Promises are no longer adequate, climate action is now essential ...

>>> From an Article by Andrea Germanos, Common Dreams, January 19, 2022

In a new letter stressing the need for an “immediate and rapid transition” away from planet-heating fuels, a group of over 450 scientists on Wednesday called on public relations and advertising agencies to no longer work with fossil fuel clients.

“As scientists who study and communicate the realities of climate change,” they wrote, “we are consistently faced with a major and needless challenge: overcoming advertising and PR efforts by fossil fuel companies that seek to obfuscate or downplay our data and the risks posed by the climate crisis.”

“In fact,” the scientists continued, “these misinformation campaigns represent one of the biggest barriers to the government action science shows is necessary to mitigate the ongoing climate emergency. ”

Organized by scientists including Drs. Astrid Caldas, Ayana Elizabeth Johnson, and Michael Mann, along with the Clean Creatives campaign and the Union of Concerned Scientists, the letter is being sent to a number of public relations and advertising agencies including Edelman — the world’s biggest PR firm — and major clients of those companies including Amazon, Microsoft, and North Face.

“If PR and advertising agencies want to be part of climate solutions instead of continuing to exacerbate the climate emergency,” the scientists wrote that those companies “should drop all fossil fuel clients that plan to expand their production of oil and gas, end work with all fossil fuel companies and trade groups that perpetuate climate deception, cease all work that hinders climate legislation, and instead focus on uplifting the true climate solutions that are already available and must be rapidly implemented at scale.”

“To put it simply,” the letter adds, “advertising and public relations campaigns for fossil fuels must stop.”

Edelman has faced sustained criticism from climate advocates for its work with planet-polluting clients like ExxonMobil. Despite that pressure, the firm said earlier this month that, following an internal review, it was not dropping any of its fossil fuel clients, though it would take steps including establishing an outside council of climate experts to weigh in “on assignments and client situations of concern.”

According to Clean Creatives campaign director Duncan Meisel, the plans fall far short of what the climate emergency demands.

“Edelman said that they will use the best available science to evaluate whether they will continue to work with fossil fuel clients,” he said. “Well, here are 450 of the world’s best scientists telling firms like Edelman that work needs to cease immediately. Edelman wants to confuse the issue, but these climate experts are crystal clear: there are no excuses for continuing to greenwash fossil fuel companies.”

Dr. Caldas, senior climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, also denounced such “greenwashing” and other efforts by PR and ad firms that have “sabotaged climate action, even as the climate crisis worsens.”

She said “it’s clear the United States needs to sharply cut carbon pollution as soon as possible — by at least 50% this decade and reaching net-zero emissions preferably well before but no later than 2050 — to contribute to global efforts to avoid the most dangerous climate change impacts. But the PR and advertising companies that abet the spread of climate disinformation are standing in the way.”

Mann, distinguished professor of atmospheric science at Penn State University, leveled similar criticism. “We climate scientists have been trying to raise the climate crisis alarm for decades, but we’ve been drowned out by these fossil fuel industry-funded PR campaigns,” he said.

“Greenwashing is a primary tactic in what I call the ‘New War’ on climate action,” added Mann, “and it must be called out for what it is — denial under another name.”

>>>>>>>…………………>>>>>>>…………………>>>>>>>

SEE ALSO: West Virginia Treasury Drops BlackRock Over Stance on Climate Risk, Alicia McElhaney, Institutional Investor, January 18, 2022

West Virginia’s Board of Treasury Investments, which manages $8 billion in state operating funds, has dropped BlackRock money market funds from its portfolio, citing concerns over the firm’s focus on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing. The Board of Treasury also cited BlackRock’s holdings in Chinese companies for its decision.

CBS “Sunday Morning” today carried a commercial from “energyfromshale.org” saying that Williamsport, PA, is much better because of the new natural gas drilling and fracking activities in the area.  Here is an example of the message from their web-site:

In towns across America, like Williamsport, PA, people are experiencing the benefits of shale energy.  New jobs.  Renewed hope.  They’re also asking questions, like “How are you protecting our water?”  The energy industry is answering these questions with facts.  Like the fact that we encase our wells in multiple layers of steel and cement.  And that we monitor and test as we drill for oil and natural gas.  These questions and answers are important.  Because we know success in a town like Williamsport means success for us all.

However, another web-site entitled “usclimateactionnow.org” has a different message, namely:  Gas industry sponsored ads sometimes show an intent, inquisitive, blond-haired toddler crouched on a patch of perfect, green grass; he is peering through a big magnifying glass, directing his sight into the earth. His background is a pleasant, out-of-focus expanse of green leaves.

