The $millions put into Super Bowl advertising cannot, in general, be seen as anything approaching environmentally friendly considering what is core to most of the messages: consume and, well, consume more. There are, of course, some advertisements that are wrapped in “green” and which have at least a (debatable) case to made that they are environmentally-sensible communications. For example, tthe General Electric 2009 advertisement re the Smart Grid (see here and after the fold) could be looked at as part of educating the public about the power and value of moving forward toward a Smart Grid. From a different angle, the PepsiCo decision to forgo Super Bowl ads (first time ever, $33 million in ads at the 2009 Super Bowl) to give grants for nominated causes based on online voting (see the Pepsi Refresh site — note, they want to collect email addresses for, we can assume, advertising purposes) could be framed as ‘green non-advertising at the Super Bowl’.
Notable for the 2010 Super Bowl, no “Hemi” or super max McSUV advertising. (There was, of course, the horrible Dodge ad …) Despite the bad beer ads and the amusing Dorito ads that are far from environmentally friendly, without question the most environmentally ad served a product that seeks to claim a green label.
Audi chose to promote their new car as a great environmentally friendly product, one that could evade ‘green police’ crackdowns on the highway.
This advertisement is offensive and counterproductive on many levels.
[NOTE: As noted to a comment below, this discussion's logic actually follows somewhat the reverse of the original reaction to the advertisement. On reflection, I regret beginning with the 'weakest', most intellectually diversionary, and least consequential point when writing this post but do not see it as appropriate to do a total redraft to mask how it was originally written. The reaction began with seeing a 30-second reinforcing of 'ecoNazi' which then led to the discussion that now begins ... ]
The Ordnungspolizei (Orpo) was the name for the uniformed regular German police force in existence during the period of Nazi Germany, notably between 1936 and 1945. It was increasingly absorbed into the Nazi police system. Owing to their green uniforms, they were also referred to as Grüne Polizei (green police). … The Order Police played a central role in carrying out the Holocaust, as stated by Professor Browning:
It is no longer seriously in question that members of the German Order Police, both career professionals and reservists, in both battalion formations and precinct service or Einzeldienst, were at the center of the Holocaust, providing a major manpower source for carrying out numerous deportations, ghetto-clearing operations, and massacres
Thus, the German automobile manufacturer, Audi, has chosen to contain an oblique reference to a Nazi police unit that had a role in helping carry out the Holocaust. Evidently, Audi believes that Americans (or at least those watching the Super Bowl) know nothing of history.
Damaging framing of what it might mean to go green
The Audi advertisement has “Green Police” cracking down hard for real and imagined environmentally unfriendly actions. We see police taking a man down for choosing a plastic bag at the supermarket checkout. A horde of police are shown arresting someone at the door for having incandescent bulbs on their porch. What seems to be a SWAT team hit hot tub partiers and chase a man running from it in a bathing suit (his underwear?). And, well, there are other “Green Police” take downs of other real or imagined environmentally-unfriendly behavior, actions, and/or possessions. This is a promotion of a view of ‘going green’ that suggests heading toward a police state, destroying liberty, rather than any sort of vision of a more positive future.
While Audi intended this advertisement to boost the Audi TDI Clean Diesel which was, mistakenly in my opinion, named “green car of the year”, this advertisement in the most prominent advertising venue of the year serves to promote a very destructive perspective on what might happen as the United States moves toward more environmentally-friendly policies and regulations.
EnviroNAZI and Ecofascist are “used as a political epithet by political conservatives to discredit deep ecology, mainstream environmentalism, and other left and non-left ecological positions”.
The Audi advertisement feeds directly into this “political epithet”, feeding a “tea party“-type framing of threats to civil liberty, serving to undermine public support for serious action to address America’s oil dependency, energy profligacy, and the challenges/opportunities that Global Warming present us (the U.S.).
It is simply astounding that a German company would play against such a framing, making oblique references to a Nazi police unit and providing what many will see as a broadside against environmentalism as somehow fascist in nature.
