"Carbon Dioxide... We Call It Life," US TV Ads Say WASHINGTON - A little girl blows away dandelion fluff as an announcer says, "Carbon dioxide: they call it pollution; we call it life," in an advertisement targeting global warming "alarmists," especially Al Gore. The spots are timed to precede next week's theatrical release of "An Inconvenient Truth," a documentary film on global warming that features Gore, the former vice president and Democratic presidential candidate. Against backdrops of a park, a beach and a forest, one celebrates the benefits of greenhouse gas-producing fuels. "The fuels that produce CO2 (carbon dioxide) have freed us from a world of back-breaking labor, lighting up our lives, allowing us to create and move the things we need, the people we love," the ad runs. "Now some politicians want to label carbon dioxide a pollutant. Imagine if they succeed -- what would our lives be like then?" The other ad questions media reports of the threat of climate change, especially a Time magazine issue devoted to the topic, and shows film of a glacier melting and then runs in reverse to show the glacier reconstituting itself. "We had started work on this several months back, but we sort of changed course once the flood of glacier-melting stories began," said Sam Kazman, an institute lawyer who worked on the ads. "So we did want to get out there before the Al Gore film got into national opening." 'RUNNING FOR ARCH-DRUID' Fred Smith, president of the institute, a nonprofit that advocates free enterprise and limited government regulation, said he had seen the film and found it "very alarmist," although well-produced. "There's a lot of pictures of Al Gore pensively looking into the sunset," Smith said. "I don't think he's running for president, but he might be running for arch-druid." The institute and environmental groups such as Washington-based Environmental Defense agree that average global temperatures have risen about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 degrees Celsius) in the last century. But the institute questions the impact of global warming while a broad range of scientists and environmentalists, including Gore, have linked it to more severe storms, melting ice caps and rising sea levels. "They fly in the face of most of the science," Charlie Miller of Environmental Defense said of the institute ads. "The good news is that there's not a trade-off here between prosperity, jobs, growth and protecting the Earth. We can do both." Environmental Defense and the Ad Council released public service announcements in March featuring children as future victims of global warming, and these were mentioned critically at the briefing where the new ads were released. The institute ads will run from May 18 through May 28 in Albany, New York; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Anchorage, Alaska; Austin, Texas; Charleston, West Virginia; Dallas; Dayton, Ohio; Denver; Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Phoenix; Sacramento and Santa Barbara, California; Springfield, Illinois, and Washington. Story by Deborah Zabarenko Story Date: 18/5/2006 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|||
 |
Campaign against Climate ChangeUK activists portal |
|
|
|
Exxon-Funded Group to Run TV Ads Questioning Climate Change
This version of the story was emailed to me.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Exxon-Funded Group to Run TV Ads Questioning Climate Change
2006-05-16 15:28 (New York)
See Ads at http://streams.cei.org/ (FOE gets a mention as a big baddie in one of them)
By Kim Chipman
May 16 (Bloomberg) -- A public policy group funded by oil company Exxon Mobil Corp. and carmakers General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co. will unveil a U.S. advertising campaign tomorrow that questions the science behind global warming concerns.
The television advertisements will air in Washington, Denver, Anchorage, Alaska, Albuquerque, New Mexico, and 10 other cities starting May 18, according to Competitive Enterprise Institute, a nonprofit group in Washington that advocates free enterprise and limited government regulation.
The campaign is timed to coincide with the release of a documentary about the threat of climate change that features former Vice President Al Gore. The ads point out the benefits of fossil fuels as well as what CEI claims are unbalanced media reports about the scientific evidence of global warming.
```We don't agree with the claims that the science is settled establishing catastrophic man-made influence upon the climate,'' said Chris Horner, a lawyer at CEI.
Gore's movie, to be released by Viacom Inc.'s Paramount Pictures in New York and Los Angeles next week and in other cities on June 2, comes on the heels of a raft of recent media attention about climate change, including cover stories in Time magazine, fashion publication Elle and computer magazine Wired.
Last week, Gore and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. banker Theodore Roosevelt IV, the great-grandson and namesake of the 26th U.S. president, launched a bipartisan alliance aimed at boosting public awareness about the threat of global warming.
``The public has gotten only one side of this issue and it's the alarmist side,'' he said.
CEI plans to hold a news conference tomorrow to announce the ad campaign, which will initially cost $50,000. It will run about two weeks and include local commercial spots during national Sunday news shows, said Sam Kazman, the group's general counsel. The group hopes to extend the campaign through donations generated by the ads, Kazman said.
