DC's Green Diamond, Sponsored by Big Oil

By: TheGreenMiles
Published On: 6/22/2008 5:14:17 PM

The Chesapeake Climate Action Network just launched a new campaign highlighting ExxonMobil's extensive sponsorship of the Washington Nationals and their new ballpark.

The Green Miles wasn't sure how to react at first. After all, the Nationals have one of the greenest ballparks in the majors. Should being a green business mean you can't make as much money as you can off ads?

Fortunately, the Nationals and ExxonMobil decided to make my decision easy. They're partnering on one of the most blatant examples of greenwashing I've ever seen:


Nats Conversion Day
June 29 vs. Baltimore - 1:35 PM

Bring in any MLB team merchandise and trade it in for a Nationals hat made from organically-grown cotton. One hat per person, while supplies last.
Presented by ExxonMobil

It's recycling old merchandise! And the hats are made with organic cotton! What could be more green than that? Pay no attention to the fact that it's sponsored by one of the least moral corporations in the history of the planet!

And when I say least moral, I'm not just talking about ExxonMobil's ongoing leadership role in denying global warming and blocking climate action. Just check out ExxonMobil's Wikipedia entry. Environmental abuses galore, sure. But also shady foreign business practices. Supporting human rights abuses. A zero score on sexual orientation issues from the Human Rights Campaign.

Learn more at StrikeOutExxon.org.

Cross-posted from The Green Miles


Comments



Protest (South County - 6/22/2008 9:02:32 PM)
I was at the Nats-Rangers game on Friday.  There was a good amount of protesters standing along the road that leads from the Navy Yard Metro stop to the ballpark.  They had anti-Exxon-Mob signs and were asking folks to boo during the 7th ining stretch, when Exxon-Mob announced some scolarship effort.  I heard about 3 boos in the stadium while everyone else stretched or went to get some chow.


Ditto here... (bladerunner - 6/22/2008 9:05:04 PM)
I was there Friday, and didn't hear much booing either. People really don't care for one reason or another.


Exxon Ads OK (varealist - 6/22/2008 9:29:50 PM)
While I don't agree with Exxon Mobil on most issues, they and the Nats still have free speech rights and the ads are fine, in my book.

If there was such a problem with Exxon, then what about the beer ads? How many people have died at the hands of drunk drivers?

It's a slippery slope.

Exxon also has major ops in Fairfax, so, as the fan response shows, no one really cares about this...it's a non issue. It's a company and it can advertise where it pleases...it (unfortunately) has billions to spend.  



Hello? (TheGreenMiles - 6/23/2008 8:07:03 AM)
Hate to break it to you, but alcohol ads are regulated. And I don't remember where it mentions billboard ads in the first amendment, could you quote it for us?  


First Amndt protects commercial speech (zztop - 6/23/2008 8:57:32 AM)
Not to be negative, but there is some First Amendment protection for commercial speech:http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/commercial.htm

Basically, the Supreme Court requires that the government show that the advertising regulation directly advances an important interest and is no more restrictive of speech than necessary.

Also, the NYT has an article essentially saying Obama is very close to big ethanol interests.  Is this good?  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06...  



Ethanol (TheGreenMiles - 6/23/2008 10:09:49 AM)
You'll get many different answers from many different greens on ethanol. Basically, using existing farmland for ethanol results in a small but noticeable reduction of greenhouse gas emissions compared to fossil fuels, but drives up food prices. And breaking open new farmland to grow crops for ethanol results in a massive net gain of greenhouse gas emissions compared to fossil fuels.

Most greens seem to be looking the other way on ethanol for now, thinking Obama figures he needs to pander on ethanol to lock up Midwest states.



thanks (zztop - 6/23/2008 4:48:16 PM)
for the reply and the summary


It's kind of disingenuous to single out alcohol ads (Red Sox - 6/23/2008 9:55:35 AM)
as being regulated, when the FTC effectively regulates all advertising to some extent. Remember the Miss Cleo and Abdominal Belt ads that got yanked from the air because they were selling a crock of you-know-what?

And ZZTop more or less made the point below, but it strikes me  as absurd to expect that billboards have to be mentioned by name in the Constitution to be protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court, in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York, held that commercial speech is indeed protected by the First Amendment.

Some choice quotes from that ruling include:

"The First Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, protects commercial speech from unwarranted governmental regulation."

and

"Commercial expression not only serves the economic interest of the speaker, but also assists consumers and furthers the societal interest in the fullest possible dissemination of information. In applying the First Amendment to this area, we have rejected the 'highly paternalistic' view that government has complete power to suppress or regulate commercial speech. '[People] will perceive their own best interests if only they are well enough informed, and . . . the best means to that end is to open the channels of communication, rather than to close them...'" (ellipses and brackets in original).



BTW (notwaltertejada - 6/23/2008 9:44:08 PM)
I found out today that Obama is a smoker. guess he won't be going after big tobacco. :/