Such horrible framing in an advertisement for a green product makes “Green Police” the most environmentally unfriendly Super Bowl advertisement of 2010.
GE Scarecrow Smart Grid Ad from the 2009 Super Bowl. Note, this was the first (only to date) GE ad placed during the Super Bowl.
UPDATE / NOTE: JeremyBloom provides some examples from around the web to this ad:
…if you, too, are fed up with curly coiffed 18-year-old boys attempting to tell you to throw trash into the right-colored can and boasting of their ability to get their Prius to coast on the freeway, then the Audi spot might just be for you.
Audi’s Green Police: love it or hate it, that’s what it’s going to be like. Welcome to government interfering in every part of your life
Green Police Audi Commercial. I don’t think we’re too far away from this being the status quo. #libertarian
The green police AKA the LAPD in 2012. #tomanydamnhippiesinCali
the more the teabaggy interpretation just doesn’t quite fit. The thrill at the end, when they guy gets to accelerate away from the crowd, turns on satisfying the green police—not rejecting or circumventing them, but satisfying their strict standards. The authority of the green police is taken for granted, never questioned. If you’re looking to appeal to mooks who think the green police are full of it and have no authority, moral or otherwise, why would you make a commercial like that? Why offer escape from a moral dilemma your audience doesn’t acknowledge exists?
The ad only makes sense if it’s aimed at people who acknowledge the moral authority of the green police—people who may find those obligations tiresome and constraining on occasion, who only fitfully meet them, who may be annoyed by sticklers and naggers, but who recognize that living more sustainably is in fact the moral thing to do. This basically describes every guy I know.
Nor does Sebastio Blanco at AutoBlogGreen who comments that “we’ve seen the Super Bowl ad (there’s a teaser companion spot here) and can tell you that it’s not offensive in any way”. That post also has Audi’s response to criticism over the ad.
Jeffrey Kuhlman, the chief communications officer for Audi of America, told AutoblogGreen that he personally talked to two Jewish leaders – Abraham Foxman, head of the Anti Defamation League, and Fred Zeidman, Chairman of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial and Museum – about the green police ads and that they did not see a problem with the spot
the issue of green police vs. Ordnungspolizei. Ordnungspolizei is directly translated to mean Order Police. It’s more than just the difference between capital letters and small letters, it’s official versus nicknames. And in our research not one person drew any other distinction other than “environmental”.
We researched the term. We tested the ad concept with focus groups. We sought input and reaction from key organizations, including the Jewish community, and we sent out a press release that went to thousands of media, and not one reaction. I then worked again with key Jewish leaders after the blogger raised the issue, just to make sure that we hadn’t missed something, and again, we were reassured that the term is not one that has historical significance, and that reactions to the term are completely in line with our intent … environmental enforcement.
The problem is, there’s already been a Green Police enforcement organization, but not one that you’d want to be associated with. This Green Police was part of the Nazi persecution and execution of millions of Jews in the Holocaust of the Second World War.
The implications of Audi’s choice of name for their campaign could be huge, especially since Audi is a German company.
… I’m not sure the German car company understands that the idea of “Green Police” they are spoofing is, in fact, precisely what many conservatives in this country actually think is the primary reason people who care about the environment — the apparent target audience of this ad — are trying to get the nation to take action on global warming
Laughing … Yes, one can and should laugh …
And, to be clear, I see paths for having fun with the idea of over zealous driving of environmental messages. There is the Will Ferrell / et al “Green Team” skit which does not, imo, drive home the ‘enviro-fascist’ type message and is quite clearly comedic. It has also spawned many spoofs (good and bad).
There are even elements within the “Green Police” ad to amuse (that, I believe, police aardvark is an example), but the overall 30 second experience for the ‘average’ Super Bowl viewer reinforces a distorted view of what can and should happen as America moves forward toward a prosperous, climate friendly, clean-energy future.
