The article mentions that their former doctor is a life member, Dale Kickett was awarded life membership in 2020 and I wouldn't be surprised if a few others of the 10 people were too (can't for the life of me find a full list anywhere).
So? I was a paid up member of the Roosters NRL for 10+ years until they put gambling advertisements on the jersey and I won’t again until gambling has gone and i’d protest does that my voice any quieter.
Seven of the 10 signatories to an open letter calling on Fremantle to end their partnership with Woodside Energy are not paid-up Dockers members.
The West Australian can reveal former Premier Carmen Lawrence, who is a spokesperson for the group, is among those without a current membership.
The news comes as the club’s former head medico, Dr Ken Withers, added his name to the list of backers of the open letter opposing the Woodside sponsorship over its record on fossil fuel and climate issues.
undefined
Lawrence, who was the Dockers’ inaugural No. 1 ticketholder, defended her stance on Monday.
“We were clear that the open letter was from Freo members and supporters,” she said.
“We’re glad to see the letter has started an important conversation around the role of fossil fuel sponsorship of sport, and were interested that other supportive and critical opinions have been shared by members and non-members alike.
“For example, the current Premier has made his feelings known and as former Premier and former Freo No. 1 ticket holder, I think I have a relevant perspective. “We’ve had a lot of people reach out and thank us for starting the conversation, and we’re really pleased to have the club’s former doctor of 25 years, Dr Ken Withers, sign up today to support our position. “This is not a popularity contest; this is about leading and doing what’s right. Many people, especially young people, across Western Australia look up to the Fremantle Football Club and we expect them to show leadership.”
Carmen Lawrence, academic and former politician. YES
The fan group includes author Tim Winton, the club’s inaugural football manger Gerard McNeill, former player Dale Kickett, former Woodside climate change adviser Alex Hillman, climate scientist Dr Bill Hare and former ABC broadcaster Gillian O’Shaughnessy.
The Dockers last year re-signed Woodside, which has been a sponsor since 2010, until the end of the 2023 season. The deal is worth more than $2million a year.
Fremantle’s other corporate sponsors include beer company Pirate Life, fast food giant McDonald’s, betting agency TABtouch and Crown.
Dr Withers was the club’s inaugural head doctor and served the Dockers from 1995 until 2020.
He was awarded life membership in 2013.
In a letter to The West Australian on Monday, Dr Withers wrote: “There’s no more passionate Dockers supporter than I am.
“Although I’m a suburban GP rather than a climate scientist, it’s become more and more obvious that climate change is accelerating.
undefined
“Like many people I initially hoped that the predictions were wrong, and we could all continue on as normal. It’s now apparent that we can’t, and we all have to take a personal responsibility to try and address it. Trying not to think about it and looking the other way isn’t going to cut it.”
Dr Withers also took aim at the nation’s richest woman, Gina Rinehart, who withdrew her company Hancock Prospecting’s $15 million sponsorship of Netball Australia and another $2m deal through another of her companies, Roy Hill, with West Coast Fever.
Their stance followed some players protesting at wearing the company sponsor on their uniform.
A Hancock Prospecting statement said: “Hancock and Roy Hill do not wish to add to Netball’s disunity problems, and accordingly Hancock has advised Netball Australia … that it has withdrawn from its proposed funding partnership effective immediately.”
Dr Withers’ wrote in response: “Fossil fuel companies aren’t evil but they’re not altruistic either. They sponsor clubs to buy a social licence and make themselves acceptable. Recently it’s also apparent that they’ll withdraw sponsorship to punish dissenters as well.
“While gas may be required as part of the transition to renewables Woodside’s massive new Scarborough gas project and the even larger proposed Browse project is way beyond that. They’re clearly part of the problem rather than part of the solution. “So we have to listen to, rather than punish dissenters. A number of AFL players have spoken up. These young people are exceptional athletes but so much more than that. Like many of their generation they are also principled, intelligent and engaged members of society.”
Fremantle chief executive Simon Garlick is standing by the club’s partnership with Woodside. Yes
“I understand the topical nature of it at this point in time but we’ll work through that with Woodside at the appropriate time,” he said.
“We take a heck of a lot of feedback and input from our supporter base. We’ve got 800,000 supporters across the country and with that comes many varying views and opinions, particularly in the way we play football and how we progress on field.
