Metropolis Reality Forums

Sponsored by: The Fans!

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
Apr 28^th, 2024, 12:00am

Upcoming Premiere Dates:
Survivor 23, Season premiere
Thursday, September 14 (8:00-9:30 PM, ET/PT) on CBS

Metropolis Reality Forums Ť e$$o lawsuit ť

   Metropolis Reality Forums
   Community
   The Grapevine (Moderators: Heather, Bumper, Isle_be_back)
   e$$o lawsuit

Previous topic | New Topic | Next topic »

Pages: 1

Add Poll

Notify of replies

Send Topic

Author

Topic: e$$o lawsuit (Read 468 times)

east
ForumsNet Member

sigh

Gender:

Posts: 3487

e$$o lawsuit
« on: Jun 30^th, 2002, 4:25pm »

Quote

Modify

Oil giant sues Greenpeace

Claire Cozens
Tuesday June 25, 2002

The Greenpeace campaign

The oil giant Exxon Mobil is suing Greenpeace for misusing its corporate logo after the environmental pressure group replaced the two "S" letters in Esso with dollar signs.

Exxon, the oil giant that owns the Esso brand, is claiming Greenpeace's "Stop E$$o" campaign is illegal and harmful to the company's reputation.

It has applied for an injunction in the French courts that would force Greenpeace to remove the doctored logo from its campaign website.

Esso France, which launched the suit, has also claimed Greenpeace is attempting to draw a connection between Esso and "the infamous SS", saying the doctored image looks like the well-known symbol of the elite Nazi army.

The company said it was not trying to stifle free speech but it argued the distortion of the trademark was illegal.

A hearing date has been set for Monday July 1, when the company will seek an injunction forcing the charity to stop using the doctored logo.

If Greenpeace refuses to comply, Exxon is demanding Ł52,000 a day in compensation for the damage to its reputation.

But Greenpeace has insisted it will not back down over the campaign and has pledged to fight Exxon in the courts.

"This is just ridiculous. Esso knows it can't win a debate about climate change and it won't discuss the content of the website. Instead Esso is trying to gag us with legal threats," said Gerd Leipold, the executive director of Greenpeace.

Stop E$$o is a global campaign run by several charities, including Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth.

The charities argue Exxon helped scupper the Kyoto agreement on climate change. They want to persuade consumers to boycott the oil company.

The campaign has been running in France since May and there have been protests in the UK, the US and Canada.

IP Logged

read, study, reflect, write, read, study, reflect, spell check, write

east
ForumsNet Member

sigh

Gender:

Posts: 3487

Re: e$$o lawsuit
« Reply #1 on: Jun 30^th, 2002, 4:41pm »

Quote

Modify

here's a link to the campaing site in question ~
http://www.stopesso.com/

and an adbuster's commentary ~

A boycott led by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth recently spread to North America. Right now, shareholders are alarmed at a new report from Claros Consulting of London, England (Download Report in PDF Format [21k]), which argues that ExxonMobil could take a $100-billion bath for continuing to ignore climate change. The greatest oil barons in history suddenly seem spooked and vulnerable, and boycotters can deepen the scare. Nothing personal. It's just business.

Illustration: Lumpen Magazine

Let's put things in the crudest possible terms. Since long before the Gulf War, the United States has been bombing, destabilizing and, yes, terrorizing other countries for cheap, plentiful oil. Don't stand between a hyperpower and its blood supply.

American thirst for oil helps to explain all kinds of recent international events, including the war on terrorism. This February, everyone was too busy counting dead Al Qaeda to notice Hamid Karzai, the new US-backed Afghan president, strike an agreement with Pakistan for a trans-Afghanistan pipeline from the vast Caspian oil reserves. Rumored to be in the running for the multi-billion-dollar contract: American petroleum giant Unocal, who in the late 1990s tried and failed to negotiate a similar deal with the Taliban. Then there's April's short-lived coup against the elected government of oil-rich Venezuela, a revolt supported and possibly initiated by the Bush administration to guarantee supplies in the event of an Arab embargo.