Note, this is perhaps the best advertisement that appeared during the Super Bowl … even if some want to criticize it as anti-green for promoting international travel.
This guest post from tboggia expresses an outrage over some of President Obama’s words shared by many fighting for a clean-energy future.
Right after the State of the Union, young climate activists submitted a question about the President’s remarks on clean energy and crossed their fingers hoping that it would get asked. The smiling faces of Energy Action Coalition activists made it in the the intro screen as the YouTube announcer explained the format.
During the CitizenTube State of the Union Q & A discussion, President Obama severely dodged a question submitted by young activists about his support of dirty energy.
His answer is unwise, and deceitful. I hate to say this about the President that has done more to invest in a clean energy economy than anyone before him (not a hard accomplishment since W, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, and Carter were the only presidents in office since clean energy became an issue), but young people are tired of being lied to by the White House and congress.
Despite the evidence and public support, President Obama’s comments disregarded the potential of renewable energy. Instead, he championed dangerous and dirty alternatives like Carbon Capture and Sequestration (for some incomprehensible President Obama keeps on calling it ‘clean coal’) and nuclear energy even though many studies question their ability to quickly and cheaply reduce our emissions. CCS is extremely inefficient, forcing us to dig up and burn much more coal per unit of energy produced (that certainly won’t help our friends in West Virginia fighting to protect their mountains). Nuclear energy consumes large amounts of fresh water, already a precious resource that will become even more rare as the climate warms up.
Is President Obama’s support for these dirty forms of energy just a gimmick to schmooze voters? Apparently not, since polls shows overwhelming dislike of coal and nuclear.
So, President Obama, since you dodged our question this time, would you please answer this:
Why do you support the corrupt dirty energy policies of your opponents and ignore the warning signs of scientists, the calls from entrepreneurs, and the passionate pleas from my generation asking you to rapidly deploy renewable energy and energy efficiency?
John Beddington, the UK government’s Chief Scientific Advisor, evidently thinks the key challenge in the global discussion of climate change is that scientists don’t caveat their work extensively enough and that scientists speak too forcefully.
[Beddington] said the false claim in the IPCC’s report was symptomatic of a wider problem with the way evidence was presented in the field of climate science. “Certain unqualified statements have been unfortunate,” he said. “We have a problem in communicating uncertainty. There’s definitely an issue there. If there wasn’t, there wouldn’t be the level of scepticism. All of these predictions have to be caveated by saying, ‘There’s a level of uncertainty about that’.”
Oh, wow, the problem is solved. There is all the skepticism in the world (and in the US) not because fossil-foolish interests have, for decades, mounted a campaign to confuse on the science nor because anti-science operatives (politicians and otherwise) have sought to whip up anti-science frenzy for political purposes nor because fundamentalist lunatics undermine knowledge/understanding of science … No, evidently John Beddington believes that the fault lies with the scientists not caveating their results and language strongly enough. If scientists would only be more cautious, there wouldn’t be such confusion.
Beddington said scientists should give a caveat to their predictions where there was uncertainty, and release source data “wherever possible” – but added that uncertainty was no excuse for inaction. “I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper scepticism,” he tells the Times newspaper today. “Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can’t be changed.”
A question for John Beddington:
What “proper scepticism” is being “dismissed”?
The issue is not, for those battling disinformation campaigns about climate science and what is happening to the planet, well-documented and thoughtful challenges to some element of the scientific understanding that merits consideration and, perhaps, incorporation into enriching our understanding of the highly complex work of climate science. The real issue is the willingness of far too many to engage in abusive practices from misrepresenting evidence to reintroducing (time and again) items into discussion that have been shown (via peer reviewed process) to not stand up to scrutiny.
Beddington’s comment is one to regret since the true challenge is not that scientists are too aggressively engaging in public dialogue but that scientists and scientific knowledge is too absent from that discussion. The problem is not an absence of caveats but the reality that the nature and style of scientific dialogue creates an impression of uncertainty and confusion to the public in the face of those who are willing to lie with a smiling face.