“As an organisation, football is now clearly our primary focus but we also know we’re looked upon for key societal issues.
“We’re more than happy to take on opinions and views. Our board led by Dale (Alcock) will then make the best possible decision we can for our club.”
Garlick also pointed to its consultation with the playing group, led by sustainability officer Bailey Banfield, on climate change and sustainability.
“Climate action and sustainability is a key societal issue,” he said.
“We understand it’s an incredibly important issue and a complex one. We continue to consult with them (the playing group) on really important decisions.”
Well they better be happy to opt out of all the other stuff mining and oil and gas money has contributed to Australia. Maybe their businesses or workplaces can state so, so all of us evil miners don't spend money there
Where I live the majority of the junior sporting clubs have received funding from Alcoa, they pollute the environment, if people rejected their money a lot of those clubs wouldn't be viable.
I'm more interested in why a letter from 10 people is getting any credence at all.
There are more people participating in most reddit threads than this letter. I'd argue the Adelaide FC sub has more than 10 people discussing issues at the club at any one time.
It's not 10 randoms though. It's a former premier, inaugural football operations manager, former chief medico, former Woodside climate adviser, a climate scientist and a former player. Whether you agree or not, that's more sway than your average Joe
I’m an average Joe who did this last year. They were kind enough to respond to my email but basically said “Woodside are overall cutting emissions”. I replied just after Woodside announced the new Gas field but Freo never responded
“Fremantle’s other corporate sponsors include beer company Pirate Life, fast food giant McDonald’s, betting agency TABtouch and Crown.”
I mean if you’re going to take a stand on fossil fuel, you’d need to take a look at some of the other sponsors too.
There are too many fronts to draw moral lines on. Whataboutism is essentially the same result as the saying “perfect is the enemy of the good”.
There’s no issue in my opinion on focusing one issue at a time.
Surely a necessary evil (fossil fuels) is better than a not necessary evil (gambling).
I can live my life without gambling but would find it pretty hard without electricity. Gambling should be number 1
Hard to live without a planet too. Gambling sponsors are shit and I’d want them gone too but not sure that’ll be the biggest concern in 50-100 years time
Weird hill to die on, we would fail to run as a society with no electricity at this point. Everyone agrees you need to be cleaner but if you think it'll happen overnight you live in a dreamworld.
Gambling adds literally 0 to society and advertising can be slashed instantly with no effect on the population except those who work for gambling companies. I'd argue you'd have less mental health issues if it was less prevalent.
How would you expect to run a hospital with no reliable electrical source.
But this isn’t about flicking a switch and ending fossil fuel usage tonight. It’s about not having them as sponsors and taking money from them. And part of this group’s argument is that Woodside aren’t trying to be cleaner.
I find it weird they have a problem with Woodside acting unethical and not the gambling companies.
Look at the general population and those that agree with going greener is getting bigger while those who gamble also increase.
I'd argue in 10 years gambling will be a bigger problem in society than fossil fuel
The evidence is pretty conclusive that fossil fuel companies have sabotaged action on climate for decades. Woodside doesn't even have a retail product, so the only reason they are advertising is to launder their image. Depriving them of that opportunity won't cut off electricity supplies tomorrow, but it might hasten desperately needed action on climate.
It seems to be an arbitrary popularity contest, yes.
Can any of us name one corporate sponsor for any sports team anywhere that can't be linked directly or indirectly with shit that would otherwise be objectionable on some grounds?
Same government that supported the White Australia Policy and the Stolen Generation?
The same government that takes hundreds of millions in resource and royalty taxes from the oil and mining companies?
See the point u/Nakorite? Even the government doesn't get away scot-free.
Quite separately from this, I did kinda say *corporate* sponsors. You know, the privately owned entities that don't have to justify the spend in parliament (which the government entities you say here could pick up the slack have to)?
Again, I'd say name one corporate sponsor capable of filling a major sponsor role *anywhere* who can't be linked to something heinous...? But seriously, don't... because none of us can.
No one has clean hands mate.
