Comments on: DIESEL SLICK http://climatedenial.org/2007/06/28/diesel-slick/ Charting the disconnect between climate science and action Mon, 14 May 2012 04:17:52 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.5 By: Jeremy http://climatedenial.org/2007/06/28/diesel-slick/comment-page-1/#comment-7981 Jeremy Thu, 05 Jul 2007 15:22:41 +0000 http://climatedenial.org/2007/06/28/diesel-slick/#comment-7981 Very interesting campaign, thanks for bringing it to my attention. Diesel are being disingenuous when they say the ads are meant to 'ignite debate and raise awareness' - obviously their primary purpose is to sell clothes, same as any other ad, and position Diesel as edgy and unorthodox in the process. I think they're dangerous not for for saying global warming is good, but because they've adopted a position of ironic detachment. They make it okay, or cool even, to smugly disengage from the issues. And there's nothing quite so dangerous as indifference. Anyway, interesting. I'm torn between wanting to blog about them, and knowing that the less this foolishly self-satisfied campaign is talked about the better. Very interesting campaign, thanks for bringing it to my attention. Diesel are being disingenuous when they say the ads are meant to ‘ignite debate and raise awareness’ – obviously their primary purpose is to sell clothes, same as any other ad, and position Diesel as edgy and unorthodox in the process.
I think they’re dangerous not for for saying global warming is good, but because they’ve adopted a position of ironic detachment. They make it okay, or cool even, to smugly disengage from the issues. And there’s nothing quite so dangerous as indifference.
Anyway, interesting. I’m torn between wanting to blog about them, and knowing that the less this foolishly self-satisfied campaign is talked about the better.

]]> By: Stephen O'Kane http://climatedenial.org/2007/06/28/diesel-slick/comment-page-1/#comment-7796 Stephen O'Kane Sun, 01 Jul 2007 09:04:03 +0000 http://climatedenial.org/2007/06/28/diesel-slick/#comment-7796 As you say this kind of advertising is not particularly dangerous (I'm a little surprised not to see more of it here in the UK), but I think environmentalists should treat it as a warning. They need to find ways of ensuring they do not come across as puritan 'killjoys'. This is one reason why I would like to see more effort made to redesign windfarms - the old windmills were aesthetically pleasing but the new turbines are not, and some people also complain that they are noisy. We need wind power as well as solar, and it's very important to make it attractive. As you say this kind of advertising is not particularly dangerous (I’m a little surprised not to see more of it here in the UK), but I think environmentalists should treat it as a warning. They need to find ways of ensuring they do not come across as puritan ‘killjoys’. This is one reason why I would like to see more effort made to redesign windfarms – the old windmills were aesthetically pleasing but the new turbines are not, and some people also complain that they are noisy. We need wind power as well as solar, and it’s very important to make it attractive.

]]> By: voidmatters http://climatedenial.org/2007/06/28/diesel-slick/comment-page-1/#comment-7716 voidmatters Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:54:22 +0000 http://climatedenial.org/2007/06/28/diesel-slick/#comment-7716 Not being much of a fashion addict, I do find the ads very creative and not adding controversy but rather creating awareness of an ongoing debate. One might doubt however, that this is truly the company's intention. To me adds like these rather fall into a "sponsored arts" category of course with financial motives on the sponsors side. However, I do find them much more powerful in inciting people to consider an issue than most critical articles like this one, picking on every potential controversial approach that comes along. But thanks for pointing out the ads / images. And I don't like criticism that interprets words or images as an offense when there truly is none. Things might seem superficial at a first glance, but that shouldn't make all wannabe-aware people talk them down, translating every potenial risk into real danger. Ads on "serious topics" can always be understood as propagandistic or hypocrtical and people who do not understand that or worse, blindly believe in benefits from ads, need some general education. However, I believe they won't find it in arguments like the ones discussed here, first of all because hardly any one of those "unaware people" won't be looking out for them or be willing to read them. Not being much of a fashion addict, I do find the ads very creative and not adding controversy but rather creating awareness of an ongoing debate. One might doubt however, that this is truly the company’s intention.

To me adds like these rather fall into a “sponsored arts” category of course with financial motives on the sponsors side. However, I do find them much more powerful in inciting people to consider an issue than most critical articles like this one, picking on every potential controversial approach that comes along.

But thanks for pointing out the ads / images.

And I don’t like criticism that interprets words or images as an offense when there truly is none. Things might seem superficial at a first glance, but that shouldn’t make all wannabe-aware people talk them down, translating every potenial risk into real danger.

Ads on “serious topics” can always be understood as propagandistic or hypocrtical and people who do not understand that or worse, blindly believe in benefits from ads, need some general education.

However, I believe they won’t find it in arguments like the ones discussed here, first of all because hardly any one of those “unaware people” won’t be looking out for them or be willing to read them.

]]>