Exxon-Mobil executives are almost certainly having their meals serenaded with much smaller violins this year as the second quarter profits were just (ONLY!!!) $3.95 billion — or a 66% drop from the 2008 second quarter. Sigh … no $40 billion+ in profits this year.
Shell also saw a 2/3rds drop in profits.
The oil company executives seem to agree: worldwide oil demand is low. Shell’s Peter Voser
Our second quarter results were affected by the weak global economy. This weakness is creating a difficult environment both in Upstream and Downstream. Energy demand is weak. There is excess capacity in the market, and industry costs remain high. Conditions are likely to remain challenging for some time, and we are not banking on a quick recovery.
Even so, oil prices are in the $60 range, not the under $20 as just a decade ago.
Comments Off on Bring out the violins …Tags:Energy
Since launching The Pickens Plan in 2008, T Boone Pickens has become a face for American households about the potential for changing America’s energy structure. In short, T Boone advocates for a program that would reduce America’s dependence on overseas oil by:
Constructing a major wind electricity generation and transmission capability
Use that wind to displace the 20+% of electricity from natural gas
Use the natural gas, instead, for transportation (cars, buses, trucks)
While T Boone’s downhome style and $10s of millions of investment in advertising / web services / etc have helped build up quite a following, the details of the plan don’t stand up to any serious scrutiny:
Wind is not an easy path for displacing natural gas electricity transmission. In fact, wind and natural gas are natural partners for a cost-effective energy system.
DPC Lunches. Every Thursday the Senate is in session, the DPC hosts a lunch at which Senators hear from leading figures in government, politics, business and journalism. Past guests have included Al Gore, Madeleine Albright, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Henry Paulson, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Michael Bloomberg, John Sweeney, Rupert Murdoch, Bill Moyers, Tim Russert, and Tom Friedman.
Yes, it seems that T Boone could meet the requirement of being a “leading figure” but we have to wonder whether there is going to be anyone in the room prepared with the information to and willing to challenge T. Boone Pickens’ smooth truthiness-laden sales pitch.
And, let us not forget that this is occurring just as the Senate is struggling to figure out how to develop a sensible energy and climate bill to marry up with the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act. Anyone doubt that T Boone will push hard for funding for natural gas vehicles?
Now, T Boone has spent much of the time since putting forward The Pickens Plan saying that there is no one else with an energy plan and challenging others to ‘come up with a plan’ if we don’t like his. Well, the reality has been that there were lots of plans out there prior to his launching The Pickens’ Plan and there are many still around. If the DPC is interested in having a serious discussion about energy issues with people whose plans will enrich the United States, improve U.S. security, and mitigate climate change, there are many (MANY) people to have in for a lunch before bringing in T Boone.
Or, why not bring in Sunil Paul to talk about the Gigaton Throwdown: looking at nine different paths for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 1 gigaton (or more) by 2020, with a cogent discussion of the barriers for actually achieving those reductions?
Or … the list is virtually endless.
No, rather than bring in serious people who are discussing serious solutions, the DPC is bringing a snake-oil salesman who merits credit for dishonorable attacks on the 2004 Democratic Party presidential nominee … Giving T Boone such prominence is bad for energy policy and bad politics. Now, the insanity of this embrace is that The Pickens Plan is a Potemkin Village, on many levels, and is not good on fiscal, energy, or environmental grounds. This is simply bad politics: what should be done is setting Pickens up as the extreme of legitimate debate. He is offering a fossil-fuel heavy (natural gas rather than oil) answer to our challenges, while admitting that Climate Change is a reality. This should be laid out, clearly, as the limit of legitimate debate and discussion (with some elements of Pickens concepts / plan worthy of inclusion) rather than embracing Pickens as some form of (false) messiah.
U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) were joined today by energy-independence advocate T. Boone Pickens to tout new legislation that would boost vehicles that run on clean natural gas. The NAT GAS Act, introduced today by Menendez and co-sponsored by Reid and Hatch, would extend and increase tax credits for natural gas vehicles and refueling.
That bill would greatly increase resources toward natural gas vehicles when the resources could be better spent elsewhere and otherwise to reduce America’s oil dependency.
