I have a question:

when the oceans begin to rise, and the North Atlantic Gyre begins to fail, and giant hurricanes begin to continually ravage the Gulf Coast every season, will we get to pay a visit to the folks at CEI?

When the Saudis have to announce that Ghawar has reached peak and is now declining, and there are mile-long lines for gasoline, and rolling blackouts and ...well, let your imagination be your guide, after all, the decline of fossil-fuel production is something humanity has never really faced before, at least, on this scale...when all this happens, will we be allowed to string up the friendly folks at CEI by their (crucial anatomical part or parts of your choice here) and watch them twist in the wind until ...? well, again, let your imagination be your guide.

Seems to me the guys at CEI should be a bit concerned about all this. I know I would be, if I were them.

But, mostly likely, as the truth becomes clear, CEI will quietly fade away, as will the stooges who run it. It has been ever thus...except occasionally. The fate of french aristocrats during the Terror in the 1790s comes to mind. The folks at CEI might want to read a little history before they start running their ads.

And all this is merely idle chatter. I mean no harm to anyone. But I'm not a gun-toting SUV-lover either. If I were, I'd be a little unhappy when I found out how I was lied to, don't you think?

Sure thing, Ford Explorer (Exploder to others) and other monster vehicles including the Freestar (fomerly Windstar , wet fart)etc. are indiscutable proof of Bill Ford's care for the environment and progress to saner methods of tranport. How come Toyota and Honda Have small cars with systems of which Ford still dreams? Environmentalist? Right on Billyboy!

What is fascinating about the CEI ads is how flat-out, breathtakingly dishonest they are. For example, the "Glaciers" ad cites a "scientific study" that purportedly shows that "The Antarctic ice sheet is getting thicker, not thinner." Somewhat sceptical, I emailed the co-lead author of the scientific study that appears on screen at that moment. He responded: "Our article does NOT in fact support this statement." (I give more details at Unspeak.net.)

Plainly the CEI doesn't care that its claims are easy to refute. It is enough simply to continue sowing seeds of doubt in the public's mind, to pretend that there is a "debate" or a "controversy" where there is none. It's exactly the same strategy, indeed, as that pursued by proponents of "Intelligent Design".

As a partner to Ford, what really irks us about this episode is that it represents a squandered opportunity to raise awareness about climate change. How fun would it be to watch Ford wrest the spotlight away from CEI by publicly calling out the absurdities and outright lies in their ads? We blog about this more fully here:

http://www.terrapass.com/terrablog/posts/000266.html

Steven, I agree that it's fascinating how blatant and unsophisticated the lies in the ads are, but I have to wonder how they'll be perceived by a less environmentally aware audience. The parts of the blogosphere that I hang out in are in violent agreement that, if anything, the ads are so hilariously bad that they do a service to environmentalism. But my inbox at TerraPass is no stranger to trolls who make just these sort of "We call it life" arguments. Makes me wonder.

We all get into the habit of it very easily. It's easy to say that things in this world are crap and then get stuck in paralysing anxiety. The act of fighting against dumb views is never bad. Completely the opposite, we need more whistle blowers in this universe to shake complacency up. It's just that if we're blowing our whistles simply in anticipation that someday the morons will wake up, then we're sorrily misguided. Morons will always be morons. As always, save yourself and follow the lead. Waiting for civilization's end is not a solution. Making our own individual start is. Show morons how moronic they are by example. Shaking a fist at Ford while driving your own car to a convenient store a block away is just lame.

Mr. Leonard, I've a question about a little detail you mentioned in the post. I'm all about curbing harmful emissions and such, but I'm wondering if expecting the government to be the leader, or even the mechanism, for this action is realistic.

Take for instance Jared Diamond's most recent book Collapse. He concludes what is, by and large, a pretty dismal picture of the state of affairs concerning pollution by saying that he's "cautiously optimistic" that things can change.

The motor for change: the consumer. You see, a company whose product takes a dive because consumers are cautious about the effects of their purchase will change much faster than a government for which every decision seems a catch-22.

I'm wondering how you feel about that, and I want to, in the same vein, ask you (or anyone reading) if there are organizations founded on the idea of informing customers of companies who violate social and environmental regulations. That's to say, not just an organization that monitors sweatshops or water polution or freedom of the press in developing countries where certain companies based, but all of those at once.

It's been a while since I've been able to read HTWW, so forgive me if this has already been addressed, but I'm really curious if such an organization exists.

Have a good one.

Robert,

My own belief is that it will take a combination of government regulation and consumer choice to address the environmental crisis. One of the basic problems is that it is hard for consumers to make good choices without good information. Shouldn't that be one of government's key roles: requiring companies to provide detailed information as to the social and environmental impact of their operations?

It's also not clear how much consumer choice makes a difference. Will all the publicity in the world about the wages earned by workers making the goods sold in Wal-Mart dissuade people from buying those goods? I'm not optimistic. But if the pricing of those goods incorporated the "externalities" that contribute to them, (environmental impact, human rights violations, etc) -- somethign that can only happen with government intervention, then maybe a difference can be made.

There are lots of watchdogs out there -- Ceres rates corporations on their climate change responsiblity, etc. But there is no centralized database that links everything together. Who could best create that database?

Government.