Arctic Environmental / Sponsorship Discussion

[Willman]

Can't take credit for a good line, kc - last night DesertDouglas and Jonathan and I were having martinis and scotch at our favorite watering hole, discussing this thread . . . and DesertDouglas came out with that line but was too shy to post it. I told him that I had no such compunction, being prone to all sorts of inappropriate and silly comments :jump:

That said, I was also trying to bring levity to this thread which is getting heated.

Freetomeander, I think your original post had some good food for thought, and though you had intended to be a devil's advocate, I think, it came across as a bit too sharp and potentially more like an attack than an invitation to serious discourse. I can't speak to Scott's feelings, but his reaction clearly was one of defensiveness, and I understand why, given the tone, however unintentional. It's very difficult to write clearly about hard subjects!

There are lots and lots of spots on this forum where people are really, really good at discussing sensitive topics without attacking each other - it's unfortunate this one got out of hand.

We all dearly love Expedition Portal and want to see thoughtful, polite discussions rathern than personal problems and the kind of mean-spirited stuff so common on forums such as IH8MUD (which I just went to to look for information on FJ60 diesel conversions and was so turned off by the impolite and downright rude behavior there!).

Perhaps at some point we can all debate the corporate sponsorship - conservation angle in another forum area, with thoughtfulness and in a non-personal way. It's certainly worth discussing!

Well put!

This picture is something i got from a friend....This is just a joke to calm the waters!!! I have mentally challeged friends....This picture goes to show we can argue all we want...it's still not going to get us anywhere!

Let's ALL get along and ..."Guys, take the policy/political outta here..."

This is my 2 cents!

:elkgrin:

 

[VikingVince]

:bowdown:

"Gas, grass or ass. Nobody rides for free."

Hey, I know some of you have heard a song with that very phrase in it:rockon: :rockon: (I guess the hook wasn't strong enough!)

Welcome back to Scott, Chris, and Pasquale. Congrats on a "cool" trip and glad you're back safely.

Freetomeander...lot of us here have travelled with Team Arctic and know they are good men of conscience and character! (I don't think you were implying otherwise). Personally, I didn't find your post inflammatory; challenging yes, but if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen....or don't be a chef:chef: Actually,I thought it was thought-provoking. And because of it I read thoughts by Ursidae and DesertRose which expanded my thinking...something to the effect 'there is no green money without dirty footprints.' etc, etc That's good food for thought.

And you're right about eventually encountering anti-American or anti-corporate challenges in foreign lands and be ready to deal with them. I've encountered it more than once. Just last year when I was in Baja(of all places!), this Canadian guy (surprised me) "let me have it" about Americans and the American government being responsible for the drug trade from Mexico!!! He was really hostile and very anti-American. (Canadian folk - I know he was more the exception than the rule...right?) Soooo...One better be prepared to be diplomatic (not ego defensive or seemingly arrogant) if you're going to drive though Nigeria with large ExxonMobil stickers...I'd think twice about it.

 

[Scott Brady]

Freetomeander,

Ok, let's talk in more detail then.

I am pretty old fashioned when it comes to these types of discussions and find posts from completely anonymous individuals that directly attack another person to be highly dubious and typically with only the intention of being inflammatory. I sign my name to every post and would only type something in a forum that I would say to someones face around a campfire. So my response to your post is not at all typical of how I deal with debate or challenge, but it is how I will always respond to anonymous accusers with glaringly obvious intentions.

Your comments below are leading, accusational and insulting, there is no other way to interpret them. In addition, you made those accusations without making any attempt to find out the details of my involvement with Mobil 1, which is only related to synthetic fluid promotion and testing. I am also going to assume that you drive a fossil fuel burning vehicle (being that you are a member of a vehicle-dependent expedition forum), so your comments are even more dubious and naive. The concept of throwing rocks in a glass house certainly comes to mind.

I am not adverse to the challenges you make or to dealing with the issues you pose, I suppose I am just used to a more respectful and thoughtful dialog.

Congrats on your trip. I have a couple questions.
So you took Mobil as your title sponsor. What does that mean? They gave you more money than anybody else?

A leading question here. My arrangements with my sponsors are private business dealings.

Just read your own words above and tell me with any honesty that they were not intended to be leading and inflammatory. I am a student of psychology and your intentions with those questions are beyond defense.

How do you justify traveling to the Arctic under ExxonMobil sponsorship?

How can this be interpreted in anyway other than inflammatory? You are asking me to justify my trip in a vehicle that burns fossil fuels, sponsored in part by a company that manufacturers them and documented on a forum that encourages vehicle-dependent travel. My business is not to ride a unicycle around the world, so the justification should be painfully apparent.

