A Brazilian advertising agency's rogue 9/11 ad crashes against WWF's disapproval. Its message: "The tsunami killed 100 times more people than 9/11. The planet is brutally powerful. Respect it. Preserve it."Image: DDB Brazil via New York Daily NewsWorld Wildlife Fund (WWF) suffered a PR heart attack this week when bloggers and Twitterers caught scent of an alleged (and now denounced) WWF ad comparing the casualties from the 9/11 terrorist attacks to those of the 2004 Asian tsunami. In case anyone was wondering "too soon?," the answer is yes.

WWF was quick to quash any affiliation with the advertisement, with WWF spokesperson Leslie Aun telling the New York Daily News: "We are just utterly appalled. This ad is not something that anyone in our organization would ever have signed off on."

The image, created by ad agency DDB Brazil, portrays an outdated Manhattan skyline with a cloud of airplanes descending in attack upon the city, along with the WWF logo. It reads: "The tsunami killed 100 times more people than 9/11. The planet is brutally powerful. Respect it. Preserve it."

Not only is the message offensive, but it's scientifically flawed. It attempts to draw a connection between a tsunami, which is triggered by geological events (earthquakes, volcanic activity, etc.), and environmental preservation, which primarily falls under the category of human control (pollution, land use, etc.). All the carbon reductions and recycling in the world won't prevent tsunamis. Advertising double-fail!

This ad concept was pitched to WWF Brazil by DDB Brazil representatives, but summarily rejected for the reasons still making us cringe.

However, it seems that the ad was nevertheless entered for a 2009 industry award for public service from New York-based The One Club.  Word in the Twittersphere was that it actually won a One Show merit award, but when Grist contacted The One Club to get the real story, One Club President Kevin Swanepoel responded with a resounding "heck-no-how-did-we-get-mixed-up-in-this?" More precisely, he said that though the ad had been entered into the contest, it was withdrawn by DDB Brazil.  He said ads that are not actually published or approved by the client (such as this "spec ad") are not eligible for awards.

So what does the Brazilian ad agency that stirred up this mess have to say? Its official statement:

"The 'Tsunami' ad for World Wildlife Fund Brazil was created at DDB Brazil in December 2008. DDB Brazil apologizes to anyone who was offended or affected by the ad.  It should never have been made and it does not portray the philosophy of the agency."

Too bad for WWF that the Twitter and blog chatter hasn't picked up on that disclaimer.

Related Links:

WWF, Global Warming, and the Point of No Return

WWF finds tons of new species about to be wiped out by climate change [slideshow]

A New Number For a New Era: From 9/11 to 350

Americans United for Change is running a new ad in the DC market praising Congress for passing the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES).

"Last month, Congress met President Obama's challenge to create millions of clean energy jobs -- not in India or China, but right here, in America," the ads say.

But wait! "Congress" hasn't passed a climate bill yet.

The House passed the bill last week, but that super-important-other-half-of-Congress, better known as the Senate (or "Crusher of Dreams" as some may call it) has yet to take it up. Senators are expected to work on their own plan this summer, but likely won't vote until the end of September, at the earliest.

So, Americans United ... you might want to rework that ad a bit.

Related Links:

What to make of the new climate poll

Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets

Carol Browner strongly backs bipartisan cap-and-trade bill

If I may paraphrase Sir Thomas More in the masterful A Man for All Seasons:

It profits a man nothing to give his soul for the world.  But for ExxonMobil?

The NYT apparently thinks that the way to preserve its declining fortunes is by selling (what's left of) its soul to ExxonMobil.  As you can see here (clearer picture here, at least through today), the NYT is once again running an ad that its senior staff must know is false and misleading.

I debunked the ad here:  The New York Times sells its integrity to ExxonMobil with front-page ad that falsely asserts "Today's car has 95% fewer emissions than a car from 1970." I know some at the NYT read CP and that emails have been sent to top reporters.

Also, the story has since been picked up by Media Matters ("ExxonMobil Exaggerates Emissions Reductions In NYT Ad") and Fast Company ("Exxon's Brazen Greenwashing, on the Front Page of The New York Times"), among others.

Ironically - or perhaps intentionally - ExxonMobil seems to be running this ad on Tuesdays, which is when the NYT runs "Science Times."

Paper of Record, R.I.P.

Maybe it's a waste of time, but please email the public editor at public@nytimes.com to explain you are "concerned about the paper's journalistic integrity."

Related Links:

API and ACCCE spend the big bucks

Contest: Respond to this uber-lame NY Times op-ed

Tom Friedman on “What They Really Believe”

Please email the NYT at nytnews@nytimes.com about this egregious ad and/or email its public editor at public@nytimes.com to explain you are "concerned about the paper's journalistic integrity." Click image for full pic of the NYT's June 16, 2009 front page.