Mainstream Representation
An increasing number of lawmakers are calling for a federal cap on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases spewed from cars, power plants and other sources that many scientists say is contributing to hotter temperatures and more extreme weather.
CEI contends that the science backing up those claims isn't conclusive and that companies such as Duke Energy Corp. and General Electric Co. are calling for federal action because they stand to benefit from carbon regulations.
``Of course there are going to be companies seeking special favors that fit their business plan,'' Horner said. ``But they by no means represent the mainstream.''
Exxon, the world's largest oil company, has donated about $1.6 million to CEI since 1998, according to Kazman. CEI also receives money from the GM, Ford, Time Warner Inc. and other companies, Kazman said.
Irving, Texas-based Exxon didn't immediately return a call seeking comment. The oil company previously has said that the science of global warming is so far inconclusive. Exxon, which says it has cut emissions from its plants in half since the early 1990s, has called for further study.
Cannon versus staves?
The support pages on http://streams.cei.org/ include a FAQ section subtitled "What Every Citizen Should Know About Global Warming".
Funny, I have for some time thought there should be a widely distributed leaflet with a name just like that.
I now think there should be an authoritative 2-day seminar on climate change and sustainability, which activists in all the main political parties should work to ensure that all sitting politicians and candidates must attend; and that a law should be brought in requiring all citizens to attend something similar.
Since, for most people to properly grasp the concepts involved, they need to be sat down and guided through the logical steps, with the help of visual aids and so forth. These are unlike most political issues e.g. waiting lists, military threats, where people can generally grasp what they should know from the news and their experience. As an eco-enthusiast who has avidly followed the scientific media for years, I only became fired up on climate change about two years ago. Even then I've had many misconceptions and still have burning questions.
I put these ideas at the recent AGCC conference, at a time when Ashok Sinha was on the panel. His reply: a formal educational drive is not needed, we simply need to get people concerned and talking about what climate change will mean for them in their lives.
skeptics, schmeptics, eat my shorts !
this is not the first time i have encountered (and i quote) "utter baloney, piffle, tosh and rant from the so-called institute cei". i must admit though that they live up to their name - they are challenging in a competitive way, and quite enterprising - although they seem like they might benefit from being committed to a mental health institution for some detox. like many americans, they take advantage of their constitutional amendment guaranteeing them free speech, and so, even though it's reactionary, provocative "non-science" they can get away with stuff like this legally. not so in europe. we have advertising standards. although we do have advertisements for all manner of mythical benefits claimed for shampoos and skin creams, but anyway, i digress. the point i'm making is that i think we should have a links page with all the skeptic/sceptic organisations and persons on it, describing a little of their attitude and politics, and outlining their major sources of funding and backers. the cei is well-known for being supported financially by, amongst others, exxonmobil and ford, so although they might be smart, they don't provide intelligence...and just a little extra amusing thought : how about an enticing page about bjorn lomborg ? he's young and blonde and scandinavian, so i bet i could encourage him to take his clothes off and pose for the cameras...
that website
There is a website that gives you all those details: Search on http://www.sourcewatch.org. For Exxon Mobil funding, see here: http://www.exxonsecrets.org
Almuth
does sourcewatch have piccies of bjorn lomborg then ?
so almuth, are you telling me that somewhere on the sourcewatch site there are piccies of bjorn lomborg minus some of his clothes ? oh goodie ! please give me the exact link, as i can't seem to find it from the menu...i have found a picture of the young blond scandinavian covered in cream though : http://www.welovelomborg.com and that's quite stimulating enough for a sunday, thank you. jo.
A counterbalance: Wired Magazine
Read quite a good set of articles in Wired Magazine yesterday (you can find it here: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.05/green.html, or simply spend 20 minutes in your local Borders loitering between the shelves). Talks about the rise of the 'neo-greens', which I take to be the trends towards 'natural capitalism' championed by Amory Lovins, the sustainable development movement, and now being publicised by Al Gore. He's interviewed in Wired and they're all for him and the approach that combines environmental sustainability and economic growth ('green growth' as Cameron calls it). Of course they can't resist taking a few pot shots at the 'old school' environmentalists, marking down FoE and Greenpeace with 'C' grades, while... you guessed it... Environmental Defense gets an 'A'. So, good evidence of incremental change in some sections of the US; the sceptics are only one side of the coin (albeit still pretty vocal).
