[Blue Olives] It's Real and They're Lying

[David Biddle]

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--and our moral duty to future generations--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.

The proverbial human compost is already leaking out of the mouthes of a number of tongue wags on both sides of the issue. David Roberts, an excellent blogger 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."

Junkscience.com, published by Steve Milloy (Fox News columnist, lobbyist reputedly paid by both Phillip Morris and ExxonMobil, one of the last major holdouts in the petroleum industry hoping that global warming just means that everyone can have tans year round), 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 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 are financially linked to ExxonMobil.

Once again, of course, 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 subtle 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? No, most. In fact, I think it's pretty safe to say that scientists feel there is ample evidence that global climate change is a reality...

But a number of outlets writing about global warming seem to be less squeamish about quoting folks like Steve Milloy and others in the pocket of ExxonMobil.

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 be pointed out these slick willies receive large amounts of money from ExxonMobil.

I'm still not sure I fully accept the principle though, no matter how forthcoming a good journalist might be about the remunerative reality of his or her sources. I just can't imagine a good reporter writing about cigarettes saying "many doctors believe that cigarettes contribute to lung cancer and heart disease..." Most?

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, DuPont and Plc (a major European oil company) all support the Ad Council campaign. My guess is that British Petroleum, GE, ConocoPhillips and all the other massive corporations out there who are trying to embrace climate protection are also supportive, at least in part. Also, the Free Press says nothing about "many scientists."

Of course, the press loves to play both sides of the fence, and while they're busy quoting folks who speak with their sphincters (all the while holding out their hands for payoffs), 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 really no dumbies. 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. They're trying, though. I really believe this. They are 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 get crushed in a glacier slide...

Actually, 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 most of the dumb stuff people do around. 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's a start. Regardless of how practical it is, and how much it depends on the grace of CEOs everywhere, the proclamation that voluntary measures are encourage is proof that we've gone beyond the "PROVE IT!" phase...hopefully, anway.

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 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 and it's the 8th inning, we're down 16-1 to the Yankees. There's hope. There always is. Nothing's impossible.

But things get worse. It's very, very murky in general on the environmental side of the fence. 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. .

But back to the Ad Council project. It's time for America to really get a big dose of media hype on their beloved television sets. The Ad Council project will do that in part. Stay tuned. And not to be outdone by their competition, 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. Do you think it matters?

--
Posted by David Biddle to Blue Olives at 3/27/2006 12:27:00 PM