Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection unveils ambitious $300 million ad campaign 18

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Jon Rynn Posted 5:02 am
   31 Mar 2008

   If they want to be "bipartisan"......they're not going to be able to shame the coal industry.  In fact, I'm not sure how much they'll really be able to do in the solutions area -- are they talking about any particular cap-and-whatever?  cap-and-auction? any particular bill?  I'm sure you'll get the inside scoop.

   Permalink

2. 

   caniscandida Posted 5:17 am
   31 Mar 2008

   That is supposed to be a "w"?Pathetic graphics.  We can do much, much better.
   Plus, as I have written before, the color green is tricky.  It is not a friendly color.  You need to work hard to get the right shade.  And that lemon-lime shade on the sad upside-down-m button might only work if margaritas are being passed around.
   
   Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

   Permalink

3. 

   Biodiversivist Posted 5:24 am
   31 Mar 2008

   He's got that right"Gore has concluded that U.S. politicians will continue to be timid on climate change until the public demands otherwise."
   
   In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

   Permalink

4. 

   caniscandida Posted 5:31 am
   31 Mar 2008

   Oh rightWell, if it is a question of content, not style, I gladly team up, as usual, with BioD.
   So long as our retinue jackets do not have to be that Jello-green color.
   
   Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

   Permalink

5. 

   sunflower Posted 5:50 am
   31 Mar 2008

   Oh my god, look at we, or is it me?I like the logo and the Kermit green.
   I have problems with the top-down message.  Albeit hero worship is good for talk.  But the rich and famous have clean hands.  They lack the frontline experiences and the hard work of implementing solutions.  The US is importing solutions from Europe, Australia, Asia, but not supporting homegrown solutions that would supply energy less expensively and with benefits of massive local employment.  US cultural and financial capital is missing, or worse.  I could do so much with a handful of seeds.  Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers told me they do not have seeds.  So we continue to work with volunteers needing medical insurance while burdened with student loans.
   Those implementing solutions remain frustrated and marginalized, more so now with the visibility of $300MM just beyond our reach.

   Permalink

6. 

   Anna Haynes Posted 2:47 pm
   31 Mar 2008

   They need to distribute the Oreskes talk"The American Denial of Global Warming" needs to be shown, frequently, on every community access television station in the country.
   
   (This will probably entail re-recording the talk, when she gives it again in future)

   Permalink

7. 

   Delay And Deny Posted 3:07 pm
   31 Mar 2008

   Up With People!
   
   300 million bucks.
   That should prop up GOOG's stock price for a week or two...
   
   "In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." -- Galileo

   Permalink

8. 

   Tasermons Partner Posted 3:25 pm
   31 Mar 2008

   It's a non-profit organization, ya nitwit...

   Permalink

9. 

   caniscandida Posted 3:55 pm
   31 Mar 2008

   "I like the logo"Sheeez, these kids today ... !
   
   Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

   Permalink

10. 

    Pangolin Posted 5:18 pm
    31 Mar 2008

    Wake me up....when somebody with some real clout shows that they think this is urgent. The US advertising market is how many billions of dollars yearly? Almost all of what is advertised would have to be set aside should serious action to mitigate global warming be taken.
    Face it; we're waiting for the die-off to really bite us hard before we take any action. Even in Australia, the near total collapse of their agricultural sector hasn't convinced them that exporting coal might be a bad idea.
    This is like showing up to a wind-driven wildfire with a tube of sunscreen and a squirtgun. It won't work and it's not designed to.
    Go! Lemmings, Go!!
    
    Put the Carbon Back

    Permalink

11. 

    ce1907 Posted 9:06 pm
    31 Mar 2008

    vision is a curse, Pangolinbut at least it's a living

    Permalink

12. 

    lorna salzman Posted 3:15 am
    01 Apr 2008

    ACP : does it have specific proposals?Haven't we had enough of groups calling for action without saying what they want done? How long will Gore's ACP keep us in suspense about its proposals? Will it say BAN COAL? Will it say carbon trading is a scam? Will it actively oppose fossil fuel subsidies and tax breaks? We are holding our breath but we have to let out the CO2 sometime. There is nothing wrong with an ad campaign but the public has to have something to DO after it has been activated. Hey Al, please give us a clue. Hope your plan is truly "commensurate" with the risk rather than something to appease and calm down the Business as Usual people and those in congress who passed the really flabby energy bill.