It is quite infuriating, though, that anyone can get away with such a crass statement as 'They call it pollution... we call it life.' *Anyone* who has *ever* sat in a biology class ought to understand that too high a concentration of any element / compound in an ecosystem is a 'pollutant'. Imagine what the CEI would make of it if some scientists kindly informed them that oxygen, if present in a slightly greater quantity than we presently have in the atmosphere, would be seen as a 'pollutant'. Not only would zillions of anaerobic bacteria die off, the atmosphere could become so flammable that a single spark'd ignite the lot.
Surely a spoof of this advert is in order? It's so crass and laughable, almost anything would do. Like maybe adding a large fart sound at the end. Hey, kids, methane is life too, but in too great a quantity... ;)
while i was forced to wait for a train
hi guy,
while i was forced to wait for a train the other day, i *nearly* bought the copy of wired that you mention, but i had a little think about it and then decided not to.
the majority of people in our industrialised societies cannot afford eco-chic and eco-architecture and eco-retail, and although it's nice to see a segment of the wealthy going green, it actually quite annoys me that glossy magazines run stories about them. if we could all afford to do what amory lovins does in his lovely hyper-insulated log cabin which is heated by occasionally playing with his dog, then there would be no climate problem.
climate change is a problem of *development*, meaning not just development of the poorer, majority world, but also the infrastructural development in the industrialised countries.
until all the new houses in britain are built, by regulation, to be climate-proof, using natural materials, insulation, heating and ventilation, until all the old houses in britain are renovated, by regulation, to be climate-proof, until all the public buildings are climate-proofed, we shall be stuck up a gumtree with no rope to get down.
most of us ordinary folks cannot afford to change things sufficiently to solve our own domestic energy abuse, let alone afford to bring down the levels of energy abuse that stem from public provision. amory lovins has some cool ideas, but they all seem to require that you have a certain level of wealth and social organisation before you can put these ideas into practice. "natural capitalism" is fine if you are a wealthy company and you can afford to make the eco-changes he recommends. it's another case of the rich getting richer in my view.
he's right that if corporations drastically reduce the amount of energy and resources they and their products use, that things will be better, but as far as i understand it, these "efficiency" measures alone cannot compensate for all the other energy abuse that goes on.
for one reason or another, the governments will one day have to regulate for carbon rationing, and this will stuff the poorest, but that's normal. the governments will also have to legally impose renewable energy technologies, whether publicly provided centralised schemes such as privately owned wind farms, or decentralised domestic systems. the corporations, one way or another, will be forced to become more energy efficient and environmentally conscious.
but the neo-greens in wired ? they will only be able to afford to make personal changes until the industrialised economies collapse because of all the institutionalised energy abuse.
my judgement on the wired piece was : totally insignificant, even as propaganda.
as regards the cei ads, of course they need to be spoofed. i love your idea about adding a fart to the soundtrack. have you got the technology and the time to do this ? if not, has ANYONE ELSE OUT THERE got the necessary ?
hope the exams were/are ok.
jo.
Interesting article about communicating climate change
I read an interesting article about communicating climate change on Open Democracy: http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-climate_change_debate/ankeloh...
This is based on focus group research. Groups like the CEI know (or think they know) what kind of language appeals to people - so it is good to have some research into what language/wording helps to get the climate change message across.
Basically - don't speak about scary weather, don't suggest that tiny every-day actions will save the planet. Instead speak of values, like responsibility, stewardship, competence, vision and ingenuity. Speak of the necessary action as new thinking, new technologies, planning ahead, smartness, forward-thinking, balanced alternatives, efficiency, prudence and caring. Charge opponents with irresponsibility, old thinking and inefficiency.
Interestingly, the term 'greenhouse gas effect' is best avoided - heat-trap and CO2 blanket are more meaningful.
(Jo - I hadn't realised you meant it literally, above, about pictures of those people...)
Gore's educational drive
Alliance for Climate Protection
Alliance for Climate Protection notes news that the cost of invading Iraq seems to have exceeded the cost to US economy if they'd implemented Kyoto.