UPDATE: A comment from a correspondent:
What do the two (the messy wgii case study page & the issue of uncertainty and caveats) even have to do with each other? “He said the false claim in the IPCC’s report was symptomatic of a wider problem with the way evidence was presented in the field of climate science. “ Huh? In what way is it a symptom?
Significantly, the UK government’s chief scientist, Professor John Beddington, laid out a similar scenario in a March speech to the government’s Sustainable Development UK conference in Westminster. He warned that by 2030, “A ‘perfect storm’ of food shortages, scarce water and insufficient energy resources threaten to unleash public unrest, cross-border conflicts and mass migration as people flee from the worst-affected regions,
Beddington’s speech raises uncertainties but also, certainly, raises the alarm:
You are talking about serious problems in tropical glaciers – the Chinese government has recognised this and has actually announced about 10 days ago that it is going to build 59 new reservoirs to take the glacial melt in the Xinjiang province. 59 reservoirs. It is actually contemplating putting many of them underground. This is a recognition that water, which has hitherto been stored in glaciers, is going to be very scarce. We have to think about water in a major way.
But the climate change agenda is there and we have to think about it, but this is looking to me like it is getting worse.
…
The other area that really worries me in terms of climate change and the potential for positive feedbacks and also for interactions with food is ocean acidification. This graph is again a little complicated… we are around about here. And around about here is as acid as the oceans have been for about 25 million years. Now, this is not a silly prediction by those who are wanting to argue that we’re all doomed. This is actually simple physics and chemistry. Knowing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, knowing the level of interaction that will occur with the ocean with that level of CO2 in the atmosphere, this is what is going to happen. It may be a little bit lower, but certainly by 2030, you are going to look at an ocean system which is enormously problematic in terms of its acidity.
As I say, it’s as acid today as it has been for 25 million years. When this occurred some 25 million years ago, this level of acidification in the ocean, you had major problems with it, problems of extinctions of large numbers of species in the ocean community. The areas which are going to be hit most severely by this are the coral reefs of the world and that is already starting to show. Coral reefs provide significant protein supplies to about a billion people. So it is not just that you can’t go snorkelling and see lots of pretty fish, it is that there are a billion people dependent on coral reefs for a very substantial portion of their high protein diet.
So, this is cheerful stuff, isn’t it? What I have said, which I guess is why I have been talking to the media a bit, is I have coined the point that we have got to deal with increased demand for energy, increased demand for food, increased demand for water, and we’ve got to do that while mitigating and adapting to climate change. And we have but 21 years to do it.
Lets start with a non-science misrepresentation. About Lutz’ comment, Wallace writes:
It was at a small private luncheon at Cacharel in Arlington, Tex., when Lutz uttered those words.
“Small private luncheon” suggests that reporting of Lutz’ comment was somehow distasteful, unethical practice. Hmmm … Perhaps Wallace’s readers might have a different understanding of the situation if he had explained that this was a “small private luncheon” that was for media, on-the-record set up, as I understand it, by General Motors’ public affairs staff.
Thus, Wallace’s opening begins with something almost certainly designed to mislead his readers which is a perfect start to a piece that blatantly misrepresents.
Let us take one example:
on the last day of 2009, Wolfgang Knorr of the Earth Sciences Dept. at the University of Bristol released new research showing the possibility that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has not risen in the past 160 years. Maybe he’s wrong, but at least he published his views for peer review in the Geophysical Research Letters.
Wallace utterly misrepresents Prof Knorr’s work and publication. Knorr’s published work (”Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?“), which Wallace cites, does not argue that the “carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has not risen in the past 160 years”. This is an utter misrepresentation of Knorr’s words and work, suggesting that Wallace relies on Fox News rather than Knorr for his sourcing.