ExxonMobil strongly advocates and actively lobbies for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Nearly all fuel comes from non-renewable sources. Where do you think the gas you put in your car comes from? An oil rig in the ocean, a pump in the desert or jungles or a pipe across the Arctic.

And you're a environment conscious Tread Lightly Trainer? How do you put those two on the same page?

It is simple. I make my living driving and racing vehicles and testing vehicle related equipment; However, I do so in as environmentally responsible manner as possible. I educate others on Tread Lightly to help prevent trail damage, erosion, the spreading of noxious weeds, etc. I support conservation organizations with my time and finances and have even helped to start one (more details in a month or so). I also work from home, in a house with a small footprint. My truck sits in the garage unless I am on a trip so I drive very few miles in a year. I also selected a vehicle with better than average fuel economy and with a very clean burning motor from an automotive company with a very good environmental record.

Even this forum strongly advocates environmental responsibility, awareness and conservation with entire sections allocated to those subjects.

I try to do my part to minimize impact and practice conservation.

So, I have a few questions for you:

Do you own and drive a fossil fuel burning vehicle?
Would you agree that synthetic fluids are more environmentally sustainable and with less waste than traditional fluids?

 

[Willman]

:lurk:

 

[bigreen505]

[Moved from other thread]

Unfortunately some people's enviro sense rarely go past page three of Google. I come from a public relations background and I can think of several reasons why ExxonMobile is a great title sponsor for the trip. Beyond the obvious of supporting conservation expeditions, which it does a lot of, the trip provides an excellent testing opportunity to see how its SYNTHETIC fluids hold up in the real world conditions for which they were developed, and modify and refine them so we get higher quality products. The best sponsorships are win-win deals. Delving further into the politics (and hoping I don't upset anyone), the goal of any company is to make money. Companies like ExxonMobile are looking into longer-term and less dino-derrived fuel and oil sources because the international demand is out-pacing exploration.

 

[Lost Canadian]

I have to side with Scott's discourse analysis of Freetomeander's post. I'm not saying the questions Freetomeander raised were not valid questions to ask, but the context he/she used, and the manner and timing in which they were asked were clearly meant to be somewhat antagonistic.

I agree with Vince as well in that the questions raised are thought-provoking. It raises the question of what lines are being or should be crossed. Is doing buisness with those who seemingly care little for the moral ramifications of their actions a sort of "shaking of hands with the devil?"

Then again what if the intended outcome of the business deal is to ultimately reduce the footprint of man through improved science and to bring awarness to the beauty of both land and human cultural diversity? Is doing such buisiness immoral or even questionable then?

Sure Exxon's buisness practices and their politcal influence have lead to a questionable reputation for them, but I don't think that efforts to work with them to improve on our current oil and environmental situations should be shut down completely. In fact if Exxon wishes to bring an individual who is clearly dedicated to conservation and reducing mans footprint into the fold then it should be applauded no?

None of us are innocent when it comes our impact on the earth, we all drive cars, it is us who drive the demand for oil, and certainly if we didn't drive that demand then Exxon wouldn't be in buisiness and wouldn't need to seek out new supply. I think it's highly pretentious for anyone who drives the demand for oil to turn and scorn oil companies who are seeking to meet that demand. We're all guilty. If Scott so chooses to help those companies improve on products which will ultimatly reduce waste and need then that should seen as a positive step towards conservation.

I think the only person who needs to ask any questions of Scott is Scott. It's not fair or appropriate for anyone else to question Scotts purpose or intentions of securing sponsorship from Exxon because Scott has never openly expressed his intentions or hopes from the deal.

It's as it is in conflict, you can't hope to resolve a problem unless work with those who you are seen to be in conflict with.

 

[Scott Brady]

I want to make my position on this discussion a little more clear:

1. Regarding Mobil 1: I believe that synthetic fluids are an advantage for the environment, improve fuel economy and reduce waste. This fact is well documented. I am a proponent of these technologies, which is why I have aligned with Mobil 1 to help test and promote them.

2. I believe that we all have a responsibility to conserve natural resources, which means that I must make compromises in my lifestyle to minimize my use and impact, but it does not mean I will stop doing what I enjoy and supports my family. So my truck, which I would love to drive around daily just sits in the garage unless I am on a trip. I am looking to purchase a dual-sport to even further limit my use. So the 8-9,000 miles I drive on average in a year in a reasonably efficient and clean burning truck has a lower impact. I could certainly do more, but I am satisfied with my efforts at the moment and look for new solutions all the time.

