The National Ad Council has teamed up with the Environmental Defense Fund to produce and air a public service campaign to educate the public about the realities of global warming and climate change. By now you should have read about this in your local paper. If you haven't, you can just Google "Ad Council Global Warming" or you can go right to the Ad Council or EDF for more information and to see the ads. I don't like the "Tick" clip, it just doesn't work--a bit heavy on the guilt-trip- through-cute-kid syndrome. But the "Train" clip is quite effective. You still get the cute kid in your face, but it says a helluva lot in 30 seconds.
There are two radio pieces as well. Like "Tick," they play to a suburban sense of guilt, but the message gets across. "There's still time. Go to fightglobalwarming.com." One very important thing to note, however, is that both radio ads refer to "greenhouse gas pollution." CO2, as most plants and trees will tell you, is not pollution. This little trick is part of the "reframing" initiative that mainstream environmental community thinks will work. It can back fire, too. Personally, I like the truth.
As you would expect, critics on both sides of the divide have weighed in on this campaign. David Roberts, an excellent blogger and editor and commentarist with Grist.org, is concerned that the pieces may freak out Ma and Pa Public. In particular, he wrote: "The public is conditioned at this point to view environmental groups as alarmists, and these ads could not possibly play more neatly into that stereotype." He offers his own script treatment as an antidote. It's more future-oriented and hopeful, but he still says global warming's "only going to get worse." Is there really something wrong with making people worry--scaring the shit out of them even? But more on that near the end of this piece.
Junkscience.com, published by Steve Milloy (a Fox News columnist and lobbyist reputedly paid by both Phillip Morris and ExxonMobil), has posted survey results by its readers showing that (as of March 27, 2006) 57.4% believe that the Ad Council campaign is "... an egregious example of eco-child abuse" Less than 1% felt the project was important. Milloy is also the head of the Free Enterprise Action Fund, the Free Enterprise Action Institute, and the Free Enterprise Education Institute...and God knows what else. All these "Free Enterprise" offspring of his have been financially linked to ExxonMobil.
CONSENSUS FENCES
Once again the idea of "equal time" has been proferred to the shrill (and freaky) minority that, apparently, the media is afraid of these days. In a sampling of articles on the Ad Council campaign, I found a number of reporters stating something to the effect of "...many scientists believe that global warming is a reality..." It's a wishy-washy thing to say, but it panders to anyone and everyone who needs a reason to believe that there's really nothing wrong with driving their SUV fifteen miles over the speedlimit. Many scientists...?
I truly believe that journalists think they're doing themselves and their readers a favor with this "fair treatment." But the truth is that the scientific community is in full agreement on an institutional level both within this country and internationally that the global mean surface temperature is going up, that there is clear evidence that greenhouse gases are increasing annually, and that anthropomorphic contributions are creating an exceedingly difficult situation to manage.
If media is going to invoke the "equal time" rule and give folks like Milloy and the Heartland Institute's James Taylor their say, it sure would be nice if they also pointed out that these slick willies receive large amounts of money from ExxonMobil.
It just seems like there's a line that needs to be crossed and journalists haven't done it yet. Scientists are telling you it's okay. How come you can't hear them? You'd rather quote mercenary lobbyists and intellectual whores? I don't get it.
At any rate, a summation of scientific consensus on the topic may be found at: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 . Also, of special note, the Geological Society of America is currently developing a position on climate change. For a quick look at the process of scientific consensus in action you might want to take a look at: http://www.geosociety.org/aboutus/position10.htm
To be sure, not all is lost in this land of people whose heads are in the sand (butts sticking up in the air). A report in the Detroit Free Press stated that Royal Dutch Shell and DuPont all support the Ad Council campaign. My guess is that British Petroleum, GE, ConocoPhillips and all the other massive corporations out there trying to embrace climate protection are also supportive, at least in part. Also, the Free Press says nothing about "many scientists believe..."
NOT JUST CONSUAVITIVES
Of course, the press loves to play both sides of the fence, and while they're busy quoting folks who speak with their sphincters, the media can't help but get a few licks in to keep liberal, Bush hating, Democrats happy and horny for 2008 by pointing out that the Administration is behind the times and doesn't agree that there's enough proof that climate change exists. In her close-to-excellent piece, "Turn on. Tune in. Save energy," appearing on the front page of The Philadelphia Inquirer and floating around other Knight Ridder outlets nationally, Sandy Bauers wrote: "President Bush has declined to take action on greenhouse gas emissions, saying the case is unproven."
In fact, this isn't really true. The Bush Administration has indeed admitted that global warming is real and that human beings are a big contributor. This has been true for quite a while. There's confusion, of course, in that little bunker they call 1600 PA Ave, but for all intents and purposes they ain't stupid. The big debate coming out of George's offices these days is that we just don't know enough to start trying to fix the problem with heavy policy and investment. This is, dare I say, subtle? They're basically saying, "Look, it's real, okay? But we don't feel we have enough information to be leaders here."
