The Guardian has unearthed a shocking new propaganda plan intended to turn the American public against wind energy in the 2012 election cycle. The plan is to be deployed by a shadowy network of propaganda contractors like the disgraced Heartland Institute, who recently compared those who accept the mainstream science on climate change to mass murderers, and was prepared by a fellow of the American Tradition Institute (ATI), the same law-breaking group that is suing climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann to gain access to his personal papers and emails while at the University of Virginia.
If anyone doubts there is a well-coordinated, well-funded assault on science in America that is designed to fool people, look no further than this plan.
The confidential strategy memo advises using "subversion" to build a national movement of people protesting wind farms.
Sound silly? Any time money is behind a science issue it can become politicized. Consider 1920s Germany. Right-wing activists put money behind the crazy idea that Einstein's special theory of relativity would lead to moral decay. They called it "Jewish science" and "a hoax" and said Einstein was in it for the money. Sound familiar?
"This world is a strange madhouse," Einstein wote a friend at the time. "Currently every coachman and every waiter is debating whether relativity theory is correct. Belief in this matter depends on political party affiliation."
The ATI propaganda plan was discussed at a meeting of 30 of these so-called 'wind warriors,' hand-picked by the plan's author, ATI senior fellow John Droz Jr., in Washington D.C. last February.
"These documents show for the first time that local Nimby (Not In My Back Yard) anti-wind groups are co-ordinating and working with national fossil-fuel funded advocacy groups to wreck the wind industry," said Gabe Elsner, co-director of Checks and Balances, the accountability group which unearthed the proposal, in an interview with the Guardian.
The propaganda campaign calls for a national PR effort to cause "subversion in message of industry so that it effectively becomes so bad that no one wants to admit in public they are for it."
This is similar to the strategy used to demolish "cap and trade," turning it into a epithet during the 2010 climate bill debate in Congress. This "concept murder" happened to the dismay of conservative economists like former George W. Bush chief economic advisor Doug Holtz-Eakin, who saw cap and trade, which was invented by conservatives, as the best conservative tool to battle top-down, command-and-control environmental regulations. Holtz-Eakin says conservatives have forgotten that, and lost their roots. "They've taken positions that are divorced from any reality on the policy and from their own history," he told me. "We don't want to go back to the old, big-government approach of one size fits all of the 1970s," he said. "Conservatives need to figure out what they stand for. Is it just the highest bidder, or are there principles in there that mean something? I've always felt it's in their political interest to not deny the science, that's where the votes of the future are."
The propaganda plan goes much further than cap-and-trade opponents did in its efforts to fool the American public. It suggests creating "dummy businesses" to purchase billboards, much like the recent notorious Heartland Institute billboard, which was featured on Clear Channel space.
The plan also suggests creating a "counter-intelligence branch" to track the wind energy industry, and it recommends spending $750,000 to create a 501(c)(3) "nonprofit" with paid staff, much like the Heartland Institute, ATI, Americand for Prosperity, and other propaganda mouthpieces for the energy industry, and is dedicated to "constructively influence national and state wind energy policies" by building public opposition to the wind energy industry.
Subversion, propaganda, and fooling the public are nothing new to ATI's associates. During the 2010 elections, the Montana Commission of Political Practices found that ATI's parent organization, WTP/ATP, broke state campaign laws by failing to register as a political committee or report its donors and spending.
The state suggested WTP/ATP was involved in corruption and money laundering. They found that it solicited unlimited contributions to support candidates and then passed them through a "sham organization," similar to the "dummy businesses" suggested in the new propaganda plan. The sham organization was the Bozeman-based political action committee The Coalition for Energy and the Environment that ran attack ads against Democrats. WTP told corporations that it aimed to combat "radical environmentalists" and "beat them at their own game" and that their contributions would remain secret. This view is similar to the radicalized view of mainstream scientists, federal science agencies, and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences adopted by the Heartland Institute, who compared them on its widely discredited billboards to "murderers and madmen."
The propaganda plan says its "broader possible goal is to constructively influence national and state energy and environmental policies."
Get Shawn Lawrence Otto's new book: Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America, "One of the most important books written in America in the last decade." Starred Kirkus Review; Starred Publishers Weekly review. Visit him at http://www.shawnotto.com. Like him on Facebook. Join ScienceDebate.org to get the presidential candidates to debate science.