The headline reads: “WHERE IS AMERICA FINDING MORE THAN A CENTURY’S WORTH OF CLEAN, DOMESTIC ENERGY?” The answer, placed below the large picture of the toddler, is stated as “RIGHT BENEATH OUR FEET.” Additional text asserts: “technology has improved”, “safely recover”, “practices employed to protect the environment”, “transform America’s energy security”, “creating jobs and growing the economy”, and “let’s unlock it.”

Here is the question: HOW IS THE IMPEDIMENT TO CLIMATE STABILIZATION POSED BY ADS SUCH AS THIS EFFECTIVELY COUNTERED?   Answers are provided below.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Resource Insights is a web-site raising questions about the natural gas industry, as an independent source of news on natural resources and the environment, edited by Kurt Cobb.

If you live in the United States and bother to turn on your television, it’s almost impossible to avoid ads telling you that natural gas from shale is both abundant and environmentally safe to develop. In these ads, so many happy people seem to enjoy burning natural gas that it would be difficult to imagine that their smiles might come to a premature end.

Though the ads will probably not be withdrawn, the emerging facts run counter to the gleeful tone of this television commercial produced by America’s Natural Gas Alliance, a consortium of shale gas drillers.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Joe Gingerich, editor of The O’Dwyer’s PR Daily, reports that front groups are waging public relations warfare in the fracking debate.  He reports on the real issues and problems involving fracking chemicals, contaminated water supplies, the federal loophole in regulations, human health effects unchecked, and climate change due to the greenhouse gases that are released.

It comes as little surprise then, that natural gas companies now find themselves on the defensive, and are sinking historic sums into PR, marketing, advertising and lobbying efforts to sway citizen opinion and influence legislation. A 2011 Common Cause report found fracking companies have funneled nearly $750 million to lobbyists in the past decade to inspire laws ameliorative to hydraulic fracturing practices.

A bombardment of pro-fracking ad campaigns has followed. A series of commercials funded by ExxonMobil began appearing in 2011: in one, a particularly smug geologist discusses whether fracking can be performed safely. “At ExxonMobil, we know the answer is yes,” he says, aside bustling main street vistas of Everytown, U.S.A. In another series of national print and TV ads (titled “I’m an Energy Voter”), a montage of citizens carefully picked from an assortment of ages and racial varieties repeat the mantra “I vote,” before a repetition of varying subordinate clauses: “for more domestic energy,” “for energy security,” “for energy from all sources.”

This commercial was funded by Energy Citizens, a front group backed by the American Petroleum Institute. One tactic is bussing in hundreds of energy employees to bogus “rallies” created by the group to oppose cap-and-trade legislation. By establishing a perceived public support for fracking, Energy Citizens is able to cast the illusion that its services are a response to interests voiced by the masses.

The O’Dwyer report says further that perhaps no pro-fracking group has been as successful or more influential than Energy in Depth (EDI), a Washington, D.C.-based front group formed by the American Petroleum Institute and the Independent Petroleum Association of America, and funded by BP, Occidental Petroleum, Marathon, Chevron, Shell, Halliburton, El Paso Corporation, and the Ohio Oil and Gas Association.

At a November conference in Houston — titled “Media and Stakeholder Relations: Hydraulic Fracturing Initiative 2011” — EID called on trade groups to engage opponents with a “community approach” that includes a “focus on local concerns” and to remind them of “local opportunities: jobs, revenue, cost-savings.” Handling PR duties for Energy in Depth is FTI Consulting (formerly FD Public Affairs Americas). IPAA is also an FTI client.

At the Houston event, Matt Pitzarella, Spokesman for Pennsylvania energy giant Range Resources, was quoted stating his company is currently employing former military counterinsurgency officers to handle media inquiries, quell citizen concerns and ward off grassroots opposition to hydraulic fracturing in Pennsylvania. “We have several former psyops folks that work for us at Range because they’re very comfortable in dealing with localized issues and local governments,” Pitzarella was quoted saying.

True or not, blogs and Internet discussion forums are now abuzz with the rumor that the U.S. energy industry is hiring psychological warfare experts to perform duties previously reserved for Madison Avenue boardrooms.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Roger Stone has written a blog on “biggovernment.com” entitled “Energy Independence: Frack We Must.”    He is overlooking the adverse impacts to the environment and our infrastructure as follows:

We must look at the scientific facts before making a policy decision, and the facts about shale gas, when you cut through a great deal of disinformation, are simple. First, it’s less expensive than the fossil fuel alternatives. At $66 per megawatt-hour, natural gas beats the dirtier and more dangerous coal, which costs around $90 per MWh. It even costs less than solar, wind (off and onshore), nuclear, oil and bio-diesel.

And shale gas doesn’t just save money, it saves lives. On average, fifty to sixty coal miners die every year. Every miner must wear artificial breathing apparatus to protect them in case of a disaster, disasters which happen with alarming frequency. Explosions, cave-ins and methane leaks combine to make coal mining the most dangerous job in the United States today.