AGL sues Greenpeace? Bye...

[bdl]

I've been with AGL for a few years, through laziness as much as anything. I read today that AGL has commenced legal proceedings against Greenpeace. The more I've read in to this, the more I realise I don't want any part in patronising a business that not only doesn't seem to be doing what is needed to prevent future environmental catastrophe, even worse it's suing one of the organisations trying to campaign to protect the environment.

I'm out, off to a provider that hopefully understands the need to find solutions, not stifle debate.

[Panda]

hey bdl,

how do you know Greenpeace is protecting the environment? 

[jchopines]

What does using a copy of someone's logo have to do about protecting the environment. Yes, they are an environmental organisation but it was not their logo they used, now was it? They have a brand use it. 

[Panda]

I'm keen to hear more about this, can you rephrase for me please? Who mentioned a logo?

[bdl]

@Panda The Government's Clean Energy Regulator's annual National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER) lists AGL Energy Ltd as Australia's #1 greenhouse has emitter.

Greenpeace responded to this by launching a campaign that used the AGL logo and featured the slogan, "AGL – Australia's Greatest Liability". Rather than respond to the real problem, AGL Energy took Greenpeace to court over the use of the AGL logo. They lost the court case (and my business for what that was worth).

I've chosen to spend my energy dollars with a company that is demonstrably is doing more to address global warming and not "greenwashing".

[Panda]

Thank you for the detailed response & link.

How do you feel about the information here?