What Knorr’s work examines is whether the fraction of CO2 emitted (both from natural and manmade paths) that is absorbed in the oceans, land, and remaining the atmosphere is changing. Knorr’s work suggests that the relative amount staying in the atmosphere has been stable. To be clear, Knorr’s work is at odds with what others have concluded and is a good example of how science advances through open analysis of data, critiques / responses, and corrections/changes. Honestly, I do not know whether Knorr’s work is correct but it is without doubt that Wallace utterly misrepresents it. Knorr absolutely did not suggest, anywhere, that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have not changed over the past 160 or 60 or 20 or 10 years.
This is just one of many utter misrepresentations by Wallace in this column. The two paragraph following Wallace’s misrepresentation of Professor Knorr’s work misrepresents the discussion of global cooling 30 years ago,
Then there is this doozy
The fact is that no one can even agree on whether or not the highest temperatures recorded in modern times came in the 1990s or during the Dust Bowl days of 1934
Okay, the uncertainty seems to be whether the highest US temperatures were in 1934 or in the past decade. In case Mr Wallace and Business Week’s editors have forgotten, this is “Global Warming” (not regional, U.S. or my backyard warming) we’re talking about.There is no uncertainty in the scientific community that the hottest 10 years (and, hottest 12 years) in the 150 years of modern temperature records have all come from 1998 to the present.
This column is filled with mistatements of fact (FACT) (such as what people stated, about scientific measurements, etc …) The column is filled with a myriad of misrepresentations of the state of scientific discussion that distort the state of the science. And, it opens with a deceptive description suggesting that quoting from an on-the-record media event was somehow inappropriate.
Perhaps the scariest portion of this error-filled monstrocity? The note that ends it:
This is the first of a multipart series of columns on global warming.
We can hope, perhaps without reason, that Business Week might actually do some fact checking of the coming columns.
It is sad that Business Week is so willing to publish a commentary that is so systematically distorting of openly published material. This leads to a basic question that any and all of the magazine’s readers consider:
How can any of Business Week’s analysis of business and statistics and finances be trusted if such false and misleading material is published without, evidently, the slightest effort to actually do fact checking?
Osama bin Laden has accustomed us to wacky, destructive, and immoral approaches to the world. When it comes to climate change, bin Laden doesn’t disappoint — yet again coming up with an unacceptable, misguided, counterproductive, and immoral “answer”.
“This is a message to the whole world about those responsible for climate change and its repercussions - whether intentionally or unintentionally - and about the action we must take,” bin Laden said.
“Speaking about climate change is not a matter of intellectual luxury - the phenomenon is an actual fact.”
Yes. It is a fact. And, Osama bin Laden claiming something is true doesn’t make it untruthful.
However, Osama’s solution path isn’t nearly as truthful as the reality of climate change.
.. the way to stop it is to bring “the wheels of the American economy” to a halt.
He says the world should “stop consuming American products” and “refrain from using the dollar,”
Well, okay Osama:
1. Turning the world back to the 12th century, including killing off perhaps 95 percent or so of the world’s population supportable without modern technology and with women suppressed without health care (dying in child birth), might well actually address “climate change” in an incredibly dystopian and immoral fashion. (Oops, moral in your distorted lens on the world.)
2. The United States is, well, roughly responsible for 25 percent of current global emissions. Eliminating the US economy doesn’t “solve” climate change.
3. Shutting down all industrial nations, including of course “developing” nations like China and India and Brazil, would have a major impact in terms of mitigating climate change but with an impact … please see 1.
Now, bin Laden has a world view based on destruction and on looking backwards a millenium.
