dominion lobbyists in Richmond compared to the # of CCAN lobbyists.  Case closed.

You are telling me that these environmental groups cannot tap into the same base that got Obama elected.  Is that it?  The base that got all of these Democrats elected.  You can't tap revenue from these folks who share your interests?  What's wrong with your message if you can't?  If small dollar donations powered Obama's campaign, why can't you round up several million in VA alone for this cause?  You can't tap some of this massive organization that Obama pulled together?  

In Virgina alone, Obama raised $11 million.  That is 11 times what Dominion PAC spent in the 2007-08 period.  This boo-hooing about not having the resources seems bogus to me.  Aren't we planning to use this same big base of people to change Richmond in '09?

And to your question, I'm referring to you specifically and other posters on here who comment on the might of the netroots.  I understand that these descriptors are meant to attribute some difference between groups.  But is there really?

And just one more thing, you aren't going up against the full might of Big Oil.  So, if you are considering their cash balances or their net income, that is bad measure.  You aren't facing the 30k domestic employees of Chevron or their $18 billion in net income.  If the $6 mill figure is right, that is just 0.03% of their net income, a tiny figure.  The vast majority of their money is going into their business.

And if it the environmental movement has a minuscule fraction of the money that Big Oil, Coal, etc... have and can't hope to overcome that, then why bother?  If they have all of these resources to steamroller over you with, why bother fighting them?  Is this a Camus existential task?

"We can't solve global warming because I changed light bulbs in my house. It's because of something collective."

I must say you are really developing as a politician.  Mastering the not really answering questions piece is a critical success factor.  That's smart!  And I mean that.

My advice: It's best not to engage in a debate here.  Lest it unravel some of your arguments or expose some of your less popular proposals.  Best to let surrogates do that.

Even your diaries are becoming less controversial.  Less fire and brimstone is always good.  Pablum for the masses to lull them into a false sense of security is a nice touch.  Then you can get whisked into office, where BAM! mandatory carpooling for all!  Bwahahahaha!  ;)

The first three images aren't really an accurate representation of the truth. As much as you can dislike a company, its best to make your point while using real facts.

The first one even cites opensecrets at the bottom.  It seems kosher to me, and perfectly accurate.

Please tell me what about the facts are not "real."

Like most supporters of the environment, I've been quite upset at the amount of greenwashing ads that are being run by companies whose core businesses make massive contributions to the destruction.  No matter what you call it, hypocrisy, exaggeration of the truth, or flat out lies, it's a disgusting manipulative practice designed to deceive the public while these companies take minimal action to address their own destructive actions.

That said, I've recently been thinking that greenwashing isn't all bad.  While the primary message in all this greenwashing is a bunch of BS, the secondary message really is helping our cause.  Every one of these messages reinforces the idea that "Green is Good", even if the company that is producing the message is not really green.  And the more the public hears a positive message about being green the more they'll believe it and they'll begin to accept it.

The importance of this acceptance can not be understated - it's taken a long time to move the public mindset regarding environmentalism.  What was once a fringe movement has grown to mainstream public acceptance and belief that green is good, that green is the right.  And every one of these greenwashing ads pounds home that message.  When company X says something like "we're looking out for the environment because it's the right thing to do", company X may be lying about how much they care, but they've also reinforced the notation that being green is good.  

Environmental groups don't have the kind of money required buy that much advertising, so these companies are doing us a great favor.  At least in one sense.

n/t

I know it seems like getting free press when big companies use the green message -- but it's JUST advertising!  No green group is going to waste their money advertising voluntary personal action at this point--we're too close to getting real, national legislation that will actually have an impact on the climate.  You shouldn't have to choose--there should be only CFLs in the store, only hybrids in the car lot.  We're not going to get anywhere if we keep wasting our time on voluntary personal action.

This advertising is only an attempt to legitimize voluntary personal action--to get mass America accepting of the idea that they can "choose" to be green.  

Except ditch the CFL's, let's skip right to LED's! :)

to see more Americans accepting personal responsibility as this message encourages, but I do believe you're right that it simply won't happen.  Those who would accept and act on it by themselves probably already have done so.

But sticking to what I said above, I think the greenwashing is doing something good in that it is changing the public mindset about environmentalism.  Ignore the specific messages like this total BS from Chevron and focus on the overall trend.  Every message is saying that Green is Good, that we need to save the environment, that those who do are the good guys and those who don't are the bad guys.  

If it is said enough times from many sources the public will begin to accept it as truth.  That is an important, even critical, component to moving in the right direction.  We've got the right President (perhaps the best except for Gore had he chosen to run) and we're putting the right people in place (i.e. Waxman), but right now all these positive environmental events could be easily undone by something like a tough recession.  Which is why we desperately need the public to completely accept that Green is Good.  When things get rocky for our new environmental minded leaders they'll stand a much better chance of sticking to their guns if the public is fully behind environmentalism.  

Which is ultimately why this greenwashing is good from one perspective.  The individual messages are manipulative BS, but the overall theme that played repeatedly is one of the components to real progress - Green is Good.

That was the answer I was looking for.  Just say what you mean.  You don't trust Americans to make decisions for themselves.  You want the government to make those choices for them.  I knew some of those public education initiatives in the Climate Change Commission's recommendations were a waste.  =)

Why stop at CFLs and hybrids though?  How many government mandates should there be?

Instead of mandates, why not just change the incentive structure for people's economic decisions?  That's what cap&trade is all about.  If you make electricity more expensive, then people will make decisions to reduce that cost.

tx2vadem, even when they have an high annoyance factor, mainly because you puncture some of the glittering generalities and smug, sometimes pompous pronouncements of dedicated do-gooders.  Not that I do not agree with the motivations of those you tease, but you can force us to concentrate our minds, and that's good.

If those who believe (as I do) that climate change and oil depletion require fundamental changes in our life styles in order to preserve not just the comforts of civilization, but our planet, then how do we get from here to there? What very pragmatic steps do we need to take, and what (and who) stand in the way? Of course, those who have benefitted from the status quo see no need for change. Your recommendation to provide incentives to modify behavior is good, but that requires political leadership, and to create the climate for that is one of the tasks of the progressive/liberal blogs you love to hate. Different strokes for different folks, you never know, when you push different buttons, who will respond to which ones, and it is possible to disagree on those buttons... this diary is one of those buttons, and you see how that's turned out.

And that is my point.  I want everyone's arguments to get better.  And also for people to consider the range of options and consequences that those choices will have.  That, in my mind, is what good policy making is all about.  Plus, it gives everyone here an opportunity to refine their arguments against someone who is not hostile to their position.  And obviously, sometimes I want to try and have fun while accomplishing that.  I mean would you really want to live in an echo chamber of Dittoheads?

And I don't love to hate progressive blogs.  Obviously not, I voted for Obama.  Did you see my comments on bailing out the auto industry?