5 ms·

So they did something positive but we'll somehow turn it into a negative to further our cause. What is wrong with people.

Shinkei 10y ago
Really? The negative is that they didn't act in the best interests of humanity--the very people that make up their shareholders, employees, customers, etc. For example, it's well documented that DuPont fought to continue using CFCs until they had secured patents on replacement products and suffered public humiliation by our government. Companies will not generally act in the best interests of the citizens, which is why we have a government which should be independent of influence by leaders of companies.
- aaron695 10y ago
  My point is if DuPont put out a doco warning everyone about CFCs don't put them down for that. Use logic and talk about what they did do that's bad. Shell is a mega corp full of different people and different departments. Why are we using the fact part of the mega corp tried to make a positive change against them? Why are we being negative about positive behaviour?
  - zbyte64 10y ago
    Seriously? This is an industry that is actively undermining climate policy. So yes, we are going to use this video against them and other oil companies until an actual (aka substantial) positive change happens. Lastly, warning labels do not absolve a company of all responsibility.
- bluesign 10y ago
  They tried to act in the best interest of humanity, but humanity didnt care about best interest of humanity. Companies will never act in the best interest of humanity if humanity dont care. Governments also dont care of the best interest if humanity, if their citizens dont care about humanity, they care about the best interest of their citizens. Also people dont care about the best interest of humanity, if it doesnt line up with their personal interest (ex: car sales, car usage etc)
ceejayoz 10y ago
Look, if you warn me "someone's trying to kill you" and it turns out to be you, I'm not going to give you that much credit for the warning.
- bluesign 10y ago
  The car you are using if it is running on oil, is not in the best interest of humanity, 'it is killing someone in the future', but if you are chosing it because it is cheaper versus an electric one, should we blame you, if you are warning us about climate change but using a car consuming oil?
  - ceejayoz 10y ago
    If I'm spending millions of dollars a year lobbying against electric cars, sure.
bluesign 10y ago
I dont know why you are down voted for making a valid point. It is not corporations responsibility to think about best interest of humanity, even this cideo referencing UN studies, I think most to blame is governments.
- megablast 10y ago
  Isn't it? I mean corporations are people, right? If we all dies out they do to. If the world changes for the worse, that is also bad for corporations.
- zbyte64 10y ago
  Governments get blamed when they regulate and when they don't. :/
megablast 10y ago
Ha, come on. They made a film, but they made trillions in making the problem so much worse.

Shinkei 10y ago

Really? The negative is that they didn't act in the best interests of humanity--the very people that make up their shareholders, employees, customers, etc. For example, it's well documented that DuPont fought to continue using CFCs until they had secured patents on replacement products and suffered public humiliation by our government. Companies will not generally act in the best interests of the citizens, which is why we have a government which should be independent of influence by leaders of companies.

aaron695 10y ago
My point is if DuPont put out a doco warning everyone about CFCs don't put them down for that. Use logic and talk about what they did do that's bad. Shell is a mega corp full of different people and different departments. Why are we using the fact part of the mega corp tried to make a positive change against them? Why are we being negative about positive behaviour?
- zbyte64 10y ago
  Seriously? This is an industry that is actively undermining climate policy. So yes, we are going to use this video against them and other oil companies until an actual (aka substantial) positive change happens. Lastly, warning labels do not absolve a company of all responsibility.
bluesign 10y ago
They tried to act in the best interest of humanity, but humanity didnt care about best interest of humanity. Companies will never act in the best interest of humanity if humanity dont care. Governments also dont care of the best interest if humanity, if their citizens dont care about humanity, they care about the best interest of their citizens. Also people dont care about the best interest of humanity, if it doesnt line up with their personal interest (ex: car sales, car usage etc)

ceejayoz 10y ago

Look, if you warn me "someone's trying to kill you" and it turns out to be you, I'm not going to give you that much credit for the warning.

bluesign 10y ago
The car you are using if it is running on oil, is not in the best interest of humanity, 'it is killing someone in the future', but if you are chosing it because it is cheaper versus an electric one, should we blame you, if you are warning us about climate change but using a car consuming oil?
- ceejayoz 10y ago
  If I'm spending millions of dollars a year lobbying against electric cars, sure.

bluesign 10y ago

I dont know why you are down voted for making a valid point. It is not corporations responsibility to think about best interest of humanity, even this cideo referencing UN studies, I think most to blame is governments.

megablast 10y ago
Isn't it? I mean corporations are people, right? If we all dies out they do to. If the world changes for the worse, that is also bad for corporations.
zbyte64 10y ago
Governments get blamed when they regulate and when they don't. :/

megablast 10y ago

Ha, come on. They made a film, but they made trillions in making the problem so much worse.