Big Oil and the Bush administration go way back. Both the Bush family and US Vice President Dick Cheney got rich in the petroleum biz. Fossil-fuel companies contributed $1.8 million to George Bush's 2000 presidential campaign. Bush Sr. is an advisor to the Carlyle Group, which observers say secured lucrative Saudi Arabian investments as payback for Pappy Bush's stomping of Iraq in the Gulf War. Hamid Karzai used to consult for Unocal, as did Zalmay Khalilzad, US special envoy to Afghanistan. Months before September 11, American officials told the Pakistani foreign secretary that an attack on Afghanistan was planned for October.

In a global economy fuelled by the combustion engine, the US won't let OPEC hold it over a barrel much longer. American gas pumps must keep running over at rock-bottom prices with the profits flowing to American oil barons. Accomplishing that requires a war on many fronts, in many guises, and with many tragic consequences. Who better to make it happen than George W. Bush, a man whose private fortunes mesh so seamlessly with his public ambitions? It's nothing personal. It's just business.

Benefiting most unabashedly from these cozy arrangements is ExxonMobil, also known as Esso and Imperial Oil. The world's biggest oil and gas company, it's on its way to making petroleum the new tobacco.

While Shell, BP, and other smaller players are coming round to renewable energy, ExxonMobil will have none of it. Researching alternatives like wind and solar power might cut into the bottom line ($17.7 billion in 2000, the largest profit of any corporation in history). ExxonMobil has better ways to spend its money: stepping up exploration and production, helping get George Bush elected, lobbying the US government to abandon the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. As a result, ExxonMobil is now the worst polluter on the planet. It also rejects all evidence that fossil fuels cause global warming, predicted to endanger hundreds of millions of lives over the next century.

ExxonMobil can't do any of these things if people stop driving up to its pumps and buying gas.

Nick Rockel

[img]A boycott led by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth recently spread to North America. Right now, shareholders are alarmed at a new report from Claros Consulting of London, England (Download Report in PDF Format [21k]), which argues that ExxonMobil could take a $100-billion bath for continuing to ignore climate change. The greatest oil barons in history suddenly seem spooked and vulnerable, and boycotters can deepen the scare. Nothing personal. It's just business.

Illustration: Lumpen Magazine

Let's put things in the crudest possible terms. Since long before the Gulf War, the United States has been bombing, destabilizing and, yes, terrorizing other countries for cheap, plentiful oil. Don't stand between a hyperpower and its blood supply.

American thirst for oil helps to explain all kinds of recent international events, including the war on terrorism. This February, everyone was too busy counting dead Al Qaeda to notice Hamid Karzai, the new US-backed Afghan president, strike an agreement with Pakistan for a trans-Afghanistan pipeline from the vast Caspian oil reserves. Rumored to be in the running for the multi-billion-dollar contract: American petroleum giant Unocal, who in the late 1990s tried and failed to negotiate a similar deal with the Taliban. Then there's April's short-lived coup against the elected government of oil-rich Venezuela, a revolt supported and possibly initiated by the Bush administration to guarantee supplies in the event of an Arab embargo.

Big Oil and the Bush administration go way back. Both the Bush family and US Vice President Dick Cheney got rich in the petroleum biz. Fossil-fuel companies contributed $1.8 million to George Bush's 2000 presidential campaign. Bush Sr. is an advisor to the Carlyle Group, which observers say secured lucrative Saudi Arabian investments as payback for Pappy Bush's stomping of Iraq in the Gulf War. Hamid Karzai used to consult for Unocal, as did Zalmay Khalilzad, US special envoy to Afghanistan. Months before September 11, American officials told the Pakistani foreign secretary that an attack on Afghanistan was planned for October.

In a global economy fuelled by the combustion engine, the US won't let OPEC hold it over a barrel much longer. American gas pumps must keep running over at rock-bottom prices with the profits flowing to American oil barons. Accomplishing that requires a war on many fronts, in many guises, and with many tragic consequences. Who better to make it happen than George W. Bush, a man whose private fortunes mesh so seamlessly with his public ambitions? It's nothing personal. It's just business.

Benefiting most unabashedly from these cozy arrangements is ExxonMobil, also known as Esso and Imperial Oil. The world's biggest oil and gas company, it's on its way to making petroleum the new tobacco.

