Verizon Clueless: Company Continuing to Ignore Customer Ire Over Anti-Climate Rally
- Rob Perks
- Director, Center for Advocacy Campaigns, Washington, D.C.
- Blog | About
- Posted September 4, 2009 in Saving Wildlife and Wild Places , Solving Global Warming
By now it's clear that Verizon Wireless can hear us, but so far they refuse to listen. The company seems inexplicably content to weather the public firestorm it created by choosing to sponsor coal baron Don Blankenship's anti-climate "Friends of America" rally on a former strip mine in West Virginia on Labor Day.
Over the past few days tens of thousands of Verizon customers have called, emailed and signed petitions imploring the company to honor it's stated commitment to the environment by dropping its corporate sponsorship of the event. Today, NRDC joined with several other conservation organizations -- collectively representing millions of Americans -- on a joint letter requesting that the company withdraw its support (which is tantamount to an endorsement of the extremist rally). The letter reads in part:
We believe that Verizon Wireless' sponsorship of this event indicates the company's support for mountaintop removal coal mining and indicates opposition to climate change legislation. It is undeniable that the rally is a political event, for several reasons:
Attendees must register for tickets online next to a link to sign a petition that's against climate legislation; the keynote speaker is a prominent critic of global climate change science; and the stated purpose of the event is to protect coal-mining jobs, with a particular focus on mountaintop removal. Thus, by sponsoring this event, Verizon Wireless is also endorsing the political positions behind the event.
Coal is one of the largest sources of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Mountaintop removal coal mining has destroyed more than 1,200 miles of streams and more than 1 million acres of forest in Appalachia, while permanently contaminating drinking-water supplies, endangering residents with dust, fly rock, and mud slides, and jeopardizing imperiled species.
We ask that Verizon Wireless withdraw sponsorship of this event or explain the company's support for mountaintop removal coal mining and opposition to climate legislation. If Verizon Wireless indeed does not support mountaintop removal coal mining, then we ask that you officially let your customers know that you oppose this destructive practice.
The primarily online campaign is now getting attention in the news media. Hot off the presses comes this story by the Washington Post, in which a Verizon spokesman simply shrugs off the controversy this way: "All the damage is done. All the publicity for the event went out with our name on it . . . There's nothing else to do."
For good measure, he adds this parting shot: "We also can't allow the blogosphere to run our business."
(Hmmm, I wonder if he thinks Twitter is just a website for twits?)
Well, I'm not just a blogger, I'm also a Verizon Wireless customer. Oh wait, check that: If Verizon can't see how its actions undermine its credibility as a "green" company and won't take responsibility for this screw-up then I'll just take my business elsewhere. Sure, there are 87 million other Verizon customers out there to take up the slack...unless, of course, a bunch of those folks happen to own computers (maybe even with internet access provided by Verizon Wireless!) and share my deep commitment to protecting the planet.
At this point we know Verizon's marketing people are mistake-prone and its public relations staff are tone-deaf. Let's hope the CEO is not clueless. All you Verizon Wireless customers out there on the inter-webs oughtta take a moment and email him your thoughts: Lowell.McAdam@verizonwireless.com
(bookmark or email this entry)
Comments are closed for this post.
We close comments on a blog post when it's clear the conversation has moved on -- click on the tags (above) or on our homepage to see if we've got fresh news and views on this post's topic.
Comments
Lynn Vincentnathan — Sep 5 2009 10:29 AM
I don't think this is an isolated incident with Verizon. See the email I got from Ted Glick of the US Climate Emergency Council - note the location of the 1st Energy Citizens astroturf rally:
Lynn Vincentnathan — Sep 5 2009 10:37 AM
Whoa, just did a search on Verizon, and came up with this -- they are the one's who spied on Obama's cell phone records. See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/21/obamas-cell-phone-records_n_145397.html
Carl Overmyer — Sep 5 2009 12:26 PM
Look, let's at the very least be honest. There IS disagreement in the public and scientific world about global warming. There has always been climate change. The only thing constant in nature is CHANGE. Climate crisis, what climate crisis? The climate has and always will change, it's a natural state. Your desires are unnatural in demanding to stop climates continuous changes.
The very thought that somehow man can control that very complicated natural process is really elevating our insignificant contribution to some god like level. One volcanic eruption or wildfire is enough to offset the scales of airborne pollution when compared to what we spew into the air.
I do think we need to do a better job of managing our resources. But leading with carrots is far better than beating everyone over the head with bats or lies. I don’t think NRDC or most folks reading this blog really understand how threatened the vast majority of folks feel about the issue. The backlash is coming and your labels of those who disagree with you are not helping your case.
The less energy and expendable income a society has, the less they will be inclined to value anything other than their immediate needs and survival. Let’s also be honest about the abilities of any governmental action to control behaviors, it’s track record is pretty bad. Even something as basic as alcohol or drug laws show a lack of compliance by a vast majority of individuals when it suits their needs or desires.
Alan — Sep 5 2009 06:58 PM
Although I'm at odds with almost all what Carl had said, I think he got one point right: leading with carrots is far better.
Believing the majority of the population are capable of thinking beyond instant gratification is like believing Earth is 6000 years old, both of which contradict reality and facts.
If concepts like altruism, the greater good and reason had been strong enough to affect most humans(not just the enlightened few), the entire human history would have been completely different. It is hard to image modern humans would change suddenly. In fact, greed and selfishness have been running wilder in modern societies.
Providing an attractive alternative, especially economically, is the only way we can save humanity.
Back to the problem at hand. It is evident the reason why Verizon supports "Friends of America" instead of yielding to a few customers is because it can gain more profits from the former. (Really, what can customers do? Your hands are tied by the 2-year contract and the ridiculously-high cancellation fee.) On the other hand, if there were an alternative solution which can benefit typical consumers economically, you bet Verizon, and most politicians, would follow the money and rally behind it.
We need to find such an alternative and show it to the world. Although I do not believe market forces are omnipotent, money(rewards, not penalties) works magic in persuading people to change behaviors.
Lynn Vincentnathan — Sep 5 2009 07:11 PM
Hi Carl, well there is disagreement in the public community, but not in the scientific community -- you can go to www.realclimate.org and ask real climate scientists who publish in peer-reviwed journals any Qs you have.
One of the leading climate scientists in the world, James Hansen (head of NASA climate science) has even predicted that if we continue business as usual we could tip the climate into permanent runaway conditions as on Venus (as the sun has slowly become hotter, and we are so rapidly (in geological terms) emitting greenhouse gases); in that scenario the oceans would boil away and all life on planet earth would die. Here is his American Geophysical Union presentation from last Dec; see esp page 24: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/AGUBjerknes_20081217.pdf
Or, it might not be so bad -- it might just be like the end-Permian warming event of 251 million years ago in which 95% of life on planet earth died.
When you consider all the money that can be saved by energy/resource efficiency/conservation and alternative energy down to a 70% or more reduction without lowering living standards (we have done it & are saving $$hundreds per year), it is really amazing why people would want to persist flirting with such danger.
Scientists require 95% confidence before making claims; they need to avoid the false positive of making untrue claims to protect their reputations, and they have been very slow to say we are causing global warming, but they have (the first study reaching 95% confidence or .05 p-value coming in 1995). As persons concerned about life on planet earth and policy-makers we should be striving to avoid the false negative (doing nothing when an actual threat confronts us). Which is why I started reducing back in 1990. Scientists are the conservative ones on this. We should be the cautious ones and strive to avoid the problem, even if we personally are not sure. Those who want 99% or 101% confidence are called oil and coal companies.