This is perfect
WATCH: North Face refused to make jackets for an oil and gas company.
So the fossil fuel industry is fighting back with a new campaign “thanking” North Face for using so much petroleum in their products.
Watch the 1 minute explainer ?? #ThankYouNorthFace https://t.co/cGcz9lUj3q
— Andrew Clark (@AndrewHClark) June 4, 2021
And
Oil and gas industry trolls North Face with new billboard campaign
The oil and gas industry launched a new ad campaign Thursday against North Face to shine a light on the outdoor apparel company’s “crazy hypocrisy.”
Chris Wright, the CEO of Denver-based Liberty Oilfield Services, is spearheading the campaign by putting up billboards around North Face’s Denver offices and launching a website and social media campaign, dubbed “Thank you, North Face.”
The idea for the campaign started after North Face denied an order of jackets to a Texas oil and gas company reportedly because the popular fleece maker did not want its outdoor brand affiliated with the fossil fuel business.
Now Wright is trolling the company in Denver by calling out how many North Face jackets, backpacks and clothing products are made from oil and gas.
There’s “no chance that North Face could exist as a company or an organization without oil and gas,” Wright told Fox Business Thursday.
Fossil fuels are needed to make the petrochemicals that are used in the plastics, nylon, climbing ropes and more that North Face sells, Wright says. Oil and gas products fuel the factories that manufacture the goods. And fossil fuels are the backbone for shipping North Face products around the world.
Exactly. The jackets and shoes and backpacks and luggage and ropes. Delivering the products to the stores and customer direct using fossil fueled vehicles. It’s really easy to ClimaVirtue Signal, but, let’s see them forgo all use of fossil fuels.
This goes to my entire opposition to AGW. Not that I am opposed to many of the things the AGW crowd wants to do, but it is this incessant demand that they reduce oil and gas and coal to a zero sum game.
When in reality as this ad indicates 60 percent of products around the globe are made from oil and gas and ending oil and gas will end the world. Windmills do not produce a product that can then be used to physically produce something else.
Vaseline for example is not called petroleum jelly for no reason. Is there an alternative. Probably but at what cost and more importantly my people tell me that the alternative is also made with from and by oil.
If we want a starving world with nothing to consume leading to world wide anarchy then by all means follow the 2018 IPPC report that even its own AUTHORS later wrote that they never said we only had 12 years or that in 12 years it was too late.
That is all a lie and even the authors of the report have publicly said that everything they wrote in this massive report has been taken out of context and turned into a massive political lie.
AGW I am on board with your desire to save the planet, I just am not on board with how you want to do it. Therein lies my argument and once again this ad shows why ending fossil fuels would devastate the world overnight.
Est1950: This goes to my entire opposition to AGW. Not that I am opposed to many of the things the AGW crowd wants to do, but it is this incessant demand that they reduce oil and gas and coal to a zero sum game.
The “AGW crowd” is highly diverse, and your objection only applies to small subset of the “crowd.” Some people have little conception of what is possible and what is plausible, given the current state of technology.
In any case, anthropogenic global warming represents a significant challenge to humans. Maintaining economic growth to fuel the technological innovation required to revamp the energy infrastructure is essential to meeting the challenge. The good news is that energy infrastructure has to be replaced every few decades anyway, so that would mitigate the costs of conversion.
You started off OK, and then jumped to “anthropogenic global warming represents a significant challenge to humans.”.
No, dear child, that is a confluence of assumptions.
1. That GW is AGW. Sorry, assumed, but not proved.
2. That given (A), then (B): “…represents a significant challenge to humans.” Does it? I’ve seen arguments that way, but you are still assuming (A).
And, of course, you second paragraph is just as fanciful. “The good news is that energy infrastructure has to be replaced every few decades anyway, so that would mitigate the costs of conversion.”
Please demonstrate how “replacing like with like” is equivalent to “create new technology to replace existing”. Good luck with that.
alanstorm: 1. That GW is AGW. Sorry, assumed, but not proved.
The scientific evidence strongly supports anthropogenic warming; from the fundamental physics of the greenhouse effect to measurements of Earth’s energy budget to direct observations of the radiative effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide to studies of Earth’s climate history.
Start with the greenhouse effect. If you calculate the Earth’s blackbody temperature, you will note the Earth’s surface temperature is about 33°C warmer than expected without the greenhouse effect, but consistent with a greenhouse effect due to CO2 and water vapor. This has been known for more than century. See Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, London, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 1896.
alanstorm: 2. That given (A), then (B): “…represents a significant challenge to humans.†Does it? I’ve seen arguments that way, but you are still assuming (A).
Continued anthropogenic warming will cause permanent damage to Earth’s ecosystems and disrupt humanity’s settled civilization. Look at the level of social tension in the U.S. over relatively small levels of immigration.
alanstorm: Please demonstrate how “replacing like with like†is equivalent to “create new technology to replace existingâ€.
Didn’t say it was. Ripping out existing infrastructure and replacing it with new is inevitably more expensive than replacing existing infrastructure as it reaches the end of its lifespan with newer, greener technology. The cost of green is not the cost of the entire infrastructure, but the difference in cost of replacement.
Perhaps instead of constantly having to create more plastic from fossil fuels we might instead learn how to recycle most of it ?
Too radical?
A fine idea.
Let’s see a plan that doesn’t result in my arrest if I toss out an aluminum can instead of putting it in the recycling bin, and that doesn’t dump “recyclables” into a landfill.
I’m all for recycling. I may not buy any given item based on its “recyclable” content, but I will give them credit for acting on their beliefs without resorting to coercion.
I’m opposed to the threat of government violence in its name.
alanstorm: Let’s see a plan that doesn’t result in my arrest if I toss out an aluminum can instead of putting it in the recycling bin, and that doesn’t dump “recyclables†into a landfill.
Are you suggesting government has no power to regulate the dumping of wastes?