These are hard times for the newspaper business. The paper of record has taken to running ads on the front page. But if they're going to give up that precious real estate, home to many Pulitzer Prize-winning stories, they simply can't do it for this kind of disinformation, which is utterly misleading to the public.

Fuel for thought

Today's car has 95% fewer emissions than a car from 1970.

Needless to say - or, rather, in this case, needful to say - while today's car has lower emissions of urban air pollutants thanks to government regulation, today's car has, if anything, higher emissions of greenhouse gases, which threaten the health and well-being of the next 50 generations. And needful to say, ExxonMobil has done more than just about any other company to undermine efforts to achieve the greenhouse gas regulations that could lower those emissions.

ExxonSecrets details the millions of dollars that the company has shoveled to fund the disinformation campaigns of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Heritage Foundation, all of which continue to advance unfactual anti-scientific attacks as I have detailed recently (see posts on Heritage and CEI and AEI). Chris Mooney wrote an excellent piece on ExxonMobil's two-decade anti-scientific campaign. A 2007 Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) report looked at ExxonMobil's tobacco industry-like tactics in pushing global warming denial (see "Today We Have a Planet That's Smoking!").

So it is especially egregious that the New York Times would take money to publish this disinformation on their front page. Had this been a news article, I do think that the NYT would never have published it, although they have certainly been running a lot of questionable stuff - see NYT suckered by ExxonMobil in puff piece titled "Green is for Sissies."

And in the irony department, if you go to ExxonMobil.com, as the ad urges, you'll see ... wait for it ... a picture of a huge hurricane hitting the Gulf Coast, with the headline "Learn how ExxonMobil prepares and responds to hurricanes." How about "Learn how ExxonMobil works hard to make sure future hurricanes will be far more destructive" (see "Nature: Hurricanes ARE getting fiercer - and it's going to get much worse" and "Why future Katrinas and Gustavs will be MUCH worse at landfall, Part 2")?

You can't make this stuff up. Well, ExxonMobil can, and the New York Times will let them publish it - but you can't make stuff up and publish it on the front-page of the New York Times because you don't have the tens of thousands of dollars needed and frankly the NYT would probably subject your ad to more scrutiny.

Strangely, I have seen very little on the blogosphere on this travesty, even though it happened two days ago. I only found out about it because a reader sent me an email.

UPDATE: It is true that a given model of today's car has better mpg than a comparable model from 1970, but, then again, it is driven much of farther - and, of course, the average passenger vehicle today is much larger. More relevantly, the improvement in mpg hasn't come about because of anything ExxonMobil did to fuel formulation, whereas the refineries certainly do deserve some credit for achieving the regulated requirements for reduction in tailpipe air pollutants.

Please email the NYT at nytnews@nytimes.com about this egregious piece and/or email its public editor at public@nytimes.com to explain you are "concerned about the paper's journalistic integrity."

Related Posts:

Related Links:

API and ACCCE spend the big bucks

Contest: Respond to this uber-lame NY Times op-ed

Tom Friedman on “What They Really Believe”

The Alliance for Climate Protection on Monday rolled out a new TV ad calling for a shift away from oil and toward a clean-energy economy.  The ad will be airing nationally on cable channels just as the House is preparing to vote on the Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill; a floor vote could come as soon as next week. 

The ad features an older man on a farm telling his fellow citizens that "it's time to get real" about American energy and environmental policy. "Forty years now we’ve been talking about how we’ve got to stop being held hostage by foreign oil," says the man. "Well, we’re still borrowing money to buy oil from dictators who don’t like us and burning it in ways that kill God’s green earth. Why can’t we use our own clean energy and create good paying jobs here instead of sending billions overseas?"

The ad is part of the Alliance's Repower America campaign, and part of a larger effort by Al Gore's climate groups to get a climate bill passed through Congress this year. 

Watch it:

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

What to make of the new climate poll

Joel Hunter, important pastor.Dr. Joel Hunter, reputedly one of President Obama’s five favorit-est pastors, might have just gotten even more favorit-er.

The Florida megachurch pastor stars in a blitz of new ads on Christian radio stations intended to raise support for a climate bill like the one under consideration in the U.S. House. Hunter, a registered Republican, draws squarely on religious language in the 60-second spots (listen here):

The ads are part of a larger campaign by faith and military groups (an odd combination?) to support climate legislation and ensure that the government “prioritizes the most vulnerable at home and abroad,” according to a news release. The campaign wants a climate bill to include direct rebates to help offset increased energy costs for the American poor and international aid to help developing countries adapt to the effects of climate change.

The ads began airing yesterday in Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Virginia, and Ohio – states with lots of religious voters. The ads are funded by the American Values Network (AVN), a faith-based advocacy group recently launched by Burns Strider, the faith outreach director for Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign.