    Permalink

13. 

    Pangolin Posted 2:23 pm
    01 Apr 2008

    The honest oraclealways dies in poverty. Nobody wants to hear the whole truth or any larg portion thereof.
    
    Put the Carbon Back

    Permalink

14. 

    JMG Posted 10:52 pm
    01 Apr 2008

    MonbiotPango, George Monbiot's website has a nice version of that: "Tell people something they already know and they will thank you; tell them something new and they will hate you."
    
    Save your community: Cut greenhouse gas emissions 5% per year.

    Permalink

15. 

    richard schumacher Posted 10:56 pm
    01 Apr 2008

    Before much longer coal must be banned.Nothing else will make enough of a difference.  We need (or is it now, "'we' needs"?) to make it known that the price of curing global warming is this: $0.20 per kiloWatt-hour for electricity from nuclear, wind and Solar sources; and $5 per gallon for artificial vehicle fuels, free of fossil carbon, manufactured from air and water.
    As for heavy hitters, the insurance companies have now recognized that the effects of global warming will hurt them very badly.  They can be powerful and influential allies in the fight.  

    Permalink

16. 

    caniscandida Posted 7:48 am
    06 Apr 2008

    That logo again!They actually paid a top-drawer graphic designer to come up with it!  : )
    http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/04/06/weekinreview ...
    
    Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

    Permalink

17. 

    spaceshaper Posted 8:29 am
    06 Apr 2008

    That logoThe attention which that little quirk is attracting from intelligent commentators is probably indication that the 'top-drawer designer' earned his/her fee.
    
    The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

    Permalink

18. 

    Will Candler Posted 6:18 am
    21 May 2008

    Lorna Salzman is right!Lorna Salzman is right!
    In his latest slide show to TED, Al Gore finally got around to recommending that we "Put a Price on Carbon" for which he got a round of applause.  But what, if anything does he have in mind?
    Price?  $2.50 a ton of carbon or $250.00*?
    What?  At the mine, well-head and port of entry*? At point of emission? At point of consumption (gas tank or utility bill)?
    How?  By caps given away for free? By caps auctioned? As a per ton tax of fee*?
    Revenue?  If permits not given away for free, what is to be done with the revenue? Used to promote fossil-free technologies? Used to reduce other taxes? Returned to citizens as a per capita rebate*?
    Offsets?  No*? Or yes?
    * = my preferences, but what is ACP proposing?
    Before asking for public support, ACP needs to tell us what they want us to support, or we will again find ourselves supporting an ill defined Warner-Lieberman.
    My preferences are spelt out in "Global Warming: The Answer. (The Energy Dividend)" available from Amazon, available from Amazon, or
    
    http://www.powells.com/biblio/61-9781434345080-1  or as a free pdf file on request from (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
    
    //
    var l=new Array();
    
    var output = '';
    
    l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[26]='\"';l[27]=' 116';l[28]=' 101';l[29]=' 110';l[30]=' 46';l[31]=' 116';l[32]=' 115';l[33]=' 97';l[34]=' 99';l[35]=' 109';l[36]=' 111';l[37]=' 99';l[38]=' 64';l[39]=' 49';l[40]=' 114';l[41]=' 101';l[42]=' 108';l[43]=' 100';l[44]=' 110';l[45]=' 97';l[46]=' 99';l[47]=' 119';l[48]=':';l[49]='o';l[50]='t';l[51]='l';l[52]='i';l[53]='a';l[54]='m';l[55]='\"';l[56]='=';l[57]='f';l[58]='e';l[59]='r';l[60]='h';l[61]='a ';l[62]='

    Permalink