Follow Shawn Lawrence Otto on Twitter: www.twitter.com/shawnotto
"Do you or anyone else who is or has been associated with your "Unintended Consequences" / "Intentional Media" media organization have a financial interest in the Keystone XL Pipeline or its promotion?"
Intentionalfilm: "I believe I have answered your question several times now in fact. I have clearly said that I do not have a financial interest in Keystone or its promotion. How much clearer can I be?"
You have been clear as far as that goes, which is to say you have answered one part of 1 of the 2 questions I have repeatedly asked you in this thread.
Intentionalfilm: "As far as the three other people who have formally been a part of this project, I don't track what their investments may be."
You are saying that you don't whether your company's sometime Executive Producer and your self-described longtime "moral supporter" George Gosbee has financial connections to the XL Keystone Pipeline or its promotion - despite the fact that Mr. Gosbee is the CEO of energy investment firm AltaCorp Capital and moreover has a "total commitment to the Keystone XL pipeline"?
http://www.altacorpcapital.com/investment-banking/recent-transactions.html
http://oilmahn.wordpress.com/2012/04/03/energy-influencers-91-95-2/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/careers/careers-leadership/the-lunch/george-gosbee-patriotism-thats-more-than-skin-deep/article2258594/singlepage/
...continued
More about your longtime "moral supporter" and your organization's sometime Executive Producer, George Gosbee:
-----------------------------
Listed as one of Alberta’s 100 Top Business People of the Past 100 Years, “finance junkie” George Gosbee believes that Canada’s prosperity and the future of Alberta and its energy economy are tightly intertwined, and that means his total commitment to the Keystone XL pipeline.
Although “politics is getting in the way of good public policy,” Gosbee believes the pipeline will ultimately be built. Meanwhile, the delay bodes well for alternative projects such as the Northern Gateway pipeline to the Pacific.
Founded in 2010, Gosbee’s AltaCorp Capital is an institutional financial advisory firm with a big focus on energy. And if that weren’t enough, creator/writer/director/producer Matt Palmer has even enlisted Gosbee to be executive producer for his multi-format documentary project “Unintended Consequences” which will examine the externalities of the energy systems needed to transition from a high carbon to low carbon society.
Sounds like somebody is planning on replacing John Fox on next year’s #Energy100…and Gosbee is influential enough to give Matt, and the Keystone XL pipeline, a fighting chance.
--------------------------------
http://oilmahn.wordpress.com/2012/04/03/energy-influencers-91-95-2/
continued...
Intentionalfilm: "I have done my best to answer your questions with honesty and integrity, and to the best of my knowledge."
Again you had only answered part of one of two questions I have repeatedly asked you in this thread, and you still haven't answered the second question at all.
With respect to the first question you have stated that you personally do not have a financial interest in the Keystone XL Pipeline or its promotion. Care to elaborate, however, on what you know about your company's sometime Executive Producer George Gosbee's financial connections to the XL Keystone Pipeline or its promotion?
With resect to the second question, again you stated:
Intentionalfilm: "If the [Keystone] XL pipeline can be built on a route that can minimize the environmental risks, as best as possible, then it should be built."
Again:
How in your mind can the environmental risk with respect to the Keystone XL Pipeline be "minimized", what in your mind does "minimized" risk mean in that context, and compared to what?
Again please finally answer - thank you.
Economics and common sense tell us that companies that exist ONLY FOR PROFIT are going to defend their right to make that profit even in the face of evidence that they are hurting people. Think of the tobacco companies. It is a matter of life or death for the corporation to continue selling fossil fuel, so it will attempt to survive at the expense of just about everything else on the planet if it comes to that.
We really need a concerted effort to legally pull the plug on our fossil fuel companies before they kill us. It is as simple as that. There is no such thing as clean coal, oil, or natural gas. We have to move on or die. It is them or us.
Let's get started.
How is Heartland "shadowy?" They self promote endlessly.
Just recently, some household names like: IBM, Verizon, GlaxoSmithKline, and Bayer.
Oh, BUT the Illinois Coal Association is trying to shore up Heartland's funding slack.
Now why would that be?
The GRACE satellites measure variations in gravity to determine the total ice mass on the Antarctic land mass and on Greenland. Here are recent results from these instruments.