“Addressing climate change is not just a matter of national security and sound economic policy, but a moral duty to care for God’s creation and to care for the needs of those who are contributing the least to climate change but bearing the brunt of its burden,” said Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va.), who spoke on the conference call with reporters yesterday. “We need to ensure that this legislation fairly addresses the burden on low- and middle-income families, especially at a time when millions of Americans are out of work.”

AVN boasted it would be spreading its climate message via email to more than 5.3 million evangelicals and Catholics, which sounds like a page from the playbook of Religious Right groups like Focus on the Family. Strider has been an influential religious-voter strategist among Democrats; in tapping Rev. Hunter to speak in the ads, Strider chose a “new evangelical” leader who’s shown more interest in connecting his faith to climate change than to issues like gay marriage and abortion. (Read an interview with him from Grist’s God & the Environment series.)

The network says a number of religious groups have staked out the same position--insisting a climate plan must focus on help for the vulnerable: the Evangelical Climate Initiative, Southern Baptist Environmental Climate Initiative, National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, The United Methodist Church General Board of Church and Society, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church (USA), The Episcopal Church, and Redeem the Vote.

It also claims that three military groups -- Veterans Alliance for Security and Democracy, the Truman National Security Project, and Veterans Green Jobs -- share their climate action principles.

Related Links:

Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets

George Voinovich (R-Ohio) [UPDATED]

Al Franken (D-Minn.)

A coalition of labor, environmental, and progressive groups is putting up a quarter of a million dollars for a TV ad campaign promoting national clean-energy and climate legislation.

The ad (watch it below), which will air on national cable and prime-time network TV for at least the next week, calls on Congress to pass an energy bill that halts the economic crisis, creates jobs, and ends dependence on foreign oil. "A clean energy jobs bill could create millions of jobs, but if we don't invest in American manufacturing, those jobs could go overseas," the ad says.

Coalition members include MoveOn Political Action, the Service Employees International Union, the League of Conservation Voters, the Building Trades and Construction Department of the AFL-CIO, the Blue Green Alliance, and Environmental Defense Fund.

"Tell Congress America must lead in the 21st century," the ad concludes. "Make our energy clean. Make it in America."

The message, said Blue Green Alliance Executive Director David Foster in a call with reporters, is that "a green economy is not just a good idea, it's a smart, effective way to end the recession and put Americans back to work."

Other organizations -- including the veterans group VoteVets, the Apollo Alliance, and the Center for American Progress Action Fund -- joined on the call to support the ad campaign. VoteVets advisory board member General Wesley Clark said that pushing for a climate and energy bill "is a no-brainer" for a veterans group, citing the duel concerns of reliance on foreign oil and climate impacts. Coalition partners stressed the need for a comprehensive bill that addresses all of their concerns -- from economic to environmental to national security.

MoveOn Political Action Executive Director Justin Rubin said this is "just the beginning" of their campaign blitz. "People are ready for building a new America that can put people back to work and get the economy moving again," he said.

Here's the ad:

Some coalition partners are also running separate TV, radio, and print ads targeting key members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which took up discussion of a draft climate and energy bill this week. Twenty-one different ads are planned for this week and two more next week, targeting swing-vote Democrats and Republicans as well as outright opponents of the bill. It total, these ads are costing "millions," organizers said.

As an example, here's the ad that MoveOn and the Alliance for Climate Protection are running in the district of Texas Democrat Charles Gonzalez:

Related Links:

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles

Cross-posted from Wonk Room.

Politico reports that interest groups and corporations have spent nearly $200 million on TV ads since President Obama’s inauguration to manipulate American energy policy reform. According to an analysis by the Campaign Media Analysis Group, $199.5 million was directed from January 20th to March 31st to television issue ads on energy, the environment, and climate. $54.5 million of the ads were about oil and gas alone:

Why is corporate America on track to spend $1 billion this year on a television barrage about energy policy?

President Obama’s clean energy agenda, like his proposals for health care and labor reform, threatens the corrupt business model of the corporate right. Closing the carbon loophole with a cap-and-trade system will create a strong, healthy foundation for our national recovery -- but pollution will no longer be free for ExxonMobil, Koch Industries, and Peabody Coal. So they are trying to either block reform entirely, or -- for those corporations that recognize the necessity of action -- to ensure that their pollution is subsidized by the American taxpayer, through pollution permit giveaways or other handouts.

Related Links:

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Copenhagen, U.S.A. December 7

The League of Conservation Voters is taking a swing at Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) for not supporting climate and energy legislation, accusing him of being short on patriotism.

In a new television ad launched on Monday, LCV argues that Blunt does not believe in American ingenuity and the ability to develop new, clean energy sources, and has has been tainted by hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from oil companies over the years. "Roy Blunt says no. No to clean energy. No to millions of new jobs," says the ad. "Call Roy Blunt and tell him it's time to start believing in America again."