While Shell, BP, and other smaller players are coming round to renewable energy, ExxonMobil will have none of it. Researching alternatives like wind and solar power might cut into the bottom line ($17.7 billion in 2000, the largest profit of any corporation in history). ExxonMobil has better ways to spend its money: stepping up exploration and production, helping get George Bush elected, lobbying the US government to abandon the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. As a result, ExxonMobil is now the worst polluter on the planet. It also rejects all evidence that fossil fuels cause global warming, predicted to endanger hundreds of millions of lives over the next century.

ExxonMobil can't do any of these things if people stop driving up to its pumps and buying gas.

Nick Rockel

A boycott led by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth recently spread to North America. Right now, shareholders are alarmed at a new report from Claros Consulting of London, England (Download Report in PDF Format [21k]), which argues that ExxonMobil could take a $100-billion bath for continuing to ignore climate change. The greatest oil barons in history suddenly seem spooked and vulnerable, and boycotters can deepen the scare. Nothing personal. It's just business.

Illustration: Lumpen Magazine

Let's put things in the crudest possible terms. Since long before the Gulf War, the United States has been bombing, destabilizing and, yes, terrorizing other countries for cheap, plentiful oil. Don't stand between a hyperpower and its blood supply.

American thirst for oil helps to explain all kinds of recent international events, including the war on terrorism. This February, everyone was too busy counting dead Al Qaeda to notice Hamid Karzai, the new US-backed Afghan president, strike an agreement with Pakistan for a trans-Afghanistan pipeline from the vast Caspian oil reserves. Rumored to be in the running for the multi-billion-dollar contract: American petroleum giant Unocal, who in the late 1990s tried and failed to negotiate a similar deal with the Taliban. Then there's April's short-lived coup against the elected government of oil-rich Venezuela, a revolt supported and possibly initiated by the Bush administration to guarantee supplies in the event of an Arab embargo.

Big Oil and the Bush administration go way back. Both the Bush family and US Vice President Dick Cheney got rich in the petroleum biz. Fossil-fuel companies contributed $1.8 million to George Bush's 2000 presidential campaign. Bush Sr. is an advisor to the Carlyle Group, which observers say secured lucrative Saudi Arabian investments as payback for Pappy Bush's stomping of Iraq in the Gulf War. Hamid Karzai used to consult for Unocal, as did Zalmay Khalilzad, US special envoy to Afghanistan. Months before September 11, American officials told the Pakistani foreign secretary that an attack on Afghanistan was planned for October.

In a global economy fuelled by the combustion engine, the US won't let OPEC hold it over a barrel much longer. American gas pumps must keep running over at rock-bottom prices with the profits flowing to American oil barons. Accomplishing that requires a war on many fronts, in many guises, and with many tragic consequences. Who better to make it happen than George W. Bush, a man whose private fortunes mesh so seamlessly with his public ambitions? It's nothing personal. It's just business.

Benefiting most unabashedly from these cozy arrangements is ExxonMobil, also known as Esso and Imperial Oil. The world's biggest oil and gas company, it's on its way to making petroleum the new tobacco.

While Shell, BP, and other smaller players are coming round to renewable energy, ExxonMobil will have none of it. Researching alternatives like wind and solar power might cut into the bottom line ($17.7 billion in 2000, the largest profit of any corporation in history). ExxonMobil has better ways to spend its money: stepping up exploration and production, helping get George Bush elected, lobbying the US government to abandon the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. As a result, ExxonMobil is now the worst polluter on the planet. It also rejects all evidence that fossil fuels cause global warming, predicted to endanger hundreds of millions of lives over the next century.

ExxonMobil can't do any of these things if people stop driving up to its pumps and buying gas.

Nick Rockel

IP Logged

read, study, reflect, write, read, study, reflect, spell check, write

MzzJoplin
ForumsNet Member

Thaid no more ...

Gender:

Posts: 584

Re: e$$o lawsuit
« Reply #2 on: Jun 30^th, 2002, 4:59pm »

Quote

Modify

American thirst for oil helps to explain all kinds of recent international events, including the war on terrorism.

Kiss

I swear K-A, you couldn't rock any harder if you tried! Kiss

Thank you so much for posting that ... I totally agree with everything it says ... What scares me is that most people don't even SEE what's going on ... I'm soooo glad that there's someone out there who thinks the same way I do ...

