My next post about maturing the discourse speaks to the needs of different stakeholders to find a common ground and build from their.

Our country has a long history of activists who have brought about positive change. But we also have a history of great companies that provide jobs and security to the people. I’d like to see both sides working together in a very civil manner.

Luke – if you believe that one set of words from one person defines an entire organization, then shall I repost some of the comments that were directed at us or personally at individuals within GM during the initial RAN campaign? I doubt you’d suggest I do that — nor do I suggest that it would be fair to RAN.

You wonder how genuinely we can be interested in a conversation. I’ll turn it around and ask you: how genuinely interested is RAN in a conversation if, when we do try to open up and talk, we’re met with thinly veiled skepticism at best, and personal insults and attacks at worst? If, no matter what we say, people are determined to cling to their impression of us and what they want to believe, regardless of what the facts are?

Thankfully, I don’t think the people who engaged in the campaign against us completely represent RAN, and I am genuinely hopeful that we can engage in a more meaningful dialogue — absent the cynicism and mistrust that all sides of an issue can or have shown. We have much we can learn from each other, I think.

I could and would be happy to address with you the comments you’re referring to… Clean Energy Digest’s comments section isn’t the place to do it (don’t want to highjack the site!), but I am more than open to talking with you over e-mail. I’m at christopher.barger@gm.com.

Thanks again, Rob, for what I thought was a very fair analysis.

That GM engages in PR projects like GMNext to help clean up its image while its execs still think that global warming is a “crock” is pretty telling. How interested in are they really?

Luke Smith
Rainforest Action Network