This was posted 5 years 7 months 7 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

Free Scoop of Ice Cream for Voting on Climate Change @ Ben & Jerry's Scoop Shops

11420
Free Scoop of Ice Cream for Voting on Climate Change @ Ben & Jerry's Scoop Shops
Go to Deal
toobzy on 15/05/2019 - 21:13 facebook.com (1007 clicks)
Last edited 16/05/2019 - 00:24 by 3 other users

So this popped up on my facebook and you need to fill out the form to show your support for climate change and then you get an email for a free scoop which you just show at any Ben & Jerry's shop. No barcodes or anything. 350 free scoops per shop.
https://act.350.org/signup/pledge_to_voteclimate/

From the email:
A little thank you for pledging to #VoteClimate
To say thank you for pledging to #VoteClimate we have partnered with our friends at Ben & Jerry’s to give you a free scoop of ice cream from any Ben & Jerry’s Scoop Shop – just show this email when you order. Only 350 scoops will be given out at each Scoop Shop between Monday 13th May to Friday 17th May (both days included) so find your nearest Scoop Shop today.

Dining & Takeaway Ben & Jerry's Instagrampost

Related Stores

Ben & Jerry's
Ben & Jerry's

closed Comments

      • Joey Jo Jo on 16/05/2019 - 07:27
        +2

        Cattle industry doing just as much damage to the environment as all traffic on the worlds roads. Icecream comes from cattle. Yay filling in a form as part of a company's PR stunts is changing the world!

  • rolin7 on 16/05/2019 - 00:17
    +11

    I really don't need my ice cream to preach to me

    • Joey Jo Jo on 16/05/2019 - 07:29

      What if said preaching icecream was sourced from cattle that farted happy feelings instead of environmental damaging gases?

    • rokufan on 16/05/2019 - 16:56

      It's 2019! Apparently everything from icecream to softdrinks, razors and tampons must have a "progressive" message.

  • apptrack on 16/05/2019 - 00:23
    +20

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/consumer-group-sues-ben-jerrys-…

    The nonprofit says most of the milk used in Ben & Jerry's ice cream doesn't meet its standards for animal care and labor practices, but instead "comes from cows raised in regular factory-style, mass-production dairy operations.

    It also claims that farms supplying the company are polluting Lake Champlain and Lake Carmi, and that several ice cream flavors contain traces of the pesticide glyphosate.

    Although in America, shows their true motives.

      • apptrack on 16/05/2019 - 00:29
        +9

        Thanks hun, the fact that they themselves/industry are a big contributor to climate change?

      • Joey Jo Jo on 16/05/2019 - 07:35
        +4

        When a company is making millions of dollars while contributing to climate change then runs a promotion stating they're anti climate change I would regard the ozbargainer who negs deal for this reason more woke than an unattractive short blue haired person retweeting buzzfeed articles about Harvey Weinstein all day.

      • chriise on 16/05/2019 - 11:24
        +3

        That might be the most legitimate justification for a neg I've seen on this site - what are you talking about?

      • [Deactivated] on 16/05/2019 - 12:50
        +1

        How embarrassing for you.

      • rokufan on 16/05/2019 - 16:59

        apptrack stated a bunch of facts. Which appears to have triggered your feelings!

    • Krankite on 16/05/2019 - 07:19
      +5

      They are Unilever now not really Ben & Jerry's. I wouldn't expect any less than complete environmental destruction from Unilever.

    • rokufan on 16/05/2019 - 17:06
      +1

      In marketing lingo it's called 'green washing'. At its most cynical it is nothing more than creating the appearance of a brand having a social conscience to boost sales, apparently millennials are very receptive to these brands.

