By the way, that last advertisement does not bode well for “clean” coal. Coal is anything but sexy- causing lung disease and tearing families apart.

Message from American Power, 10 January 2008

From:
Sent: January-10-08 2:54 PM
To:
Subject: Thank you for visiting Americas Power!

Thanks for checking in with us.

The issue of global warming is probably the single biggest challenge facing America’s energy sector. This issue not only affects electricity generators who use coal, natural gas, and oil to meet their customer’s electricity needs, but also could likely impact the types of cars we drive as consumers.

But the fact remains, there has never been an environmental challenge facing the coal-based electricity sector for which technology didn’t provide the ultimate solution – and those who are familiar with the advancements in carbon capture technology recognize that meeting the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the electricity sector is not likely to be the exception to that rule.

That is why America’s coal-based electricity providers are working with Department of Energy on a $1.5 billion project to build a coal plant that captures close to 100% of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury. The “FutureGen” plant will capture carbon dioxide for permanent storage before it is released into the atmosphere. The plant will bury its heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions deep underground in a saltwater aquifer.

Regards,
Americans for Balanced Energy Choices

As a result, I have just asked this question to them, through the website (see bottom of page at .. http://www.americaspower.org/Ask-The-Experts/ )

When you say that coal is 70% cleaner now than in the 1970s, why do you miss out Carbon Dioxide? Isn’t that the one we are all concerned about now?

I wonder if they will respond!

The five-minute music video relates that story in a manner that is entertaining, while preserving the underlying seriousness. It can be viewed at YouTube at Easter Island, or can be found there by searching YouTube with the terms “Easter Island Global Warming”, and choosing the “grastog” video.

It is true!”

but they cunningly don’t include carbon dioxide in their list of pollutants. Wow, that’s amazng!

It seems abundantly clear that some corporate interests are sufficiently threatened by the issue of climate change that they are embarking on propaganda campaigns along the lines of “we are getting more environmental”, plus we offer “balance” and/or “security” and/or “home comforts” and /or “social welfare” and/or “cheaper / good for economy”. That what they are doing is not nearly sufficient to meet the requirements of what climate scientists tell us we should aim for to avoid the risk of catastrophic climate change, is not addressed!

I have just moved to Montreal (I am married to a Canadian) and have seen a couple of TV campaigns recently that are in line with this, see below.

1. Shell’s Advertising for their Oil Sands

http://www.shell.ca/home/content/ca-en/news_and_library/features/feature_oilsands_commercial.html

This is a TV commercial I saw a few months back about Shell’s work with the Canadian oil sands. The excavation of Canadian’s oil sands is one of the great global threats to our climate, but you would never know it from this advert. It is also a major reason why Canada is doing so badly amongst countries dealing with climate change (for a league table of how countries are doing, see the 2008 Climate Change Performance Index by German Watch http://www.germanwatch.org/klima/ccpi.htm ). William Marsden reviews this TV campaign (although not this exact advert) in his recent book about the oil sands called “Stupid to the last drop; How Alberta is bringing environmental Armageddon to Canada (and doesn’t seem to care)”.

On p.169, he writes “The company runs a national television advertisement to convince the Canadian public that Shell is acting responsibly in restoring the land to its former state. The ad shows a few grazing bison and a Shell employee in a field of barley talking to a group of local Aboriginal elders. The voice-over claims that Shell is getting advice from the Natives on how to restore the land. This begs the obvious question: what do Natives know about restoring the land? They’ll teach you how to gut a moose, but they don’t know how to restore the land for the simple reason that they’ve never destroyed it.”

2. ABEC’s Coal Adverts

http://www.clean-coal.info/drupal/abec_50_percent

Take a look at this advert for coal which is current being broadcast. (There was another one showing an imaginary coal power station in a forest by a beautiful river, which I haven’t been able to track down!). Anyway, it’s clear that this advert stands for “abundant”, “provides energy-security”, “at low cost” with images / sound track of “fun”, “homeliness / security”. The advert leads us to a couple of websites which talk a lot about environmental benefits, at :
http://www.americaspower.org/
http://www.balancedenergy.org/abec/index.html

Bottom line, this is all propaganda with the future of the planet at stake …

Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behaviour to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.
– Garth S. Jowett and Victoria O’Donnell, Propaganda And Persuasion

I’d urge you to keep exposing them. If you build enough momentum, the “creative directors” in these ad agencies will think twice the next time they sit down to conceive another meaningless commercial to take advantage of the green trend.

There’s reason to be optimistic. After I exposed the Ford ad (http://tinyurl.com/2xwn9j), it was picked up by few blogs and subsequently the polar bears disappeared (with rest of the imagery left intact) from the press ads. Ford Endeavour micro-site went a step further and completely removed the image.