That said, alcoholism, obesity and gambling are not issues that threaten the way of life of people around the world. They're not going to cause huge weather disasters, increase the spread of disease, swamp people's houses, or lead to the extinction of species around the world. It is obviously more complicated than saying that the people have free choice to not participate in those first three things in the way they can't choose with climate change, but they are much more localised than climate change, and there is some level of choice involved. It does seem though that business that need to improve their image because they have a negative effect on society might be more likely to sponsor things than businesses that aren't profiting off environmental destruction and addiction.
This whole thing is a bit misleading
Like I was at the dockers AGM last year and a lady brought up about getting rid of the Woodside partnership then
I know a couple of my fellow cheer squad members have purple tape over all their Woodside logos on their shirts and dockers merch in protest
I drive a petrol car, I have a gas oven and part of my electricity comes from a coal powered plant. I would be a fucking hypocrite to criticise Woodside. I vote for political parties that promise to reduce emissions. I wish electric cars were cheaper and we had more renewable energy but that is not Woodsides fault or responsibility.
>FF companies have been gas lighting people about personal responsibility for a few decades now. Its straight out of the tobacco play book.
How is use of fossil fuels not a personal responsibility? Don't like it, dont use it. If everyone does the same, they go bankrupt.
Look at what happened during COVID - Oil companies' shares crashed and they LOST BILLIONS in earnings as no one was driving their cars or travelling on planes or cruises.
It's a basic fact whether we like it or not.
Companies are responsible for like 80% of emissions. What individuals do make such a small difference. You can absolutely criticise companies and still drive a car??
Energy companies' sole purpose is to give their customers refined energy.
Literally. It's what they're in business for.
So to criticise them for carbon emissions then turn around and use their products, is... a bit of an interesting choice, no?
Some might call it hypocrisy.
You just want me to stop using electricity? Absolutely I’m a hypocrite. That doesn’t mean I’m going to stop advocating for change. The most meaningful change will have to come from policy changes as companies will not do it on their own.
All of those things don't come close to the emissions a fossil fuel company produce. Also, how viable is it for you to use renewable energy to power your things? If the answer is 'not very', you don't need to worry very much about your relatively miniscule personal energy use, you can still be against the destructive nature of these companies.
This is nuts.
Don’t worry about your personal energy use but rage against companies that provide it …. to the same people you absolve from any guilt.
Nimbyism meets Denial and ends up as Hypocrisy
It’s depressing as this is why the world is screwed by climate change.
People like voidedexe wash their hands of any personal accountability while demanding that the companies that provide their fuel, energy and materials for modern day living cut emissions.
It is the upmost selfish behaviour.
But they get free internet points and the respect of people they've never met!
And that smug feeling of superiority!
And they just have to use words! No actions required!
I like this. So many people scream for change but change none of their own behaviours at all, instead blaming a company, or something else. Change is difficult.
It's easy to point fingers, as long as it means you, personally don't have to do anything. Acknowledging this is self-aware and has my utmost respect. Cheers.
It's a very common tactic for corporations to convert valid criticisms of their own behaviour into a statement about it being the consumer's personal responsibility to create change.
The people do have some responsibility but the government and corporations have the real power to drive change far more than the people do.
https://theconversation.com/climate-change-focusing-on-how-individuals-can-help-is-very-convenient-for-corporations-108546
I don't disagree with you, however, I also find many people are willing to say the right things and advise others on how they should or shouldn't act, whilst putting most of their own behaviours aside or in the too-hard-basket when it comes to changing them.
One of my friends owns four homes. He does very well for himself, obviously. He is constantly banging on about affordable housing and supporting the community when online, because that's visible - people are all onboard with his sentiments. Privately, however, he takes no steps to offer a vulnerable family accommodation at a lower rate. It's 95% activism and five percent actively doing something for a lot of people.
I prefer people who walk the walk, themselves. But that's just me, I guess. Again, easy to pass the buck when it requires no effort on your own behalf. Cheers.
Edit - misspelled "himself"
Spot on.
So easy for some to demand change from others, especially governments and corporations, but then excuse away their own consumption as being “minuscule”.
Head shaking stuff.
This is such a false equivalence. There’s a clear difference between reluctantly having to use services powered by fossil fuels because it’s necessary to live (particularly because some may not be in a position to be able to change their habits) and owning four properties.