That bin Laden is able to, via his distorted lens, gain a glimpse of reality and claim to understand that climate change is a serious issue meriting attention doesn’t suddenly make climate change unreal even though there will be those who seize on this to say things like “bin Laden is against it, therefore I’m for it …”
The path “to stop” climate change is not to “bring the wheels of the American economy” to a halt, but to turn those wheels toward the creation of a clean-energy future … to help Saudi Arabia turn itself into the “Saudi Arabia of Solar Power” … to aid Afghanis prosper with micro-hydro and wind power and efficient lighting … to tap geothermal power in nation’s around the world …
bin Laden calls for a path backwards via destruction when the true path toward tackling climate change is to move forward via construction of a more secure and prosperous clean energy future …
[bin Laden's] strategy is not to stop global warming, but rather to draw broader global support for his anti-American efforts. What better way to wreak havoc and chaos in the nation of his enemies than to associate himself with one of the fastest growing sectors of the US economy: clean energy.
Those in the struggle for a clean-energy economy and safe climate future, should ask themselves why bin Laden would come out with this statement. This is the man who has shown no concern for human life, indeed revels in killing innocent people – why does he now care about rising sea-levels?
His plan is to drive the wedge between the climate cynics and climate activists even further, and it’s already working. This is the perfect story to kill any federal climate bill in the U.S. In fact it’s the perfect strategy if you desire chaos and destruction.
So how should the environmental movement respond?
Immediately and unequivocally condemn his comments. We can’t let ourselves be aligned with a terrorist. Bin Laden isn’t an environmentalist and cares nothing about climate change (because that would mean caring about people).
Whatever your feelings on climate change; don’t use his comments for your cause, because actually he will be using you.
Osama bin Laden is a terrorist and a murderer. He must be wringing his hands with glee at the thought of all the havoc climate change could bring.
Osama bin Laden is driving the wedge even deeper between climate cynics and climate activists. He has identified the perfect issue to reflame America’s culture wars and de-rail any climate bill. It’s a perfect strategy if you desire chaos and destruction.
A world suffering climate chaos would provide rich pickings for fanatics like Osama. He has hit upon the perfect strategy. With one climate statement he can cause rifts across the world and bring the world a little closer to climate change. Today he must be a happy man.
As soon as I saw this, I figured the conservatives were going to have a field day, and it turns out they’ve stooped low enough to go beyond the usual absurdity of loose guilt by character association, to guilt by issue association. Apparently, if you believe that rising greenhouse gas emissions are causing dangerous global warming and must be reduced, then you’re in the same camp as a madman terrorist who shoots off rants in the form of tape recordings about all sorts of things. This is supposed to de-legitimize the argument that we should reduce greenhouse gas emissions. …
Bin Laden certainly wants the US to stay addicted to oil, and the real reason he is likely making those comments is to cause enough turmoil to derail ongoing efforts by activists and Congress to get us off of oil. Conservatives have just played right into Bin Laden’s hand.
Osama bin Laden took a break from his typical insanity today to blast an international enemy even President Obama loathes: climate change. Though his uninspired solutions only reinforce bin Laden’s image as a madman who’s entirely out of touch with reality, they at least make him look better than some of our elected officials. How shameful!
Terrorists try very hard to spread their disinformation. A key goal is to get others to spread it for them, especially ones who are holed up in a cave somewhere. Thus terrorists craft their disinformation into a sensational message that they hope gullible members of the global media will repeat.
So who got suckered into repeating the message of the number one terrorist in the world? …
It’s amazing that any major media outlet is dumb enough to repeat this, let alone write analysis as if Bin Laden actual believes anything he says.
For the record, it simply is impossible to stop global warming by bringing the US economy to a halt. Only right-wing ideologues could get suckered into pushing this crap for the likes of Al Qaeda .
The contrast between President Obama’s 2009 and 2010 State of the Union (SOTU) addresses is stark when it comes to the intersecting arenas of energy and climate.
In 2009, President Obama made a strong and uncompromising call for investments in “clean, renewable energy” and made a direct statement about the type of climate legislation expected from Congress (”market-based cap on carbon pollution”). He provided a meaningful opening target: “we will double this nation’s supply of renewable energy in the next three years”.