The setting
Notable (notorious) anti-science syndrome suffering climate skeptic Anthony Watts has made much of looking at scientists work and seemingly showing where there problems with that work. Evidently, however, he has some concerns when he faces such a look; perhaps because that look provided a clear and accessible demonstration of the shallowness of Watts’ claims. A recent video in Peter Sinclair’s excellent “Climate Denial Crock of the Week” series (see, for example, this GESN post) highlighted how Watts’ work is fundamentally flawed.
Watts complained to YouTube, evidently asserting copyright infringement, and, voila, the video “Watts Up With Watts?” is no longer available.
So what do you do when someone posts a YouTube video saying you’re a crock? One way is to complain and get it wiped clean off the ‘inter-tubes.’ …
The video was removed after Watts complained under YouTube’s Copyright Infringement guidelines. This has become known as a DMCA Takedown – with the DMCA being the US copyright law used to criminalize anyone infringing and/or circumventing copyrighted works.
… I think this is about a video that thoroughly shreds Watts and his argument that the world is wrong about climate change and he is right.
So what is it Watts? Instead of hiding behind an automated service that deletes any video on YouTube that someone claims infringes DMCA, why don’t you … explain why you think Sinclair’s video should not be viewed by the public.
Perhaps, Kevin, it is simply because Watts is uncomfortable when people are too skeptical about skeptics.
It isn’t just Kevin, others are reacting and entering the discussion.
A Watts’ ally speaks up and says something truly inane
Roger Pielke Sr has decided to step into the fray, with a no-holds barred statement in support of Anthony Watts, calls “a well respected colleague who has provided a much needed analysis to the climate science community”. “Well-respected …” Okay, let’s not touch that one with a ten-foot pole. But consider this phrase:
resorting to the absurd connection of climate to how the health issues of tobacco were reported
As per the title of this piece, a simple (painful) question: Should we be laughing or crying at the absurdity of (false) outrage that anyone would suggest that there is a linkage between “Thank you for Smoking” and what has happened with the political and social debate over climate change for the past 20+ years.
Now, the failure of this opening? That MOD Squad (Merchants of Death) are solely the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms industries. It so easily could have had those who fight against any (and all) efforts to reduce America’s CO2 emission addiction.
ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused lung cancer,” said Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Director of Strategy & Policy. “A modest but effective investment has allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay government action just as Big Tobacco did for over 40 years.”
In 1993, Philip Morris, getting hammered in public opinion over second-hand smoke after the release of an EPA report, hired the PR firm APCO. APCO designed a campaign to fight a ban on passive smoking by creating the impression of a grassroots movement to fight over-regulation and to portray tobacco fears as just one of many unfounded fears. What are some of the other unfounded fears you may ask? According to big tobacco, one is global warming. Interesting.
Now, I’m not sure that Monbiot is fully right on this (after all, there was denial going on well before this, fighting against George HW Bush, for example, taking action at Rio) but this is just a taste of the very clear relationship between those who distorted the science about tobacco’s health risks and those distorting the science on climate change despite Roger Pielke, Sr’s, outrage over the assertion of ” the absurd connection of climate to how the health issues of tobacco were reported”.
Despite Pielke’s protestations, the linkages between how industry and ideologues fought to confuse the public discussion of the science about tobacco/health and polluting fossil fuel use/global warming are quite clear and strong. They are clear enough that a scientific institution could write a solid report solely based on one fossil-fuel company’s activities. They are clear enough that denying them is along the same lines as denial of global warming (and human contributions to it) and ‘birther’ assertions that President Obama isn’t a native born American.
A simple question when facing absurd statements from global warming deniers (no matter their scientific qualifications): Should we laugh or cry?
Update: Surprisingly, as noted by Greenfyre, there is a notable silence in the deniersphere about the Sinclair-Watts face-off and not just from Watts. Roger Pielke, Sr,’s comment seems to be an isolated one.
Interesting.
The Deniers are never one to miss a pretext to cry about being wronged, censored and oppressed. Here was a chance to rally the peasants with torchs and pitch forks to protest the vile treatment of Watts, and yet …nothing.
Is it that they are so locked into playing the victim that they don’t want the Faithful to know about censoring others?
Or are they afraid to mention the series at all lest some of the mob see it and actually learn something?
“The End of the Beginning of the Collapse” addressed some conflicting economic-analysis diaries by bonddad and bobswern about “the end of the end of the Recession.”
