That is the stage, we have a view, we all have a view and we tend to have a point of interest. This ‘mess’ all started a few hours ago when I saw a three day old article on the BBC with ‘The public relations and ad firms refusing fossil fuel clients’ (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-62303026) in the first instance, it is fine to refuse work, it is not always clever, but I get it. We have all kinds of industries that we shun and it is fashionable to shun fossil fuel clients, but it seems a little hypocritical to do so. So when I see “Last year, she decided that Done! would become one of the now 350 advertising and PR firms who have joined a movement called Clean Creatives. Joining the movement means they pledge to refuse any future work for fossil fuel firms, or their trade associations.” I merely shrug it off. It is a little superficial and somewhat hypocrite to do so.
Until ALL employees of that firm travel with all means that use no fossil fuel, they still depend on it. Until they have an Elon Musk battery solution for the house heating, the equipment running, they rely on fossil fuels. So to shun fossil fuel firms is a little hypocrite as I personally see it.
The article also gives us “The United Nations (UN) recognises that the burning of fossil fuels – oil, natural gas and coal – “are by far the largest contributor to climate change”. It says that they account for “nearly 90% of all carbon dioxide emissions”.” That is nice, but the facts are ignored, the MEDIA is doing everything to spin it into another direction. I discussed this in ‘Uniform Nameless Entitlement Perforation’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/12/10/uniform-nameless-entitlement-perforation/) There we see a report by the EEA (European Environment Agency) where the cover gives us that 1% of the plant are responsible for 50% of the damage, so what do people like Matt McGrath (according to some a journalist) state? “Global ‘elite’ will need to slash high-carbon lifestyles” Yea right. Fossil fuels are here to stay. If you wonder why, wonder why the US sells 73% of its oil and then sends President Biden with its hand up to the UAE and Saudi Arabia asking for more cheap oil. The article sounds nice, and it is nice that someone takes a step in any direction, but with staff shortages as they are they can make all the presumption they want. I wonder where those ideals stay when it becomes a dog eat dog situation again.
So when we see “The fossil fuel industry uses advertising agencies and PR agencies to make it harder for governments to hold them accountable. And ads are misleading and make companies seem more committed to climate action than they really are.” No one is asking when will the media give us the larger game where the US sells 73% of its oil, in that they become the foundation of shortage, but we do not really get to see that story, do we?
The reality is that we all realise that we need to change gears, we need other solutions and it is there that we see the larger problem. The EU with 147 facilities that the media avoids. The larger station that there are options and Elon Musk has several of them and in 2 years no one made a clear step towards instigating changes that allow for a different approach to the need of fossil fuel. Not today, not yesterday, not last week. The foundation of options has been out and about for 2 years. Governments all over the world have shunned these solutions, as such the story of some PR firms shunning certain players reads like a joke. Governments are at the centre of inactions, but we do not get to see that part, do we? And all this BS of making the fossil fuel companies the bad player is partly a joke. Yes, they are not innocent, yet the world needs oil, that is clear as day and until the people leave their cars at home they can bloody well shut up.
So when we see the end of the article “A lot of agencies will come to the point where they have to make the decision if they want to be able to recruit the brightest,” says Ms Townsend. “The young ones don’t want to work with oil and gas [clients].” Yes, that sounds nice and it is good to have ethical boundaries, but lets be clear. The government, the media are all in favour or misrepresenting certain parts, why are they not illuminating that side? Or are we putting fossil fuels quietly with the weapons and gambling branches? Because that has worked so well in the last decade. For me? I am in a different field, but if I can make good money in a branch and it is not illegal, ethical choices when I see the media and governments play catch and release with the truth and facts too shallow for words.
In the end, I have nothing against Marian Ventura or her point of view, she is entitled to one and she is sticking to her guns (as it seems). But to read this in the BBC whilst Matt McGrath goes on his ‘Global ‘elite’ will need to slash high-carbon lifestyles’ Don Quijote tour whilst the EEA gave us 1% of the facilities create 50% of the damage and he has not once, NOT ONCE taken a full page investigating that side of things, is just a little too hypocritical to my liking.
But it could just be me, you judge, the December 10th article I mentioned earlier has that report.
Yes there is a place, there are many places and they all have a view, but I have some serious issues with the view I am seeing.