In Greenland, the rate of ice loss is increasing as follows:
137 billion tons of ice loss per year during 2002-2003
286 billion tons of ice loss per year during 2007-2009
In Antarctica, the rate of ice loss is increasing is also increasing, as follows:
104 billion tons of ice loss per per year during 2002-2006
246 billion tons of ice loss per year during 2006-2009
The trend seen in this data is staggering. The rate more than doubled in a span of about four or five years. It should get your attention. No need to panic, don't want to scare the earily scared, or upset the fear driven. If this sort of thing scares you, there are child approved programs that you can go watch for entertainment.
This massive increase in the rate of ice loss is a critical indicator that something is going on and that it would be wise to stay tuned and look at all the data, not just what appeals to you.
It has to be that they're only looking at sea ice because they're unaware that most of the Antarctic ice is on land, right?
I mean, they wouldn't be INTENTIONALLY trying to mislead, right? That's too silly to even contemplate. Why would anyone do that?
I have asked you the following simple question 3 times now:
******************************
Do you or anyone else who is or has been associated with your "Unintended Consequences" / "Intentional Media" media organization have a financial interest in the Keystone XL Pipeline or its promotion?
Please answer, and again if "Yes" please list all such connections.
******************************
Answering that simple question does not require anything near 250 words and does not take much time at all and yet you still haven't answered it - to the contrary you have instead expended significant time and energy *not* answering the question while potentially misleading some readers into thinking that you have.
In any event, again:
Please finally answer the question.
Thank you.
http://intentionalfilm.wordpress.com/2012/05/23/full-disclosure/
For example, you still haven't answered this simple question that I have asked you 4 times now:
******************************
Do you or anyone else who is or has been associated with your "Unintended Consequences" / "Intentional Media" media organization have a financial interest in the Keystone XL Pipeline or its promotion?
Please answer, and again if "Yes" please list all such connections.
******************************
You wrote in you response:
"The answers I posted did not seem to satisfy Publicola. Fair enough, I can’t control that."
Given that you haven't answered questions I asked you, why would you think that the "answers" you posted in response would satisfy me?
Matt,
I want to believe that you mean well, and that you really do want to inspire open and critical discussion and thinking on these issues. Certainly your documentary about orphans suggest to me that you meant well in that context, at the very least.
However, what would you think if you asked someone a simple question multiple times and they repeatedly evaded answering that simple question?
Please finally answer that simple question, and also please finally answer this question too:
continued...
You stated:
Intentionalfilm: "If the [Keystone] XL pipeline can be built on a route that can minimize the environmental risks, as best as possible, then it should be built."
Again:
How in your mind can the environmental risk with respect to the Keystone XL Pipeline be "minimized", and what in your mind does "minimized" risk mean in that context, and compared to what?
Again please finally answer that question too, thank you.
You didn't respond to the following downthread - please respond; thank you.
---------------------------
Intentionalfilm: "If the [Keystone] XL pipeline can be built on a route that can minimize the environmental risks, as best as possible, then it should be built."
What, exactly, do you mean by "minimize the environmental risks" in this context, and compared to what?
For example, per Dr. James Hansen:
"Canada’s tar sands... contain twice the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by global oil use in our entire history. If we were to fully exploit this new oil source, and continue to burn our conventional oil, gas and coal supplies, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere eventually would reach levels higher than in the Pliocene era, more than 2.5 million years ago, when sea level was at least 50 feet higher than it is now. That level of heat-trapping gases would assure that the disintegration of the ice sheets would accelerate out of control. Sea levels would rise and destroy coastal cities. Global temperatures would become intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent of the planet’s species would be driven to extinction. Civilization would be at risk."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/opinion/game-over-for-the-climate.html
How in your mind can that environmental risk with respect to the Keystone XL Pipeline be "minimized", and what in your mind does "minimized" risk mean in that context, and compared to what?
continued...
Intentionalfilm: "Is it [the Keystone XL Pipeline] a perfect solution? No. Reality though is that we cannot transition to the next energy economy without oil."
Reality though is that is a straw man, and moreover a false dichotomy.
While we of course need oil while we transition away from it that does not mean that the Keystone XL Pipeline is also a necessity during said transition - far from it.
FACTS ARE FACTS
We would have to build a solar array capable of handling peak power with a wind-farm also capable of handling peak power.
Since there are times with no visible sun and no wind we would have to have a fossil fueled plant to back them up..
Is that right ?
We don't do things like that on Saturn.
Wind and solar are good and they have their place, but only nuclear power can take us to the planets and the stars.
