Oh, by the way: Louisiana’s about to disappear!
Amid the myriad environmental issues that taking up headline space around the country, you may not have noticed this one, which I’ll try to state as calmly as possible:
10 PERCENT OF LOUISIANA’S GONNA BE GONE BY THE END OF THE CENTURY AND THERE’S NOT A HELL OF A LOT WE CAN DO ABOUT IT!!! Read more
Monsanto’s image takes a beating
It’s been a rough few months for Monsanto’s efforts to brand itself an environmentally responsible company.
But last week the St. Louis-based chemical giant suffered a blow that’s potentially bigger than the bad PR it’s gotten all month from the documentary film Food Inc.: A U.S. Appeals Court ruling gives momentum to farmers and environmentalists who are trying to block the company’s genetically engineered takeover of global seed stocks.
Monsanto never exactly has been an enviro-darling. While it refers to itself nowadays as an “agricultural company,” it’s still perceived for its Big Chem roots and is best known for Astroturf, Roundup and genetically modified seeds. But few companies have suffered as bad a spate of environmental headlines as Monsanto has since April.
As best I can tell, the bad publicity started on April Fool’s Day (appropriately enough). Read more
Wait a sec’ … who’s biasing science around here?
The climate-change denial camp argues that “alarmist” scientists, industrialists and politicians are grotesquely biasing the debate because they stand to make so much money from legislation to limit greenhouse gases.
Well, if you stand to make money on something, and if you have the means to influence the debate, it stands to reason that you’d spend a lot to make a lot more on down the road. How else could you bias things?
Surprise. Surprise. The interests that stand to gain from doing nothing about climate change (or close to nothing) are spending five to 10 times as much as the interests that want the country to take aggressive action. At least, that’s the case when it comes to lobbying expenditures. Read more
Ingrid Newkirk on PETA’s buzz
This week’s Media Mayhem column at the Mother Nature Network:
A fly. Seven days after President Obama swatted the sucker, I googled “PETA” and “fly” together. One-thousand-one-hundred-and-eighteen news articles showed up. The first wave of mentions was speculative, as in: “The Onion ought to write that PETA’s upset at Obama.” The next wave was disbelieving, as in: “This may sound to you like a headline from the Onion: PETA’s upset at Obama.”
A handful of writers got past the visceral reaction: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals again displayed its unerring talent for drawing attention to the cause of animal rights. In this case, PETA didn’t even mean to draw the attention. A staff blogger happened to mention in a short post about “flygate” that “human beings have a long way to go before they think before they act.”
‘Clean’ coal group considers environment optional?
An industry group created to push for continued reliance of coal — despite the fact that it generates more carbon than does any other form of fossil fuel — suggests on its home page that a “clean environment” is optional:
The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity is committed to the idea that America can have the affordable, reliable electricity we need … with the clean environment we want.
The not-so-subtle point is that electricity should take precedence over the environment, which is a luxury. I’d go way out on a limb (not) and say that this isn’t just a case of an unintentional message being sent by poorly chosen wording. The coal and power guys want to send a message their industry is more important than the quality of the air we breath, the water we drink, and the climate that civilization depends upon. Read more
Gore statement on climate bill’s passage
Just ’cause I got it (the bill just passed the House, 219-212):
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Leadership of the House, and Chairmen Waxman and Markey have, through their leadership, secured an important bipartisan victory for the American people.
The American Clean Energy Security (ACES) Act is one of the most important pieces of legislation Congress will ever pass. This comprehensive legislation will make meaningful reductions in global warming pollution, spur investment in clean energy technology, create jobs and reduce our reliance on foreign oil.
The next step is passage of this legislation by the Senate to help restore America’s leadership in the world and begin, at long last, to put in place a truly global solution to the climate crisis.
We are at an extraordinary moment, with an historic opportunity to confront one of the world’s most serious challenges. Our actions now will be remembered by this generation and all those to follow – in our own nation and others around the world.
Newkirk on PETA’s lessons for eco-activists
PETA isn’t an environmental group. At least, not in my book.
That’s because, in the eyes of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, animal rights trump environment values whenever the two conflict.
From time to time, I’ve snickered and sneered at the controversial animal-rights advocates over their headline grabs, moral certitude and occasionally shallow grasp of many of the indirect, environmental forces that actually do harm animals. It was the snicker’s turn last week when PETA staffers criticized President Obama for killing a fly.
All that said, I find it difficult to argue against two qualities of the organization:
1) PETA does fight on the side of the angels. I mean, how else can you describe a group of poorly paid people who have given their lives over to empathy and protection of the helpless and abused?
2) And PETA’s damned effective at what it does. While it shouldn’t get all the credit, the group’s high-profile PR campaigns have played a big role in expanding empathy in this country for animals since PETA”s founding in 1980.
So after fly-gate buzzed by, I got to wondering what environmental groups could learn from PETA. To my surprise, Ingrid Newkirk, the group’s founder and president, was the person who return by e-mail with a call. Read more
Most in U.S. want greenhouse limits (WaPo poll)
Who’s winning the popular debate over climate change?
For months, the do-nothing crowd has heralded a couple of polls that hinted at increasing skepticism among the masses. But a Washington Post-ABC News poll released this morning shows overwhelming support among Americans for reducing greenhouse gases.
Three-fourths of respondents answered “yes” to the question, “Do you think the federal government should or should not regulate the release of greenhouse gases from sources like power plants, cars and factories in an effort to reduce global warming?” Support was overwhelming among Democrats, independents and Republicans. More than two-thirds of people who said “yes” felt “strongly” about it. Read more
Fly-gate’s winner — PETA’s online store
PETA President Ingrid Newkirk just mentioned to me that sales for the Katcha Bug Humane Bug Catcher have multiplied like, well, flies.
Soon after President Obama was caught by an NBC camera committing fly-icide in the White House, the organization’s named started popping up in stories of the subject. At first, there was derision that a PETA employee mildly criticized the president for killing the fly and making light of it. Then, visitors to the website of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals started snapping up Katcha Bugs.
“In first 20 hours, 116 of them left our PETA shelves. God, knows how many of them we’ve sold since then,” Newkirk said.
How many Katcha Bugs do people normally buy from PETA? “We might sell two a month.”
More evidence, I’d say, that PETA knows how to turn potenially embarrassments into publicity windfalls. Food for thought for environmental groups?
I’ll publish my interview with Newkirk on Cult of Green tomorrow. Mother Nature News will publish my Media Mayhem column on PETA’s marketing genius later this week.
Climate contest — $175 reality vs. $3,100 fiction
In a rational world, the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate that the Waxman-Markey climate bill will cost the average American family only $175 a year by 2020 would deflate arguments that the legislation is horribly expensive.
Well, better late than never for the CBO, I suppose. Last week’s study did get coverage in major news sources — except, of course, in Fox.
But I’m skeptical that the actual estimate of $175 will become the accepted number in popular culture.
For weeks, industry groups, anti-solution politicians and professional crisis deniers have been throwing around two numbers — $1,600 per year and $3,100 per year — as scare tactics. Read more