Interesting article about communicating climate change
( almuth - about the photos - don't take it seriously - actually i'm just making one big joke. it started in a CCC meeting a few months ago when we talked about the fact that bjorn lomborg was coming to london - and i said "i'll take him out" - meaning - "i'll take him out to the pub for a drink and a little chat" - i told the CCC meeting that i would like to help bjorn lomborg to learn the truth. well - one of the guys in that CCC meeting said "but you believe in peace !" - thinking that when i said "i'll take him out" that i was threatening him in the manner of a hollywood movie. well, ever since then i have been explaining to everyone that actually i LOVE bjorn lomborg - i don't want to kill him - i'm a pacifist ! i don't REALLY want photos of him without any clothes on - i'm quite happy without seeing pictures of naked people. )
Retallack vs Lynas
The Institute for Public Policy Research report Warm Words discusses 'alarmist' coverage of climate change and says different approaches are needed for different audiences, in particular settlers. It suggested using appealing 'branding' around positive action.
In a Today programme mini-debate with Simon Retallack of the IPPR (Listen Again until Wednesday 9/8, Mark Lynas took issue with being quoted for 'alarmist' language in the report. He said there was a responsibility to speak frankly, and that in 1939 Churchill and Chamberlain didn't need 'branding' to enunciate the threat of invasion by Hitler. He said he thought carbon rationing would be needed.
They are scared we shouldnt be!
These people are terrified, they should be, they are on the loosing side and are starting to look absurd.
This is pure reactioninsm to the publicity preceeding Al Gore's upcoming release 'An Inconvenient Truth'.
Vanity Fair, Time, The New Yorker, NYT...all have had green/climate stories as fature articles recently, climate change is dominating the current Zeitgiest.
the truth can really be rather inconvenient - for the cei
lots of rumples and ripples and yelps and burbling about the cei ads. you can almost hear the pulling of hair and slobbering wild-eyed frustration, nay, rage. and, if you listen carefully enough, you can hear a call to action, from the sane to the sane :-
+++++++++++++++
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/5/21/222022/964
Speaking of the CEI ads, I've been giving them some thought. I worry that they will be a flash in the media pan, and quickly fade from memory. That would be a lost opportunity. Here's a suggestion for a group that has the money and will to organize (maybe MoveOn): Don't let this drop. Find out every single corporate sponsor of CEI, contact them, and ask them if they agree with the content of the ads. If they agree, publicize the hell out of it. If they don't agree -- as Ford claims not to -- ask them why they're supporting an organization that's muddying the waters on this vital issue. If they refuse to respond, publicize the hell out of that...it's time to make it clear that outright climate denialism -- denying that global warming is occurring, or that human activity is contributing to it -- is outside the pale. It is no longer an acceptable position for a mainstream organization to take.
It's time to bring shame to bear. Shame is a powerful social force, and any company with their name associated with CEI should be publicly and mercilessly shamed, whether or not their money went directly to this ad campaign. This campaign should make CEI a pariah, outside the bounds of civil society. It's equivalent to denying that cigarettes cause cancer.
+++++++++++++++
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article571678.ece
A senior scientist has condemned as "a deliberate effort to mislead" a series of television adverts produced by an oil industry-funded lobbying group that seeks to portray concern over global warming as alarmism. The adverts, produced by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), seek to argue that despite widespread agreement about the growing evidence of climate change, other evidence suggests the opposite. The adverts catchphrase says: "Carbon dioxide - they call it pollution, we call it life." But a scientist whose report about the Antarctic ice-sheet is featured in the adverts has denounced the CEI and said they have quoted his study out of context. Professor Curt Davis of the University of Missouri-Columbia, said: "I think they are confusing and misleading the public." Asked if he doubted the evidence of global warming, he replied: "Personally, I have no doubts whatsoever." Mr Davis's June 2005 study examined the ice-sheets of east Antarctic which showed an increase in mass. However, he said his study did not look at coastal areas which are known to be losing ice and said the "fact that the interior ice sheet is growing is a predicted consequence of global warming".
+++++++++++++++
http://www.stltoday.com/...
Among the many things a University of Missouri at Columbia professor and a libertarian public policy institute in Washington disagree on is just who is misrepresenting whom. First, Curt Davis, an electrical and computer engineering professor at Mizzou, complained that the institute wrongly portrayed his study in a national television ad in order to confuse the public and play down the effects of global warming. His study showed growth in some parts of the East Antarctic ice sheet. Then, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which produced the ad aimed at countering "global warming alarmism," put out a news release Monday, saying Davis was spreading mistruths.
Another dodgy clip linked to Exxon
See item "Mixed messages" in Eco Soundings:
http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,,1839680,00.html