In 2010, President Obama did not even mention the word “renewable”, failed to refer back to the strong statements about renewable energy in the 2009 SOTU and how we on track to achieving (and likely exceeding) them, and sounded like he could have been speaking to the Republican National Convention in the Luntz-ian like redefinition of a “clean energy economy”:
But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. That means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies.
While progressive winced and grimaced, it is easy to imagine chants of “Drill, Baby, Drill” and President Obama emphasized “more production” and defined “opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development” as providing “clean energy jobs”. And, the reinforcing of the “clean coal” myth. And, well, emphasizing questionable biofuels and divisive nuclear power over wind, solar, geothermal, improved hydro, ocean (wave), and other sustainable power options rounded out words to be expected from those looking down beneath their legs to 19th century energy options rather than looking above their shoulders (and thinking between their ears) toward the 21st century.
Now, to be clear, the President did make another call for a climate bill:
And yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.
Now, right before that, the President (re)defined oil and natural gas as “clean” and, well, these are already pretty profitable businesses.
When it came to these arenas, there is a common theme between 2009 and 2010 that is both true and powerful: that America is being left in the dust in the race toward a competitive positive in the 21st century energy market place. Sadly, the President’s words did not drive home in 2010, as they did in 2009, how clean, renewable energy investment (both in R&D and deployment) is the path toward that competitive position.
While a reread might change my mind, when it comes to a prosperous and sustainable clean energy future, the following seems a reasonable summary:
The President stepped up to the Bully Pulpit and chose to serve us bull …
A vision for a clean energy economy “…to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, and more incentives.” We will build on the historic $80 billion investment made through the Recovery Act. The President’s vision includes investments in important technologies to diversity our energy sources and reduce our dependence on foreign oil, including: the renewal of our nation’s nuclear energy industry after a 30-year hiatus, cutting edge biofuel and clean coal technologies, and additional offshore oil and gas drilling. To fully transition to a clean energy economy and create millions of new American jobs, we must pass comprehensive energy and climate legislation to promote energy independence and address climate change.
Since when is “offshore oil and gas drilling” part of a “vision for a clean energy economy”?
Clean is drilling? Clean is coal? Clean is biofuels?
Was there some limitation on syllables such that “solar” nor “wind” nor “wave energy” nor “geothermal” could make it into “a vision for a clean energy economy”?
From CBD:
“The President is correct that we need energy innovation and clean energy jobs to solve the climate crisis and invigorate our economy. But a clean energy economy does not include continued reliance on dirty coal and further risky drilling for oil in fragile offshore areas. We cannot solve the problem with business as usual, but instead need the change that Candidate Obama promised.
“The president failed tonight, as he failed over the past twelve months, to use his bully pulpit to advocate a bright line goal for greenhouse gas reductions. Scientists have determined that reducing carbon pollution to 350 parts per million (ppm) is necessary to preserve a livable planet. 350 ppm must be the bottom line for all climate and energy policies. The President already has the tools he needs under the Clean Air Act to begin the required pollution reductions. It is just common sense that new climate legislation must add new tools to get the job done faster, building upon, and not rolling back, our foundation of successful environmental laws like the Clean Air Act.
“Setting binding science-based limits on U.S. carbon pollution through the existing Clean Air Act is the best and quickest way to address the climate crisis and ensure that America does not fall behind in innovation and opportunity.”
The “dial” tracking of speeches can be fascinating to watch, seeing how people react in real time to the words, emotions, and themes of a speech or event. Presidential debates and speeches, the “dial” tracking is an ever-more frequently part of the experience.
The most negative numbers can when the President confused clean energy and the need for clean energy innovation with a focus on nuclear power and clean-coal. This seems to be the only time in the speech where there was any real dip in audience approval.
Senator Kerry and others are calling for people to have passion, to go door-to-door to demand action. Calls for “clean coal” and “biofuels” aren’t a path to stir the blood of those who actually have even an inkling of how serious the energy and climate situation actually is — and how great the opportunities we have before us.