I made the case that a real economy operates within a larger context, and that current economic analyses, stock markets, and fund managers weren’t contending with “the converging emergencies”: climate chaos, biology breach, species collapse, infectious disease, and resource depletion. Further, I said that the next three to ten years were going to be nothing like the last three to ten, because of these “converging emergencies” — and that there were serious shifts ahead which would roil markets, economies, and even societies.
What I want to start to do is to begin envisioning the likely “converging emergencies,” and asking policy, political, and practical questions about them, of this community.
Notable (notorious) climate skeptic Anthony Watts has made much of looking at scientists work and seemingly showing where there problems with that work. Evidently, however, he has some concerns when he faces such a look; perhaps because that look provided a clear and accessible demonstration of the shallowness of Watts’ claims. A recent video by Peter Sinclair’s excellent “Climate Denial Crock of the Week” series (see, for example, this GESN post) highlighted how Watts’ work is fundamentally flawed.
Watts complained to YouTube, evidently asserting copyright infringement, and, voila, the video “Watts Up With Watts?” is no longer available.
So what do you do when someone posts a YouTube video saying you’re a crock? One way is to complain and get it wiped clean off the ‘inter-tubes.’ …
The video was removed after Watts complained under YouTube’s Copyright Infringement guidelines. This has become known as a DMCA Takedown – with the DMCA being the US copyright law used to criminalize anyone infringing and/or circumventing copyrighted works.
Before I posted Sinclair’s youtube video, as I normally do with any YouTube video I post, I vetted it from a DMCA point of view and, quite frankly I don’t know what part of the video Watts would have a problem with. There’s nothing I saw in the video that appears to break any copyright as it relates to Watts.
Now maybe he took issue with the short (credited) clip at the beginning from Will Ferrell’s Anchorman movie…. but I think this is more about a video that thoroughly shreds Watts and his argument that the world is wrong about climate change and he is right.
So what is it Watts? Instead of hiding behind an automated service that deletes any video on YouTube that someone claims infringes DMCA, why don’t you email me (desmogblog [at] gmail [dot] com) and explain why you think Sinclair’s video should not be viewed by the public.
Perhaps, Kevin, it is simply because Watts is uncomfortable when people are too skeptical about skeptics.
This guest post comes from mwmwm, who is found normally at ApocaDocs. This is a powerful, must read, discussion about the seriousness of the “convergence of emergencies” that we, as a society and a species, face in the coming years and decades.
This morning, I started my day with a coffee cup and DailyKos, intrigued by the internicene conflict between the estimable bonddad (who has informed me countless times), and bobswern (who has also informed me countless times), each of whom posted diaries disagreeing with each other (Bonddad, bobswern) about whether we are seeing “the bottom” of the recession, and whether a gloomy or merely less-gloomy future awaits us).
Their analysis was fascinating; less fascinating was the implicit and explicit sniping between adherents (and authors) to the different philosophies and assumptions of the others.
But in both analyses, there was something seriously lacking.
After highlighting the absurdity of Senator Claire McCaskill’s comments re Global Warming in Twitting Claire and To Twit Claire, a musing step back contemplation. Putting aside simply doing the right thing, recognizing the science, taking the Energy Smart path, and fighting to convince her voters that she’s right as she seeks to put the nation on an Energy Smart path for a prosperous, secure, and climate-friendly future, what “should” (or “could”) Claire McCaskill do when it comes to energy and climate legislation?
Now, a quick moment to review the bidding:
Missouri is one of the most coal-dependent states (roughly 83% of its electricity), even though that coal is all imported.
Claire has, repeatedly, stated that “Global warming is real,and its a serious problem.”
Claire has, repeatedly, stated things like climate legislation ‘should not unfairly punish Missouri citizens’ and that she will work with ‘moderates’ to assure that climate legislation doesn’t unfairly punish Missouri businesses and citizens.
Missouri residents overwhelmingly voted for moving toward renewable energy, even though the ballot measure explicitly stated that this might mean higher utility bills.
While there many questions to ask Claire, why not seek to help Claire turn this around: Rather than fighting the twisted logic that, somehow, climate legislation will “unfairly punish Missouri’, why not seek to assure that clean energy legislation will ‘unfairly’ favor Missouri?
A simple fact: Claire’s seeming intention to fight to protect Missouri’s archaic and heavily-polluting energy system will foster continuing to dig a deeper hole, on multiple grounds, for Missouri rather than crafting a strategy for a more competitive and prosperous Missouri in the years and decades to come.