Let's see if I can list all your aliases:
netdr
NGC2623
Hoosier-Daddy25
leesburg-larry
neptune2
Ptolemy101
Texas-Titan
Texas-Husker
ceasar200
Larry Schneiderwind
Have I missed any?
who are those posters?
Don't you feel silly?
"are you and/or your 'Unintended Consequences' media production company in any way financially related to the Keystone XL Pipeline? If so, please list all such connections - thank you."
IntentionalFilm: "I have no current ties to the pipeline or any energy companies."
I didn't ask if you had current ties to the Keystone XL Pioeline or to energy companies more generally - I asked if you and/or your "Unintended Consequences" media production company are in any way financially related to the Keystone XL Pipeline.
I'll try again, using more precise wording in an effort to avoid more confusion:
Do you or anyone else who is or has been a part of your "Unintended Consequences" media organization have a financial interest in the Keystone XL Pipeline or in its promotion?
Also: has your "Unintended Consequences" media organization ever received funding from a source (or sources) that have a financial interest in the Keystone XL Pipeline or in its promotion?
If "yes" to either question please list all such connections - thank you.
Intentional Media was formed three years in order to produce a documentary a balanced, fair and transparent story about global energy. That means looking at multiple sides of the issue to inspire debate, policy and action towards a cleaner more sustainable future.
Intentional Media grew out of a company called Asante Sana Films which produced the feature documentary 'Letters From Litein" about school children from Canada connecting with an orphanage in Kenya. The initial donation that go me started was from an oil executive who worked for an oil sands company. The rest of the money came from fundraisers, and out of my own pocket. (www.lettersfromlitein.com)
Which oil executive is that, and which oil sands company did and does he work for?
Intentionalfilm: "...In the fall I had a crowdfunding campaign, from which there is a small pool of money sitting in a bank account. Other than that Intentional Media has received no funding from anywhere, I am driving this on my own initiative."
Are you seeking and/or have you tried to obtain funding from people or organizations that have a financial interest in the Keystone XL Pipeline or its promotion?
Also, you still haven't answered this question:
******************************
Do you or anyone else who is or has been associated with your "Unintended Consequences" / "Intentional Media" media organization have a financial interest in the Keystone XL Pipeline or its promotion?
******************************
Please finally answer, and again if "yes" please list all such connections.
Thank you.
Seven years ago I co-prodcued and directed a documentary on the oil sands called "Pay Dirt". I was broadcast on CBC in March 2006. That production was well received by all sides as a balanced and fair presentation of the oil sands story. It did not present an opinion on oil sands, but asked lots of questions of the audience.
That production did receive funding from oil sands companies including Transcanada. The production was vetted by an advisory committee that included oil industry reps, The Pembina Institute ( avery reputable and respected environmental group), and Canada West Foundation.
I have no personal financial ties to the oil industry or XL other than what might be in my RSP mutual funds,
I am not an apologist for the industry, nor trying to promote it. If asking questions on this forum has you assume that I am, I cannot control that.
Minus all that messy 'facts' part.
To power your air conditioner we will have to have peak generating power we will need back up coal or oil plants ready and waiting.
Does this make sense to anyone ?
We build a wind farm with a solar backup, but when it is winter weeks can go by with no sun visible.
We then build a fossil fuel plant capable of producing peek power ?
Seems expensive to me !
With gasoline approaching, and in some areas surpassing $4 a gallon, Ford is reporting high interest in its natural gas-powered vehicles. The company currently offers its E-Series fullsize vans, Super Duty trucks, and Transit Connect compact vans with a Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) option.
Aside from the obvious environmental benefits of lower carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions, the biggest driver of the adoption of natural gas is, not surprisingly, price. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, between September 2005 and January, the price per gallon equivalent of CNG peaked at $2.34 in the summer of 2008.
2011 Transit Connect Taxi Side
The national average was $1.93 in January 2011, the same as it was in October 2010. That's roughly half the price that unleaded is commanding at current prices. Federal subsidies are also playing a role in increased interest, with the federal Cities Petroleum Reductions Program providing $300 million in funding to regional projects across the United States.
Government incentives are also encouraging the expansion of CNG filling stations nationwide, which makes CNG-powered vehicles a more viable alternative to fleets and individual drivers alike.
that said 250,000,000+ cars on gasoline will still need oil for decades to come.....