A Better Vision for America
Today, the Rainforest Action Network and Global Exchange featured a full page ad in the New York Times linking Dick Cheney, Crown Prince Abdullah and Bill Ford Jr. in their addiction to oil and gas guzzling. The ad connects the dots between America’s unquenchable thirst for oil, Ford’s bottom of the barrel fuel-efficiency rating, Dick Cheney rejection of oil conservation policies and our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. This ad also suggests a better vision supported by America’s ingenuity that is committed to developing a safe, secure and sustainable source of American energy. Check out the ad here .
The ad is being launched at a time when oil prices are at an all-time high, U.S. automakers are laying off workers, gas-guzzling SUVs are sitting unsold at dealerships, and American soldiers and Iraqi civilians are dying in Iraq. At a time like this, we expect vision, ingenuity, and determination from our elected leaders and corporate CEOS. Instead, the Senate voted to increase oil industry handouts by more than $10 billion while refusing to increase automobile fuel efficiency. And while over 6,000 Americans have demanded that we Declare Independence from Oil, Ford has announced the token release of just 2,000 hybrid Mercury Mariners. (FYI…Ford’s global production in 2004 was more than 6 million vehicles.) Toyota, on the other hand recently announced their goal to produce almost half a million hybrids next year.
Ford invented the assembly line over 80 years ago and revolutionized industry. Ford’s frontline brand recognition gives it more power to drive the market in the right direction and the responsibility to do so. It’s time for Ford to recapture its spirit of innovation, live up to its reputation, and move beyond PR environmental hype.
Send us a shout and let us know what you think about the ad and the better vision it proposes for America.
Sarah and Nile
The Jumpstart Ford Campaigners
6 Responses to “A Better Vision for America”
Leave a Reply
All comments offered in the spirit of civil conversation are welcome! Commercial spam, obscenity and other rude behavior are not, and will be removed. Valid email addresses are required. (RAN respects your privacy; we will not use, lend, or sell your email address for any reason.)
July 14th, 2005 at 1:57 pm
Here in Seattle, we held an “Independence from Oil” parade. Dozens of vehicles (hybrids, biodiesel, electric, bicycles, etc.) drove through town to show people that there’s a better, cleaner alternative. After the parade, there were booths with demos and information on solar power, biodiesel fuels, and other alternatives to oil. I hope this sort of thing catches on. It would be great to have an annual day like this in every major city! All it takes is a few proactive individuals to get it started.
July 15th, 2005 at 11:09 am
Here is a piece I wrote for a meeting of the Foreign Policy Association’s Great Decisions group. The proposal will encourage conservation, although as you read it you will see that it is an uphill fight. Comments are welcome.
http://www.bedfordny.com/energy.pdf
By the way, Zero emissions is a pointless goal. Even if the car is powered by electricity, the power was probably generated by an emissions generating facility. Reduced emissions is an attainable goal, however, and would be accomplished by conservation. By proposing an impossible goal, I think you lose credibility for your overall purpose.
To send me an email you will have to personally respond to my spam filter. Sorry but it is necessary and I get 200 spams a day.
July 15th, 2005 at 12:03 pm
Richard: Go solar! Go wind! Check This out.
July 17th, 2005 at 8:09 am
I guess I don’t understand singling out one automaker. Isn’t it the consumer you should be mad at? Aren’t “we” the ones buying trucks, SUV’s, and other less-fuel efficient vehicles? Toyota offers more SUV choices than most manufacturers, many of which get mpg in the low teens. Why not target them, because American consumers don’t buy as many? Don’t you think Toyota would be thrilled if consumers bought >900K Tundras instead of F150’s? I don’t have a problem with conservation, but blaming a car manufacturer like Ford, who is trying to climb out of a big hole just adds to the anti-American company rhetoric that leads to less people buying domestic products and more lost American jobs. I don’t see how that’s going to help. It’s nice to be idealistic, but just don’t pretend that you’re using facts instead of opinion.
July 22nd, 2005 at 9:27 am
Okay! So we have nailed the automobiles as villains (no confusion there ^.^) but what about other fossil fuel machines? A leafblower, for example, pollutes 100x more than the average car. Moreover, they’re really pointless b/c we already have things like rakes and brooms and pushmowers that work just fine (and oftentimes have to be used anyway, gasoline-powered yard tool or no). It’s a shady deal: you (or some one else) pays money for the machine, the oil, etc., just to blow around dust (which, by the way, probably contains heavy metals and pathogens), waste gas, and create more lovely air pollution. SHADIZZLE, YO!! Are there any campaigns out there that address this dilemma? Contact me (there is a link in the post). RESPECT!!!!!!
September 2nd, 2009 at 4:59 am
Oh well, my colleagues have introduced an cheap handbags online store. They said that price and quality are very good. Can you give me more suggestions?