Hugs,
Thai

IP Logged

"It's hard to be free, but when it works, it sure is worth it ... " ~ Janis Joplin

east
ForumsNet Member

sigh

Gender:

Posts: 3487

Re: e$$o lawsuit
« Reply #3 on: Jul 4^th, 2002, 11:43am »

Quote

Modify

Adopting Kyoto is an uphill battle

Tuesday, May 21, 2002
By David Suzuki

Everyone, it seems, is talking about the Kyoto Protocol. Canada's environment minister is talking about it, the premier of Alberta is talking about it. Even the prime minister is talking about it.
But adopting it that's a different matter.

Prime Minister Chrétien wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. He said so in his Red Book almost a decade ago. In fact, his proposed cuts back then went far deeper than anything required by Kyoto. But lately the prime minister's statements about the treaty have, like re-used tea bags, grown weaker and weaker to the point that the brew is becoming unpalatable. Has he changed his mind?

I don't think so. Mr. Chrétien knows Kyoto is the right thing to do. He has smart, trusted ministers like David Anderson telling him it's the right thing to do. Nations all over the world are in the process of adopting Kyoto because the best available evidence says that we need to start slowing climate change and Kyoto is a good way to start a way that could even be good for the economy.

His own constituents the vast majority of Canadians according to pollsters say they want action on climate change. His former foreign affairs minister, Lloyd Axworthy, last week released polling results showing that most Canadians see climate change as a bigger threat to personal security than terrorism.

So what's stopping him? Three things: President Bush, Premier Ralph Klein, and Imperial Oil, a juggernaut of money and power.

First, President Bush dropped out of the Kyoto Protocol, even though the United States is responsible for one-third of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. Then American diplomats started meddling in Canada's domestic affairs, hinting that we should drop out as well.

Meanwhile, Mr. Klein has fought religiously against the protocol and even embarrassed the prime minister by attacking Kyoto on foreign trade missions.

And Imperial Oil (Esso/Exxon at your local pump) continues to wage a campaign of misinformation and refuses to consider energy sources other than fossil fuels even while other big players like BP, Shell, and Suncor are diversifying and investing in wind and solar power. Imperial Oil's parent company, Exxon, has gone so far as to lobby (successfully) to remove Robert Watson, the respected lead scientist on a United Nationssponsored independent scientific panel because he was not "industry friendly."

Together, these three parties are largely responsible for fear-mongering about the costs of the Kyoto treaty. And they get publicity, even though the scary economic scenarios they tout have been shown to be simplistic models based on worst-case assumptions. These models are unrealistic at best and downright misleading at worst.

Several more credible and detailed studies have shown that meeting the Kyoto target may well benefit the economy in addition to helping slow climate change. By increasing energy efficiency and reducing waste, consumers save money, which they can then spend on other things. And by stimulating new investments in clean, renewable energy like wind and solar power, we create jobs and reduce pollution. That, in turn, reduces health-care costs.

But companies like Imperial Oil aren't interested in consumer savings or reduced health-care costs. They have a vested interest in keeping Canada dependent on fossil fuels. They have a lot of money and they are willing to spend it to get Mr. Chrétien to back down. If that means scaring Canadians silly about the supposed costs of Kyoto, then so be it. If that means convincing Albertans that they will all be out of work, then that's what they'll do.

The Canadian people want action on this issue. Most of the world supports it. It's the right thing to do, and Mr. Chrétien knows it. Will he stand up for science and for the people? I hope so, because something is seriously wrong with democracy in this country if giant corporations and foreign powers hold veto power on public policy.

Copyright 2002, David Suzuki Foundation

IP Logged

read, study, reflect, write, read, study, reflect, spell check, write

MzzJoplin
ForumsNet Member

Thaid no more ...

Gender:

Posts: 584

Re: e$$o lawsuit
« Reply #4 on: Jul 4^th, 2002, 5:15pm »

Quote

Modify

First, President Bush dropped out of the Kyoto Protocol, even though the United States is responsible for one-third of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.

I'm sorry, but this man is making me more and more embarressed to be an american each day ... Roll Eyes

big players like BP, Shell, and Suncor are diversifying and investing in wind and solar power

Thanks for the info K-A ... I'll be buying my gas from Shell from now on ...

IP Logged

"It's hard to be free, but when it works, it sure is worth it ... " ~ Janis Joplin

Pages: 1

Add Poll

Notify of replies

Send Topic


Previous topic \| New Topic \| Next topic »