Arctic Environmental / Sponsorship Discussion

[DesertRose]

Flounder, I don't think RoundOut was saying you were off-topic, he was warning that he himself was going off by making the zoo animal / wild animal appreciation comparison to vicariously appreciating wild places through anything from cruise ships to overland expeditions.

I think both comments are right-on target with this thread though: it's about appreciation for wild places, balancing use and preservation, and how to pay for it.

 

[RoundOut]

Flounder, I don't think RoundOut was saying you were off-topic, he was warning that he himself was going off by making the zoo animal / wild animal appreciation comparison...

Exactly. In fact, earlier, I sent Flounder a PM to this effect. Thanks for understanding and clarifying it, DesertRose.

 

[calamaridog]

:iagree:

That is what makes it such a great question on both the personal level and on the sponsorship/professional level .


Are you in the 99% or 1%?

Me, I'd like to think I try my best on these issues but often fall into your 99%.

I think that the educated consumer is more likely to end up with a quality product with a longer service life. Often, this product will be made somewhere other that China.

And yet, the inexpensive Plasma TV lures me like a moth to the :campfire:

The frustrating thing is that drawing conclusions is no longer as easy as "where was it made?" as more and more quality brands are made in China to maximize profits and cash in on reputation.

At what point does the quality suffer?

Maybe I'm at 2% enlightenment

 

[RoundOut]

I caught the middle of a TV show the other day... don't usually see much TV, but this one interested me. I think it was on the Discovery Channel, but I'm not sure. The topic was related to this thread, as the discussion centered around the US dependence on foreign oil and how until we ween ourselves from our ensatiable apetite for gasoline and diesel, we will continue to send money to the Middle East, and be defacto terrorism sponsors. I thought this was an interesting point of view.

 

[Pskhaat]

Just to revive an old hare:

Originally Posted by pskhaat
Pure capitalism is no sin, but let's not be fooled into thinking we live in a free market for any industry. Laws and methods of taxation drive and steer economies. Laws (or specific lack thereof), lobbying, tax codes, and pinpoint Congressional spending can shape those economies as well as the resulting social culture.

I agree completely, Scott. We are far from a pure free market with all the taxes, duties, legal requirements and other obligations levied upon companies and citizens, alike.

Thought we all would like this beauty:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070509/ap_on_fe_st/odd_cheap_gas;_ylt=Aq5__SPSmoWGYmcKYz3JxB_MWM0F

 

[crawler#976]

I was curious to know how much Exxon/Mobil spends on environmental spending. So, I asked!

The letter came in PDF format. I saved it as pictures - not great, but I don't know how to save from PDF to text...

Attached is the response I got:

 

[DesertRose]

Thanks for doing that - it was an interesting letter, and had good information in it. I'm checking out their website, too (http://www.exxonmobile.com/biodiversity)

 

[Desertdude]

Very good info thanks for sharing that.

From this page - http://www.exxonmobile.com/Corporate/Citizenship/gcr_employee_vip.asp

"A $500 grant can be awarded to a charitable non-profit organization after an eligible participant volunteers at least 20 hours of their time to the organization during a calendar year. Each eligible participant may apply for four individual grants per calendar year. These grants may be for the same or separate organizations, provided 20 hours of service is performed for each grant.

An organization may receive a maximum of $5,000 per calendar year of Individual Volunteer Grants."

 

[RoundOut]

Very good info thanks for sharing that.

From this page - http://www.exxonmobile.com/Corporate/Citizenship/gcr_employee_vip.asp

"A $500 grant can be awarded to a charitable non-profit organization after an eligible participant volunteers at least 20 hours of their time to the organization during a calendar year. ...

ExxonMobil is one of the largest benefactors of the Boy Scouts in Houston because of this program. I know many units that are chartered by a 501 (c) 3 that benefit directly from these grants, as well as the Sam Houston Area Council (16.5 counties, over 160,000 youth served, 30,000 adult volunteers in the Houston area) that receive those grants.

 

[Super Doody]

I want to throw my 2 cents in on this corporate sponsorship issues since I work in Corporate Environmental Management/Compliance which very close tied to environmental stewardship/policy and PR.

Corporations in order to be successful longterm have to be ethical. There are two types of PR/environmental programs/initiatives. There are mandated programs which are usually due to lawsuit settlement, state and federal requirement and there programs which is sponsored by the company. Funding of each program is very clearly defined. Sometimes its funded by the company and sometimes funded by its customers. For example, CA utilities give refunds and credits for various energy efficiency program. People think its free money. But its actually funded by the rate payers which are the customers.


I believe all environmental programs regardless of how it came about is a positive , but tooting your own horn for something that was mandated by regulation is unethical. Its like taking credit for something required to do in the first place. This is not directed at Exxon but I just want to give an insiders perspective.

As a company, you want to showcase the good work you do but its a balance between showcasing something thats required or something thats above and beyond what was expected.

 

[DesertRose]

I want to throw my 2 cents in on this corporate sponsorship issues since I work in Corporate Environmental Management/Compliance which very close tied to environmental stewardship/policy and PR.

Corporations in order to be successful longterm have to be ethical. There are two types of PR/environmental programs/initiatives. There are mandated programs which are usually due to lawsuit settlement, state and federal requirement and there programs which is sponsored by the company. Funding of each program is very clearly defined. Sometimes its funded by the company and sometimes funded by its customers. For example, CA utilities give refunds and credits for various energy efficiency program. People think its free money. But its actually funded by the rate payers which are the customers.


I believe all environmental programs regardless of how it came about is a positive , but tooting your own horn for something that was mandated by regulation is unethical. Its like taking credit for something required to do in the first place. This is not directed at Exxon but I just want to give an insiders perspective.

As a company, you want to showcase the good work you do but its a balance between showcasing something thats required or something thats above and beyond what was expected.

I'm really glad you made this point - it is complex, but in spirit I agree that all environmental programs do good no matter where the impetus or funds came from - and it just sounds petty to keep hammering on the Exxon types who possibly (we really don't know) would not "do the right thing" unless forced by a league of lawyers.

Having worked for several decades in conservation - writing grants, soliciting corporate donors - I'm painfully aware of how "dirty" almost all money is, even "green" foundations can trace investments to global funds that are not necessarily green or humanitarian. But I am happy to use the funds to do good -

Roseann