  • barozgain on 16/05/2019 - 01:56
    +2

    They must be really dumb if they think everyone who will register interest on that link will vote for climate change (i.e. greens)… Most of the people will just register, get the free scoop and vote for whoever they were gonna vote for in the first place

    • DogGunn on 16/05/2019 - 02:06
      +5

      1. O RLY? You don't say… I thought B&J's was going to force me to vote a certain way.

      2. There are plenty of parties that support reducing climate emissions that aren't The Greens.

      • Aliastar on 17/05/2019 - 04:19

        Anyone else as extreme as the Greens? Do you think if we end our coal exports, that the countries buying it won't look elsewhere?

        • Lets Go Brandon on 17/05/2019 - 04:57

          The Greens are a joke. Policies created around feels and idiocy

    • Joey Jo Jo on 16/05/2019 - 07:39
      +1

      Or the real dumb people are those who fall victim to a corporations marketing stunts while thinking they're making a difference while licking an icecream that was produced by a massive factory of cows farting enough methane gas per minute that would be enough to heat an eskimo for a year

  • Strong Salad on 16/05/2019 - 02:12
    +17

    It's a bit like driving a car and saying that you think climate change is a serious problem. Does supporting a movement mean you gotta become the perfect champion of the cause? Seems like there are a lot of butthurt Lib voters in this thread.

    • [Deactivated] on 16/05/2019 - 02:42
      +1

      I think they probably have to do better than burying this on their website: "We know our carbon footprint, and are working throughout our operations to reduce it." Maybe Al Gore can unveil it! Sounds like Ben and Jerry's have been drinking Tony Abbott's direct action kool-aid.

    • brendanm on 16/05/2019 - 07:29
      +1

      Farming contributes more CO2 than the entire transport sector, private vehicles make up a tiny amount of CO2. On top of that is the methane produced.

      Ben and Jerry's whining about climate change is the same as a greens supporter filing their backyard with 44 gallon drums of coal, smothering it with petrol, and keeping it lit year round to warm their house.

  • TheEnvelope on 16/05/2019 - 02:55
    +7

    Typical left wing blackmailing.

  • Lets Go Brandon on 16/05/2019 - 03:15
    +19

    Just another Megacorporation pretending to care as part of it's strategy to win the good graces of the uninformed and misguided. They should focus on improving their overpriced product rather than entering into politics.

  • Aliastar on 16/05/2019 - 03:33
    +6

    "I pledge to #VoteClimate and make climate change the #1 issue of the 2019 federal election."

    For me it is the #1 issue. The #1 issue I don't care about

  • donamique on 16/05/2019 - 05:05
    +1

    Is this move used to curry favour with political parties?

  • zztrader on 16/05/2019 - 05:20
    +1

    I can assure everyone that I will not vote such crap, what a Joke!

  • glennh70 on 16/05/2019 - 05:38
    +6

    Vote for me and I will give you something for free, the left wing motto.

    • Joey Jo Jo on 16/05/2019 - 07:42
      +5

      As opposed to the right wing motto of vote for me and if you're obscenely wealthy I'll make it so you pay next to no tax and if you're not obscenely wealthy I'll make sure no people with brown skin or a funny accent move into your neighborhood

  • WeiKaiLe on 16/05/2019 - 06:39

    I have not kept up with this election so I might be misunderstanding. We don't have a separate vote to express concern for climate change do we? So they are suggesting we vote for a political party solely on their policy relating to climate change? That is precisely why our system sucks, what if you want climate action but don't like the rest of the Greens or similar party policies? What if you're against climate action but like the rest of the Greens policies. This choose a predefined basket of policy system we have is terrible, we need a change.

  • [Deactivated] on 16/05/2019 - 06:40
    +7

    This is what happens when corporations let misinformed millennials run the ad campaigns, smh.

  • OzLocutus on 16/05/2019 - 07:02
    +12

    A well deserved first negative vote for me. This is just shameful. Next will I have to show my ballot paper showing I voted greens before I get a discount or even be served by a company.

    I'll now boycot Ben & Jerry's because of this.

    • chymb on 16/05/2019 - 11:42

      You already weren’t shopping there.

      • OzLocutus on 17/05/2019 - 12:04

        Wrong. I actually enjoyed Ben and Jerry's at my local cinema.