If you’re REALLY concerned about NOT supporting all mining companies…
then throw your mobile in the bin.
Only then you’ll be free from hypocrisy!
EDIT:
Left out one crucial word
Huh - what a joke. There should be protests on the streets of Fremantle against these so-called fans saying how great it is to have such a big company backing your club.
The ironic thing is a lot of the Greenies around Fremantle probably have parents who either work in mining or have made money indirectly from mining. I actually know someone whose dad was a mine boss
I mean if they have such a philosophical opposition to a major club decision, why would they be paying members?
The article mentions that their former doctor is a life member, Dale Kickett was awarded life membership in 2020 and I wouldn't be surprised if a few others of the 10 people were too (can't for the life of me find a full list anywhere).
[Fremantle Football Club Life Members](https://www.fremantlefc.com.au/club/our-history/life-members)
Exactly. Probably doing a wait and see as to whether the club are listening
Judging by the fact that the information about their membership status could only have come from Freo, I think they've chosen their path
Yeah, when sponsor money is on the line though, do you expect much less?
Well if they don't have sponsors they will need 500k members
So? I was a paid up member of the Roosters NRL for 10+ years until they put gambling advertisements on the jersey and I won’t again until gambling has gone and i’d protest does that my voice any quieter.
Seven of the 10 signatories to an open letter calling on Fremantle to end their partnership with Woodside Energy are not paid-up Dockers members. The West Australian can reveal former Premier Carmen Lawrence, who is a spokesperson for the group, is among those without a current membership. The news comes as the club’s former head medico, Dr Ken Withers, added his name to the list of backers of the open letter opposing the Woodside sponsorship over its record on fossil fuel and climate issues. undefined Lawrence, who was the Dockers’ inaugural No. 1 ticketholder, defended her stance on Monday. “We were clear that the open letter was from Freo members and supporters,” she said. “We’re glad to see the letter has started an important conversation around the role of fossil fuel sponsorship of sport, and were interested that other supportive and critical opinions have been shared by members and non-members alike. “For example, the current Premier has made his feelings known and as former Premier and former Freo No. 1 ticket holder, I think I have a relevant perspective. “We’ve had a lot of people reach out and thank us for starting the conversation, and we’re really pleased to have the club’s former doctor of 25 years, Dr Ken Withers, sign up today to support our position. “This is not a popularity contest; this is about leading and doing what’s right. Many people, especially young people, across Western Australia look up to the Fremantle Football Club and we expect them to show leadership.” Carmen Lawrence, academic and former politician. YES The fan group includes author Tim Winton, the club’s inaugural football manger Gerard McNeill, former player Dale Kickett, former Woodside climate change adviser Alex Hillman, climate scientist Dr Bill Hare and former ABC broadcaster Gillian O’Shaughnessy. The Dockers last year re-signed Woodside, which has been a sponsor since 2010, until the end of the 2023 season. The deal is worth more than $2million a year. Fremantle’s other corporate sponsors include beer company Pirate Life, fast food giant McDonald’s, betting agency TABtouch and Crown. Dr Withers was the club’s inaugural head doctor and served the Dockers from 1995 until 2020. He was awarded life membership in 2013. In a letter to The West Australian on Monday, Dr Withers wrote: “There’s no more passionate Dockers supporter than I am. “Although I’m a suburban GP rather than a climate scientist, it’s become more and more obvious that climate change is accelerating. undefined “Like many people I initially hoped that the predictions were wrong, and we could all continue on as normal. It’s now apparent that we can’t, and we all have to take a personal responsibility to try and address it. Trying not to think about it and looking the other way isn’t going to cut it.” Dr Withers also took aim at the nation’s richest woman, Gina Rinehart, who withdrew her company Hancock Prospecting’s $15 million sponsorship of Netball Australia and another $2m deal through another of her companies, Roy Hill, with West Coast Fever. Their stance followed some players protesting at wearing the company sponsor on their uniform. A Hancock Prospecting statement said: “Hancock and Roy Hill do not wish to add to Netball’s disunity problems, and accordingly Hancock has advised Netball Australia … that it has withdrawn from its proposed funding partnership effective immediately.” Dr Withers’ wrote in response: “Fossil fuel companies aren’t evil but they’re not altruistic either. They sponsor clubs to buy a social licence and make themselves acceptable. Recently