Rather than struggling to protect the burning of coal (imported from other states, thus sending Missouri rate-payers’ hard-earned money to other states), couldn’t Claire embrace the two-thirds of Missourians who have voted for clean energy, the two-thirds who embraced a serious renewable electricity standard even though the ballot measure explicitly stated that the measure could (COULD) lead to increased utility bills?
Now, when it came to passing the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act out of the House of Representatives, there were votes ‘bought’ with expenditures (necessary expenditures — but now targeted to specific districts rather than uncertain as to where the jobs would go). Being able to point to X jobs, $Y spending to come in provides powerful press release material for any member of Congress. Rather than embracing delay, rather than seeking some form of false middle ground between science and sufferers of anti-science syndrome, could not Claire step up for Missourians and their future in a far different way than her current strategy?
Huh??? What does this mean?
Consider this alternative path, an outline for Claire McCaskill to follow in negotiating with other Senators and the Obama Administration:
Missouri is highly coal dependent with, in fact, a relatively modern coal-burning infrastructure
This coal dependency enables relatively low electricity rates.
These low rates, however, come at a high cost in terms of pollution damage.
Just like all Americans, Missourians want a clean energy future, but to phase out the modern coal-burning infrastructure could prove to be an economic burden.
Just as the Federal government helped other portions of the country achieve a clean energy grid (through, for example, building of minor things like the Hoover Dam), America should help Missouri accelerate its way toward a clean energy future in part because so many of the benefits (such as reduced acid raid for New York, reduced burden on the rail lines for moving coal) accrue outside Missouri.
If we were ‘to be Claire’, this could be used to support a request along these lines:
Provide additional assistance to Missouri for:
Energy efficiency in businesses, homes, public buildings
Deploying renewable energy production
Establish in Missouri a National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) center focused on biomass energy (along with guaranteed funding for biomass demonstration facilities in Missouri)
Request $2 billion per year for these measures (okay, wouldn’t get that, but don’t start with your minimum requirement)
If Claire McCaskill were able to go back to Missouri citizens with a $billion (or $500 million or $1.5 billion) per year in targeted funding that would lead to jobs in Missouri, more Missouri spending staying in Missouri, improved business competitive position, a leadership position in critical arenas for a clean energy future, and savings for Missorians (businesses and housholds) on their energy bills, she would be a hero to the two-thirds plus of Missouri voters who have already demonstrated, in the ballot box, their support for a clean-energy future.
Claire faces a choice. Right now she is regaling, it seems, in portraying herself as “moderate” because she places herself between those concerned about Global Warming and those who simply wish to say no to science and the reality of what we are already seeing around the world. She can continue this path which will sabotage (both environmentally and fiscally) effective energy / climate legislation or she can carve out a leadership position that advantages her state while helping move the nation (and the globe) forward toward a more prosperous, more secure, more climate-friendly future.
When it comes to “unfairly”, Claire can continue with the truthiness-laden concerns of worrying about ‘unfair punishment’ or she could turn herself to serving her voters by seeking to assure that legislation unfairly benefits Missouri.
[Senator McCaskill] listened politely, then in an empathetic voice asked how we felt about China and India’s lack of cooperation in climate change negotiations, referring to the recent G8 summit in Italy. Our delegation of young people in the room clearly were on a different page than her, and responded with enthusiasm that we’d rather start the clean energy transition than follow (in more eloquent words, citing strong investment by China into alternative energy).
Claire responded by turning to speak on the economic difficulty she believes ACES would place on Missourians in particular. She said that she knows “10-15” manufacturing companies that are on the “bubble” in Missouri, even “one or two” that have already had to move jobs overseas. Claire claimed a “chasm” existed between the current and future energy infrastructures. In sum, her argument was that if we attempt to transition too quickly from our current mode of energy production, many companies (energy and otherwise) would suffer.
Thus, fearful that there might be negative impacts in the short term, Claire is willing to sacrifice the long term: the long term competitiveness of Missouri in a world economy to be dominated by clean energy options and the long term viability of Missouri in the face of ever-mounting Global Warming impacts.
That discussion is worth reading, not just for understanding the chasm between Claire and Missourians concerned about creating a prosperous clean-energy future, but also for a window as to the communication challenge before us:
A door opened in the room- an assistant alerting Claire her next meeting had arrived, so I made my last pitch, telling her that despite how it may appear, there are many in Missouri who believe ACES should be strengthened and passed, especially young people like those before her. “You know what, though?” Claire said, returning to her empathetic tone. She reported that, out of the letters she’s received from Missourians, (approximate numbers) around 200 were “against” ACES and only 10-15 “for”.
