Flaks Flog "Clean Coal" in Ohio

Mon, 2008-03-31 15:13Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

Flaks Flog "Clean Coal" in Ohio

The $40 million “clean coal” campaign being run by the so-called “Americans For Balanced Energy Choices” (ABEC) has hit Columbus,Ohio with larger than life billboards as the latest tactic.

Of course, nowhere on the larger-than-life sign (not even in the fine print) will you find, “Paid for by the US Coal Industry,” or “This ad campaign is brought to you in part by the largest coal company in America, Peabody Energy.”

ABEC could at least be somewhat honest and advertise themselves as “Coal Companies for Balanced Energy Choices.”

Instead, commuters are hit with the message: “A cleaner environment for Ohio.”

Bruce Nilles from Sierra Club puts it best:

They [Americans for Balanced Energy Choices] are trying to mislead the public. They run around saying 'clean,' like they have created some new version of coal.”

Comments

How many $40 millions have Peabody spent so far on their bogus advertising campaigns?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Frank Bi, http://tinyurl.com/yrpnmd
“Al `Fat Al’ Gore [is fat]” – Harold Pierce

Hmm, let’s see $40 million vs. Al Gore’s latest $300 million PR campaign?

So if “the science is settled”, as the warmists claim, why do they need to spend $300 million to promote a allegedly uncontroversial scientific theory? http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080331115915.aspx

Without having seen the ads, it’s hard to know for sure. But at this point I suspect it’s not the theory that’s being promoted so much as doing something about it. The theory doesn’t need support as it is supported by the facts, and scientific facts don’t change regardless of campaigns. Decisions on policy are at issue, however, and campaigns do affect support for policies. Don’t you think it’s harder to get somebody to take action than to convince them that we’re not sure anything needs to be done yet, so take it easy? Oops, I said “think” – forget about it.

You were right, Steve L:

“`The whole idea of the campaign is to be inclusive and to be bipartisan and to bring people together to a place where meaningful change can happen,’ an organizer said. `It aims to be a game-changer in terms of the politics of climate.’”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9268.html

Unfortunately, this point isn’t approved by the Steve Milloy Cabal yet, so the denialists can only (1) ignore it, or (2) have their brains explode.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Frank Bi, http://tinyurl.com/yrpnmd
“Al `Fat Al’ Gore [is fat]” – Harold Pierce

Now we just need rob to mention Suzuki, and the circle will be complete.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Frank Bi, http://tinyurl.com/yrpnmd
“Al `Fat Al’ Gore [is fat]” – Harold Pierce

“There aren’t just a few scientists for hire — there are law firms, public-relations firms, think tanks, and entire product-defense companies that specialize in rejiggering epidemiological studies to make findings of endangerment to human health disappear.

“For Michaels, these companies are the scientific equivalent of Arthur Andersen. He calls their work “mercenary” science, drawing an implicit analogy with private military firms like Blackwater. If the companies can get the raw data, so much the better, and if they can’t, they’ll find another way to make findings of statistically significant risk go away. Just throw out the animal studies or tinker with the subject groups. Perform a new meta-analysis. Conduct a selective literature review. Think up some potentially confounding variable. And so forth.

“They can always get it published somewhere. And if they can’t, they can just start their own peer-reviewed journal, one likely to have an exceedingly low scientific impact but a potentially profound effect on the regulatory process.

“All of science is subject to such exploitation because all of science is fundamentally characterized by uncertainty. No study is perfect; each one is subject to criticism both illegitimate and legitimate — and so if you wish, you can make any scientific stance, even the most strongly established, appear weak and dubious. All you have to do is selectively highlight uncertainty, selectively attack the existing studies one by one, and ignore the weight of the evidence. Although Michaels focuses largely on the attempts to whitewash the risks that various chemicals pose to the workplace and public health, the same methods are also used to attack the scientific understanding of evolution and global warming.”

The Manufacture of Uncertainty by Chris Mooney http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/29/7963/

[x]

CLEAN COAL, it's the two-word catch phrase the coal industry has used for years as it tries to convince the world its climate changing energy source has a future.

While the term “clean coal” is rightly met with ridicule and derision by many, up until this week it has been allowed to stand — at least in the world of advertising.

But now the UK’s advertising authorities have told Peabody Energy that it can no longer freely dangle its “clean coal...

read more