Nick Paumgarten penned an excellent piece on Whole Foods' CEO (and former Chairman of the Board) John Mackey in the 4 January 2010 New Yorker, Food Fighter: Does Whole Foods' C.E.O. know what's best for you?
John Mackey ... sees himself as a "daddy" to his fifty-four thousand employees, who are known as "team members," but they may occasionally consider him to be more like a crazy uncle.
Paumgarten's revealing discussion of Mackey's science reading provides a window on why they might see him as that "crazy uncle".
One of the books on the list was "Heaven and Earth: Global Warming--the Missing Science," a skeptical take on climate change. Mackey told me that he agrees with the book's assertion that, as he put it, "no scientific consensus exists" regarding the causes of climate change; he added, with a candor you could call bold or reckless, that it would be a pity to allow "hysteria about global warming" to cause us "to raise taxes and increase regulation, and in turn lower our standard of living and lead to an increase in poverty." One would imagine that, on this score, many of his customers, to say nothing of most climate scientists, might disagree. He also said, "Historically, prosperity tends to correlate to warmer temperatures."
First, let's take the opportunity to highlight the clarity of ignorance that Mackey chose to put on display:
"Historically, prosperity tends to correlate to warmer temperatures."
Yes, that is why the world's power and wealth have migrated to Central America, Sub-Saharan Africa, and tropical islands while Great Britain, New England, Japan, etc have been so impoverished.
Let's continue with Mackey's idiocies moving backwards.
to raise taxes and increase regulation, and in turn lower our standard of living and lead to an increase in poverty
Remembering that Mackey is a strong libertarian, with a belief structure that government's proper role is to stay out of the way (seemingly, no matter what?), thus "taxes" and "regulation" are automatically evil (unless, it would seem, that those taxes and regulations somehow improve Mackey's own business prospects?) no matter their end. Forget that it is a bit hard for "the market" to provide for roads, the common defense, food safety, etc ...
Moving beyond this philosophical and ideological point, there is the simple falsehood inherent in "lower our standard of living and lead to an increase in poverty". Not acting to mitigate climate change and enabling climate chaos will have a greater impact on "an increase in poverty" than perhaps any other possible action/inaction from government (perhaps short of a global thermonuclear war). In fact, energy smart actions to mitigate climate change will provide economic benefits (while reduce the costs of climate chaos) and actually reduce the poverty level while improving the overall standard of living (what is the value of cutting cancer implications of fossil fuel pollution?).
hysteria about global warming
Yes, when the world's Academies of Science come together to call for concerted global action to deal with a threat where there is a tremendous amount of scientific work, work that is reinforcing a scientific Theory, that is "hysteria".
One of the books on the list was "Heaven and Earth: Global Warming--the Missing Science," a skeptical take on climate change. Mackey told me that he agrees with the book's assertion
Barry Brooks' review of the book & its launch ended:
The launch ended with a statement of conviction from the master of ceremonies that this book will become a classic, alongside the other great works of modern science. Well, it may well be held up as an example for the future. An example of just how deluded and misrepresentative the psuedo-sceptical war against science really was in the first decade of the 21st century.
The Objective Standard's review started favorably, it seems, but hit a roadblock of sorts
Unfortunately, Heaven and Earth utterly fails to deliver on its promise. Rather than clearly presenting the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis and specifying the kind and scope of data necessary to evaluate it, Plimer presents the reader with a disorganized hash of poorly-presented data; repeatedly mocks climate models without providing sufficient evidence or argument to warrant such mockery; dismisses the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as a bogeyman "unrelated to science" (p. 20), without adequately explaining why this is so; and generally presents an incoherent argument against a straw-man version of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis
Here is Ian Enting's 46-page (single space -- pdf) examination of Heaven & Earth's problems, misrepresentations, and inconsistencies.
In fact, when it comes to Heaven and Earth: The Missing Science, Tim Lambert's title says it all: The science is missing from Ian Plimer's Heaven and Earth.