Let us assume that this is accurate, just “10-15 [letters] for” action on climate change legislation? Okay, Missourians, can’t you do better than that?
Now, there is also the question of face-to-face discussions with her staff (a vehicle for communicating with Claire). For example, just tomorrow night, the astroturf Americans for Prosperity (key supports of Tax Day Tea Parties, for example) has a special session set up for tomorrow with a McCaskill staffer.
Town Hall Meeting with Sen. McCaskill’s District Director
Come join us Monday Night in St. Louis
Date: Monday, July 27, 2009
Time: 7:00pm – 8:00pm
Location: St. Louis Community College – Forest Park Campus (Student Center/Highlander Lounge)
Street: 5600 Oakland Ave, Saint Louis, MO
Michelee Sherod, McCaskill’s district director, will be there for this AFP event. (Reminder, AFP calls global warming “hysteria” and scientists presenting the facts on climate change “alarmists”. ) This is an opportunity for Sen. McCaskill and her staff to hear from the 2/3rds of real Missourians who believe in clean energy and are counting on Claire to help lead on (rather than help degrade) federal climate change legislation. Imagine if an AFP event is half filled with people calling for respect for science and for action to enhance Missouri’s future. If you live in St. Louis or the area, join others Missourians who believe in a clean energy future to weigh in with Sen. McCaskill’s office.
Time for a tale of moving from someone excited about creating a new relationship with a company and one of its products to a household walking away with some serious bad taste in terms of dealing with the firm.
(A brief note: To be clear for a moment: in terms of woe and desperation, this discussion rates pretty low (if at all). There are far too many people — within my own community, within the United States, globally — with serious problems, serious issues. This is a situation of having the luxury of having a problem …)
As some might be aware, I had the chance to test drive a new Ford Fusion Hybrid a month ago. What I didn’t discuss then (planning on future discussions) was that, just prior to delivery of the Fusion, my 1996 Honda Accord came up with a major maintenance problem that led to a euthanasia decision (couldn’t justify a $3500 or so repair on a car ‘valued’ at $1400 with uncertain additional repairs to come). Sigh … had been hoping that that Honda would hold off until a PHEV was generally available, for which the household has been saving for and planning on for a few years, but time to ‘go out and buy’ a car to replace it. (To be clear, this is a big and not casual investment/spending choice for the household.) And, unlike the normal approach of buying used, the decision was ‘new, hybrid’ …
When it came to ‘new, hybrid’, the analysis of family requirements vs options boiled down to two options: Fusion Hybrid or Prius 2010. Of course there were some real Fusion disadvantages compared to the Prius (fuel efficiency fell far short of a Prius (36 highway, 41 city for Fusion vs 48 highway, 51 city for Prius), the storage much smaller than the Prius; the dashboard feedback system was a bit weird in terms of the Human-Systems Interface (HSI); and, well, Toyota’s key system is a joy …). The family reaction to the Fusion Hybrid was, without exception, a strongly positive one. It really was a pleasure to drive and we were comfortable in it. This would be the sort of car where, if going out with boss or friends, we’d be the ones driving as this was going to be a serious upgrading from that beat-up 14 year old Accord. Thus, with some angst about the cost but with joy looking forward to a new car, the die was cast: we were going to be (hopefully) proud and happy Ford owners.
So, the find and buy the new car challenge begins.
After a bit of searching (not a huge amount, mind you), hooked up with Castle Ford and quickly negotiated to a deal for an Ice Blue Ford Fusion Hybrid with a 502 package that they had on the lot. The fully-loaded version (really wanted that navigation, the sun-roof, sigh …): some $30,160 (as opposed to MSRP of $31,940). Set this up mid-day, Wednesday, 1 July, with an agreement to drive to the Castle Ford 3 July to pick up the car and made a deposit over the phone. Cool — excitement in the household.
Later that evening, called in to say ‘hey, we can pick up the car right away instead of waiting two days’ and was told: “[the person] who made the deal with you didn’t have the right to make the deal, he isn’t here right now, and the price will be $100s higher …”
Now, here is a moment to provide perspective. I was straightforward with everyone involved in this process. I told them that I didn’t need to do a test drive because, as media, Ford had lent me a car for a media test drive.