3. Being in a first world country means that we are nearly all "high use". There is a fraction of the population in this country that is carbon neutral, living in an apartment in the city and not driving a car. I always find humor in hearing people advocate no logging from the comfort of their new, 3,000 square foot wood home...

4. I love the outdoors and cherish my ability to visit the world's wild places. I work hard to help conserve wildlife and preserve wildlands.

5. Solutions come through innovation and conservation. Research and innovation continue to accelerate and to use another quote:

"need is the mother of all invention".

Efficient, low emissions diesels are already here. More will come, along with other solutions.

So.... I am a hopeless optimist and believe in humanities ability to overcome challenges, social, environmental or otherwise.

 

[calamaridog]

Congrats on your trip. I have a couple questions.
So you took Mobil as your title sponsor. What does that mean? They gave you more money than anybody else?
How do you justify traveling to the Arctic under ExxonMobil sponsorship?
ExxonMobil strongly advocates and actively lobbys for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And you're a environment conscious Tread Lightly Trainer? How do you put those two on the same page?
Oil drilling in the ANWR would be terribly destructive to arctic environment, wildlife and native peoples. If they could, ExxonMobil would drill in every arctic mile you traveled over if there was oil there.

And thats just the tip of the iceberg. pardon the pun. Google ExxonMobil with the words environmental criticism, globalization, Nigeria, third world exploitation, oil profits. etc and explore what you find...if your interested in being more informed.

freetomeander,

Feel free to post some personal information and facts about yourself and your lifestyle so we can put a "face" to your posts. It's easy to ask hard questions about people and their associations from behind a curtain of anonymity.

Scott is a very public person, and perhaps because he's so visable, you assume he is an easy target. I assure you, this is not the case.

Frankly, I think Scott has answered questions in a forthright manner.

As far as your post, I too found it was antagonistic

 

[bigreen505]

I have to side with Scott's discourse analysis of Freetomeander's post.

Really? I thought it was unnecessarily nice, but I suppose that is true Scotty style. I would have assumed he was purely a troll, deleted the post and locked his account, but that is just me. I'm all for open and honest discussion, but there are certain things that I don't put up with in person or on the Internet and those posts were shining examples.

The funny thing is what Scott wrote was exactly what I was thinking when I read freetomeander's first post and nearly verbatim what I sent Ursidae69 in PM.

Freetomeander, if you are looking for a place to have an open and honest discussion and learn a ton, welcome to Expo. If you are just looking to stir the post, stir elsewhere.

 

[elcoyote]

freetomeander,

Feel free to post some personal information and facts about yourself and your lifestyle so we can put a "face" to your posts. It's easy to ask hard questions about people and their associations from behind a curtain of anonymity.

Scott is a very public person, and perhaps because he's so visable, you assume he is an easy target. I assure you, this is not the case.

Frankly, I think Scott has answered questions in a forthright manner.

As far as your post, I too found it was antagonistic

I second this. Two thoughts come to mind: 1- Let he who have not sinned cast the first stone. 2-Never get into a battle of wits unprepared.

 

[DaktariEd]

freetomeander,

Feel free to post some personal information and facts about yourself and your lifestyle so we can put a "face" to your posts. It's easy to ask hard questions about people and their associations from behind a curtain of anonymity.

Scott is a very public person, and perhaps because he's so visable, you assume he is an easy target. I assure you, this is not the case.

Frankly, I think Scott has answered questions in a forthright manner.

As far as your post, I too found it was antagonistic

:iagree:

 

[Lost Canadian]

Really? I thought it was unnecessarily nice...

:ylsmoke: Perhaps, but I'm sure Scott would agree it's usually better to take the high ground.

 

[toyrunner95]

freetomeander has a point in the questions he proposed, however his manner of proposing them was a little out of line, a simple private message or an e mail would have probably been more appreciative (sp) than a public "attack". i also agree that it was an attack, it sounded very heated and argumentitive. my conclusion is that either the tree he was hugging fell down, or he had a genuine need to voice his opinions publicly.

oddly i thoguht his name was free tomater for the longest time.

 

[erin]

Very well put SCott, not out of line at all.

 

[pwc]

I'm fine with drilling in the arctic as long as we steal it all from Canada.

It's kinda funny in a way. Scott made the point with #3 about people who live in wood houses, etc... My thought is, I already pay Mobil X amount of dollars for their oil. Why not have them give it to me for free?

We all use some kind of oil. And meander does too when he jumped on those big jet planes traveling the world.

In the holier than thou vein, my oil comes from pure evil oil companies, but at least my fuel doesn't. Yet. Neener, neener.

EDIT: Where did freetomeander go? a one sided conversation benefits no one.