Blunt, the minority whip in the House, is the second-highest ranking Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, which will be taking up discussion of a draft climate bill this week. Earlier this month, Blunt criticized Democrats for trying to impose "new energy taxes" on Americans.

Blunt is the frontrunner for the GOP nomination to fill the seat of Republican Sen. Kit Bond, who is retiring in 2010. Thus, the ad is a very early strike in that race, which will likely be a contentious one, as Democrats have been making gains in Missouri in recent years.

The new ad, shown below, is airing across Missouri, with a focus on Blunt's district in Springfield. LCV is also launching online ads and sending direct mailers, to "ensure that Missourians know that Rep. Blunt is opposed to creating good, American jobs in a clean, American energy sector," according to the group.

Related Links:

A scientific hack job that won’t cripple climate talks

Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets

Copenhagen, U.S.A. December 7

Near the end of the World Conference on Sport and the Environment in Vancouver yesterday, Kim Smither of marketing firm Octagon Worldwide displayed a series of photos of screaming, face-painted sports fans.

“Imagine the power you’d have if you could harness this,” she said.

Talk of “harnessing” the passion of sports showed up everywhere at the two-day conference, but Smither moved past the cliché and made a case that athletes are in a great position to promote environmentally friendly behavior—if they understand the diversity of their fans.

She walked conference delegates, including several Olympic medalists, through Octagon’s “Passion Drivers” market research, which tries to determine exactly why sports fans are moved to scream themselves hoarse, or at least plan their weekends around televised games.

The company found viewers are drawn to spectator sports for different reasons -- team loyalty, for example, or nostalgia, or gloating rights, or admiration of individual athletes, or a sense of tribal belonging.

Fan-tastic.

iStock

Octagon’s Olympic-focused research uncovered national trends. Devotion to the national team is the most important motivator for Chinese viewers. In England, nostalgia and appreciation for history and tradition provide the strongest emotional connection to the games. Canadians are driven by an affinity for their own team, for home-grown athletes, and for the cold-weather sports they consider “theirs.” Americans are exceptionally drawn to individual athletes (hence NBC’s human-interest vignettes).

If environmental groups -- and Olympians who speak on their behalf -- want the attention of viewers, understanding their different motivations is invaluable, Smither said.

“If you know why people are passionate, you can really target your message,” she said. “Sports fans are not a homogenous group. Some people are going to tune it out, but if you can find a way to speak in your audience’s language, you have a much better chance of being heard.”

Most of the self-selected respondents to Octagon’s surveys said Olympic athletes could persuade them to change their environmental athletes. Interestingly, they overwhelmingly said the messages of all athletes -- not just superstars -- mattered to them.

“I believe they hold the key to bringing sustainability to the Olympics,” Smither said of the majority of Olympians who do not win medals.

The research also found that people considered the Olympics an appropriate venue for sustainability messages. So they aren’t necessarily demanding that competitions provide an escape from social and political problems.

Anna van der Kamp, a silver medalist in rowing and project director for Clean Air Champions, a group of Canadian Olympians that promotes environmental health, led a panel responding to Octagon’s research. I asked her whether spectator sports have an escapist nature that limits the amount of social change they can promote.

If you can identify viewers that watch sports for escapist reasons (what Octagon calls “Self indulgence” and “Me time”), you can avoid them and target messages toward other groups, van der Kamp said.

The research was new to her, but she said Clean Air Champions has found its personal-health message much more successful with those already involved in athletics.

“People who are physically active, like amateur athletes, are more likely to take on new actions related to the environment,” she said. “So we seek them out.”

Other than urging athletes to step up and start endorsing environmental stuff, the Octagon presentation was more about inspiration than strategy. But it suggested sports fans might be quicker to engage in social issues than one might assume.

Related Links:

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Climate psychology in cartoons: clues for solving the messaging mystery

No wonder public and media seem uniformed

Related Links:

Fair, Ambitious & Binding: Essentials for a Successful Climate Deal

Capturing the massive social benefits of fuel efficiency requires regulation

General Motors to start repaying government loans

Related Links:

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

Related Links:

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Copenhagen, U.S.A. December 7

Toward a medically defensible energy policy

Related Links:

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Related Links:

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Tweet for the bees

James Bond calls for more marine protected areas

Related Links:

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Clean energy opportunities

New York passes clean energy financing bill

Related Links:

Climate Denial Crock of the Week: The big mist take

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Related Links:

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

How to turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

Copenhagen, U.S.A. December 7

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

One doctor’s quest to sound the alarm on ‘wind turbine syndrome’

Related Links:

Newsweek partners with oil lobby to raise ad cash

Exploring the extreme frontiers of oil drilling

Two new documentaries—‘Crude’ and ‘Fuel’—examine two sides of our petroleum problem