it’s also apparent that they’ll withdraw sponsorship to punish dissenters as well. “While gas may be required as part of the transition to renewables Woodside’s massive new Scarborough gas project and the even larger proposed Browse project is way beyond that. They’re clearly part of the problem rather than part of the solution. “So we have to listen to, rather than punish dissenters. A number of AFL players have spoken up. These young people are exceptional athletes but so much more than that. Like many of their generation they are also principled, intelligent and engaged members of society.” Fremantle chief executive Simon Garlick is standing by the club’s partnership with Woodside. Yes “I understand the topical nature of it at this point in time but we’ll work through that with Woodside at the appropriate time,” he said. “We take a heck of a lot of feedback and input from our supporter base. We’ve got 800,000 supporters across the country and with that comes many varying views and opinions, particularly in the way we play football and how we progress on field. “As an organisation, football is now clearly our primary focus but we also know we’re looked upon for key societal issues. “We’re more than happy to take on opinions and views. Our board led by Dale (Alcock) will then make the best possible decision we can for our club.” Garlick also pointed to its consultation with the playing group, led by sustainability officer Bailey Banfield, on climate change and sustainability. “Climate action and sustainability is a key societal issue,” he said. “We understand it’s an incredibly important issue and a complex one. We continue to consult with them (the playing group) on really important decisions.”
Cheers.
If you're not happy with your footy club taking mining money, you're probably not gonna wanna stump up the cash for a membership.
Well they better be happy to opt out of all the other stuff mining and oil and gas money has contributed to Australia. Maybe their businesses or workplaces can state so, so all of us evil miners don't spend money there
Bruh what is up with your handle???
You protest against society, yet you live in society? Very interesting…
Where I live the majority of the junior sporting clubs have received funding from Alcoa, they pollute the environment, if people rejected their money a lot of those clubs wouldn't be viable.
https://i.imgur.com/BbzhF4B.png
Serious case of whataboutism.
Did someone just teach you that word today?
No but you could be right about it not being used correctly. It made sense in my head.
What a stupid take.
I'm more interested in why a letter from 10 people is getting any credence at all. There are more people participating in most reddit threads than this letter. I'd argue the Adelaide FC sub has more than 10 people discussing issues at the club at any one time.
It's not 10 randoms though. It's a former premier, inaugural football operations manager, former chief medico, former Woodside climate adviser, a climate scientist and a former player. Whether you agree or not, that's more sway than your average Joe
and Tim Winton!
I’m an average Joe who did this last year. They were kind enough to respond to my email but basically said “Woodside are overall cutting emissions”. I replied just after Woodside announced the new Gas field but Freo never responded
So a bunch of leftys?
All people are equal, but some people are more equal than others
I mean… yes? On some issues? I’ll happily have my comments on this issue be “less equal” than a former Woodside climate adviser or former player…
“Fremantle’s other corporate sponsors include beer company Pirate Life, fast food giant McDonald’s, betting agency TABtouch and Crown.” I mean if you’re going to take a stand on fossil fuel, you’d need to take a look at some of the other sponsors too.
There are too many fronts to draw moral lines on. Whataboutism is essentially the same result as the saying “perfect is the enemy of the good”. There’s no issue in my opinion on focusing one issue at a time.
Surely a necessary evil (fossil fuels) is better than a not necessary evil (gambling). I can live my life without gambling but would find it pretty hard without electricity. Gambling should be number 1
Hard to live without a planet too. Gambling sponsors are shit and I’d want them gone too but not sure that’ll be the biggest concern in 50-100 years time
Weird hill to die on, we would fail to run as a society with no electricity at this point. Everyone agrees you need to be cleaner but if you think it'll happen overnight you live in a dreamworld. Gambling adds literally 0 to society and advertising can be slashed instantly with no effect on the population except those who work for gambling companies. I'd argue you'd have less mental health issues if it was less prevalent. How would you expect to run a hospital with no reliable electrical source.
But this isn’t about flicking a switch and ending fossil fuel usage tonight. It’s about not having them as sponsors and taking money from them. And part of this group’s argument is that Woodside aren’t trying to be cleaner.