As per a correspondent,
You can’t sell McCain’s energy policy to progressives and expect teabagger-like passion.
From the State of the Union speech, two questions we should ask:
How long should we wait? How long should America put its future on hold?
The President is challenging Congress to act how Americans expect, that they act to create a structure for tomorrow.
You see, Washington has been telling us to wait for decades, even as the problems have grown worse. Meanwhile, China’s not waiting to revamp its economy. Germany’s not waiting. India’s not waiting. These nations aren’t standing still. These nations aren’t playing for second place. They’re putting more emphasis on math and science. They’re rebuilding their infrastructure. They are making serious investments in clean energy because they want those jobs.
Well I do not accept second-place for the United States of America. As hard as it may be, as uncomfortable and contentious as the debates may be, it’s time to get serious about fixing the problems that are hampering our growth.
Core to this, core to moving forward: clean energy:
We should put more Americans to work building clean energy facilities, and give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy efficient, which supports clean energy jobs.
And, this is not just with things already in hand but looking toward tomorrow’s solutions:
Next, we need to encourage American innovation. Last year, we made the largest investment in basic research funding in history – an investment that could lead to the world’s cheapest solar cells or treatment that kills cancer cells but leaves healthy ones untouched. And no area is more ripe for such innovation than energy. You can see the results of last year’s investment in clean energy – in the North Carolina company that will create 1200 jobs nationwide helping to make advanced batteries; or in the California business that will put 1,000 people to work making solar panels.
Investing in clean energy is beginning, already, to pay off and this is just the start of an accelerating process of payoffs — if we keep sensible policies in place that enable that acceleration.
But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. That means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies.
None of this list thrills environmentalists. A true debate exists when it comes to nuclear power (low GHG vs long-held fears/concerns of risk), but driving offshore oil and natural gas as an arena of emphasis doesn’t help us move forward toward a better future. And, well, saying “clean coal” over and over again doesn’t make it clean.
And yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.
What is interesting is that “clean energy”, especially energy efficiency, is often the “profitable choice”, even if it isn’t the preferred or easy choice. Yes to a (stronge) comprehensive bill but we can do much even before (and without) it.
I am grateful to the House for passing such a bill last year. This year, I am eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate. I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy;
Often deceitful questions, based on falsehoods and misrepresentations.
and I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change.
An understatement … in multiple ways … and far more polite than what came from an Australian prime minister.
But even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future – because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy.
On a broader spectrum, however, Ted was concerned about the environment as a whole; he wanted manufacturers, business, and individuals to take responsibility for their actions. The Lorax … weaves a familiar tale of a good thing gone wrong. … Ted remained true to the Seussian style, but still managed to shame the current generation and challenge the next generation by demonstrating the pitfalls of progress … “unless”
While far from the only environmental theme amid his writing, theoretically a children’s book, The Lorax remains one of the strongest pieces of literature highlighting the serious necessity to understand the implications of our actions on the complex systems-of-systems in which we live.
With this in mind, it is rather shocking to learn that this iconic statement of environmental values and morality is being associated with a commercial activity that is far from the standards that a 21st century Dr Seuss would apply to judging ‘environmentally friendly’ activity.
“The Lorax is the protector of the truffula trees,” [company president Mike Farina] said. “We think this is the greenest use of coal.
Coal as clean? Where have we heard that greenwashing mendacity before?
Now, even assuming that this is a zero-pollution activity post mining, there is that issue of mining.
And, well, it is hard to see that The Lorax would strongly endorse industrial farming supported by large-scale fertilizer activities.
Now, with more detail in hand, is it possible that the coal gasification approach to reducing natural gas requirements for agricultural fertilizer demand could, actually, make sense as part of the path toward an Energy Smart future? Perhaps … perhaps.
Even so, does it seem likely that Dr Seuss and The Lorax would endorse this product?
youth than Dr Seuss, the (One indicator: