environment

Coca-Cola wants you to think of it as green. That's why its public relations firm, Manning, Selvage & Lee, promoted the premiere of the soft drink company's film "Environmental Champions" at the Beijing Olympics complex. The film profiles the "environmental achievements" of seven participants in the Olympic Torch Relay, including "the first American male to ski to the South Pole." Coke "plans to leverage the ... film beyond the Olympics by making it available to field communications teams throughout the world." Coke also "presented each Olympian [with] a Coca-Cola t-shirt made with blended cotton and PET [an easily-recycled material] plastic bottles," and each Paralympian with "visors made with recycled PET." Manning, Selvage & Lee's other "ECO Network" clients include such green companies as General Motors, Chevron and Marathon Pipeline.

The UK Advertising Standards Authority ruled that a Shell ad that repeatedly referred to extraction from Canada's oilsands as "sustainable" was "misleading." The advertising regulator noted the "considerable social and environmental impacts" of oilsands development, adding that Shell has not explained how it will manage "carbon emissions from its oilsands projects in order to limit climate change." The World Wildlife Fund filed a complaint accusing Shell of "greenwashing," after the ad appeared in the Financial Times. Shell agreed not to run the ad again. Oilsands development "uses enormous amounts of fresh water and natural gas and produces about three times as much greenhouse gas emissions as conventional oil output." The Canadian province of Alberta, where the oilsands are located, "launched a three-year, $25-million campaign" earlier this year, "to market Alberta and correct what the government insists is misinformation about the oilsands." Calgary Herald business editor Charles Frank opined, "We have to reframe the debate ... if we are to have even the faintest hope of making sure this province's most valuable resource isn't sabotaged by people and organizations who do not have our best interests at heart."

The Whooping Crane population has recovered in large part due to being designated as endangeredCurrently, the Endangered Species Act requires independent scientific assessment by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service of proposed construction projects. But the Bush administration has proposed allowing construction to proceed, if the agency whose project it is sees no problem -- even if the agency has no biologist on staff. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne "described the new rules as a 'narrow regulatory change' that 'will provide clarity and certainty to the consultation process under the Endangered Species Act.'" Others see it differently. Rep. Nick J. Rahall II, the chair of the House Natural Resources Committee, said, "I am deeply troubled by this proposed rule, which gives federal agencies an unacceptable degree of discretion to decide whether or not to comply with the Endangered Species Act. Eleventh-hour rulemakings rarely, if ever, lead to good government -- this is not the type of legacy this Interior Department should be leaving for future generations." Bob Irvin of Defenders of Wildlife called the change "a case of asking the fox to guard the chicken coop."

"Wal-Mart has been taking many major steps [to] go green in recent years," writes Eoin O'Carroll. "So you can imagine my surprise when I came across Wal-Mart's comment on the Federal Trade Commission's attempts to standardize carbon offsets." As the Center for Media and Democracy reported previously, the FTC is revising its environmental advertising guidelines, prompted by the booming trade in carbon offsets, environmental "credits" that can be purchased to balance the impact of activities (like plane flights) that emit greenhouse gases. The FTC plans to issue guidelines for carbon offsets and renewable electricity credits (RECs). Wal-Mart suggested (PDF) to the FTC, "rather than attempting to define offsets or RECs, the Commission should rely on the flexibility inherent in the 'reasonable basis doctrine.' ... Different authoritative and expert institutions have adopted different, but reasonable approaches." O'Carroll summarizes, "Wal-Mart is arguing that we should not seek to come up with a firm definition ... because there doesn't yet exist a firm definition." In response, Wal-Mart told O'Carroll that standards for RECs and offsets should be determined by "governmental entities and highly technical experts with vast environmental expertise," not the FTC.

Listen to this week's edition of the "Weekly Radio Spin," the Center for Media and Democracy's audio report on the stories behind the news. This week, we look at award-winning gutter journalism, an icy approach to immigrants and an explosive new assignment for the Lincoln Group. In "Six Degrees of Spin and Fakin'," global warming skeptics. The Weekly Radio Spin is freely available for personal and broadcast use. Podcasters can subscribe to the XML feed on www.prwatch.org/audio or via iTunes. If you air the Weekly Radio Spin on your radio station, please email us at editor@prwatch.org to let us know. Thanks!

With polls showing increased public support for more U.S. offshore oil drilling, John Wihbey cautions, "the framing" of poll questions "is paramount and the media's interpretation crucial." For example, when asked, "Do you prefer more drilling or more investment in alternative energy?," most people choose the latter. But some polls cited in support of increased drilling didn't offer alternatives; one simply asked if respondents would support drilling to "attempt to reduce the price of gasoline." While the trend is clear -- high gas prices have increased support for drilling -- "it remains unclear what mix of remedies the public actually wants." The assumption that new drilling would reduce gas prices is also questionable, meaning that some poll questions may be "built on false premises, a pipe dream held out to a desperate and cash-strapped public." Wall Street Journal blogger Keith Johnson admitted that new drilling "is unlikely to have a near-term 'practical' impact on oil flow, though it could have a 'psychological' one on trading. 'Crude is priced in the futures market, and future price expectations are what moves the market,'" he explained.

The British government's media regulator, Ofcom, issued a split ruling on "The Great Global Warming Swindle," a film commissioned and broadcast by Channel 4. Ofcom found that Channel 4 broke impartiality guidelines and the film misrepresented statements by former British government scientist David King, in a scene with global warming skeptic Fred Singer. Ofcom also found that the film unfairly treated the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and MIT professor Carl Wunsch. However, Ofcom ruled that the program did not "cause harm or offence" by "materially" misleading viewers. Ironically, Ofcom said that its impartiality rules did not apply to the majority of the film, because the rules require balance on "matters of political or industrial controversy" and human-induced climate change has "been almost universally accepted by governments around the world." Ofcom received 265 complaints about the film, including "a detailed 'group complaint' from scientists and concerned individuals that ran to 176 pages and accused Channel 4 of seriously misleading viewers."

Reviewing the continued campaign by climate change skeptics, David McKnight, an associate professor at the University of New South Wales (Australia), notes that there several reasons why companies such as Exxon have had some success playing the global warming denial card. "First, the implications of the science are frightening. Shifting to renewable energy will be costly and disruptive. Second, doubt is an easy product to sell. Climate denial tells us what we all secretly want to hear. Third, science is portrayed as political orthodoxy rather than objective knowledge, a curiously postmodern argument," he writes. While the tobacco industry is often referred to as the template for the fossil fuel industry's campaign, McKnight argues that there is an important distinction. "There are no 'smoke-free areas' on the planet. Climate denial may turn out to be the world's most deadly PR campaign," he concludes.

An industry front group best known for opposing the BTU tax (an energy tax based on consumption) in the 1990s has resurfaced in New Mexico, where it's running radio ads attacking congressman Tom Udall for his opposition to oil drilling. According to Time magazine, the American Energy Alliance was created in 1993 when the National Manufacturers Association "got together with the American Petroleum Institute, 1,600 large companies, small businesses and farmers to form ... a group designed solely to defeat the BTU tax. The coalition paid more than $1 million to Burson-Marsteller, a public relations firm, to deploy nearly 45 staff members in 23 states during the past two months. Burson's goal was to drum up as much grass-roots outrage about the BTU tax as possible and direct it at the swing Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee." Matthew Reichbach, who reported on the group's current attacks on Udall, noted that "Information on the group is hard to come by. There are no online Federal Energy Regulatory Commission filings, no Internal Revenue Service filings and no way to contact the group."

Protesters outside Edelman's London officeOver the next week, campaigners from around the United Kingdom will converge on the site of a proposed expansion of the coal-fired Kingsnorth Power Station and participate in civil disobedience protests. The company behind the proposal, E.ON UK, a subsidiary of the German energy company E.ON, is so worried by the prospect of the planned civil disobedience campaign that it has hired the PR firm Edelman, to see if it can help ensure that the company's proposal retains government support.

Like so many companies, E.ON UK gushes about its corporate social responsibility program and proclaims that it is "working towards low carbon energy" and that "climate change is an important issue for society." It sounds reassuring, but the reality is much more disturbing.