Thus, when told the price was going to be higher, I had a WTF moment. In short, I asked: “Do you agree that I had made a deal with your employee for a specific price that is lower than what you are demanding now? You are aware that I made a deposit based on that lower price? You are aware that I am media, that I already am writing on the Ford Fusion Hybrid?” The answer to all of those was, from the Castle Ford sales person: yes. And, the higher price was the price demanded. Simply put, I’m not that type of guy and told them that their behavior was unethical, potentially illegal, and that I don’t do business with people like that.
Deal falling through … some morose faces in the family.
And, I went looking elsewhere. After a series of looks around the region (and around the country), with some people telling me that I could get a Ford Fusion Hybrid (FFH) with the 502 package from them for $1000s above MSRP and others telling me that I could get a decent price but would have to wait for the car, I found a Green FFH 502 package at Jerry’s Ford and for a better price: $30,600 out the door (tax & tags, but not warranty or add-ons). Called Thursday night, made an agreement to pick up the car Friday, 3 July.
Cool. Family happy again.
Only hiccup … while green looks great, it gets hot in the sun and that heating isn’t great for energy reasons. Hey, Jerry’s salesman, do you have that “Ice Blue”? “No problem. Come in, sign the paperwork, and we can have it to you in a few hours at the same price.” Wow, okay, that’s great.
Now, I told that salesman that, especially because there would be two trips to the dealer and we only had one car available, I would appreciate their handling this as quickly as possible. “No problem, paperwork will be ready, in and out quickly.”
Went there Friday and, well, that ‘in and out quickly’ wasn’t lived up to. After a few hours, including pushing on ‘what is taking so long’, the line back was “well, hope it isn’t a deal killer, but the Ice Blue has to come from farther away, can you accept $178 more and car can’t be here today, but will be here tomorrow.’ Sigh … At that time, getting committed, just said ‘yes’, let’s do this. And, time for a loaner car.
Saturday, 4 July, headed over with better 95+% to jointly sign paper, return loaner, pay, and get the new car. That quick in and out … easily 90+ minutes and, well, car isn’t there yet but should be in Monday, Tuesday at the latest. Sigh … okay. Here’s a $1500 deposit check to seal the deal.
Monday. No phone call. Tuesday. No phone call. Tuesday eve, called the dealer/salesman: “car isn’t here yet”. Sigh.
Wednesday: no phone call. Thursday: No phone call. Friday, better 95+% calls dealer. The sales manager (note, names not being used) stated “impossible that salesman told you he’d have the car by Monday”. Hmmm, the better 95+% really doesn’t appreciate being called a liar and otherwise rudely handled.
And, the saga continues … At least ten times between from the start of this process, we called, talked with sales person or sales manager, and were promised return calls within five minutes.
18 July: We’ve had enough. The process has started to find a 2010 Prius. The better 95+% is happy with that solution and the kids are accepting. Call to Jerry’s Ford to say: are you going to get your act together or do we buy a Toyota tomorrow and, by the way, we will return the loaner car and get the check Sunday? “OMG, how can you do that?” Promise: phone call back within minutes for scheduling the FFH’s delivery. Yeah, right, no phone call. Sunday, mid-day, call to Jerry’s Ford: salesman, ‘jeez, don’t know if we’ll ever be able to get you the car, can’t get you the check today, but will call you tomorrow and then send someone to your home Monday evening with the check and to get back the loaner car.’
Sunday afternoon, we bought a new Toyota Prius (from a dealer whose salesman dealt with everything quite straightforward, called back within minutes as promised, had the paperwork all ready when we arrived) and, so far, am averaging 54.3 mpg.
And, a break, Ford should be aware that they lost an energy-related maven (and connector) who had had multiple people ask about the FFH and who would have been driving the FFH to meetings like Netroots’ Nation where, it seems likely, many might have asked about the car and had a chance to see it. Lousy (atrocious) customer relations by a set of Ford dealers and Ford has lost someone who likely, for years to come, would have sung praises of their vehicle.
The saga continued for four more days. Any surprise that there wasn’t a call Monday? And, well, Tuesday, a phone message from the salesman received at 9:30 pm: ‘We have the check in hand. We can’t get a driver to your house. We must have the car back today.’ Hmmm … no one there at 9:30 pm.