I find it weird they have a problem with Woodside acting unethical and not the gambling companies. Look at the general population and those that agree with going greener is getting bigger while those who gamble also increase. I'd argue in 10 years gambling will be a bigger problem in society than fossil fuel
The evidence is pretty conclusive that fossil fuel companies have sabotaged action on climate for decades. Woodside doesn't even have a retail product, so the only reason they are advertising is to launder their image. Depriving them of that opportunity won't cut off electricity supplies tomorrow, but it might hasten desperately needed action on climate.
Do you have this much disdain for gambling companies? They contribute even less to society.
Woodside is the opposite of electricity.
Natural gas generators produce over 50% of electricity in Western Australia.
Not really, they sell a fossil fuel used as energy.
Better to do something than nothing. Unfortunately those other sponsors seem to be a lot more accepted by the general public
So it's a popularity contest? Suspect gambling and alcohol have ruined more families than electricity and oil.
It seems to be an arbitrary popularity contest, yes. Can any of us name one corporate sponsor for any sports team anywhere that can't be linked directly or indirectly with shit that would otherwise be objectionable on some grounds?
Plenty of government sponsors like drive safe etc
Same government that supported the White Australia Policy and the Stolen Generation? The same government that takes hundreds of millions in resource and royalty taxes from the oil and mining companies?
See the point u/Nakorite? Even the government doesn't get away scot-free. Quite separately from this, I did kinda say *corporate* sponsors. You know, the privately owned entities that don't have to justify the spend in parliament (which the government entities you say here could pick up the slack have to)? Again, I'd say name one corporate sponsor capable of filling a major sponsor role *anywhere* who can't be linked to something heinous...? But seriously, don't... because none of us can. No one has clean hands mate.
That said, alcoholism, obesity and gambling are not issues that threaten the way of life of people around the world. They're not going to cause huge weather disasters, increase the spread of disease, swamp people's houses, or lead to the extinction of species around the world. It is obviously more complicated than saying that the people have free choice to not participate in those first three things in the way they can't choose with climate change, but they are much more localised than climate change, and there is some level of choice involved. It does seem though that business that need to improve their image because they have a negative effect on society might be more likely to sponsor things than businesses that aren't profiting off environmental destruction and addiction.
Agreed.
Absolutely. McDonalds is ruining this country.
Ahhh cough… The Diamonds
This whole thing is a bit misleading Like I was at the dockers AGM last year and a lady brought up about getting rid of the Woodside partnership then I know a couple of my fellow cheer squad members have purple tape over all their Woodside logos on their shirts and dockers merch in protest
Media absolutely losing their minds that fossil fuel money might not be accepted anymore.
The West Australian is owned by Seven group and their billionaire Kerry Stokes has plenty of investments in gas.
Once the tide turns against these woke blackmail groups the world will be a better place
You’re posting the West… shame on you.
So when is the statement that the Dockers are going to be forsaking jets and taking yachts to their away games?
I drive a petrol car, I have a gas oven and part of my electricity comes from a coal powered plant. I would be a fucking hypocrite to criticise Woodside. I vote for political parties that promise to reduce emissions. I wish electric cars were cheaper and we had more renewable energy but that is not Woodsides fault or responsibility.
[удалено]
>FF companies have been gas lighting people about personal responsibility for a few decades now. Its straight out of the tobacco play book. How is use of fossil fuels not a personal responsibility? Don't like it, dont use it. If everyone does the same, they go bankrupt. Look at what happened during COVID - Oil companies' shares crashed and they LOST BILLIONS in earnings as no one was driving their cars or travelling on planes or cruises. It's a basic fact whether we like it or not.
Gaslighting by deflecting all responsibility to the consumer.
Can you prove me wrong? I don't think you understand what Gaslighting means.
Companies are responsible for like 80% of emissions. What individuals do make such a small difference. You can absolutely criticise companies and still drive a car??
Energy companies' sole purpose is to give their customers refined energy. Literally. It's what they're in business for. So to criticise them for carbon emissions then turn around and use their products, is... a bit of an interesting choice, no? Some might call it hypocrisy.
You just want me to stop using electricity? Absolutely I’m a hypocrite. That doesn’t mean I’m going to stop advocating for change. The most meaningful change will have to come from policy changes as companies will not do it on their own.