So, they're trying. I really believe this. They're playing games with words because the Republican Party still needs all the money that the petroleum and coal industries give them, but they also need something to fall back on if we get another major natural disaster like last year's hurricane season...or if the Arizona drought continues, or more polar bears start drowning in Alaska, or someone gets crushed in a glacier slide...
THE SLIPPERY SLOPE (Falling and Shifting Gears While We Slide)
In fact, the debate on both sides is shifting. The "conservative" argument represented by Mr. Bush and friends, is that we can't and shouldn't mandate solutions. They say we need voluntary programs and efforts by industry. This has been the best conservatives can do for the environment from Ronnie Reagan's days on. And there's something to be said for it. I mean, if everyone in business acted on principle and made intelligent, long-term, moral decisions, a lot of the environmental chaos we see going on around us might actually disappear. The technologies and science are there to turn around most of the dumb stuff people do. The only practical problem is that there isn't any leadership coming out of Washington on the environment, so there aren't real goals or tracking mechanisms or much else beyond hopeful, good will. As far as global warming goes, though, it really is a start. Regardless of how practical it is, and how much it depends on the grace of CEOs everywhere, the proclamation that voluntary measures need to be tried is proof that gone beyond the "PROVE IT!" phase...hopefully, anway. Either that or George and his buddies are cynical and mercenary and have little concern for the future of the world and are just mouthing platitudes to make it look like they care...
On the green side of the fence the debate has shifted too. A growing number of experts really do believe that a "tipping point" is close at hand (or even that we've passed it) and that global warming may just take off on its own very soon. Check out this article in The Independent (you have to register to get full access, but you get the gist), and this piece in the Washington Post.
You could put on quite a show with those who think we're already pretty much screwed debating those of us who believe there's still hope--and believe it or not, I do feel there's hope. It's like we're the Philadelphia Phillies, it's the 7th inning and we're down 16-1 to the Yankees. There's hope. There always is. Nothing's impossible. I once coached a Little League team down by that same number, and we worked to a 16-16 tie in the 6th inning. We lost in extra innings, but still...I just needed better pitching.
Things are getting more confusing though in the Green Emperor's court. I've written extensively about the Apollo Alliance and others who don't want to scare people anymore with talk about danger and death. I've spoken to a number of eco-staffers and executive directors around my neck of the woods over the past few months and it's clear folks don't want to say global warming much anymore. Some are hung up on making the discussion one of pollution technologies. "We talk about clean cars, these days, not greenhouse gases."
My admittedly overlong essay, The Green Emperor Gets Naked, does not really agree with this approach. It seems we're better off being honest and talking about the problem, but then bringing up solutions and taking a leadership role in jumpstarting the social and economic changes that need to come about if we want any fighting chance here.
Which brings us back to the Ad Council project. They're not really trying to scare so much as create a sense of guilt. But it's odd, because the dichotomy we all saw back there a couple of years ago was between a message of fear and danger and a message of hope and can-do spirit. Somehow, out of all those discussions, we get this interesting, vanilla guilt trip and a website address. I wish I could be inside the head of each American the first time they see or hear these ads.
But whatever happens, I'm hoping Tick and Train will do more good than harm. The American public is a strange and interesting beast. If anything, we are not predictable. I'm looking forward, then, to people's reactions whatever they are.
In fact, there's no question that it's time for America to really get a big dose of media hype about climate change on their beloved television sets. The Ad Council project will do that in part. But perhaps it's just the beginning. Laurie David is set on waking everyone up too...I just wish she could get on something other than HBO. And there are a number of new independent films and documentaries coming out over the summer on various big environmental topics as well. Maybe in 2008 we'll actually see a national debate on this stuff ... or maybe we'll still just be debating abortion rights and gay marriage.
To close, I just learned that Time has come out with a lengthy edition on global warming this week. I am off to a meeting with a bunch of baseball coaches (opening day here in Mt. Airy is April 8th), but I will stop by my local Borders on the way home to pick up a copy of the issue. I promise to comment on it soon. From what I've read online by bloggers in the past twenty minutes, AOL-Time-Warner is trying to wrestle our collective heads out of the sand. I'm going to bet it is a bit heavy-handed and that the solutions they offer are in the realm of plug-in hybrids, compact fluorescents, wind power purchases, and recycling. All are good, but none gets to the heart of things. We need to spend a lot of money as a society. There's no way around this. But if ever there was a reason to take out loans from Asian and Middle Eastern investors, this is it. Our children maybe could handle the debt payments much more willingly than the ones for the social experiment we're trying in Iraq. Or, does any of this really matter?
The National Ad Council has teamed up with the Environmental Defense Fund to produce and air a public service campaign to educate the public about the realities of global warming and climate change. By now you should have read about this in your local paper. If you haven't, you can just Google "Ad Council Global Warming" or you can go right to the Ad Council or EDF for more information and to see the ads. I don't like the "Tick" clip, it just doesn't work--a bit heavy on the guilt-trip- through-cute-kid syndrome. But the "Train" clip is quite effective. You still get the cute kid in your face, but it says a helluva lot in 30 seconds.
There are two radio pieces as well. Like "Tick," they play to a suburban sense of guilt, but the message gets across. "There's still time. Go to fightglobalwarming.com." One very important thing to note, however, is that both radio ads refer to "greenhouse gas pollution." CO2, as most plants and trees will tell you, is not pollution. This little trick is part of the "reframing" initiative that mainstream environmental community thinks will work. It can back fire, too. Personally, I like the truth.
As you would expect, critics on both sides of the divide have weighed in on this campaign. David Roberts, an excellent blogger and editor and commentarist with Grist.org, is concerned that the pieces may freak out Ma and Pa Public. In particular, he wrote: "The public is conditioned at this point to view environmental groups as alarmists, and these ads could not possibly play more neatly into that stereotype." He offers his own script treatment as an antidote. It's more future-oriented and hopeful, but he still says global warming's "only going to get worse." Is there really something wrong with making people worry--scaring the shit out of them even? But more on that near the end of this piece.
Junkscience.com, published by Steve Milloy (a Fox News columnist and lobbyist reputedly paid by both Phillip Morris and ExxonMobil), has posted survey results by its readers showing that (as of March 27, 2006) 57.4% believe that the Ad Council campaign is "... an egregious example of eco-child abuse" Less than 1% felt the project was important. Milloy is also the head of the Free Enterprise Action Fund, the Free Enterprise Action Institute, and the Free Enterprise Education Institute...and God knows what else. All these "Free Enterprise" offspring of his have been financially linked to ExxonMobil.
CONSENSUS FENCES
Once again the idea of "equal time" has been proferred to the shrill (and freaky) minority that, apparently, the media is afraid of these days. In a sampling of articles on the Ad Council campaign, I found a number of reporters stating something to the effect of "...many scientists believe that global warming is a reality..." It's a wishy-washy thing to say, but it panders to anyone and everyone who needs a reason to believe that there's really nothing wrong with driving their SUV fifteen miles over the speedlimit. Many scientists...?
I truly believe that journalists think they're doing themselves and their readers a favor with this "fair treatment." But the truth is that the scientific community is in full agreement on an institutional level both within this country and internationally that the global mean surface temperature is going up, that there is clear evidence that greenhouse gases are increasing annually, and that anthropomorphic contributions are creating an exceedingly difficult situation to manage.
If media is going to invoke the "equal time" rule and give folks like Milloy and the Heartland Institute's James Taylor their say, it sure would be nice if they also pointed out that these slick willies receive large amounts of money from ExxonMobil.
It just seems like there's a line that needs to be crossed and journalists haven't done it yet. Scientists are telling you it's okay. How come you can't hear them? You'd rather quote mercenary lobbyists and intellectual whores? I don't get it.
At any rate, a summation of scientific consensus on the topic may be found at: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 . Also, of special note, the Geological Society of America is currently developing a position on climate change. For a quick look at the process of scientific consensus in action you might want to take a look at: http://www.geosociety.org/aboutus/position10.htm
To be sure, not all is lost in this land of people whose heads are in the sand (butts sticking up in the air). A report in the Detroit Free Press stated that Royal Dutch Shell and DuPont all support the Ad Council campaign. My guess is that British Petroleum, GE, ConocoPhillips and all the other massive corporations out there trying to embrace climate protection are also supportive, at least in part. Also, the Free Press says nothing about "many scientists believe..."
NOT JUST CONSUAVITIVES
Of course, the press loves to play both sides of the fence, and while they're busy quoting folks who speak with their sphincters, the media can't help but get a few licks in to keep liberal, Bush hating, Democrats happy and horny for 2008 by pointing out that the Administration is behind the times and doesn't agree that there's enough proof that climate change exists. In her close-to-excellent piece, "Turn on. Tune in. Save energy," appearing on the front page of The Philadelphia Inquirer and floating around other Knight Ridder outlets nationally, Sandy Bauers wrote: "President Bush has declined to take action on greenhouse gas emissions, saying the case is unproven."
In fact, this isn't really true. The Bush Administration has indeed admitted that global warming is real and that human beings are a big contributor. This has been true for quite a while. There's confusion, of course, in that little bunker they call 1600 PA Ave, but for all intents and purposes they ain't stupid. The big debate coming out of George's offices these days is that we just don't know enough to start trying to fix the problem with heavy policy and investment. This is, dare I say, subtle? They're basically saying, "Look, it's real, okay? But we don't feel we have enough information to be leaders here."