        • chymb on 17/05/2019 - 12:24

          I’m going to need to see some receipts.

  • profar on 16/05/2019 - 07:05
    +2

    Palmer forgot to use this tactic LOL :)

  • Joey Jo Jo on 16/05/2019 - 07:08

    I wonder how many cows Ben and Jerry's own to produce all that dairy. Do they keep them indoors and extract all the methane they out put? Haha capitalists running social media SJW PR stunts. What's next, maccas are going to sponsor Clean up Australia day because it's so ironic that most of the garbage in our creeks and parks has their logo on it?

  • profar on 16/05/2019 - 07:29
    +4

    I'll now boycot Ben & Jerry's because of this .

    No need for me , already do with price points :)

  • freakatronic on 16/05/2019 - 07:33
    +5

    Woke Capitalism - brands that pretend to care about social justice in order to sell to people who pretend to hate capitalism.

    • [Deactivated] on 16/05/2019 - 15:56
      +1

      Did you see Burger King in the US recent campaign?

      Same deal.

  • Tycn on 16/05/2019 - 07:44
    +10

    Things that piss off ozbargainers:

    Guns
    Climate change
    No band 28

    • Melong on 16/05/2019 - 08:20

      You forgot price jacking

    • pennypincher98 on 16/05/2019 - 14:18
      +1

      Macca's "hacks" also

    • [Deactivated] on 16/05/2019 - 15:49

      You forgot uninsured drivers.

  • ichatting on 16/05/2019 - 07:48

    I support for climate to keep changing, yes

  • mrwoo on 16/05/2019 - 07:50
    +13

    https://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publications/backgrounders/…

    "6. Section 326 of the Act provides that a person cannot ask for, receive or obtain, or give or confer, any property or benefit with the intention of influencing the vote or candidature of a person at a federal election. The electoral bribery offence does not apply to declarations of public policy or promises of public action."

    • MementoMori on 16/05/2019 - 11:02
      +2

      My reason as well.

  • jennkei on 16/05/2019 - 08:01
    +1

    This looks like public action to me. Anyway, deal has run a few days already and 350 is not a lot, anyone managed to claim? Or failed to claim?

  • thesaver on 16/05/2019 - 08:10

    Would I sell my soul for free Icecream yes I would

  • Mr Bargain Hunter on 16/05/2019 - 08:21
    +11

    Getting a bit off topic but the amount of people here that don’t believe in climate change is shocking
    People devoted their lives to research this. I wonder how it must feel to be told that all your work are lies by bigots with swollen egos

    • twocsies on 16/05/2019 - 08:28
      +5

      Not saying that it occurred here, but sometimes the actions of the anti-climate change lobby on forums is coordinated via other social media apps. One member sees the opportunity and then the others pile on with their message.

    • [Deactivated] on 16/05/2019 - 08:30
      +5

      People also devoted their lives and then tactically and for monetary reasons decided to scare the sh#t out of people for political reasons is the issue here, friend. Turn off CNN for 5 minutes and look around you. It’s not that people don’t believe in climate change, because the climate is and has always been changing, for better or for worse. And the cycle will continue. It’s the blatant exaggeration and fear mongering that goes on with this topic that people are fed up with.

    • [Deactivated] on 16/05/2019 - 08:56
      +1

      What's the biggest action you have taken and what is your carbon footprint?

    • ChillBro on 16/05/2019 - 10:25
      +1

      Same. Sort of sickens me to realise these are the people who are using this site.

      Guess it's probably the same lot who try to sue retailers for not honouring pricing errors.

      • [Deactivated] on 16/05/2019 - 10:27
        +1

        What's your carbon footprint?

        • ChillBro on 16/05/2019 - 10:34
          +1

          What's the size of your bank account?

          What colour are the C beams glittering in the dark near the tennhauser gate?

          What other irrelevant questions are you going to come up with?