It seems like Whole Foods' crazy uncle should have someone helping him vet his reading list.
Whole Foods' CEO vs Whole Foods' "Values"?
There is, of course, a different element to all this, a reason for Mackey's comments to raise an eyebrow more than, let's say, comments from a coal company CEO. As Paumgarten put it,
One would imagine that, on this score, many of his customers, to say nothing of most climate scientists, might disagree.
Just as one can wonder whether Whole Foods caters to the anti-health care reform crowd, it seems likely that anti-science syndrome suffering global warming deniers are not the dominant demographic in the chain's client base. It goes beyond this.
Mackey's ill-informed comments on climate science would, it seem, also be a rejection of Whole Foods' Values for caring about our communities and our environment and Whole Foods' Green Mission.
Wise moms everywhere remind us that actions speak louder than words. We can all talk about saving our planet but making those smart and sometimes challenging choices every day is what’s going to get the job done. We’ve been trying to make green choices since we opened our first store. We understand that companies can have a large impact on our environment.
If the science on climate change were as shaky as Mackey asserts and the costs of action were so high, why would Whole Foods
- "stores [be] taking the initiative in many areas to reduce our impact on the earth and its resources"
- have made a "Palm Oil pledge" stating that "Whole Foods is committed to protecting rainforests, communities and our global climate."
- be encouraging customers to calculate their carbon footprint
- care about "reduced reliance on fossil fuels"
Now, the Whole Foods' Green Mission introduction ends:
The people who work here — from the CEO on down — are passionate about food, good health and the future of this little blue dot that we all call home.
It is hard to square Mackey's crazy uncle-like embrace of the deluded and misrepresentative psuedo-sceptical war against [climate] science with being "passionate about ... the future or this blue dot that we all call home."
Either those "values" and that "mission" have substance or they don't.
Unless Whole Foods' words are simply greenwashing, it seems that, yet again, the Whole Foods PR department might be in for issuing a "sorry our CEO is an asshat" type of apology.
Coming to a conclusion: As Brendan Demelle concludes at DeSmogBlog:
[The New Yorker] probes many of Mackey’s whacky views, and notes how the "right wing hippie" and "unrepentant foot-in-mouther" is as much a liability as an asset to the company he co-founded. Mackey admits that many of Whole Foods’ 54,000 employees "occasionally" consider him to be "more like a crazy uncle" than his self-described title as their "daddy."
As disturbing as those descriptions are, the "crazy uncle" one rings true. Mackey is bizarrely candid, as evidenced by his admission to the Wall Street Journal last August that at Whole Foods, "We sell a bunch of junk."
Climate change denial is a perfect example of the junk Mackey sells.
Can we get a cleanup in Aisle 1 please?
Hat tip toFireDogLake and Elephant Journal. See also DeSmogBlog. Here at DKos: puzzled's John Mackey: Global Warming Denier
UPDATE: I regret having missed See Kate Sheppard's excellent discussion at Mother Jones which addresses the connection between Mackey's statements/views, Whole Foods' lobbying (or lack of it), and governmental action on environmental issues. As with The New Yorker article, the entire piece is worth reading. An extract:
But that doesn't mean there's no potential problem here for Whole Foods. The company, which pulls in $4 billion a year, does try to promote itself as a firm that cares about the environment. ... their focus is on what customers can do to reduce their impact—including in one post an admonition to "vote with your dollars" by shopping at local and at socially-conscious businesses. ... The company ranked among the biggest purchasers of green power last year, but neither the company nor its CEO has advocated for environmental policies in line with the views held by their customer base. Meanwhile, companies widely scorned by progressives have stepped up efforts to deal with climate change by both implementing sustainable practices and advocating for sound policy. ... Whole Foods, despite its image, is not part of that coalition. And with Mackey its most visible officer, Whole Foods essentially can be counted as part of the corporate opposition to the pending legislation.