Google, Ford Among Companies Accused of Climate Change Hypocrisy

Companies including Google, UPS, Ford Motor Co., Microsoft and eBay have long positioned themselves as leaders in the fight against climate change — their work, in fact, has been regularly featured here in Triple Pundit by many of our writers, including me. But Forecast the Facts, a project of the Citizen Engagement Laboratory, has issued a scathing report on what it describes as their funding of “climate change deniers.”

And it is the aforementioned companies for which Forecast the Facts has the harshest words. This report “raises questions about Google’s own honesty”; calls out Bill Ford for his company’s donations to climate deniers who “thwart, even mock, sustainability”; equates US$1 million in Microsoft donations to funding Big Tobacco scientists; and in turn is dismissive of eBay’s and UPS’ efforts related to sustainability based on some of the donations these companies have given out the past few years.

But is it fair to paint these companies as hypocritical based on some of their political donations?

True, political donations to the likes of Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, as well as to Reps. Darrell Issa and Cathy McMorris Rodgers, would make anyone with environmental street-cred cringe. But these donations, no matter how opposed one may be to the policies of these politicians and their kin in Congress, need to be taken in context. Just as it is unfair to taint a retail chain’s half-century of community work because of a clod of a CEO, we may want to step back and look at these companies’ policies in their entirety before we sharpen the knives.

For decades the modus operandi in Washington was that business interests donated to Republicans while organized labor wrote checks to the Democrats — and Republicans had long outpaced the Democrats in fundraising. But over two decades ago there was a shift in the flow of political donations, and it accelerated under President Bill Clinton during the 1990s. Wall Street donated generously to Clinton, which was one reason he was able to beat Bob Dole during his 1996 re-election campaign; only a last-minute scandal over renting the Lincoln Bedroom to sketchy donors prevented Bill Clinton from winning in a total landslide. Since then, it has become a common practice for business interests group to donate to both political parties. After all, you want to make sure you have friends on Capitol Hill after each election. Ethical? Probably not. Pragmatic? Definitely.

A closer look at to whom these companies donated will shed more light. Of course Ford is going to donate to Michigan politicians, irrespective of party. Google had an interest in a data center in Oklahoma. Issa’s district covers parts of both San Diego and Orange counties, home to Google offices. UPS will make sure its operations in Georgia are looked out for. And clearly any politician in Washington state will align with Google — with the help of a check, the sad reality in American politics.

The moral high ground dictates that companies truly committed to fighting climate change would avoid climate deniers entirely. But we are not talking about morals — we are talking about politics, and the Supreme Court has cleared the way for companies to donate money to the organizations they wish, completely unimpeded. For a company to withhold funds from a senator or representative because of his or her stance on an issue, from a business perspective, would be foolish. And remember, climate change is only one of many items on a firm’s agenda — immigration, environmental protection, energy policy and trade agreements, and a bevy of other issues, create a situation where one hand will write a check . . . while the other holds its nose in disdain.

Reports such as this #DisruptDenial tirade make for great conversation, a strong social media campaign and in the end, can fire up the base to send in those coveted donations. What would really be valuable, and in the end would drive the discussion in a more helpful way, is a report on how the likes of Google and Ford make an overall difference on climate change. Is there a way to quantify the benefits these firms have done thanks to investments in renewables, greening their supply chains, improving their efficiencies — and subtracting the alleged negative effects of donating to the likes of an Inhofe or a Ted Cruz. Then we can truly see who is walking the walk (while tripping on a few cracks in the pavement) and who is merely talking the talk.

Image credit: Wikipedia (Dave Parker)

Leon Kaye has lived in Abu Dhabi for the past year and is currently spending some time in Uruguay. Follow him on Instagram and Twitter. Other thoughts of his are on his site, greengopost.com.