    • brendanm on 16/05/2019 - 10:41
      +4

      It's blatantly obvious that the climate has been changing, it's been changing since the beginning of the earth, you'll see this is you do 5 minutes of research. It swings from hot to cold, always has, always will.

      You may want to do some research on how valid the claims of "97% of scientists" is while you're there.

      The biggest threat to the earth is the constantly increasing population, but noone cares about that.

      • drillvoice on 16/05/2019 - 11:17

        Hey Brendan, 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.

        https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-conse…

        • brendanm on 16/05/2019 - 13:19
          +1

          Lol. Yes, more people totally don't consume more resources, require more farming which makes more CO2 and methane, causes deforestation etc. /S

          His only argument is "le evil old white men"

        • rokufan on 16/05/2019 - 17:44

          Cripes, how about pointing to someone in the mainstream. George Monbiot is a self-proclaimed communist (not a scientist) who writes about politics for the Guardian. On BBC recently he said he wanted to destroy capitalism. He should not be your go to reference for climate change debate if you want to be taken seriously.

          • chymb on 17/05/2019 - 09:20

            @rokufan: Definitely attack the messenger if you can’t find fault with the message.

            • brendanm on 17/05/2019 - 09:50
              +1

              @chymb: Plenty of faults with the message, basic common sense tells you more people=more food, which requires more land clearing and more farming, which reduces the number of CO2 sinking trees, and increases the number of CO2 producing animals.

              • chymb on 17/05/2019 - 12:23
                -1

                @brendanm: But that’s exactly what the article is saying about the “basic common sense” – that all people are not consuming at the same rate. So it’s not the number of people but the number of consumers.

                • brendanm on 17/05/2019 - 13:18

                  @chymb: People need a certain amount of fuel and water to survive. The more people, the more fuel and water needed, the more emissions and the fewer trees. More clearing to make room for those people. The only reason that people like increasing population is that there are then more people to sell things too, and more people to exploit for low wages.

            • rokufan on 17/05/2019 - 13:09

              @chymb: There's plenty wrong with the message, mostly it's a rant: first paragraph, as always with these people, is an attack on white men, and the last two thirds is a rant about billionaires (the writer is an anti-capitalist ideologue (communist), ie. the messenger's explicit bias is part of their message, hence my prior comment).

              It's simple, increased global population regardless of distribution will increase CO2 emissions. And, more my point, mass immigration from the third world to western countries converts tiny carbon footprints into massive western-lifestyle sized ones.

              • chymb on 17/05/2019 - 14:33

                @rokufan: By your criteria anything you say is also to be dismissed because of your bias.

                The general gist of the article seems to be:

                Wealthy people are disproportionately responsible for climate change and they claim it’s the number of people worldwide rather than the number of them (wealthy people) that is the problem to deflect from having to act themselves.

                You seem to agree with that in your final paragraph?

                • rokufan on 17/05/2019 - 16:38

                  @chymb: I'm critical of it because it is anti-capitalistic rant, not a data driven argument.

                  Wealthy people are disproportionately responsible for climate change

                  This is not a revelation. Obviously wealthy people have larger carbon footprints on average. But how much? As a group the millionaire/billionaire class, is it a significant percentage of mankind's carbon emissions? Monbiot makes the argument but presents no data. Instead he jealously winges about yachts and heated swimming pools.

                  they claim it’s the number of people worldwide rather than the number of them

                  Actually, it's both.

                  Monbiot concludes with the problem is the rich. Being the marxist class warrior he is, you can guess his solution. So often we see climate action used as a front for socialists, conservatives are correct with their skepticism.

    • argamond on 16/05/2019 - 10:57
      +2

      I disagree with getting "free" stuff for supporting a political view.

      In Hong Kong, they [not Ben and Jerry] offer the elderly a free meal and bus them to election booths if they vote for them. Do you have any issues with that?

    • aussiedogga on 16/05/2019 - 11:05
      +4

      Google Peter Ridd - terminated from JCU for his studies that show the great barrier reef is in good health. Cost him his livelihood.
      Now, I wonder why scientists all have the same findings that climate change is real?

