Ever noticed how a particular piece of information can “prove” two completely contradictory things to different people, depending on what they already believe on the subject?

For example, whenever I see large commercial entities using “green” concerns to justify ripping off customers – for example, charging customers for paper bills – it’s evidence to me of corporate Australia cynically abusing the “green” name for its own profit.

Someone like Andrew Bolt or Tim Blair or their readers, on the other hand, see it as evidence of the almighty GREEN LOBBY taking over their precious corporate Australia.

So we get stuff like “Green is the color of the carpetbag”:

Green was meant to be the sign of a modern new morality. Now it’s a sign that someone’s on the make.

And tim uses an Audi ad that portrays minor offenders against the environment as criminals to be persecuted as if it described “A warmenist wonderland”.

It’s not like the corporate world cares about tainting the Green name – they didn’t like it when they thought it would cost them money, before they realised how they could cynically use it, and they’ll be happy to burn through it until the concept is so tainted it loses any power it once held. Sorry, that’s what the above examples look like to me – maybe to you it looks like the greenies have taken over. Because they’re so powerful and companies need to be persuaded to use an excuse to cut costs and services. Hey, Vodafone doesn’t WANT to charge you $2.20 for a paper bill – Bob Brown has a gun to the CEO’s head.

It’s up to you which version seems more likely, I guess.

UPDATE: Seems the Greens have had enough of the government, at least, cocking up an issue they think is somewhat important: they’re moving a censure motion this afternoon “for its gross and systematic failure in the delivery of its climate change programs including home insulation, green loans, solar rebate, renewable remote power generation program and the renewable energy target”.

(Visited 4 times, 1 visits today)