Wednesday call to dealer. “Well, we don’t have the check yet. But, if you bring the car we’ll send you a check.” Okay, Jerry’s Ford, you’ve got to be kidding. No check. No car. And, you said days earlier that you already had a check all prepared.
And, well, over 10 phone calls to Jerry’s Ford and to the Jerry’s Automotive Group, with messages, trying to talk to some management other than the rude sales manager went unresponded to. But, an agreement finally with Jerry’s Ford: Despite the promise to send someone to your house, check in hand, come in at 1 pm with the loaner car and get the check, which we already have.
Better 95+% went to Jerry’s, with the car, at the appointed time. Handed over the keys to the loaner (after walking to prove that there was no damage and pointing out that there was gas in the car to where it was when we got it (“That wasn’t necessary. Why did you think you needed to do that?” Perhaps, Jerry’s team, because you were far from fully honest and far from fair in dealing with us … perhaps.)
Okay, ‘where’s the check to repay the deposit which you cashed over two weeks earlier’? “We don’t have the check. Will mail it to you.” Are you kidding? “Do you have proof that we cashed the check? Where is your bank statement?” Are you kidding? Jerry’s Ford staff left a message on our home phone stating that they had check in hand. They stated, multiple times, over the phone that come in with car and they’d give the check. Now that they have the loaner car in hand, they asked for material that they could have demanded at other times. Threat: here is the phone number for the Virginia Commonwealth Attorney: give me a check to repay me my money or I am calling them. After three hours, finally, the check is in hand. That check is now cashed.
And, rather than a long-term, satisfied customer, the Jerry’s Automotive Group has a household that will never do business with them.
Evidently, for Jerry’s Automotive (and for Castle Ford) and Ford, business is booming to such an extent and customers are growing on trees such that decent customer service is irrelevant to the business plan.
And, rather than Ford having a maven who would enthusiastically share experiences about a Ford Fusion Hybrid (to be honest, whether positive or not) for years to come, Toyota has another customer.
A month ago, non-violent protesters infiltrated an anti-Progress Mines (Massey Energy) Mountaintop Removal site in Western Virginia. Through the early morning, they snaked through desolated terrain, formally beautiful mountains and valleys, reminiscent of a World War I battlefield. A trained group climbed the dragline and put up a Stop Mountaintop Removal sign.
Everyone involved had training in non-violent protest. Everyone involved knew that, no matter their actions, they risked physical harm from angered Massey Energy employees. They knew that they risked arrest for this action. Yet, they went in anyway because they know the harm that Mountaintop Removal is wrecking West Virginia and the devastation that coal is contributing to globally. People willing to sacrifice their safety and their liberty for something larger than themselves merit a simple description: hero.
And, when called, the police quickly arrived and eventually arrested 19 of the protesters. And, the FBI is investigating the incident (hmmm … probably not Massey Energy’s devastating impacts on the area and the planet).
In contrast, at a July 4th picnic with many of locals concerned about Mountain Top Removal went a bit differently than one might expect. The vast majority of those there: local citizens ranging in age from babies in their parents arms to octogenarians proud of the generations of their families there with them. To this event came 20 or so (rather obviously) drunken Massey Energy employees (okay, 20 or so people wearing Massey Energy clothing claiming that they worked for the company) who disrupted the event, cursing, and threatening people’s lives — quite directly. One witness account from jacquesellul.
My wife and I were present at the event and witnessed the? trespass and harassment. The MountainKeepers Festival is a family event with music, food, (no alcohol), and friends hanging out together.
The violent and obscene talk and physical threats certainly were frightening to children and their parents. It should be noted that some of the trespassers tried to prevent overt violence, and that others in the vicinity refrained from coming over.
Intimidation and threats are an ongoing occurrence.
The police arrived — over two hours after they were called. Despite publicly available film evidence of crimes (at minimum drunk and disorderly), there is no sign of impending arrests.
Hmmm … people make a peaceful protest and 19 people are arrested on site. On the other hand, people disrupt a private event, threaten people’s lives, and the “Friend of Coal” Gov. Joe Manchin has ignored the situation so far and the rest of the West Virginia State Government remains starkly silent.
And, the indications are that the potential exists for real, rather than simply threatened, violence to hit this battlefield for the future of West Virginia and the planet. Check out the comment sections to the video of the protest and the video of the picnic.
