Greenpeace vs SUVs

[MrKipling]

I got a reply...

A fair, but slightly evasive one.

Hi Pete,

I'm sure our rude blogger will respond to you in more detail and hopefully politely! First of all this short film was made by the advertising industry. The people who devised it normally make car ads etc. It was their response to what they see as the dreadful selling of 4X4s like Range Rover Sports driving across the Arctic (which is melting due to global warming partly caused or certainly hastened by inefficient use of fossil fuels) and other threatened wilderness areas quite a long way from Chelsea!

It is just a spoof and was not meant to incite people. But I think the serious nature of it was to make people think before they buy. And that if driving a big fuel inefficient car did in the past enhance your sex appeal etc that now times were changing and maybe you would be seen as anti social or irresponsible. But I accept that many of the things you are saying are also true and they are also things we campaign on like airport expansion etc.

Regards

John

[Coventrysucks]

It is just a spoof and was not meant to incite people.

Calling people a "wanker" is not meant to incite people?

They live in their own little world, they really do.

[henk4]

They live in their own little world, they really do.

If that were the case why would they take the trouble to answer to the email in the first place?

[Coventrysucks]

They didn't "answer" the email.

They replied to it, but haven't really addressed any of Rudyard's points, aside from dismissing the idea that people would find it offensive because it is a "spoof".

In theory, I am quite a "greenie" and I care quite a lot about the environment.

I wonder how amused they'd be if I created a "spoof" of Greenpeace members calling them "****ing moronic seal ****ers"?

When these organisations pull these silly stunts with offensive, supposedly "funny" campaigns with arguments based on the sum total of nothing they completely loose my support.

This one incident has put me right off Greenpeace.

PETA is similar - in principal I support some of their causes, in practice I feel the need to condemn the organisation as one of the most depraved enterprises I have ever encountered.

[henk4]

They didn't "answer" the email.

well, yes, but the guy starts of by saying that a more extensive reply will follow. In general I find comments like: "When one looks at this you should also look at that" a sort of an excuse to look at nothing and not very productive.

[henk4]

This one incident has put me right off Greenpeace.

Wow, that shows some imbalance....

[Coventrysucks]

Wow, that shows some imbalance....

I used to think that their organisation was fairly sensible and offered mature, reasonable arguments in pursuit of a better environment, now I find they are not above endorsing this, quite frankly, pathetic and completely immature dribble.

It has definately reduced the level of respect that I had for them, and rather annoyed me for some reason, mostly becaues I thought they were "better" than that, and I have been proven wrong. I feel slightly let down and decieved.

And all for no reason:

What does that style of campaigning achieve?

Is it ever going to change the mind of an SUV owner?

No, it is going to piss them off, and make them think Greenpeace are idiots.

All it does is give the anti-SUV lobby something to smirk about, "oh har har, aren't we clever, we made a video that implies SUV owners are friendless morons."

A campaign that educated people to the disadvantages of SUV's, with actual facts, not "stuff we made up", would be infinately more effective

[henk4]

A campaign that educated people to the disadvantages of SUV's, with actual facts, not "stuff we made up", would be infinately more effective

well, the oil price has already done wonders here...

last weekend's visit to the Porsche Club at the Silverstone Classic showed two Cayennes in a grid of about 50 real Porsches. I hope the owners of the Cayenne felt embarassed because it looked so ridiculous, but I have my doubts....

[henk4]

Is it ever going to change the mind of an SUV owner?

you mean he has one?

[Coventrysucks]

well, the oil price has already done wonders here...

Just reinforcing the point that their campagin will be totally ineffectual in comparison to a good pursuader like money

last weekend's visit to the Porsche Club at the Silverstone Classic showed two Cayennes in a grid of about 50 real Porsches. I hope the owners of the Cayenne felt embarassed because it looked so ridiculous, but I have my doubts....

What better to tow your 365 about with?

[henk4]

Just reinforcing the point that their campagin will be totally ineffectual in comparison to a good pursuader like money



What better to tow your 365 about with?

365 is a Ferrari, I presume you mean 356..... which all came by road...

[Coventrysucks]

365 is a Ferrari, I presume you mean 356..... which all came by road...

Err... the 365 was the "whirlpool spa" bathtub version, or something like that.

[crisis]

I think I already admitted defeat....to be honest I was surprised to see Autoweek mentioning a V6, but having not closely followed up engine developments in the truck department, I felt I had no reason to doubt it....

I couldn’t understand the Autoweek article. We are not all as clever as to be bilingual. I was also too thick to get the gist of your comments.

[crisis]

I used to think that their organisation was fairly sensible and offered mature, reasonable arguments in pursuit of a better environment, now I find they are not above endorsing this, quite frankly, pathetic and completely immature dribble.

It has definately reduced the level of respect that I had for them, and rather annoyed me for some reason, mostly becaues I thought they were "better" than that, and I have been proven wrong. I feel slightly let down and decieved.

They are no more or less unreasonable and agenda driven than their direct opponents. It is a classic case of extremes and although I find some of their methods superficially immature or annoying you sometimes have to fight fire with fire.

And all for no reason:

What does that style of campaigning achieve?

Is it ever going to change the mind of an SUV owner?

No, it is going to piss them off, and make them think Greenpeace are idiots.

Greenpeace don’t care what their opponents think of them. They are more interested in driving overall public opinion. They are not as dumb as you think. They know that it will be unlikely that die hard SUV drivers will change their mind. They may hope to embarrass some but mainly drive public opinion to change things much higher up.

All it does is give the anti-SUV lobby something to smirk about, "oh har har, aren't we clever, we made a video that implies SUV owners are friendless morons."

A campaign that educated people to the disadvantages of SUV's, with actual facts, not "stuff we made up", would be infinately more effective

Logical rationale is sometimes too dry and often will not capture ones imagination. Would we be discussing such a campaign at such length now?

[henk4]

I couldn’t understand the Autoweek article. We are not all as clever as to be bilingual. I was also too thick to get the gist of your comments.

Quadrilingual
Just phoned with Toyota Nederland. The Landcruiser 100 has an inline-six...for ages already.