      • chymb on 16/05/2019 - 11:49
        -1

        My friend got sacked from his teaching job for showing his students that 2+2=5.
        No wonder all teachers still pretend it’s 4.

    • locknuts on 16/05/2019 - 16:27
      +1

      It's not that people don't believe in climate change (of course some people will never be convinced of anything), it's just that politicians, media and activists have spread so much misinformation that people have started to believe that the whole thing is a hoax. Going straight to the source and finding neutral (non-activist) climate scientists makes you realise that exact human impact on the Earth isn't agreed upon. This ambiguity allows the general public to inject their own ideology into the equation. Some say we don't have an impact, some say that the impact is actually good, some say that the Earth will end in 12 years.

      Then there's the proposed solutions (to what some people see as a non-problem). Nobody seems to be able to come up with a viable solution that maintains base load power at peak times and people don't want energy austerity.

      So there's huge disagreement on the extent of the problem and the proposed solutions.

      That's how I see it anyway.

  • RockyRaccoon on 16/05/2019 - 08:34
    +4

    Made with Milk - from Cows - Cows largest emitter of methane a greenhouse(climate change) gas - a little hypocritical

    also you have to use facebook, the biggest promoter of hate - ala Christchurch

    2 strikes against Ben and Jerry

    • twocsies on 16/05/2019 - 08:42

      The strawman vs cows is a valid argument if you would sign the pledge. And what's the deal with the FB argument? Gab is much worse vs hate promotion. How do you come up with these ideas, just type whatever anti message as long as it fits into your world model?

  • profar on 16/05/2019 - 09:00

    What's the biggest action you have taken and what is your carbon footprint?

    Stop eating baked beans and broccoli and I wouldn't know :)

    @ if this was 100 m down the road I'd grab it , seeming it not no way I'm driving for a scoop .

    • argamond on 16/05/2019 - 11:00

      Don't use dryer/dishwasher, share a car. Rarely turn on the heater or a/c. Heck, our tv is still 32".

      My household's electricity and gas consumption is well less than the average household - sometimes about half

  • one man clan on 16/05/2019 - 09:06
    +6

    ITT conservatives getting triggered

  • Seraphin7 on 16/05/2019 - 09:12
    +8

    Come for the ice cream.

    Stay for global warming hoax.

    Shove it right up ya jacksie!

  • profar on 16/05/2019 - 09:38
    +8

    Wonder how effective Australia being greener going to help China 27 X our emission's and USA 12 X .

    Yeap we paying for green policies that no way are going to save the world .

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di…

    • drillvoice on 16/05/2019 - 11:18

      What's your point? Australia still contributes disproportionately to world emissions + there's a huge amount that we could do to reduce pollution that would actually save money.

  • ddr0001 on 16/05/2019 - 09:39
    +11

    Apparently outsiders influencing elections is bad, unless its lefties doing it, then its fine.

    • [Deactivated] on 16/05/2019 - 10:12

      Hmmm. China and Russia are left :p

      • rokufan on 16/05/2019 - 18:16

        ddr0001 is correct. More relevant for us is Qatar and the UN who are putting their fingers on the scale of our federal election.

        BTW, Communist China is by definition of the far-left, but not SJW. They would be delighted if we hobbled our economy with climate action.

    • AlanHB on 16/05/2019 - 11:00

      Is this a political position or a scientific consensus?

  • 00 on 16/05/2019 - 09:50
    +5

    Is B&J ice cream made locally at all?

    When I saw a tub it had made in USA. A long way to transport frozen milk from.

  • Skramit on 16/05/2019 - 10:00
    +9

    What a joke. Political activism mixed with advertising gone mad.

    I hate when companies who sell basic product get into politics. Just piss off and sell me my ice cream!

  • Wilder94 on 16/05/2019 - 10:14
    +5

    A ice cream company shouldn't be getting into politics

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join