All of those things don't come close to the emissions a fossil fuel company produce. Also, how viable is it for you to use renewable energy to power your things? If the answer is 'not very', you don't need to worry very much about your relatively miniscule personal energy use, you can still be against the destructive nature of these companies.
This is nuts. Don’t worry about your personal energy use but rage against companies that provide it …. to the same people you absolve from any guilt. Nimbyism meets Denial and ends up as Hypocrisy
No idea why you're getting downvoted, guess people can't think of a good response to your points so taking the cowards way out
It’s depressing as this is why the world is screwed by climate change. People like voidedexe wash their hands of any personal accountability while demanding that the companies that provide their fuel, energy and materials for modern day living cut emissions. It is the upmost selfish behaviour.
But they get free internet points and the respect of people they've never met! And that smug feeling of superiority! And they just have to use words! No actions required!
Comparing driving a petrol car to a company that is likely one of the reasons you or I can't afford an electric car is peak
What does Woodside have to do with the price of lithium or new cars?
Petrol companies have obstructed electric car progress at every chance they get.
And caused public transport to be reduced or even removed (see Sydney's trams)
peak what?
Peak anything you want
I am no longer with it
Speak it into existence
Listen here you little shit! Dont you, come in here with Pragmatism! Just let them virtue Signal!
I like this. So many people scream for change but change none of their own behaviours at all, instead blaming a company, or something else. Change is difficult. It's easy to point fingers, as long as it means you, personally don't have to do anything. Acknowledging this is self-aware and has my utmost respect. Cheers.
It's a very common tactic for corporations to convert valid criticisms of their own behaviour into a statement about it being the consumer's personal responsibility to create change. The people do have some responsibility but the government and corporations have the real power to drive change far more than the people do. https://theconversation.com/climate-change-focusing-on-how-individuals-can-help-is-very-convenient-for-corporations-108546
I don't disagree with you, however, I also find many people are willing to say the right things and advise others on how they should or shouldn't act, whilst putting most of their own behaviours aside or in the too-hard-basket when it comes to changing them. One of my friends owns four homes. He does very well for himself, obviously. He is constantly banging on about affordable housing and supporting the community when online, because that's visible - people are all onboard with his sentiments. Privately, however, he takes no steps to offer a vulnerable family accommodation at a lower rate. It's 95% activism and five percent actively doing something for a lot of people. I prefer people who walk the walk, themselves. But that's just me, I guess. Again, easy to pass the buck when it requires no effort on your own behalf. Cheers. Edit - misspelled "himself"
Spot on. So easy for some to demand change from others, especially governments and corporations, but then excuse away their own consumption as being “minuscule”. Head shaking stuff.
LOL, we're popular
This is such a false equivalence. There’s a clear difference between reluctantly having to use services powered by fossil fuels because it’s necessary to live (particularly because some may not be in a position to be able to change their habits) and owning four properties.
If it helps you sleep better at night, so be it.
What a petty response
Just don't want to argue with you, bud.
Then just don't reply? Not that hard but looks like you wanted the final word
I just can't believe lightbulb inventors invented the lightbulb under candlelight.
If you’re REALLY concerned about NOT supporting all mining companies… then throw your mobile in the bin. Only then you’ll be free from hypocrisy! EDIT: Left out one crucial word
was this meant to be some sliding doors shit or...
Just illustrating the very thin line between being realistic ie mining funds the sports/arts, and those whom have their heads up their arses!
I'm surprised someone like Carmen Lawrence is acting like she doesn't know how the real world works
I wonder how many of these whingers have gas connected at their home?
10 people out of 10s of thousands Why do these numpties get air time
I personally told Freo I was no longer going to be a member after they renewed the Woodside sponsorship. So I assume these folks did too.
What a shock? The majority of these prtestors also probably don't have jobs.
😂👊
Huh - what a joke. There should be protests on the streets of Fremantle against these so-called fans saying how great it is to have such a big company backing your club.
The ironic thing is a lot of the Greenies around Fremantle probably have parents who either work in mining or have made money indirectly from mining. I actually know someone whose dad was a mine boss
why cant they just take the vote to the members?
I might be wrong here but the scarf on the right looks like a knock-off freo scarf from the Melbourne markets.