So, they're trying. I really believe this. They're playing games with words because the Republican Party still needs all the money that the petroleum and coal industries give them, but they also need something to fall back on if we get another major natural disaster like last year's hurricane season...or if the Arizona drought continues, or more polar bears start drowning in Alaska, or someone gets crushed in a glacier slide...
THE SLIPPERY SLOPE (Falling and Shifting Gears While We Slide)
In fact, the debate on both sides is shifting. The "conservative" argument represented by Mr. Bush and friends, is that we can't and shouldn't mandate solutions. They say we need voluntary programs and efforts by industry. This has been the best conservatives can do for the environment from Ronnie Reagan's days on. And there's something to be said for it. I mean, if everyone in business acted on principle and made intelligent, long-term, moral decisions, a lot of the environmental chaos we see going on around us might actually disappear. The technologies and science are there to turn around most of the dumb stuff people do. The only practical problem is that there isn't any leadership coming out of Washington on the environment, so there aren't real goals or tracking mechanisms or much else beyond hopeful, good will. As far as global warming goes, though, it really is a start. Regardless of how practical it is, and how much it depends on the grace of CEOs everywhere, the proclamation that voluntary measures need to be tried is proof that gone beyond the "PROVE IT!" phase...hopefully, anway. Either that or George and his buddies are cynical and mercenary and have little concern for the future of the world and are just mouthing platitudes to make it look like they care...
On the green side of the fence the debate has shifted too. A growing number of experts really do believe that a "tipping point" is close at hand (or even that we've passed it) and that global warming may just take off on its own very soon. Check out this article in The Independent (you have to register to get full access, but you get the gist), and this piece in the Washington Post.
You could put on quite a show with those who think we're already pretty much screwed debating those of us who believe there's still hope--and believe it or not, I do feel there's hope. It's like we're the Philadelphia Phillies, it's the 7th inning and we're down 16-1 to the Yankees. There's hope. There always is. Nothing's impossible. I once coached a Little League team down by that same number, and we worked to a 16-16 tie in the 6th inning. We lost in extra innings, but still...I just needed better pitching.
Things are getting more confusing though in the Green Emperor's court. I've written extensively about the Apollo Alliance and others who don't want to scare people anymore with talk about danger and death. I've spoken to a number of eco-staffers and executive directors around my neck of the woods over the past few months and it's clear folks don't want to say global warming much anymore. Some are hung up on making the discussion one of pollution technologies. "We talk about clean cars, these days, not greenhouse gases."
My admittedly overlong essay, The Green Emperor Gets Naked, does not really agree with this approach. It seems we're better off being honest and talking about the problem, but then bringing up solutions and taking a leadership role in jumpstarting the social and economic changes that need to come about if we want any fighting chance here.
Which brings us back to the Ad Council project. They're not really trying to scare so much as create a sense of guilt. But it's odd, because the dichotomy we all saw back there a couple of years ago was between a message of fear and danger and a message of hope and can-do spirit. Somehow, out of all those discussions, we get this interesting, vanilla guilt trip and a website address. I wish I could be inside the head of each American the first time they see or hear these ads.
But whatever happens, I'm hoping Tick and Train will do more good than harm. The American public is a strange and interesting beast. If anything, we are not predictable. I'm looking forward, then, to people's reactions whatever they are.
In fact, there's no question that it's time for America to really get a big dose of media hype about climate change on their beloved television sets. The Ad Council project will do that in part. But perhaps it's just the beginning. Laurie David is set on waking everyone up too...I just wish she could get on something other than HBO. And there are a number of new independent films and documentaries coming out over the summer on various big environmental topics as well. Maybe in 2008 we'll actually see a national debate on this stuff ... or maybe we'll still just be debating abortion rights and gay marriage.
To close, I just learned that Time has come out with a lengthy edition on global warming this week. I am off to a meeting with a bunch of baseball coaches (opening day here in Mt. Airy is April 8th), but I will stop by my local Borders on the way home to pick up a copy of the issue. I promise to comment on it soon. From what I've read online by bloggers in the past twenty minutes, AOL-Time-Warner is trying to wrestle our collective heads out of the sand. I'm going to bet it is a bit heavy-handed and that the solutions they offer are in the realm of plug-in hybrids, compact fluorescents, wind power purchases, and recycling. All are good, but none gets to the heart of things. We need to spend a lot of money as a society. There's no way around this. But if ever there was a reason to take out loans from Asian and Middle Eastern investors, this is it. Our children maybe could handle the debt payments much more willingly than the ones for the social experiment we're trying in Iraq. Or, does any of this really matter?
Comments